HMNS To Sponsor Religious Intolerance, Bigotry

atheist protest signsThis weekend (Aug. 3-4, 2013), atheists plan to display their bigotry and intolerance of Christians at two locations. Their first display of irrationality will be outside the Texas Home School Coaltion’s annual convention in The Woodlands. Then, on Sunday, they will take their show to the Houston Museum of Natural Science, who stands to profit off their bigotry and religious intolerance by renting them Moran Lecture Hall.

In the photo, you can see some of the signs they plan to wave, which make irrational, untrue, and downright goofy claims. The photo is found on the blog of atheist Aron Ra (Warning! Aron is quite the capitalist, fueling his anti-Christian bigotry with “pop-up” advertisements that appear when you click on any links, plus ads to the side of the blog text). If you would like to hear Aron completely reject reason, click here and listen to a clip from an audio debate he had with Sye Ten Brugencate.

Because God is a necessary precondition for rationiality, rejecting God equates with rejecting reason. Atheist Aron Ra makes this obvious in the audio clip, as apparently he uses magic instead of reason to define things. Of course, Aron and all atheists use reason to understand and evaluate anything, which exposes the fact that they know God exists.

Atheist rejection of reason is obvious on their protest signs, too. For example, take a look at their foolish sign that ends with “don’t handicap your kids with creationism.” This is obviously false for many reasons, one of which is that the founder of the scientific method, Francis Bacon, was a young earth creationist! In his book New Atlantis, he described a “College of the Six Days Work”, dedicated to advancing science for the Glory of God and service of mankind.

It is self-evident to the Christian that from the beginning, God commands Christians to “do science” (Genesis 1:26-28). He lets us know that He created us in His image, so we are obviously designed to be creative, too. A Christian education that emphasizes the creativity of God (rather than man) is more likely to produce a very creative individual, one who may go on to be a great mathematician, scientists, engineer, doctor, etc.

And no, it’s not just 1 job that requires creationism, as another atheist protest sign reads, it’s ALL jobs that require someone who can think creatively!

I am particularly disappointed that the Houston Museum of Natural Science (HMNS) does not seem to have a problem with making a profit off of such a religiously intolerant group. Not only are they attacking Christianity, they are attacking one man in particular, Ken Ham. It is un-American to support such religious intolerance and false claims that Christians are “anti-science”. Christians are not anti-chemistry, anti-physics, anti-biology, etc! I am sure that we would all make a lot more headway in scientific things if atheists showed a lot more tolerance for historical interpretations that differ from theirs, and focus on advancing testable, repeatable science instead.

If you are also disappointed that HMNS is profiting off of the anti-Christian “Answers in Science” meeting (you can see the sign announcing the meeting in the photo above), please consider contacting them to kindly but firmly express your displeasure. You can contact them at 713-639-4629, press “2”, and ask for Brad Levy. I asked Brad that if, for example, a group asked to have an “Answers in Science” meeting, and it turned out their meeting was to discuss “scientific” findings that Jewish people were inferior and Hitler was right about wanting to kill them all, would HMNS support that? Brad immediately answered “no”. Brad is Jewish, so it was obvious to him a meeting like that would be about religious intolerance coupled with unscientific claims. But it is also obvious that the atheists “Answers in Science” meeting is about the same things, religious intolerance coupled with irrational claims that Christians are “anti-science”! Unfortunately, Brad and others at HMNS are having a hard time understanding why they should instantly respond “no” to both my anti-semitic example AND to the real “Answers in Science” anti-religion meeting planned for Sunday. Please contact them and help them correctly reason through this.

One reason Brad gave for not canceling the atheist’s room rental was that it is “too late in the game” to ask them to relocate. Well, no it’s not too late to ask the intolerant and bigoted group to have their meeting somewhere else! It is not too late for HMNS to NOT make a profit off of them. Please pass this on to anyone you know who loves science and opposes religious intolerance in America, and do what you can to encourage HMNS to cancel the “Answers in Science” rental of Moran Lecture Hall.

Pray for the atheists, and remember too that while we were ALL yet sinners, Christ died for us (Romans 5:8). Pray that God would turn many atheist hearts to repentance this weekend, as He has already done for us who call Him Lord and Savior.

Explore posts in the same categories: Creation/Evolution

Tags: , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , ,

Both comments and pings are currently closed.

101 Comments on “HMNS To Sponsor Religious Intolerance, Bigotry”


  1. Dear David,

    Thank you for your inquiry about our venue rental for an upcoming event, “Answers in Science.”

    This is a private event, not co-sponsored in any way, shape, or form by the Houston Museum of Natural Science. These terms are made expressly clear in our rental contracts. As such, we do not and will not promote the event; we simply provide the rental space. Organizations are permitted to rent our event space, unless we determine, at our sole discretion, that an event is reprehensible or repugnant.

    While the viewpoints expressed may not synchronize with your personal beliefs, we do not find these sentiments “anti-Christian” only because as a museum – we do not have a position on any religion, politics or other topics of that nature. We rent space to a variety of groups, and, at times, it’s possible that their objectives may conflict.

    Thus, we will continue to honor our agreement to host this event.

    Thank you again for your inquiry and interest.

    Sincerely,
    HMNS

    • gensci Says:

      Hi HMNS,
      Thank you for getting back to me. Brad mentioned to me that HMNS would not allow an anti-Jewish meeting disguised as a “science meeting”. I am asking you to do the same thing for this anti-Christian meeting disguised as a “science meeting.” Cancel the meeting please. They are perfectly capable of meeting elsewhere.

      The “Answers in Science” meeting will not be about discussing advances in 21st century science, it will be about the irrational claims on their protest signs, that conflate scientific things with historic things, especially Biblical history. Their sentiments most certainly are anti-Christian, and their goal is to intimidate Christians into thinking they can’t learn science and math if they believe God created everything. Of course, they do this by ignoring the deep Christian heritage behind modern science and mathematics. They make irrational claims to support their intolerance of Christianity, and HMNS most certainly is profiting off of that. That should be reprehensible and repugnant to you!

      There is a fairly lengthy video on YouTube titled “Homeschool Abuse by Creationists” that includes some of the people putting on the meeting. You will hear a clear anti-Christian agenda, lots of talk about dinosaur history, but no discussion of 21st Century Science. You will hear the false claim repeated that teaching creationism is child abuse. Of course, real child abuse is killing a defenseless, unborn baby. It is also anti-science because science confirms life begins at conception.

      What teaching creationism does is it gives a child a huge moral and intellectual boost, especially once they realize they were created in God’s image, and therefore are designed to be super-creative, too. Creationism sparks creativity, liberating the individual to accomplish many things. Saying creationism is child abuse is foolishness.

      Latha, the reality is that everybody has the same set of evidence, but when it comes to interpreting the unobservable past, we have different interpretations of the evidence. And that’s okay! These are things to discuss, not protest at a homeschool convention, nor masquerade in the form of a “science meeting.” I encourage you to go to the meeting, and then correct me if I’m wrong if it is not an anti-Christian, bigoted “Answers in History” meeting. What y’all really need to do though is cancel the rental. There are plenty of other places they can meet.


      • What complete and utter garbage. When you speak of “anti-Jewish,” it certainly has nothing to do with science and everything to do with genocide. For you to compare a science seminar with an anti-Christian apocalypse is nothing short of disgusting.

        You don’t like being taught real, observable, testable, predictable science? Fine, stay ignorant. If you wish your kids—when faced with a science question—to dumbly reply, “God did it,” then that is on you and your failure as a parent to ensure your child can at least have some kind of critical thinking background. Teaching creationism is fine and dandy if you’re talking about one of thousands of creation myths, but leave that to social studies and out of science. But here is one clear fact you have no way of denying: No discovery or invention in the entire history of EVER has been the result of a god. Some may attribute their inspiration to an almighty, but it really comes down to mankind’s efforts, not a supernatural one.

        (By the way, bringing up the abortion issue is just straw-grasping and reflects on how pathetic your arguments are.)

        Enjoy your wailing and gnashing of teeth, because reality is coming to bite you HARD.

      • gensci Says:

        Okay, here’s the deal. There is no “science vs. religion” battle. I am all about doing real, observable, testable, predictable science. I do scientific research on Gulf of Mexico hypoxia, and my most recent work was in 2012 (Texas Coastal Hypoxia Linked to Brazos River Discharge as Revealed by Oxygen Isotopes). What is your most recent scientific publication?

        Here is where the big disagreement is: it is over how to interpret natural history. Natural history research is different than the testable, predictable scientific research you referred to. Natural history research is about interpreting evidence to try to understand the unobservable past. Scientific research is about verifying the results of other scientists through experimentation. There is a big difference between natural history research and scientific research. Unlike scientific conclusions, natural history conclusions are unverifiable without a time machine.

        There is also a big difference between scientific research and futurology claims that are sometimes called “science”, but occur so far in the future they are not easily verifiable. This week’s weather forecast is scientific because it is easily verifiable. Predicting global climate 50 years from now though is not science, but futurology.

        I hope this helps you better discern between the testable predictable science you claim to support, and natural history and futurology claims that are not scientific. Think about where the “battle” is between groups. It is over historical claims about dinosaurs and futurology claims about catastrophic global warming. It is not about testable, repeatable science. Like you, when an apple falls, I say “gravity did it.” Where we disagree is not on what caused the apple to fall, but What was behind the cause of the apple falling.

        So all this to say, if you are trying to prove my point about anti-religious bigotry, you are doing a great job with your completely unreasonable statements above! I do wish though that you would reconsider, repent, and trust in Christ, being transformed by the renewing of your mind (Romans 12:2).

        One last thing, could you please explain what you mean by “reality is coming to bite you HARD?” Is that hate speech?

      • Mike Says:

        David,

        Why did you delete the comment which pointed out that you were lying about being a published researcher, when in fact all you did was fund a study?

        Evidence – this website, about 2 hours ago: http://i.imgur.com/mWIG2Mm.jpg

      • gensci Says:

        Hi Mike,
        I would encourage you to read the paper yourself, rather than base your conclusions on what somebody else said. The paper was received by Aquatic Geochemistry 8/23/11, accepted on 12/29/11, and published in 2012. It says this right at the top of the paper, read it here: http://hypoxia.tamu.edu/files/2012_dimarco.pdf

        As far as funding, I payed for some of the gas and food for my boat, TAMU paid for the rest. About half of the data from the August 2007 trip to the Brazos River plume was collected off my boat. My crew consisted of a TAMU oceanographer and several homeschool students, who went on to present their research at the Science and Engineering Fair of Houston.

        Here’s more info on the funding sources, copied directly from the acknowledgements: “This research was supported by a Rapid Response Award by Texas Sea Grant College Program (No. 404538). Partial funding was through a grant to S. DiMarco (NOAA-CSCOR NA06NOS4780198), contribution number NGOMEX-132, and the TAMU Department of Oceanography.Support for the stable isotope analyses was provided by a grant from Texas’ Norman Hackerman Advanced Research Program (No. 010366-0053-2007).”

        Mike, please explain where I was lying. Also, do you have a science degree?

      • Mike Says:

        “Mike, please explain where I was lying.”

        Right about where you said “my most recent work was in 2012 (Texas Coastal Hypoxia Linked to Brazos River Discharge as Revealed by Oxygen Isotopes).” The paper does not represent any research YOU did, but rather the work of a team.

        If you don’t want to be seen as dishonest, the proper way to respond to someone’s incorrect claims is to actually respond to them, not delete their post and make it look like it never existed.

        And what do my scientific qualifications have anything to do with you being deceptive?

      • gensci Says:

        Hi Mike,
        There is no deception here, so if you want to keep making stuff up, I’m under no obligation to post your comments. If I am part of the team, then yes, I did research. Research in the field, research in the office, editing the paper, etc.

  2. Amol V Says:

    Gensci,

    I’m a little confused by what you’re saying. Are you trying to say that research into natural history is unscientific, interpretation of evidence is unscientific, both, or neither?

    It seems to me that science is more than just stamp collecting; that interpretation of the evidence is an integral part of the scientific process. It also seems clear that there is a plethora of evidence about our cosmological, geological and biological past. Those who collect and study that evidence have gone where the evidence leads, sorted through the details and built theories that not only account for the evidence, but explain it as well. These theories are logically consistent, predictive, and constantly tested. The ones that succeed withstand the test of time. Some theories have even done so well that they are backed by an overwhelming consensus of pertinent experts.

    This seems to me to be exactly what a scientist should do. If evidence about our past exists, why should it be special, and not interpreted. Why should that be anything but science? If I detect an increase in neutrino flux giving me information about an event that happened 150,000 years ago is this not science?

    Also, this “futurology” stuff you mention seems absolute bogus. I send a satellite into space, and calculate its trajectory 50 years in the future. This isn’t science? I predict the existence of the Higgs 50 years before we have the technological ability to verify it. Not science? I set a chaotic pendulum into motion. While I can’t predict its exact trajectory due to its extreme dependence on initial conditions, I make certain generalized claims about its motion through phase space. Not science? I think each one of these are examples of doing science.

    And the global warming case you mention seems similar in principle to the chaotic pendulum. Certainly, based on what we know about the greenhouse effect and what we can see on our neighboring planets we can make general predictions about what would happen if one of the variables in our atmosphere was changed drastically. I’m having a hard time seeing the difference.

    Cheers.

    • gensci Says:

      Hi Amol, I’m sorry you are a little confused by what I’m saying, that is my fault for not being more clear. The most simple way for me to describe the difference here is that natural history research is about interpretation of unobservable and unrepeatable events, and scientific research is about verification of observable and repeatable events. I am definitely not saying natural history research is completely unscientific, because natural history researchers use scientific tools to collect and analyze data. When a geologist asks “what is this rock formation made of?”, he/she is acting like a scientist. He can use instruments to determine the mineral and elemental composition of the rock. Another scientist can come along and verify the conclusions by testing another sample from the same rock formation.

      But when the geologist asks “how old is the rock?”, now he is doing natural history research. There are still scientific tools he can use to answer the question, but the analysis ALWAYS carries with it some presuppositions (assumptions) regarding rates and initial conditions. For example, to obtain a date for an igneous rock using the Ar/Ar method, one must include some unverifiable assumptions, such as constant rate of decay, initial Argon=0, etc.

      Instead of “natural history research”, some folks describe it as “historical science”. I prefer “natural history research”, because I think it helps people better discern between a historic thing and a scientific thing.

      Like natural history research uses scientific tools, so does futurology research. Your examples are doing just that, using scientific tools and data to predict extreme future events that are not easily verifiable. With all of the data collected on death so far, I am 100% certain that you and I will die someday. That is obvious and uncomplicated. Weather is a little different. With all the data we have on past weather, we still can’t even make a model for a 10-day forecast with much confidence at all.

      Like natural history research, futurology claims depend on presuppositions. If those presuppositions are correct, then yes, you can predict the existence of the Higgs 50 years in advance. But if those presuppositions are false, and we make models based on them, AND then try to make laws based on the models that are based on false presuppositions….well, that’s no good at all!

      I hope this answers your questions. I would be happy to continue having a friendly discussion about this.

      • Alex Says:

        if you’re going to be stupid about it, EVERY event is non-repeatable. luckily, we don’t have to depend on your definition of repeatability.

      • gensci Says:

        Hi Alex,
        You CAN’T repeat the formation of the Grand Canyon. Multiple interpretations of its formation can and should be acceptable to rational people. You CAN repeat elemental analysis of samples from the Coconino Sandstone formation within Grand Canyon. There will be some variability within those repeated measurements, but that is what the field of statistics is for, to help us discern whether the variability is too great or not.

      • becauseyoushouldknow Says:

        You realise if you sentence a child to only learning creationism you sentence them to being behind nearly every educated child in the rest of the world. If someone came into my biology lecture and started to claiming that “God did it” they would be laughed out of the classroom and seriously questioned as to their credibility at being there in the first place (and that is being nice about it). As my first year professor said in our introductory class:

        “…just to be clear, we will not be teaching creationism in this class. If you are offended or disagree with this, you may leave at any point. However, we teach tested and observable science here, which creationism is not.”

      • gensci Says:

        Sorry, but your first year professor was a closed-minded fool. I teach my students about both common and uncommon descent. And besides, creationism is ultimately about making the creativity of God the foundation of education. Teaching a child they were created in God’s image, and are therefore super-creative, too, is a huge encouragement to a child. Genesis 1 commands us to go do science, which means we need to learn its language, too. Look at the math illiteracy at schools right now, and then look whose running government schools. Your side is, and folks like you are zero help, because you run around worried to death about dino history instead of focusing on advancing math and science.

  3. Dave Says:

    “Pray for the atheists, and remember too that while we were ALL yet sinners, Christ died for us (Romans 5:8). Pray that God would turn many atheist hearts to repentance this weekend, as He has already done for us who call Him Lord and Savior.”

    Surely, if your chosen deity is all powerful, he/she/it/they could do this at any time. What makes this weekend any different (especially when you have all eternity to play with)? And while your deity is enlightening the atheists, he might as well do the same for all those who are not Christians, i.e. 2/3 of the world’s human population.

    • gensci Says:

      Hi Dave,
      Would it be okay if we just agree to disagree about God for right now, and try and get along instead? Will you tolerate my beliefs that you and I were born wicked, and it is by grace alone that God saves us, not our human efforts (Ephesians 2:8-9)? I do believe God is real, that He created us in His image, which means we are designed to be super-creative, too. He not only made us to “do science”, He tells us to do just that in Genesis 1:26-28. There is no “science vs. religion” conflict. Christian beliefs are a catalyst for doing science.

      • Dave Says:

        You want me to agree that I’m wicked and have been since birth? Why should I agree to that? I’ll agree that I’m not perfect, but I’ve never committed a crime, never deliberately hurt anyone, and generally try to get along with people. I tolerate and support anybody’s right to any religious view, but I will argue against people when they use their religious beliefs to try to hurt, abuse or gain power over others.

        There is nothing in the verses you mention that makes any sense, much less has any relevance to science. The only catalyst for doing science is a desire to learn about how things work in the universe. That is why anybody from any belief system can do science.

      • gensci Says:

        Hi Dave, will you argue against people when they try to use their anti-religious beliefs to try to hurt, abuse, or gain power over others?

        I totally agree, anybody from any belief system can do science. The differences come when you start to ask questions like “Whose in charge of all this?” It is obvious from Scripture, and it is obvious from anyone who studies history, that modern science is built on a Christian foundation. Think about why math and science stagnated with the Greeks. They rejected the notion of eternity (infinity). They couldn’t handle the reality of the square root of 2, which is why they call it an irrational number. It took Christians like Newton and Euler, who had no problem with infinity because they worshiped a God who is eternal, to break through the Greek stagnation and advance science. The Greeks are a powerful testimony that what you believe about reality makes a difference in how you do science. Believing in the real God of Scripture helps us make better sense of nature, and better use of it. This is why it is anti-science and anti-intellectual to be intolerant of Christians who trust God as Creator. We should work towards having friendly discussions about our interpretations of history, and get on with advancing scientific things. Agreed?


  4. Religion is a mental illness.

    • gensci Says:

      Hi Randy,
      How about let’s try to get along with each other, instead of making intolerant, irrational claims about religion? Can we do that?

      • Reynold Says:

        Maybe you should have thought of that before bringing up the old “Hitler” card, eh? Especially since it’s xianity that is the primary basis for anti-semitism in the world.

        Don’t believe me? Do some reading where some evidence was compiled here:

        http://forums.fstdt.net/index.php?topic=4209.msg160283#msg160283

        You claim that since Francis Bacon who was a creationist, established the scientific method, that yec-ism is therefore scientific?

        Uh, no. Francis Bacon did not include anything like the ICR/AIG/CMI statement of faith where they promise to disregard any evidence that contradicts the bible. Science is tentative, and is open to being changed by new evidence.

        You people are not.

        By the way, when you try to put pressure on a museum to not host a group that it has previously agreed to, you do not have the right to ask others to “try to get along”, ok?

      • gensci Says:

        Howdy Reynold,
        I’m asking HMNS not to profit off of anti-religious bullies: http://drshormann.com/2013/07/31/hmns-continues-support-of-anti-religious-bullies/

        What would be awesome is if, instead of your divisive, “you people” attitude, you would just agree to disagree with others who differ with you over something as trivial as dino history, and then get on with doing 21st Century Science. You and I don’t need to drink from separate public water fountains just because we disagree about dino history, do we?

      • Reynold Says:

        It just hit me…Shormann was a presenter at the same conference that Ken Ham was, right?

        Anyone think that he took Ham to task for his group’s “intolerance” by having any potential employees having to sign onto the AIG’s statement of faith as a precondition of employment?

        (ie. Only yec christians allowed).

        Yet groups like the National Center for Science Education don’t require you to be an atheistic evolutionist to join…people like Ken Miller get along just fine there.

      • gensci Says:

        Howdy Reynold,
        Actually, no, I’m not presenting this year, but I do have a booth at the conference, and you are welcome to come by and chat! I can show you how my science and math standards are better than any state standards in the nation. I even invited a couple of atheists to dinner: http://drshormann.com/2013/07/31/an-invitation-to-dinner/

        It’s not an “only yec christians allowed” conference, so you can put that straw man back in your pocket.

        With HMNS, again, my concern is profiting off of anti-religious bullying. In America, in Texas, we have freedom of religion, and we tolerate different views. Differences in opinion regarding dino history are things to discuss, not protest in an attempt to bully and suppress.

        Hey, do you think NCSE would let me join? Would they let me publish articles for them to explain the difference between natural history research and scientific research with the goal of defusing the creation/evolution battle, so we can then get on with doing 21st Century Science for the glory of God and service of men?

  5. Mike Says:

    Your bit about Francis Bacon being a creationist is dishonest at best. In his philosophical treatise Novum Organum Scientiarum (The New Instrument of Science), Bacon compiled a list of things he called “idols” which he said must be ‘abjured and renounced’. Near the end of the list were any systems of natural philosophy which were built on Genesis 1, Job, or any other part of the Bible.

    • Mike Says:

      Further:

      http://www.iep.utm.edu/bacon/

      In Book I of the New Organon (Aphorisms 39-68), Bacon introduces his famous doctrine of the “idols.” These are characteristic errors, natural tendencies, or defects that beset the mind and prevent it from achieving a full and accurate understanding of nature. Bacon points out that recognizing and counteracting the idols is as important to the study of nature as the recognition and refutation of bad arguments is to logic. Incidentally, he uses the word “idol” – from the Greek eidolon (“image” or “phantom”) – not in the sense of a false god or heathen deity but rather in the sense employed in Epicurean physics. Thus a Baconian idol is a potential deception or source of misunderstanding, especially one that clouds or confuses our knowledge of external reality.

      4. The Idols of the Theater:
      Like the idols of the cave, those of the theatre are culturally acquired rather than innate. And although the metaphor of a theatre suggests an artificial imitation of truth, as in drama or fiction, Bacon makes it clear that these idols derive mainly from grand schemes or systems of philosophy – and especially from three particular types of philosophy:

      III. Superstitious Philosophy – this is Bacon’s phrase for any system of thought that mixes theology and philosophy. He cites Pythagoras and Plato as guilty of this practice, but also points his finger at pious contemporary efforts, similar to those of Creationists today, to found systems of natural philosophy on Genesis or the book of Job.

      • gensci Says:

        Hi Mike,
        But that’s not what Bacon said, that’s what this writer said about Bacon. You need to stop quote mining and do a little more research on Bacon. Read ALL of Advancement of Learning, ALL of New Atlantis, ALL of The Religious Foundations of Francis Bacon’s Thought, and you might come to the same conclusion I stated earlier. Bacon said science and religion are completely compatible, and that we should take care not to “unwisely mingle” the two. He based this idea off of Christ’s words in Matthew 22:29.

      • Mike Says:

        Shall we take your claims of Bacon’s beliefs as seriously as this writer’s, then, since you are just a writer talking about Bacon?

      • gensci Says:

        That’s your decision.

      • Reynold Says:

        Howdy Reynold,
        There’s a big difference between being a bully, and standing up to a bully. When the real problem with the advancement of science in America is math illiteracy, and you see people in costumes protesting dino history instead, that’s bullying. That’s the “new KKK.”

        Baloney. No one’s lives are being threatened, no one’s property is being vandalized, etc.

        Believe it, or not. I hope you will change your thinking on this.
        Only if you can come up with realistic comparisons instead of this stuff!

      • gensci Says:

        I’m sorry Reynold, but lives certainly were being threatened. Bullies are only concerned about their liberty, not other people’s liberty.They are the most careless with the weakest of all, the unborn child. Are you a bully Reynold? Would you condone the beheading of a future creationist?

    • gensci Says:

      Hi again Mike,
      You can quote Bacon all you want, I have nothing to hide from here. If you want any more comments approved though, you need to do them in a spirit of trying to get along and tolerate each other. Agreed? Good!

      I’m pasting your quote and link to Bacon’s writings here, so I don’t have to respond to two different posts:
      Here’s my evidence:

      http://www.helium.com/items/2258384-francis-bacon-philosophy?page=2

      “Yet in this vanity some of the moderns have with extreme levity indulged so far as to attempt to found a system of natural philosophy on the first chapter of Genesis, on the book of Job, and other parts of the sacred writings, seeking for the dead among the living; which also makes the inhibition and repression of it the more important, because from this unwholesome mixture of things human and divine there arises not only a fantastic philosophy but also a heretical religion.”

      Now, compare that with what Bacon wrote in New Atlantis, a novel about a place dedicated to understanding God’s creation: “…this Order of Society is sometimes called Salomon’s House and sometimes the College of Six Days Works; whereby I am satisfied that our excellent king had learned from the Hebrews that God had created the world and all that therein is within six days; and therefore he instituting that House for the finding out of the true nature of all things (whereby God might have the more glory in the workmanship of them, and men the more fruit in the use of them) did give it also that second name.”

      I have read the “fantastic philosophy and heretical religion” quote before. From what I know about Bacon though, I think he was talking about supersitition and animism, where people confuse the Creator with the created, saying “God is the tree” rather than “God created the tree”.

  6. Mike Says:

    Religion is a mental illness.

    • gensci Says:

      Come on Mike, why so grumpy towards religion? Folks like you say hateful, irrational things like that, and then you wonder why we don’t “believe” you. Can we just agree to disagree about religion and still be neighborly, or do we need to get separate religious/anti-religious public restrooms and water fountains?


  7. […] there’s a creationist twit in Texas whining about how the Houston Atheists will be demonstrating at a creationist home schooling convention and […]

    • gensci Says:

      Howdy boredinfidel,
      No whining going on here, just exposing the irrationality and intolerance of some atheists. Is it okay with you if I am skeptical of some atheist’s claims?


  8. Hi David (I can’t call you “doctor” with a straight face).

    By portraying people interested in dealing strictly in sound science as “bigots” and positing that disseminating scientific acts is tantamount to “religious intolerance,” you not only come across as a hysterical ignoramus (sorry — I looked for more genteel terms, but none apply as well as this one) but as wildly adversarial. You have no interest in an honest discussion despite your throwaway terms to the contrary. You are committed to your YEC view and nothing, no burden of scientific evidence, will budge you from this position; furthermore, you are patently annoyed, even enraged that people dare to disagree with your fringe ideas.

    My suggestion would be that you drop all pretense at being interested in an honest discussion about the relevant sciences here and just admit that you’re a Young Earth Creationist and that’s that. You believe, absurdly, that humans and dinosaurs were contemporaneous, and you use the very fact that people rightly label this belief absurd as “evidence” that you’re right and they’re wrong: If people are being harshly critical of you, why, they must be the ones with a problem!

    Sad, really, although worth a guilty chuckle or two in the safety of reality-land.

    • gensci Says:

      Howdy Chimpanzee Refuge,
      Sorry, but I’m not enraged at all, and would be happy to have a discussion about natural history with you. You’ll have to drop the arrogant attitude though. You and I should be able to discuss our differences regarding the past. But hey, instead of historic things, why don’t we talk about scientific things? What do you think about some of the new fields in biology, such as epigenetics, which causes changes in heritable traits that future generations can reverse, all without a gene mutation. Pretty awesome stuff, huh? And while we’re on the topic of science, what is your science degree in?

  9. Thomas True Says:

    The religious adherents seem to believe if they cannot do anything they want as long as they slap a “god” label on it that they are being oppressed.

    That isn’t how society works,

    Enjoy your position while you are still in the majority., I am personally grateful that the age of reason is going to overtake the age of ignorance.

    • gensci Says:

      Howdy Thomas,
      But you can’t reason apart from God, so if you reject God, you reject reason, and then we really will be overtaken by ignorance, just like what happened in the former Soviet Union.

  10. dover1952 Says:

    Does anyone here feel that Christian fundamentalism is beset by wolves from all sides and in danger of dying out if someone does not do something and do it quickly?

    • gensci Says:

      Hi Dover1952,
      I think secular fundamentalism is pushing the limits of intolerance: http://drshormann.com/2013/07/31/hmns-continues-support-of-anti-religious-bullies/

      But no, I don’t feel any imminent danger that Christianity is dying out. We’ve already won the war, we just have some battles to deal with from time to time, and sins to repent of, but we’ll press on.

      • dover1952 Says:

        I apologize. You must have misunderstood my question. I did not ask whether “Christianity” is in danger of dying out. It appears to me that the Roman Catholic Church, Greek Orthodox Church, Russian Orthodox Church, United Methodist Church, Episcopal Church, Disciples of Christ Churches, Northern Baptist Churches, African Methodist Episcopal Churches, Lutheran Churches, Presbyterian Churches, and a host of other traditional denominational and nondenominational churches are doing just fine. I have never subscribed to the notion that the aforementioned churches and church groups are all hopeless apostates and that Christian fundamentalism is the only “true” Christianity. Therefore, the word Christian is an exclusive term that applies only to the fundamentalists.

        The reason I ask is that I never see the above-listed Christian groups hatching schemes to fight evolution. I never see these groups trying to gain control of government institutions so they can use it to impose their beliefs on others. I never see them trying to get their beliefs officially taught in publlic schools. I never see them running scared of anything. However, over the years, I have met or conversed with numerous Christian fundamentalists who feel that every belief they have ever held dear has been marginalized by American society and that they are under vicious attack from all sides. They feel as if they live in a foreign land. Our local metropolitan newspaper recently published an article about a Christian fundamentalist family that could no longer tolerate having their children in public schools, could no longer tolerate having to associate with sinners in the workplace, and could no longer tolerate being members of American society. Therefore, they had bought a remote family farm and had withdrawn themselves from interaction with other people in hopes that the Lord would soon come and rescue them from the awful circumstances under which they had been forced to live.

        People like this are obviously scared and afraid. Some have even observed that they feel that, just like fetuses in the womb, they and all that they believe are in imminent danger of being “aborted” from American society. Some have said that the takeover of government institutions is a matter of desperate last resort, a chance to enlist the powers of civil authority to protect themselves and what they believe from what they regard as the barbarians at the gates of their homes and lives.

        So, I will ask you again, Do you feel that Christian fundamentalism (specifically) is beset by wolves from all sides and in danger of dying out if someone does not do something and do it quickly?

        Just to let you know. I am a Christian who has been saved by grace through my Lord Jesus Christ, followed by a full dunk baptism in a very conservative fundamentalist. I meant it too and still do. However, my family and I are now members of the United Methodist Church. I have spent the past 25 years of my life studying Christian fundamentlaim in depth. J. Gresham Machen to Marsden to Rousas Rushdoony. As a result of those studies and my understanding of the Bible, along with some friends and acquaintances who are ordained pastors (and through talking with Jesus in prayer and him talking directly to me about certain issues of the day), I have become convinced that Christian fundamentalism is a man-created and fraudulent pretender to the Christian faith. Just as I have dedicated my life to Jesus Christ and his teachings in the New Testament, I have also committed my life’s work to the total and complete destruction of Christian fundamentalism as a false and destructive tyranny over the minds of mankind. Up with Jesus. Down with Christian fundamentalism.

        P.S. Evolution happened.

      • gensci Says:

        Howdy Dover1952,
        Praise God you’ve been saved brother! But Christian brothers can disagree about things, and that’s okay! I hope it’s okay that I correct you on some things, too. The first thing is that I have never really heard a good definition of “Christian fundamentalism”. If fundamentalism equates with trusting Biblical history as true history, then that would mean Jesus was a fundamentalist, too. What do you mean by “Christian fundamentalism?” And what is the “true” Christianity? It sounds like you are saying your version is.

        Also, I’m Presbyterian, so that blows a hole in your argument in the first paragraph. For researching this for 25 years, you are doing a terrible job. I also think you are wasting an incredible amount of time. What are you doing to advance 21st Century science and technology? Your “down with Christian fundamentalism” attitude is unloving and not what Jesus would do. These are things for Christians to discuss! Look at Christ’s example, he ate with the “worst of the worst” sinners. Instead of being so hostile against folks like me, can’t we discuss our differences instead? Is it okay if I’m skeptical of your claim that “evolution happened?” Genetics in populations indeed does change over time, 21st Century Science confirms this. It also confirms there are limits to genetic change. Therefore, I’m skeptical of claims that bacteria turned into biology teachers over billions of years. Is that okay with you if I’m skeptical of that?

      • Reynold Says:

        Again with the “intolerance”. Wrong. Read this:

        http://freethoughtblogs.com/aronra/2013/08/01/its-projecting-again/

        Shormann however continues to encourage his readers to bombard the Houston Museum of Natural Science with phone calls and ‘firm’ demands that they cancel our reservation this weekend. That is bullying, and he’s the one who is doing it!

        He accuses me of religious intolerance -even though I insisted on inviting Ken Miller (a Catholic) to represent our side. Sadly he wasn’t available. I also invited my friend, Ryan Valentine (another Christian) from the Texas Freedom Network to speak for us as well. He wasn’t available either, but we got the president of the TFN, Kathy Miller, and I’m happy to have her.

        When will you stop lying about those who disagree with you?

      • gensci Says:

        Howdy Reynold,
        There’s a big difference between being a bully, and standing up to a bully. When the real problem with the advancement of science in America is math illiteracy, and you see people in costumes protesting dino history instead, that’s bullying. That’s the “new KKK.” Believe it, or not. I hope you will change your thinking on this.

  11. Erik Says:

    Sorry that science is destroying your mythology. But don’t worry I’m sure there will be plenty of sheep for you and Ken Ham to fleece well into your retirement years.

    • gensci Says:

      Sorry Erik, but science confirms the Story. There is no “science vs. religion” battle. Genesis 1 gives Christians the charge to go out and “do science”, not run from it!

  12. Dave Says:

    Hi Dave, will you argue against people when they try to use their anti-religious beliefs to try to hurt, abuse, or gain power over others?

    How about we agree on the use of the word ‘ideology’?

    As for the rest of your response, if you can’t see the obvious flaw i your argument, I’m not going to bother pointing it out to you. However, I would contend that no science ever came out of a religious book. Newton may have been a Christian (who in England wasn’t in those days?) but none of the work he did on optics, gravity or calculus came out of the Bible. Similarly, you will not find the proof to Euler’s Theorem by consulting scripture.

    • gensci Says:

      Dave, that is my whole point here, stand up to bullies who “try to use their anti-religious beliefs to try to hurt, abuse, or gain power over others?” See here, too:http://drshormann.com/2013/07/31/hmns-continues-support-of-anti-religious-bullies/

      Whatever you thought my argument was, I must not have been very clear, because you are really confused by it. Sorry about that. God’s word is a catalyst to “do science”, God commands us to do so from the get-go in Genesis 1. He commands us to use inductive reasoning (find rules), which means He didn’t give us the whole playbook. He designed us to be creative, just like Him, and He gave us curiousity to go and discover and understand and use the things He made, for His Glory and the service of others.

      So no, the proof of Euler’s Theorem is not in Scripture. On a side note though, Matthew Maury, Father of Oceanography, got his start by discovering “paths in the sea” (ocean currents)? Why did he search for ocean currents? Because he first read about them in Psalm 8:8.

      And speaking of Euler, here’s my favorite quote by him: “It is God, therefore, who places men, every instant, in circumstances the most favourable, and from which, they may derive motives the most powerful, to produce their conversion.” So you see? God is using this instant right now to turn your heart towards Him. That’s what the best mathematician in world history thought, and that’s what I think, too!

      • Dave Says:

        Please describe how you are being bullied by people with anti-religious beliefs.

        If Christians choose to do science because they think God want them to, good for them. Just as long as they do honest science. That goes for all scientists. But, of course, you can’t agree with this, because as far as you’re concerned, any scientist studying evolution is a liar.

        As far as I’m aware, Euler, whatever his achievements in mathematics, produced no evidence for the existence of gods.

        That’s quite a leap, from ‘paths of the seas’ to an understanding of the complexities of the ocean currents. Are you seriously suggesting that the people who wrote the Bible knew of the Antarctic Circumpolar Current before they knew anything about the existence of the Antarctic Ocean?

        To take another example, the existence of the Gulf Stream was known a couple of centuries before Matthew Maury was even born. He may have been inspired by the Bible, but it would have given him no information what to look for, where to look, or what to make of whatever he found.

        ‘God is using this instant right now to turn your heart towards Him.’ How so? I’m affirming my non-belief in ‘Him’, not turning towards ‘Him’.

      • gensci Says:

        Dave,
        God is using this instant to turn your heart towards Him. You have liberty though to spend the rest of your life countering that. God doesn’t make puppets, He gives us liberty to accept or reject.

        I’ve already said Scripture commands us to “do science”. It gives us a framework for discovery, without answering all the questions for us beforehand. Can you imagine how boring life would be if there was nothing left to discover? I don’t know why you keep trying to make the point that the Bible doesn’t tell us everything about everything, nobody’s saying it does.

  13. R Holloway Says:

    Come on people. There’s a reason why most of your doctors come from other countries these days! Why? Because our country is completely behind the rest of the world in science. Teach your kids some creation myth if you want, but you need to teach them the science of the world also if you want them to succeed. Come on, quit hanging on to some fantasy that the world is going to stop moving and growing. This isn’t 1950, and we are never going back to 1950 (Thank God!!!)

    • gensci Says:

      We are behind some of the world, but not “the rest of the world.” Most of our kids go to government schools, too, where the language of science (mathematics) is dumbed down, and only one version of natural history is taught. Creativity of God is the foundation of a Christian education. If you teach a child they were created in His image (Genesis 1), and therefore they are super-creative too, you give them hope and purpose. Add to that some solid math and science education, and you can build a nation of doctors, scientists, and engineers, all working for the glory of God and service of others. One of my company’s goals is to encourage students to finish college level Calculus BEFORE they finish high school. My math and science standards are higher than any state in the nation. You should check them out.

      • Thomas M. Says:

        The big hole in your logic here is that most of the countries that are ahead of us in education standards do NOT teach creationism in schools. In fact, in most of those countries there’s not even really much of a debate about the subject at all. There are plenty of believers in those places, mind you, but they generally aren’t under the false impression that their beliefs are equivalent to just “another version of natural history” that should be taught in schools.

        I agree that math and science standards should be higher – but adding a non-scientific notion like creationism to the mix will rather decidedly not help matters.

      • gensci Says:

        Sorry Thomas, the big hole is in your logic, not mine. America has one of the highest percentages of creationists, and it is also arguably the most innovative country. Teaching kids they were created in God’s image, and are therefore super-creative too, is a huge encouragement for them. Teaching them they evolved from nothing and have no more value than a cow pattie is irrational and creepy. I’m glad you are concerned about math and science literacy. Focus on that, and stop worrying about dinosaur history.

  14. Chris Says:

    “Treating Earth history as just that, history, I can find physical and written testimony that the Earth is only 6,000 years old. And just as most of us have no problem believing Jesus Christ was a real person who lived 2,000 years ago, we should have no problem believing there were about 4,000 years from the Beginning to Christ’s birth. Studying natural history can be an interesting, fun, and adventure-filled pursuit, but it is not real science, and shouldn’t be treated like it is.” – David Shormann

    Wow. and you call yourself a scientist? I wouldn’t want you within 500 miles of decisions on science education

    • gensci Says:

      Howdy Chris,
      Why not try to understand what I’m saying instead of such an arrogant response? Natural history research is about interpretation, scientific research is about verification. Natural history research certainly uses some of the same tools scientists use, but it is not “real science” in the sense that you cannot verify the claims without a time machine. Can you tell me exactly how the Grand Canyon formed, plus or minus 5% error? If you can, you certainly have a magical gift that no one else I know has.

      Speaking of science education, mathematics is the language of science. Quit worrying about me and go make sure children are getting a solid mathematics foundation. The #1 indicator of college success is the level of mathematics a student completed in high school. What are you doing to advance mathematics literacy?

      • Chris Says:

        I understand your position. I work in geology and the evidence that this planet is older than 6000 years is overwelming and irrefutable. Sequence Stratigraphy is your kyrponite.

      • gensci Says:

        Hi Chris,
        Actually, no, it’s not.

      • Chris Says:

        do you have an answer for the shale problem in a year-long flood yet? As I’m sure you know, shale, due to the very small particle size requires quiet, tranquil waters for deposition to take place.

        How about the problem of carbonates. The enegry required to form these carbonates in year-long flood would be hundreds of times the power the sun.

        the problem of burrows in the sandstones?

        mudcracks?

        Anhydrites?

        oncolites?

        stromatolites?

        crinoidal limestones?

        we could go on and on. i’ve only stratched the surface. one thing is clear though, none of these things can be explained by a year long flood.

        yes you may have a different intrepreation of stratigraphy, but that doesn’t mean it has validity or should be tought in science class.

        I suppose it is easy to stand back and speak about geology in dumb-down ways (for example your Grand Canyon remark) and say its all just interpretation, but when you look at the details and the SCIENCE behind the study of the countless deposits and study the SCIENCE behind how each of those deposits were made , your arguments really fall apart.

      • gensci Says:

        It’s all rates and timing Chris, rates and timing.

      • Chris Says:

        “No man acquainted with the general outlines of Palaeontology, or the true succession of the sedimentary formations, has been able to believe, during the last half century, that any proof of a general deluge can be derived from the *older* geologic systems, — Palaeozoic, Secondary [Mesozoic], or Tertiary.” – Creationist Geologist Hugh Miller in 1857

      • gensci Says:

        Hey, I forgot to add presuppositions to that. Sorry. It’s all about presuppositions related to rates and timing.


  15. […] found out about the protest and he’s flipping out, complaining about how these atheists are so opposed to science! I mean, just look at their offensive […]

    • gensci Says:

      Howdy Friendly,
      Nope, no “flipping out” going on here, just pointing out the disappointing fact that intolerance of others is still alive and well in America. Also, the protest is not about science, or it’s language, but about dino history. Dino history is something to discuss, not protest! If you would like to come talk about science and it’s language, please stop by the THSC convention and ask for me. I’ll come out, give you a badge, and you can come in and we’ll chat.

  16. Roxy Says:

    Why don’t you stop by on Sunday? I was going to miss the event but will be able to attend after all.

    I would love to meet you. Bring your friend Dr. Ham.

    Roxie Deaton
    President, Humanists of Houston

    • gensci Says:

      Hi Roxie,
      Give me a 30 minute slot to speak and answer questions at the “Answers in Science” meeting, and I would be happy to stop by! What do you say?

  17. Witty Says:

    “And no, it’s not just 1 job that requires creationism, as another atheist protest sign reads, it’s ALL jobs that require someone who can think creatively!”

    Creationism and creatively are not the same thing just because they have many of the same letters. That doesn’t even make sense. Unless you are implying that believing in creationism requires the ability to creatively make up stuff to support your conclusion? That’s still not something most employers look for though. Sorry.

    • gensci Says:

      Hi Witty,
      The number of science and technology jobs that require atheism equals zero.

  18. Reynold Says:

    By the way, I note that you’ve not allowed one of my comments to go through…it was right beneath your August 2, 2013 at 8:55 pm reply to “Witty”.

    Not to worry, I’ve had experience in dealing with people like you so I took a precaution of taking a screenshot.

    I’ll be posting this around a bit, so even if this post and the one you disallowed never sees the light of day, the screenshot will

    • gensci Says:

      Hi Reynold,
      No problem, you post whatever you want, wherever you want. Doesn’t bother me a bit. I just don’t feel a need to keep approving your irrational comments here though.

      • Reynold Says:

        “Irrational”? Care to explain just what about my comments is “irrational”? I’m not the one who is throwing around false comparisons with the KKK after all. See my latest comment for why your comparison of the pro-science group with the KKK is odious.

      • gensci Says:

        Hi Reynold,
        If you don’t like being compared to the KKK, then be for liberty, not against it. One of the signs the protesters held on Saturday said “kids deserve a future.” That is self evident to me, but is it self evident to you that “kids” should include unborn ones as well? Are you opposed to beheading ALL creationists, including future creationists?


      • “[B]e for liberty, not against it.”

        Then you should “be for” publishing my comment from the other day, which, despite being perfectly benign other than disagreeing with your religious views, has been sitting in the moderation queue for over 100 hours now. I can’t say I’m surprised — anyone who would refer to atheists as “bigots” for having the nerve to be reasonable can’t be trusted to operate a blog with any integrity — and it doesn’t really matter because I doubt I’ll be back to this hole in the wall where the guy doing the blogging has no concept of what the terms “science” sand “evidence” even mean, yet throws them around with abandon.

      • gensci Says:

        Sorry to disappoint chimp, but you are welcome to post all your comments anywhere you want. Just not here. my goal is not to embarrass you, but by God’s grace, convert your foolish heart. I have to use some hard words sometimes, but that is not because I hate you! I am truly concerned for you. You know that I understand science and evidence just fine. But do you know something else bullies do? They murder innocent, unborn children. Some are even calling for murder after they are born. Are you against beheading ALL creationists, including the future creationists? If you condone the murder of innocent children, then you are no friend of liberty.

  19. Dave Says:

    Hi Reynold,
    If you don’t like being compared to the KKK, then be for liberty, not against it. One of the signs the protesters held on Saturday said “kids deserve a future.” That is self evident to me, but is it self evident to you that “kids” should include unborn ones as well?”

    Yes, it would be nice to include unborn kids. But that would have to include those billions your God has killed throughout history. Your God, if you assume he exists, is the god of abortion. Every natural death in the womb is his responsibility alone.

    • gensci Says:

      Dave, please, please rethink that. Murder is when one person willfully kills another, and it is wrong.

      You are saying “it would be nice to include unborn kids”, giving them a chance at liberty, but you won’t. that is so wrong! You hide behind your fake comment name, using it as an excuse to say whatever you want. That’s wrong, too. You don’t want liberty for ALL children, which is so sad, and you do it as your way of “getting back” at a God you don’t even believe exists! Since you believe in evolution instead of God, you should be asking evolution why it kills unborn children, living children, all people. Why is evolution so incompetent that it cannot overcome death?

      Jesus overcame death though. He died for our sins, including the sin of murder, so that we might live. What is impossible for evolution is possible for God.

      • Dave Says:

        I’m saying if a child dies in the womb of natural causes, no human being can be blamed for this. In such cases, if there is no God, this is a tragic but blameless event. If there is a God, there is only one person who can be blamed, and that is God himself. Given that the number of natural unborn deaths throughout history far exceeds the number of human caused unborn deaths, this would make your God the Great Abortionist.

        No doubt you will twist and squirm to defend your wonderful deity, but you must see the logic in my argument. Either that, or you will simply bin my comment because you’re a coward.

      • gensci Says:

        Dave,
        If you think for a second you are in the right about this, well, you are a fool. I don’t want you to be a fool, I want you to repent and trust Him with your life. Romans 3:23 says all have sinned and fall short of God’s glory. He created us sinless, but He also created us with liberty. He did not create mindless robots. Unfortunately, Adam and Eve chose poorly, and the penalty was death. And not just for Adam and Eve, but for the rest of us. So Adam and Eve’s bad decision brought the penalty of death on the rest of the family, and the rest of creation, all the way down to us. So no, God is not the “great abortionist”, we are. Human sin brought death into the world. Thankfully, Christ died for our sins, so we can have eternal life.

        But you say there is no God, so I ask, if evolution is true and God is not, then why hasn’t evolution figured out how to prevent cancer, or even the common cold, or make us live forever? My God has defeated death, why hasn’t yours?


  20. […] Houston creationist Dr. David Shormann was extremely irritated by the event and had a lot to say on the subject in his blog. This is one […]

    • gensci Says:

      Hey, PZ misspelled his presentation title! It’s Revolution, not Evolution of Creationism! Incompetent thinking of people like him will continue to drive math and science literacy in the wrong direction: http://drshormann.com/2012/11/09/the-revolution-of-creationism/

      • Dave Says:

        gensci Says:

        August 6, 2013 at 9:21 pm
        Dave,
        If you think for a second you are in the right about this, well, you are a fool. I don’t want you to be a fool, I want you to repent and trust Him with your life. Romans 3:23 says all have sinned and fall short of God’s glory. He created us sinless, but He also created us with liberty. He did not create mindless robots. Unfortunately, Adam and Eve chose poorly, and the penalty was death. And not just for Adam and Eve, but for the rest of us. So Adam and Eve’s bad decision brought the penalty of death on the rest of the family, and the rest of creation, all the way down to us. So no, God is not the “great abortionist”, we are. Human sin brought death into the world. Thankfully, Christ died for our sins, so we can have eternal life.

        But you say there is no God, so I ask, if evolution is true and God is not, then why hasn’t evolution figured out how to prevent cancer, or even the common cold, or make us live forever? My God has defeated death, why hasn’t yours?

        I’ve thought about this a lot, and to me it’s the only logical conclusion. Either God exists, and is responsible for the deaths of the unborn if humans are not. Or god does not exist, and such tragic deaths are unattributable. I’d rather be a fool that understands, than a fool that denies the truth.

        Please revisit your understanding of evolution, then tell me why evolution hasn’t done these things. And who wants to live forever anyway?

      • gensci Says:

        Hi Dave,
        You’re asking some good questions now! You ask, “who wants to live forever”, and my answer is “I do”! Surely you aren’t looking forward to dying, are you?

        My background is in ecology, which forces one to think of “big picture” ideas. So, when I read Scripture and look at the “big picture”, I see that God is much more concerned with our souls than with our physical bodies. I mean, look at the brutal physical trial His own Son went through! God could have intervened, but He didn’t. He could have intervened when my sister died from a massive bacterial infection after giving birth to her first child, but He didn’t.

        I believe His plans for us are much more than giving us perfect physical health forever, and I trust His word and His will over man’s words and ideas any day.

      • gensci Says:

        1. It means killing is not wrong. By killing another person, we are freeing their souls for God.

        But God is the judge, not man. God saves us, we don’t save ourselves.

        2. If all God is interested in is souls, why create physical bodies in the first place? What exactly was God’s intention when he created the universe?

        But the soul is not ALL God is interested in. If that were true, we would never heal from any injuries. In fact, we wouldn’t ever need a body at all. God cares so much for you that he knows how many hairs are on your head!

        3. What exactly is a soul? Where does it come from, and what is its purpose?

        Good question! I don’t know exactly what a soul is, but like everything else, it comes from God, and its purpose is to glorify Him.

  21. Chris Says:

    People like you are the reason humanity is in danger of becoming extinct in the next century.

    • gensci Says:

      Actually Chris, homosexuals and atheists are the reasons human populations may decline over the next century. Statistics show that atheists have fewer kids than Christians. As for homosexuals, well, hopefully I don’t have to explain to you why they can’t produce any offspring. It takes healthy, productive people to have a good economy.

      • Gary Says:

        Atheists obviously understand the problem of over population and are more reasonable about the number of children that can be properly supported. Christians are completely irresponsible in both matters. The # of children should not be a factor at all in a the economy equation. The economy can change and adjust and does change and adjust. Problems can be fixed.

      • gensci Says:

        Gary, what you are saying is irrational. An economy requires people. A 28 year-old father with a loving wife and 3 kids is more likely to be an economic engine than a 28 year old gay man living in his parent’s basement. Show me one single business in this country that does NOT make money by selling things to people.

        More people can cause problems, but solving the problem by murdering unborn children is a solution only a coward would accept.

      • Gary Says:

        gensci, what you are saying is nuts. Think outside your little box. Why don’t you take your economic ideas to an economic forum. I’m sure you would be asked to leave in short order.
        And, who said anything about murdering unborn children. You are swinging hysterically.
        You should try to “keep it simple”, as the saying goes. You don’t have the brain-power to handle the complicated stuff.

      • gensci Says:

        Sorry Gary,
        But I’m not nuts. If you reduce the fertility rate below 2, you start having too many old people and not enough young, and the economy starts going down. Have you noticed the economy hasn’t been so great lately in America? Of course, God is bigger than economic trends, but reality is what it is.

    • gensci Says:

      Ed you’re a fool. PZ Myers was upset that HMNS took a neutral position regarding religion. TFN had posts from people calling for the death of creationists. These pre-Civil Rights levels of intolerance coming from your side of the pond are really sad. Thanks for taking the world backwards. What’s next, are y’all going to start condoning the deaths of unborn creationists, too? Oh wait, you already do that. So sad that you think you’re in the right about this. You’re not. Praying God will reform your thinking.


  22. Darwin did not have the luxury of the science & equipment developed since then (e.g. genetics, fossil record, cladistics, etc.). We have discovered several other mechanisms of evolution, like gene duplication, genetic drift, lateral gene transfer, etc.
    Darwin hasn’t been debunked, but many of the problems he couldn’t answer have been answered by scientific discovery No one knows exactly where everything came from yet. But that does not mean it is rational to automatically assume a god did it. What is known that evolution did take place and earth is billions of years old. Earth taking form seems to be pure luck. There seems to be no god who intentionally created life and everything. You may call the force that drives evolution god if it makes you happy. Religion is made up by delusional men based on an imaginary god and falsely claim to represent god

    • gensci Says:

      Sorry Timothy,
      But it is your thinking that is deluded. It is self-evident that a designed object needs a Designer. A creation requires a Creator. There is a unity yet also a diversity, continuity yet also discreetness. This is also an attribute of God, who is One, but also Many (Father, Son, Spirit). The Christian God is the only one who is one and many, and this attribute is reflected in nature. Evolution says “all is one”, where everything descends from one common ancestor. Evolution doesn’t make sense of reality though, because reality is both one and many.

  23. Reynold Hall Says:

    Huh? Are you daft? Which creationist lives are being threatened? You were the one who tried to put pressure on a museum to not host a pro-science group. You are the bully. The museum saw through you, and so do many others.

    You can quit playing the victim now…it’s over.

    If anything, it’s atheist lives who are being threatened in standing up to people like you.

    http://www.patheos.com/blogs/friendlyatheist/2012/11/15/jessica-ahlquist-and-the-struggles-young-atheists-face/

    http://freethoughtblogs.com/rodda/2013/06/03/more-christian-love-in-mrffs-email/

    And you pretend to care about the unborn? Please. You people (ex. William Lane Craig) have no problem with baby-killing so long as god orders it done, so please don’t pretend to be “pro-life”.

    • gensci Says:

      Hi Reynold,
      There is a difference between defending against bullies and being a bully. Even PZ Myers, one of the speakers at the “Answers in Science” meeting, was upset at the museum for taking a neutral stance on religion. In other words, he thought they should be anti-religion, too. But we are post-Civil Rights Movement America, not pre-Civil Rights America. We don’t protest against trivial matters such as the color of a person’s skin, or the way they interpret dinosaur history. We do stand up to bullies who want to suppress liberty.

      Yep, some Christians can be real jerks, too, but that just goes to show you that we all have sinned and fall short of God’s glory. We are all “born wicked” (Romans 3:23), we all need a Savior(Ephesians 2:8-9), and the “Christian” label doesn’t make one immune to sin.

      The problem with your last paragraph is that since you don’t believe in God, that makes you the judge instead of Him. I have no problem with baby-creating by God, and no problem with baby-killing by God. He’s in charge of body and soul, not us. But God says we shouldn’t murder, and our own scientific research shows that life begins at conception. Therefore, not only is killing an unborn baby murder, it’s anti-science.

      • Gary Says:

        Wow, what a monster you must be to say that you have no problem with baby killing.

      • gensci Says:

        Sorry you’re confused Gary, but I have a HUGE problem with baby killing. Groups like Planned Parenthood are our 21st Century Monsters.

        God, not man, is ultimately in charge of who lives and dies. It is a sin for one human to murder another human, and especially tragic when the one who is murdered is a totally defenseless unborn baby. Tell me Gary, do you condone the beheading of unborn creationists and evolutionists? Do you support liberty and justice for ALL?

      • Gary Says:

        You stated that you have “no problem with baby-killing”. This is the exact quote. I’ll repeat “no problem with baby-killing”.
        Then you come back and state that you have a “HUGE problem with baby-killing”.
        Who is confused here? I’m not the one contradicting my self. I’m not the one who appears a bit schizophrenic. We cannot move on until you adequately address the 1st monstrous quote.
        That statement should be very unsettling to everyone that has children.
        I would be afraid for my children and myself for that matter to fall asleep under the same roof with someone who would say something so repulsive.

      • gensci Says:

        Way to show your anti-intellectualism Gary, by quoting me out of context. Here’s the full context again: “I have no problem with baby-creating by God, and no problem with baby-killing by God.”

        God, not man, is sovereign over life and death. Killing a defenseless baby is murder.

        I asked you some questions. Answer them or stop commenting: Do you condone the beheading of unborn creationists and evolutionists? Do you support liberty and justice for ALL?


Comments are closed.


Follow

Get every new post delivered to your Inbox.

Join 434 other followers

%d bloggers like this: