We were finally able to get the technical difficulties with the LibertyInLaw site out of the way this afternoon. Praise God!
Also, something interesting which I realized is that my announcement of the launch of the LibertyInLaw site on AdvisorOnID took place on the Nineteenth of January - Robert E. Lee's 200th birthday exactly! I take this as a sign of approval from our Creator. :-)
Let's get to work.
-R. Josiah Magnuson
Monday, February 26, 2007
Saturday, February 24, 2007
Video Games and Evolution
My family received the March issue of the magazine Popular Science the other day. A prominent article was regarding a new video game based on Evolution and designed to promote creativity, of all things!
The new game, called Spore, was developed by Will Wright, an atheist who also designed such anti-God productions as The Sims. Players will be able to pilot the cosmological, biological, and political development of their own universe. They will even be able to share their universe and its life-forms with other players, through use of the Internet.
While Wright admits that the game is more like Intelligent Design than Evolution, he insists that it is a "pretty accurate, though caricatured, representation of reality in the way life evolved from single cell to multicell to intelligence."
The picture on the first page of the article featured a large fanciful planet with green oceans and pink-and-purple-swirled mountains. Vegetation on the planet included what appeared to be cauliflower-like trees and bumpy pea-like objects. On the second page, a herd of red-and-yellow-striped dinosaur styled creatures with electric waves emanating from their tails grazed at the edge of a primeval-looking forest.
My evaluation of the launch of the game of Spore is that it is designed to produce confusion in the minds of the public as to what Evolution really is. There is a growing movement promulgating the idea that Evolution is not so un-designed or directionless after all. Some even believe that the existence of life is intrinsic in the Laws of nature, being put there by an unknowable mathematic "Force" (cf. Star Wars), thus following this idea to its logical conclusion.
Another thing which becomes obvious is that this video game will further convolute any perception the public still holds of the existence of unchanging scientific Law. Still more of our once-great civilization will thus go down the drain of relativism.
Of course, the new Spore game is only a small part in the struggle. Our goal must be to reclaim the "waste places" as the Bible says and demonstrate that Laws are good and the Bible can be trusted. After all, the Bible is the Word of a loving and powerful Creator who can make real worlds and actual people.
-R. Josiah Magnuson
The new game, called Spore, was developed by Will Wright, an atheist who also designed such anti-God productions as The Sims. Players will be able to pilot the cosmological, biological, and political development of their own universe. They will even be able to share their universe and its life-forms with other players, through use of the Internet.
While Wright admits that the game is more like Intelligent Design than Evolution, he insists that it is a "pretty accurate, though caricatured, representation of reality in the way life evolved from single cell to multicell to intelligence."
The picture on the first page of the article featured a large fanciful planet with green oceans and pink-and-purple-swirled mountains. Vegetation on the planet included what appeared to be cauliflower-like trees and bumpy pea-like objects. On the second page, a herd of red-and-yellow-striped dinosaur styled creatures with electric waves emanating from their tails grazed at the edge of a primeval-looking forest.
My evaluation of the launch of the game of Spore is that it is designed to produce confusion in the minds of the public as to what Evolution really is. There is a growing movement promulgating the idea that Evolution is not so un-designed or directionless after all. Some even believe that the existence of life is intrinsic in the Laws of nature, being put there by an unknowable mathematic "Force" (cf. Star Wars), thus following this idea to its logical conclusion.
Another thing which becomes obvious is that this video game will further convolute any perception the public still holds of the existence of unchanging scientific Law. Still more of our once-great civilization will thus go down the drain of relativism.
Of course, the new Spore game is only a small part in the struggle. Our goal must be to reclaim the "waste places" as the Bible says and demonstrate that Laws are good and the Bible can be trusted. After all, the Bible is the Word of a loving and powerful Creator who can make real worlds and actual people.
-R. Josiah Magnuson
Comments on direction
I had a great time Wednesday night at a prayer meeting at South Pointe Baptist Church in which Dr. Edward DeVries, a board member of Christian Exodus, preached regarding "Hezekiahitis" from Isaiah 39. The one thing I regret is that it really wasn't a prayer meeting; no one prayed...
I received some good feedback regarding the AdvisorOnID site. The general concensus though seems to be that many of my posts are not easily understandable by the public. A prominently appearing suggestion was that more illustrations or examples be included in the posts. I get this, especially since I have recommended this same idea to others.
Pastor Romo mentioned that I should get a business card made with my AdvisorOnID.blogspot.com address. However, due to the fact that that site is really a subset of the Gene Chapman site, I would feel out of place to do so. Also, while AdvisorOnID is my primary site as of now, I am working to make this WorldviewsRevolution site (which reflects a more complete perspective, i.e. worldview) into such.
Of course, LibertyInLaw.com will in the future be the site which I hope to promote. But I do not wish for it to be seen as a project of my own monopoly, since it contrariwise is in favor of cooperation between God-fearing, freedom-loving groups.
Thanks to everyone who expressed appreciation for my work. :-) From Josiah
I received some good feedback regarding the AdvisorOnID site. The general concensus though seems to be that many of my posts are not easily understandable by the public. A prominently appearing suggestion was that more illustrations or examples be included in the posts. I get this, especially since I have recommended this same idea to others.
Pastor Romo mentioned that I should get a business card made with my AdvisorOnID.blogspot.com address. However, due to the fact that that site is really a subset of the Gene Chapman site, I would feel out of place to do so. Also, while AdvisorOnID is my primary site as of now, I am working to make this WorldviewsRevolution site (which reflects a more complete perspective, i.e. worldview) into such.
Of course, LibertyInLaw.com will in the future be the site which I hope to promote. But I do not wish for it to be seen as a project of my own monopoly, since it contrariwise is in favor of cooperation between God-fearing, freedom-loving groups.
Thanks to everyone who expressed appreciation for my work. :-) From Josiah
C. S. Lewis on Purpose
Aim at Heaven and you will get Earth "thrown in;" aim at Earth and you will get neither. It seems a strange rule, but something like it can be seen at work in other places. Health is a great blessing, but the moment you make health one of your main, direct objects, you start becoming a crank and imagining there is something wrong with you. You are only likely to get health provided you want other things more - food, games, work, fun, open air. In the same way, we shall never save civilization as long as civilization is our main object. We must learn to want something else even more.
-C. S. Lewis, Mere Christianity (Chapter 10), 1952
-C. S. Lewis, Mere Christianity (Chapter 10), 1952
Sunday, February 11, 2007
Quite a stir
One of the posts below, "Two or Three Witnesses," seems to be causing quite a stir over at my AdvisorOnID site. Turns out the atheists who frequent the site are becoming disturbed by my "refusal to look at the plain facts." One objection which was raised was that Evolution is actually not a random process; somehow it is intrinsic in the Laws of science! For this idea to be factual, the information in nature would have had to have been pre-determined at some point in the history (or maybe pre-history?!) of the universe. The atheists may as well be Creationists to argue such an anti-Evolutionary idea. Maybe they're on the way... :-) Hope so.
-R. Josiah Magnuson
-R. Josiah Magnuson
A gem of a quote
There is no liberty anywhere except under God. All history shouts that. ...The promising streams of freedom disappear in the sands of futility when there is nothing higher than the state. With a deified state in a godless realm, iron curtains but hide broken strands of rainbows which once arched the sky of those who imagined themselves the pioneers of a new freedom. Without God, unkept promises become the fetters of a worse thralldom at the hands of their alleged emancipators.
-The Senate of the United States, Congressional Record, June 22, 1954
-The Senate of the United States, Congressional Record, June 22, 1954
Compromise with Evolution doesn't work
(Taken from the Answers In Genesis Weekly Update)
Q: When someone rejects Genesis, will they then reject the whole Bible?
A: The following is a terrible warning for the church today as to what happens when one compromises on the Word of God.
In the 1950s, a famous evangelist named Charles Templeton received wide media attention across America. Great crowds flocked to hear him. Large numbers of people came forward when he challenged them to trust Christ.
But in 1994 he published a book called Farewell to God in which he totally rejected the Christian faith. He died a few years ago as a man embittered against the Christian faith.
What happened to Templeton is a warning for us all today. He went to Princeton University and was taught to believe in the evolutionary teaching of “millions of years.” He recognized that if this were true, then God used death, bloodshed, suffering and disease for millions of years as part of His creative process—and then called this very good.
All through his book, Templeton wrote that there can’t be a God of love because of all the death and suffering in the world. The teaching of “millions of years” destroyed Templeton. Don’t compromise, as he did, and destroy your faith.
For more information about Templeton, see The slippery slide to unbelief.
Q: When someone rejects Genesis, will they then reject the whole Bible?
A: The following is a terrible warning for the church today as to what happens when one compromises on the Word of God.
In the 1950s, a famous evangelist named Charles Templeton received wide media attention across America. Great crowds flocked to hear him. Large numbers of people came forward when he challenged them to trust Christ.
But in 1994 he published a book called Farewell to God in which he totally rejected the Christian faith. He died a few years ago as a man embittered against the Christian faith.
What happened to Templeton is a warning for us all today. He went to Princeton University and was taught to believe in the evolutionary teaching of “millions of years.” He recognized that if this were true, then God used death, bloodshed, suffering and disease for millions of years as part of His creative process—and then called this very good.
All through his book, Templeton wrote that there can’t be a God of love because of all the death and suffering in the world. The teaching of “millions of years” destroyed Templeton. Don’t compromise, as he did, and destroy your faith.
For more information about Templeton, see The slippery slide to unbelief.
Two or Three Witnesses
"In the mouth of two or three witnesses shall every word be established." II Cor. 13:1
If God were the author of the Bible, and He expected us to believe in Him, he should have given us witness that he was the Creator. In other words, there should be evidence. Some believe that there is no evidence of God's existence. However, this is not the case.
This website has discussed extensively the incoherencies in Evolutionary theory. But now let us examine the "Big Three" witnesses to the existence of God and why they are viable.
1. Reason / Scientific Philosophy (Rational)
Although we have touched on this topic before, let us again summarize the argument for Design. The argument for Design is fundamentally a recognition of the existence of irreducible complexity and/or information in nature. Common sense will tell one that if a Morse Code signal was received from outer space, it would have had to have been designed by intelligence. Why then is the existence of much more complex information on Earth attributed to billions of years of mindlessness? Common sense will tell one that if a computer or TV was discovered on the Moon, it would have had to have been designed by intelligence. Why then is the existence of much more amazing systems on Earth attributed to billions of years of random relativism? Certainly, the simple fact that the latter in these two examples were living is no excuse!?! Certainly, the fact that the latter two were both vastly more complex provides no cover!
What about the technical aspect? Why, rationally, would information not form by random process? Information can never be formed by random process, because information requires a sender and a receiver. If one creates a predetermined result, as in the famous Dawkins METHINKSITISLIKEAWEASEL example, one is interfering with the process. The process is therefore non-random, and does not represent the progress of Evolution. On the other hand, if one does not interfere with the process, one will never know whether the outcome provides a message or not. Thus, as the outcome cannot be interpreted and conveys no meaning, it is not information. Random processes will always produce random results. Information and irreducible complexity must be designed by intelligence.
2. Martyrs (Empirical)
This argument is quite simple. There have been millions of people through history who have been tortured and killed due to their belief in God and the authority of the Bible. Christians still are persecuted in this manner to this day. Why? If we suppose that there is no God to die for, we are forced to believe that not only are these people delusional, but they are inventing their own metaphysical existence for themselves, since these people almost never show hatred or bitterness to their enemies. But even this idea implies the existence of the metaphysical! There is no naturalistic explanation for why millions would devote themselves to a cause which most of their friends and often all of their family despise, and then die for that cause after months of hideous tortures to "bring them around," forgiving their torturers to their last breath.
A classic attempted rebuttal of this argument is the fact that other religions also have martyrs. Islamists blow themselves up on buses; Catholics go on Crusades; and so on. However, these "martyrdoms" are generally for the purpose of killing others in the meanwhile. And do we ever hear of a Muslim or Hindu or Buddhist who was tortured by a Christian, or anyone else for that matter, and forgave his torturer? No. Christianity is the only religion which can claim martyrs as real witnesses to the truth of what they stood for.
3. The Bible Itself (Fidelic)
The very best evidence of God’s existence or the Bible’s accuracy is the Bible itself. “Faith cometh by hearing, and hearing by the Word of God.” Romans 10:1
7The Bible has hundreds if not thousands of prophecies. For instance, the Bible gives seven prophecies regarding Tyre in Ezekiel 26, written about 590 BC:
-Nebuchadnezzar will take the city of Tyre
-Several nations will participate in the fulfillment
-Tyre will be scraped flat like a rock
-There will be fishermen in that location
-The stones and timbers will be laid in the sea
-Surrounding cities will be terrified
-Tyre will never be rebuilt
A glance at one’s history book will prove the accuracy of every one of those statements.
The probability of all the Biblical prophecies regarding Jesus Christ having come true through natural phenomena has been estimated at 1 in 10 to the 157th power! (Professor Peter W. Stoner, Science Speaks, p. 111) Gasps, anyone? This probability is far greater than that one should pick at random a chosen atom out of all those in the universe!
But, of all the evidences, the best is that which one can experience by testing the Creator himself: an individual relationship with God. As the apostle Paul wonderfully wrote, “The Spirit itself beareth witness with our spirit, that we are the children of God: And if children, then heirs; heirs of God, and joint-heirs with Christ; if so be that we suffer with him, that we may be also glorified together.”
Speaking to the pagan gods and philosophies, the prophet Isaiah declared:
(Isaiah 41:21-24) “Produce your cause, saith the LORD; bring forth your strong reasons, saith the King of Jacob. Let them bring them forth, and shew us what shall happen: let them shew the former things, what they be, that we may consider them, and know the latter end of them; or declare us things for to come. Shew the things that are to come hereafter, that we may know that ye are gods: yea, do good; or do evil, that we may be dismayed, and behold it together. Behold, ye are of nothing, and your work of nought: an abomination is he that chooseth you.”
Let us not choose evil systems of relativism and naturalism. Let us choose life and liberty, and a belief in a very real and living God.
-R. Josiah Magnuson
If God were the author of the Bible, and He expected us to believe in Him, he should have given us witness that he was the Creator. In other words, there should be evidence. Some believe that there is no evidence of God's existence. However, this is not the case.
This website has discussed extensively the incoherencies in Evolutionary theory. But now let us examine the "Big Three" witnesses to the existence of God and why they are viable.
1. Reason / Scientific Philosophy (Rational)
Although we have touched on this topic before, let us again summarize the argument for Design. The argument for Design is fundamentally a recognition of the existence of irreducible complexity and/or information in nature. Common sense will tell one that if a Morse Code signal was received from outer space, it would have had to have been designed by intelligence. Why then is the existence of much more complex information on Earth attributed to billions of years of mindlessness? Common sense will tell one that if a computer or TV was discovered on the Moon, it would have had to have been designed by intelligence. Why then is the existence of much more amazing systems on Earth attributed to billions of years of random relativism? Certainly, the simple fact that the latter in these two examples were living is no excuse!?! Certainly, the fact that the latter two were both vastly more complex provides no cover!
What about the technical aspect? Why, rationally, would information not form by random process? Information can never be formed by random process, because information requires a sender and a receiver. If one creates a predetermined result, as in the famous Dawkins METHINKSITISLIKEAWEASEL example, one is interfering with the process. The process is therefore non-random, and does not represent the progress of Evolution. On the other hand, if one does not interfere with the process, one will never know whether the outcome provides a message or not. Thus, as the outcome cannot be interpreted and conveys no meaning, it is not information. Random processes will always produce random results. Information and irreducible complexity must be designed by intelligence.
2. Martyrs (Empirical)
This argument is quite simple. There have been millions of people through history who have been tortured and killed due to their belief in God and the authority of the Bible. Christians still are persecuted in this manner to this day. Why? If we suppose that there is no God to die for, we are forced to believe that not only are these people delusional, but they are inventing their own metaphysical existence for themselves, since these people almost never show hatred or bitterness to their enemies. But even this idea implies the existence of the metaphysical! There is no naturalistic explanation for why millions would devote themselves to a cause which most of their friends and often all of their family despise, and then die for that cause after months of hideous tortures to "bring them around," forgiving their torturers to their last breath.
A classic attempted rebuttal of this argument is the fact that other religions also have martyrs. Islamists blow themselves up on buses; Catholics go on Crusades; and so on. However, these "martyrdoms" are generally for the purpose of killing others in the meanwhile. And do we ever hear of a Muslim or Hindu or Buddhist who was tortured by a Christian, or anyone else for that matter, and forgave his torturer? No. Christianity is the only religion which can claim martyrs as real witnesses to the truth of what they stood for.
3. The Bible Itself (Fidelic)
The very best evidence of God’s existence or the Bible’s accuracy is the Bible itself. “Faith cometh by hearing, and hearing by the Word of God.” Romans 10:1
7The Bible has hundreds if not thousands of prophecies. For instance, the Bible gives seven prophecies regarding Tyre in Ezekiel 26, written about 590 BC:
-Nebuchadnezzar will take the city of Tyre
-Several nations will participate in the fulfillment
-Tyre will be scraped flat like a rock
-There will be fishermen in that location
-The stones and timbers will be laid in the sea
-Surrounding cities will be terrified
-Tyre will never be rebuilt
A glance at one’s history book will prove the accuracy of every one of those statements.
The probability of all the Biblical prophecies regarding Jesus Christ having come true through natural phenomena has been estimated at 1 in 10 to the 157th power! (Professor Peter W. Stoner, Science Speaks, p. 111) Gasps, anyone? This probability is far greater than that one should pick at random a chosen atom out of all those in the universe!
But, of all the evidences, the best is that which one can experience by testing the Creator himself: an individual relationship with God. As the apostle Paul wonderfully wrote, “The Spirit itself beareth witness with our spirit, that we are the children of God: And if children, then heirs; heirs of God, and joint-heirs with Christ; if so be that we suffer with him, that we may be also glorified together.”
Speaking to the pagan gods and philosophies, the prophet Isaiah declared:
(Isaiah 41:21-24) “Produce your cause, saith the LORD; bring forth your strong reasons, saith the King of Jacob. Let them bring them forth, and shew us what shall happen: let them shew the former things, what they be, that we may consider them, and know the latter end of them; or declare us things for to come. Shew the things that are to come hereafter, that we may know that ye are gods: yea, do good; or do evil, that we may be dismayed, and behold it together. Behold, ye are of nothing, and your work of nought: an abomination is he that chooseth you.”
Let us not choose evil systems of relativism and naturalism. Let us choose life and liberty, and a belief in a very real and living God.
-R. Josiah Magnuson
Friday, February 09, 2007
Report on conference call
I was able to participate in a conference call last night regarding the Christian Exodus movement. The call went until 11:00 PM! We primarily discussed direction and the "how" side of things.
Christian Exodus is an organization seeking to concentrate existing Christian paleo-conservative or Constitutionalist families and bring them to South Carolina in order to obtain a springboard for evangelism and promotion of justice and liberty in America.
Cory Burnell, the President of this group, has shown interest in writing an article for the LibertyInLaw site regarding the necessity of a coalition or alliance of pro-freedom Christian organizations like that promoted here. We hope to feature that article for the month of March.
The Christian Exodus project is in general agreement with the LibertyInLaw idea itself, as well.
-R. Josiah Magnuson
Christian Exodus is an organization seeking to concentrate existing Christian paleo-conservative or Constitutionalist families and bring them to South Carolina in order to obtain a springboard for evangelism and promotion of justice and liberty in America.
Cory Burnell, the President of this group, has shown interest in writing an article for the LibertyInLaw site regarding the necessity of a coalition or alliance of pro-freedom Christian organizations like that promoted here. We hope to feature that article for the month of March.
The Christian Exodus project is in general agreement with the LibertyInLaw idea itself, as well.
-R. Josiah Magnuson
Arrival
Hurrah! Hurrah! Hurrah!
LibertyInLaw.com is now official. We have the name pointing to the correct site.
Now it's time to buckle down on the link problems.
LibertyInLaw.com is now official. We have the name pointing to the correct site.
Now it's time to buckle down on the link problems.
Wednesday, February 07, 2007
Link to Ken Ham's Blog
It seems like hardly a day goes by lately that the Creation Museum is not mentioned in a newspaper, magazine, TV news program etc. Today, The national newspaper USA TODAY, and our local CINCINNATI POST had articles reporting on the Creation Museum:
Read more here! http://blogs.answersingenesis.org/aroundtheworld/
Read more here! http://blogs.answersingenesis.org/aroundtheworld/
Research paper
I officially began the writing stage of a research paper I will be entering in an Answers In Genesis contest. The title, as of today, is Survival of the Fittest: How Natural Selection Kills Darwinian Evolution. It has to be completed by April 16.
Tuesday, February 06, 2007
LIL Update
We've been having some technical difficuties with the Liberty In Law site. We made some progress on it today, though.
What's happening is that when we try to add links or sidebars (or change the names of those existing) it always comes up with a javascript error saying that "this page is unavailable."
It will be fixed in God's time.
What's happening is that when we try to add links or sidebars (or change the names of those existing) it always comes up with a javascript error saying that "this page is unavailable."
It will be fixed in God's time.
Monday, February 05, 2007
Two Simple Reasons for Biblicism
1. Science, reason, and common sense are more agreeable to the existence of God than to His non-existence.
2. Having a moral standard is the only way civilization can not destroy itself.
-R. Josiah Magnuson
2. Having a moral standard is the only way civilization can not destroy itself.
-R. Josiah Magnuson
Sunday, January 28, 2007
Evolution vs. Real Liberty
We as Americans today are in the midst of a worldviews war - a war between two philosophies of what the nature of life is and how things really work. One battle in this war is the struggle over how freedom can best be created and maintained.
The Declaration of Independence tells us, “All men are endowed by their Creator with certain unalienable rights…. To secure these rights, governments are instituted among men, deriving their just powers from the consent of the governed.”
Karx Marx in contrast believed in Communism, which, he agreed, "abolishes eternal truths, it abolishes all religion, and all morality."
Another way to express "unalienable rights" or "eternal truths" is absolutes. In the Christian worldview, these absolutes are exemplified in the Ten Commandments. For instance, “Thou shalt not kill” is the right to life, “Thou shalt not steal” is the right to property and “Thou shalt not bear false witness against thy neighbor” is the right to a fair trial. Everyone possesses these rights, and these rights are unalienable. They are the moral Law of God.
Societies based on the Christianity as the Bible directs (i.e. based on the Biblical absolutes and unalienable rights) have historically been free, republican organisms. This is because government under the Biblical model exists only to protect one from harm. Government is not inherently supreme over its citizens, as it must not overreach God's moral boundaries which apply to everyone.
Christ affirmed this idea when he declared, "Render to Caesar the things which are Caesar's, and to God the things that are God's.(Mark 12:17, etc.)" Under the Biblical model, there are some things which positively cannot belong to Caesar.
On the other hand, Evolution teaches that there are no absolutes. Instead, it declares the universe to be one of change and chance, continuously morphing all its inhabitants and their ideals to match the need of the “fittest” race to survive and dominate. Even the idea of fitness eventually becomes ethereal, for Evolution has no prior intention of what fitness should be. “Fitness” is whatever is convenient to the perceived master race.
No individual rights can exist under Evolution. The right to life is contradicted, because Evolution is "each creature for itself." Killing is actually encouraged, because one must destroy rivals if one is to survive. The right to liberty is contradicted, because if enslaving others gives one an Evolutionary advantage, what is to oppose it? The right to property is virtually contradicted, since stealing would arguably give one more resources and energy in the battle for livelihood. The right to a fair trial disappears, as there is no need for justice in a world which knows only randomness and whim.
In short, government as viewed from the Evolutionary perspective creates itself, makes its own rules, and can only exist to dominate. If the State sees fit to grant or loan limited liberty to its weak, scrawny, less-evolved subjects, it is only to make them fall at its feet in gratitude. The State thus empowers itself further. This almighty “fit” State exists not to protect, but to subdue.
The only freedom which the worldview of Evolution grants is a twisted, distorted freedom. It is a freedom for Stalin to drive a sledgehammer into Trotsky’s head. It is a freedom for Hitler to force millions into death camps. It is a freedom for Mao to torture and kill anyone who would even dare to have his hairdo.
Evolutionary naturalism and the relative morality it produces are nothing to be defended. Rather, they should be opposed by anyone appreciating the American heritage of liberty and lawful, composed government.
-R. Josiah Magnuson
The Declaration of Independence tells us, “All men are endowed by their Creator with certain unalienable rights…. To secure these rights, governments are instituted among men, deriving their just powers from the consent of the governed.”
Karx Marx in contrast believed in Communism, which, he agreed, "abolishes eternal truths, it abolishes all religion, and all morality."
Another way to express "unalienable rights" or "eternal truths" is absolutes. In the Christian worldview, these absolutes are exemplified in the Ten Commandments. For instance, “Thou shalt not kill” is the right to life, “Thou shalt not steal” is the right to property and “Thou shalt not bear false witness against thy neighbor” is the right to a fair trial. Everyone possesses these rights, and these rights are unalienable. They are the moral Law of God.
Societies based on the Christianity as the Bible directs (i.e. based on the Biblical absolutes and unalienable rights) have historically been free, republican organisms. This is because government under the Biblical model exists only to protect one from harm. Government is not inherently supreme over its citizens, as it must not overreach God's moral boundaries which apply to everyone.
Christ affirmed this idea when he declared, "Render to Caesar the things which are Caesar's, and to God the things that are God's.(Mark 12:17, etc.)" Under the Biblical model, there are some things which positively cannot belong to Caesar.
On the other hand, Evolution teaches that there are no absolutes. Instead, it declares the universe to be one of change and chance, continuously morphing all its inhabitants and their ideals to match the need of the “fittest” race to survive and dominate. Even the idea of fitness eventually becomes ethereal, for Evolution has no prior intention of what fitness should be. “Fitness” is whatever is convenient to the perceived master race.
No individual rights can exist under Evolution. The right to life is contradicted, because Evolution is "each creature for itself." Killing is actually encouraged, because one must destroy rivals if one is to survive. The right to liberty is contradicted, because if enslaving others gives one an Evolutionary advantage, what is to oppose it? The right to property is virtually contradicted, since stealing would arguably give one more resources and energy in the battle for livelihood. The right to a fair trial disappears, as there is no need for justice in a world which knows only randomness and whim.
In short, government as viewed from the Evolutionary perspective creates itself, makes its own rules, and can only exist to dominate. If the State sees fit to grant or loan limited liberty to its weak, scrawny, less-evolved subjects, it is only to make them fall at its feet in gratitude. The State thus empowers itself further. This almighty “fit” State exists not to protect, but to subdue.
The only freedom which the worldview of Evolution grants is a twisted, distorted freedom. It is a freedom for Stalin to drive a sledgehammer into Trotsky’s head. It is a freedom for Hitler to force millions into death camps. It is a freedom for Mao to torture and kill anyone who would even dare to have his hairdo.
Evolutionary naturalism and the relative morality it produces are nothing to be defended. Rather, they should be opposed by anyone appreciating the American heritage of liberty and lawful, composed government.
-R. Josiah Magnuson
Here we go!
The other day I created "LibertyInLaw.blogspot.com." It will eventually be "LibertyInLaw.com" (hopefully in the next week or so).
The foundation of this site will be the same as the foundation here: proclaiming the idea that God and His Law is the only true source of liberty.
Since there are many pro-freedom groups which do not work together (or even oppose each other) due to misuderstanding of what their real goals are, LibertyInLaw.com will be a lauchpad to bring these groups to a realization that first, freedom is not anarchy or lawlessness but actually the complete supremacy of Law, and second, that the groups can cooperate with one another when they share this common ideal.
A re-energizing for the LibertyInLaw vision came when I heard Cory Burnell, President of Christian Exodus, make an appeal for just such an organization at the Fountain Inn Patriot meeting last month. He calls it the "South Carolina Liberty Alliance."
It is quite obvious that this idea will not get very far until other people catch the vision. Once they do, we will with God's help have an unstoppable movement.
"Dare to be a Daniel!"
-R. Josiah Magnuson
The foundation of this site will be the same as the foundation here: proclaiming the idea that God and His Law is the only true source of liberty.
Since there are many pro-freedom groups which do not work together (or even oppose each other) due to misuderstanding of what their real goals are, LibertyInLaw.com will be a lauchpad to bring these groups to a realization that first, freedom is not anarchy or lawlessness but actually the complete supremacy of Law, and second, that the groups can cooperate with one another when they share this common ideal.
A re-energizing for the LibertyInLaw vision came when I heard Cory Burnell, President of Christian Exodus, make an appeal for just such an organization at the Fountain Inn Patriot meeting last month. He calls it the "South Carolina Liberty Alliance."
It is quite obvious that this idea will not get very far until other people catch the vision. Once they do, we will with God's help have an unstoppable movement.
"Dare to be a Daniel!"
-R. Josiah Magnuson
Thursday, December 28, 2006
Definitions for "Irreducible Complexity"
Michael Behe's Original Definition: A single system composed of several well-matched, interacting parts that contribute to the basic function of the system, wherein the removal of any one of the parts causes the system to effectively cease functioning. (Darwin's Black Box, 39)
William Dembski's Enhanced Definition: A system performing a given basic function is irreducibly complex if it includes a set of well-matched, mutually interacting, nonarbitrarily individuated parts such that each part in the set is indispensable to maintaining the system's basic, and therefore original, function. The set of these indispensable parts is known as the irreducible core of the system. (No Free Lunch, 285)
Michael Behe's "Evolutionary" Definition: An irreducibly complex evolutionary pathway is one that contains one or more unselected steps (that is, one or more necessary-but-unselected mutations). The degree of irreducible complexity is the number of unselected steps in the pathway.
William Dembski's Enhanced Definition: A system performing a given basic function is irreducibly complex if it includes a set of well-matched, mutually interacting, nonarbitrarily individuated parts such that each part in the set is indispensable to maintaining the system's basic, and therefore original, function. The set of these indispensable parts is known as the irreducible core of the system. (No Free Lunch, 285)
Michael Behe's "Evolutionary" Definition: An irreducibly complex evolutionary pathway is one that contains one or more unselected steps (that is, one or more necessary-but-unselected mutations). The degree of irreducible complexity is the number of unselected steps in the pathway.
Interpreting Evidence
R. Josiah Magnuson has been invited to participate in a forum on Evolution. Here is a sample post.
"Thanks for mentioning the word "interpreted." All evidence can be (and is) interpreted differently, depending on what the fundamental axioms of those involved are.
Many Evolutionists will assert that they have no biases or presuppositions. Of course, creationists point out that Evolutionists are indeed biased to believe that the origins of everything can be explained by naturalistic means.
The kind of science which puts men on the moon or sends nanobot machinery into cells is not the same as the "science" which attempts to explain where people originated or how the universe was birthed. Here-and-now-world science was not there to observe how life began and changed through time. So unless we one day build a time machine, we will forever build origins theories on pre-existing ideas.
If this is so, how can one who wants to know what the beginning was actually find out? Can we solve the origins debate?
In order to solve the origins debate, we must test the pre-existing ideas which we have against our here-and-now-world observations. This operation science can in fact do. When we take our here-and-now-world observations and churn them through the Evolutionary presuppostion, we come up with one interpretation, and when we take our here-and-now-world observations and churn them through the creationist presupposition, we come up with another interpretation. Whichever interpretation of the evidence works best, that is the correct interpretation.
My current position is that there are a number of things which the Evolutionary presupposition has failed to explain. The LH/DH amino acid problem is just one of these.
Thanks for the discussion!
-RJM"
"Thanks for mentioning the word "interpreted." All evidence can be (and is) interpreted differently, depending on what the fundamental axioms of those involved are.
Many Evolutionists will assert that they have no biases or presuppositions. Of course, creationists point out that Evolutionists are indeed biased to believe that the origins of everything can be explained by naturalistic means.
The kind of science which puts men on the moon or sends nanobot machinery into cells is not the same as the "science" which attempts to explain where people originated or how the universe was birthed. Here-and-now-world science was not there to observe how life began and changed through time. So unless we one day build a time machine, we will forever build origins theories on pre-existing ideas.
If this is so, how can one who wants to know what the beginning was actually find out? Can we solve the origins debate?
In order to solve the origins debate, we must test the pre-existing ideas which we have against our here-and-now-world observations. This operation science can in fact do. When we take our here-and-now-world observations and churn them through the Evolutionary presuppostion, we come up with one interpretation, and when we take our here-and-now-world observations and churn them through the creationist presupposition, we come up with another interpretation. Whichever interpretation of the evidence works best, that is the correct interpretation.
My current position is that there are a number of things which the Evolutionary presupposition has failed to explain. The LH/DH amino acid problem is just one of these.
Thanks for the discussion!
-RJM"
Saturday, December 23, 2006
Merry Christmas
We rejoice at the fact that God's master plan of freedom and law will always triumph!
Jesus' birth, life, and death, though, show us clearly that it is often a hard road. The full realization of triumph only comes at the resurrection, after one has died.
Let us remember this day that when God's plan is our plan, we win.
Merry Christmas!
Jesus' birth, life, and death, though, show us clearly that it is often a hard road. The full realization of triumph only comes at the resurrection, after one has died.
Let us remember this day that when God's plan is our plan, we win.
Merry Christmas!
Fixed Laws and Evolution
Here is a list of scientific laws which go against the Evolutionary way of seeing things.
Quantum Mechanics: The "primordial singularity" containing all the matter and energy in the universe could not have turned into a Big Bang because it was a singularity and thus any hyper-dimensional expansion would have to have been "ticked off" by an alterior force
Second Law of Thermodynamics: This law points to a low-entropy beginning for the universe, but the Big Bang would have been an extremely high-entropy event
Newton's Laws of Motion and Gravitation: Stars cannot form from clouds of dust and gas, let alone from outward-moving clouds of dust and gas
Newton's Laws of Motion and Gravitation: Globular clusters of stars cannot organize themselves from clouds of arbitrarily-arranged stars, let alone clouds of outward-moving stars
Newton's Laws of Motion and Gravitation: Galaxies cannot come forth from clouds of arbitrarily-arranged stars, let alone clouds of outward-moving stars
Newton's Laws of Motion and Gravitation: Planets cannot come about from arbitrary arrangements of matter, let alone from a plane of colliding rock and gas
Laws of Chemistry: If oxygen had existed in the early atmosphere, life would be eradicated by poisoning, but if oxygen had not existed originally, life would be eradicated by U-V rays
Laws of Chemistry: Virtually all the important chemicals in a living cell are long chain polymers, which means that if they originally had contact with water as Evolution says, they would have essentially melted back into simple amino acids and thus never formed into what they are today
Laws of Probability: Proteins in cells require the use of solely left-handed molecules in their assembly, so when the first Evolutionary proteins were formed, they would have had to have been created out of a solution of 100% left-handed amino acids, which is impossible
Laws of Probability: Mutations are estimated to be harmful or neutral 99% of the time, and at least half the time a large mutation will kill the organism in which it occurs
Laws of Probability: The strong nuclear force, the electromagnetic force, and many other systems and constants in the universe are so fine-tuned that any variation in their nature and the universe would be practically one giant plasma ball
Information Theory: DNA is an irreducibly complex system of encrypting, transcribing, deciphering, and re-encoding, which means it had to have been fully developed before it was used by lifeforms, and this is impossible
Natural Selection: Complex systems are kept from forming on their own because if one part of the system formed without the rest, the organism in which it formed would have been killed off by Natural Selection
-R. Josiah Magnuson
Quantum Mechanics: The "primordial singularity" containing all the matter and energy in the universe could not have turned into a Big Bang because it was a singularity and thus any hyper-dimensional expansion would have to have been "ticked off" by an alterior force
Second Law of Thermodynamics: This law points to a low-entropy beginning for the universe, but the Big Bang would have been an extremely high-entropy event
Newton's Laws of Motion and Gravitation: Stars cannot form from clouds of dust and gas, let alone from outward-moving clouds of dust and gas
Newton's Laws of Motion and Gravitation: Globular clusters of stars cannot organize themselves from clouds of arbitrarily-arranged stars, let alone clouds of outward-moving stars
Newton's Laws of Motion and Gravitation: Galaxies cannot come forth from clouds of arbitrarily-arranged stars, let alone clouds of outward-moving stars
Newton's Laws of Motion and Gravitation: Planets cannot come about from arbitrary arrangements of matter, let alone from a plane of colliding rock and gas
Laws of Chemistry: If oxygen had existed in the early atmosphere, life would be eradicated by poisoning, but if oxygen had not existed originally, life would be eradicated by U-V rays
Laws of Chemistry: Virtually all the important chemicals in a living cell are long chain polymers, which means that if they originally had contact with water as Evolution says, they would have essentially melted back into simple amino acids and thus never formed into what they are today
Laws of Probability: Proteins in cells require the use of solely left-handed molecules in their assembly, so when the first Evolutionary proteins were formed, they would have had to have been created out of a solution of 100% left-handed amino acids, which is impossible
Laws of Probability: Mutations are estimated to be harmful or neutral 99% of the time, and at least half the time a large mutation will kill the organism in which it occurs
Laws of Probability: The strong nuclear force, the electromagnetic force, and many other systems and constants in the universe are so fine-tuned that any variation in their nature and the universe would be practically one giant plasma ball
Information Theory: DNA is an irreducibly complex system of encrypting, transcribing, deciphering, and re-encoding, which means it had to have been fully developed before it was used by lifeforms, and this is impossible
Natural Selection: Complex systems are kept from forming on their own because if one part of the system formed without the rest, the organism in which it formed would have been killed off by Natural Selection
-R. Josiah Magnuson
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)
Posts
![[Most Recent Quotes from www.kitco.com]](http://www.kitconet.com/images/sp_en_6.gif)