Tag Archives: Evidence

Commentary

J.P. Moreland on confirming the Bible with scientific evidence

2 Comments

From J.P. Moreland’s web site. (H/T Thinking Matters NZ)

Excerpt:

The Bible is the greatest source of wisdom for life in all of humanity.  If followed, its teaching regularly and without rival leads to human flourishing.  It is important to keep this in mind, because, since the beginning of the twentieth century in the United States, current after current of alleged thought has told us to jettison scriptural teaching in favor of some recent, more updated findings.  This has especially been true in the sexual revolution, which tells us that traditional biblical morality is stifling and repressive.  However, if the Bible is true, one would predict that. In fact, following its teachings would lead to flourishing, and disobeying its teachings would have a deleterious effect on people.

I just finished reading Joe McIlhaney, MD,  and Freda Bush’s, MD, book, Hooked: New Science on How Casual Sex is Affecting our Children (Northfield Publishing, 2008).  So far as I know, neither author is a believer, and if he or she is, neither’s religious views form a part of his/her arguments.  The thesis of the book is that, given current brain research, is it now beyond reasonable doubt that sexual promiscuity (basically, any intense sexual activity, including, but not limited to, intercourse) has a negative impact on one’s brain chemistry, one’s health, one’s ability to enjoy sex, and one’s ability to connect emotionally and relationally with someone.  They argue that only in the context of traditional marriage can sexual relations be life-giving.

I have the book, and bought explicitly for the reason of being able to confirm and defend my views, which I get from the Bible, with scientific evidence, which I get from scientists. I find that people who don’t believe the Bible are more impressed with the Bible when I start by arguing with the scientific evidence. That’s how you start a conversation that ends with the Bible.

News

Pro-life teacher fired for using graphic evidence of abortion

Leave a comment

From Life Site News.

Excerpt:

Philippe Isnard, 40, a history teacher who was suspended last November for having provided pro-life materials and shown images of aborted babies during a debate about abortion in his 10th grade class in Manosque, France, was fired from the National Education system on Thursday.

Isnard lost his position without salary, benefits or any right to financial compensation via the social welfare system.

He told LifeSiteNews.com he was “stunned” by the severity of the decision, even though he was beyond hoping for complete exoneration.

Revocation constitutes the harshest possible disciplinary measure for a teacher in the French public education system. Graded 4 on a scale of 1 to 4 of possible disciplinary measures, a full revocation can only be pronounced by the Education minister himself. It puts a full stop to the father-of-two’s teaching career in all state-funded schools.

[…]Shortly after Isnard was temporarily suspended in November, a “psychological counseling unit” was set up at Les Iscles high school to support students who had participated in the abortion debate. Reportedly no students have made use of its services.

The local Planned Parenthood was also invited into Les Iscles high school to follow up the debate, meeting with the students in groups of five.

For his part, Isnard has argued that he encouraged debate in the class. Students were encouraged to bring their own material, either for or against abortion, while Isnard himself provided Simone Veil’s Assembly speech promoting the first French law legalizing abortion, now known as the “Loi Veil,” pro-life video clips, a pro-life tract and “No Need to Argue.”

He says he warned his students about the shocking nature of some of the materials to be presented and told them they were free to leave the class if they wished.

Last month Isnard’s case went before a mixed commission of teachers’ union members and representatives of the Academic hierarchy of Aix-Marseille. According to information leaked, after the six-hour hearing all 38 members of the disciplinary commission voted for a disciplinary measure to be pronounced.

Secular leftists want to teach sex education to 5-year-olds, but arguing against abortion is off limits in government-run schools.

News

Review of the William Lane Craig vs Lawrence Krauss debate

11 Comments

This is from Possible Worlds.

Excerpt:

I have never before seen Krauss debate, but the physicist opened up explaining he did not particularly like them. I was shocked to discover that Krauss’ entire opening statement revolved around criticizing Craig’s well-known arguments as “God-of-the-gaps.” He also mentioned that quantum mechanics demonstrates that physics does not conform to the laws of logic (thus, in my view, demonstrating a fundamental equivocal misunderstanding of the term “logic.” It does not mean, as Krauss here seems to suggest, “common sense” or “what we would expect.” This is the most charitable view as the only other sense he could mean is that it is reasonable to assume reason does not apply to physics, while also giving us a reason, which is self-contradictory.).  He also suggested God cannot be the grounds of objective morality since God can’t will evil things to be good.

[…]In Craig’s second rebuttal he again focused the debate topic. Craig does this to show both what he has argued and to show that the rebuttal was not at all relevant to the topic at hand. I wished he had discussed more cosmology and why inflationary models require an absolute beginning, but he at least mentioned these rebuttals. He completely tore apart the Humean argument against miracles by pointing out that he did not have the probability calculus back in that time. Craig seemed perfectly comfortable by this point and not at all rushed; however he had fewer points to argue against as Krauss was defaulting to “desire” as a motivator over scientific evidence.

By the time of Krauss’ second rebuttal, he was struggling for words. He seemed to have run out of things relevant to say. He did eventually get going, but made such contradictory statements as “there is no purpose in the universe.” As Ryan Hedrich said to me during the debate, “There’s no meaning, no purpose, and yet there he is, arguing away for God only knows what reason (literally).”

And he even reviews the Q&A. This is a really good review.

In this post you can find links to the audio, video, and my snarky summary on Krauss’ speeches.