James J. S. Johnson, J.D., Th.D., never disappoints. If haven’t come across him before, and can’t figure it out from the degrees included in his authorship credit, he is the ICR’s main source of bizarre legal analogies, although he has also taken to (usually viking-related) history at times. For his column in the August edition of ICR’s monthly newsletter Acts & Facts he has an article titled “One Bankruptcy, Many Adversaries“:
Theistic evolution is like a mega-bankruptcy case containing an almost countless number of adversaries and contests, like piecemeal mini-lawsuits that in aggregate address smaller conflicts within a large-scale mess. Within this big picture it’s important to keep in mind that every small-scale “contested matter” and every “adversary” conflict is an important opportunity to advocate for truth.
I bring this up not because I intend to go through it in any detail, but because it’s funny. I can’t quite tell whether his argument is that “theistic evolution” is under attack from all sides, or that it is important to attack it from every angle, or indeed that he just wanted to call it “bankrupt” – mega-bankrupt even – but then had to waffle on for a few paragraphs to justify publication this month.
It could well be the latter – he runs out of courtroom trivia mid-way, and has to turn to martial metaphors for aid:
A long war is composed of several strategically influential battles, connected to a network of contributory skirmishes. Likewise, countering the anti-Genesis teachings of theistic evolution involves a complex combination of small-scale opportunities to promote the Genesis record as part of the defense of the faith.
You get the idea – or rather, you don’t. Isn’t he wonderful?
Moving backwards, last weekend the ICR released a new That’s a Fact video: Three in One. The premise of the video is that the structure of the universe somehow reflects the trinity.
For centuries philosophers and theologians have tried to explain the Trinity. Some have tried but our attempts often fall short. However, God in His wisdom provided an example in creation that is a parallel to His own Triune existence—the universe.
Here’s a transcript of that video, with commentary interspersed to show why this is one of the ICR’s sillier ideas: Continue reading →
But before he gets to that link Sorensen has a few things to say himself. He claims that “Internet atheists” and evolutionists “often seek to shut down the rights of creationists and Christians to even express our points of view.” More specifically, he describes me as “an arrogant kid who seems to think that he is able to discredit and debunk the science presented by ICR scientists.” This is coming from a blog with an image in the sidebar stating “Parental advisory: I am right.” Sorensen is apparently quite fond of his image-based attempts at humour: the picture above right [Edit: Removed, see here to view] is from his post, and is supposed to represent the name of this blog, “Eye on the ICR.” In addition the ‘eye’ seems to be an envious eye, though I’m not sure what I am supposed to be envious of. Continue reading →
Two articles in the January Acts & Facts edition argue a similar point. According to them, the young Earth creationist approach of biblical literalism is superior to world-views influenced by observation of the actual universe. The articles aim their attacks primarily at fellow Christians who don’t take the YEC position, but take slightly different angles.
The founder of the scientific method, Francis Bacon, taught that God has written two books: the Scriptures and the book of creation (or nature). Today, many professing Christians affirm this view. After all, the Scriptures teach that God’s attributes are clearly seen in nature (Romans 1:20). So we can learn about God through both Scripture and science—the systematic study of nature.
[M]aking sense of dinosaurs requires accepting God’s Word as written – without attempting to “blend” it with evolutionary and old-earth storytelling. This well-intentioned (but misguided) minister thinks that proclaiming a straightforward understanding of Genesis is likely to drive children from the Christian faith. Young people quickly discern the intellectual inconsistency of Christians who claim to believe the Bible yet do not take seriously its first few chapters. This obvious inconsistency actually makes them more likely to question Christianity, not less!
It’s not often that I talk about (comparatively recent) history on this blog. The struggles of kings have little direct relevance to the age of the Earth, after all, or the origin of species. But that isn’t about to stop the intrepid James J. S. Johnson, whose December article is called Christmas, Vikings, and the Providence of God. He asks:
How are two famous Viking battles in 1066 related to the very first Christmas?
The battles in question are, of course, Stamford Bridge and Hastings – the latter of which only involves Vikings if you decide to define the Normans as being “still Vikings,” in true creationist style. It may take a while to get to the purported answer to the above question, but as a clue it has something to do with the following four people (click for more information):
Needless to say, it’s a strange analogy that they make:
The 2011 Bugatti Veyron Super Sport currently holds the title of the world’s fastest production car, clocking in at 267.9 mph. It has a 1,200 horsepower 8.0 Liter W16-cylinder, 64-valve dual OHC engine with a quad turbocharger that can take it from 0-60 mph in 2.4 seconds and from 0-100 mph in just five seconds.
This speedster is a real gas hog, consuming 8 mpg in the city and 13 mpg on the highway. But if you can afford $2.4 million for the car, who cares about fuel economy! The car is 175.7 inches long, 78.7 inches wide and 47.4 inches high with a 106.7 inch wheel base and a 4.9 inch ground clearance. Total curb weight is a hefty 4,486 pounds.
I couldn’t begin tell you if any of that were true, though I must say it sounds excessive. Fuel economy, by the way, has more uses beyond expense – what if you just don’t like stopping for petrol? Oh, and there’s the small matter of the environment, but only atheist communists care about that kind of thing. Continue reading →
Throughout history, human beings have had the tendency to reject their Creator, and replace Him in their lives with gods of their own making. From the Greek and Roman pantheons, to the Egyptian sun-god, people would rather worship a god that they create than the God who created them. Such false gods always have the following characteristics. (1) They are attributed one or more characteristics or powers that belong only to the Living God, especially a power over some aspect of nature. (2) They are given allegiance, worship, or reverence above God in at least some way. (3) They are created either physically or conceptually by man. (4) They are not the Living God, the Creator of all things. Continue reading →
Young children approach life with refreshing innocence. They assume that spoken words are truth because they have no reason to question the trusted adult who spoke them. But as children grow older, they begin to question adults and situations—they want evidence of truth as they encounter unknown people and new circumstances in their world.
I’m not sure quite how trusting children really are – you certainly shouldn’t trust them. They also tend to start questioning from the beginning, but they might need to be taught the hated ‘critical thinking skills’ before they get any good at it. Continue reading →
As you are probably already aware the feature article for the August Acts & Facts magazine is called It’s Alive!, by Henry Morris III. The point of the article is in fact rather muddled. On the one hand, he says:
The more we dig into the mechanics of molecular biology, the more our awe increases at the amazingly complex processes on which life is based.
Plants are indeed marvelous, beautiful, complex, and able to reproduce “after their kind,” but they are designed by the Creator to be a source of energy to maintain life. Plants are food—they are not alive.
The point of Morris’ article is to argue, on the basis of flawed scientific arguments and likely equally flawed biblical ones, that only animals (and only some of them at that) are actually alive. Continue reading →