Free thinkers to protest the freedom to think?

Really? People who tout themselves as “freethoughts” activists are going to protest free thinking? Where? When? Why? How? What should I do?

Where: Outside the Texas Homeschool Coalition’s annual homeschool convention in The Woodlands.

When: August 2 & 3, 2013. The protesters (atheists) are planning an orientation meeting Thursday, Aug. 1 from 8-9 p.m at the Bayland Community Center.

Why: The freethoughts activists are protesting the freedom of Americans to trust God’s word as true in every aspect, including historically true. For some reason, they are particularly concerned about dinosaurs. They are upset with how Christians like myself interpret dinosaur history!And historical interpretation is what they are protesting, not testable, repeatable science.

The fossil record shows many things lived at the same time as extinct dinosaurs, including extant (meaning still alive) starfish and coelacanths. Apparently, the so-called freethoughts activists say we’re lying about the human-dino coexistence thing because we have yet to uncover a fossil of a human riding a dinosaur while holding a coelacanth that ate a starfish. Unless this fossil grouping is found, then atheists will claim the Bible is a book of lies and Christians who believe it are liars. Therefore, since freethoughts activists apparently never lie, and possess a perfect understanding of history, we can trust them over God’s word! And if we don’t buy into their belief that freethoughts activists are the source of historical truth instead of God, they will make laws to suppress our skepticism. Of course, I’m joking here, but are the atheists? Unfortunately, I don’t think so.

How: So how did all this come about? Well, it started when some Houston-area atheists realized that Ken Ham of Answers in Genesis would be a keynote speaker at the THSC Convention. Because Mr. Ham trusts the authority of Scripture, he trusts the Bible’s account of history over other versions that attempt to insert evolution and millions of years to the story. Mr. Ham blogged about the atheists intolerance to Christianity, as well as their unprofessional debate challenge.

What should I do?: First, pray! Then, do! Pray that if the protest actually happens at all, that it will be peaceful. Pray that all Christians (including you!) will make an effort to show the love of Christ to the atheist protestors, and engage them in thoughtful discussion. And bring your friends who may be considering homeschooling, too!

Pray for opportunities to kindly show atheists the folly in their reasoning about so many things. Using reason, the law of non-contradiction (a law of logic created for us by God) states that you cannot be “A” and “not-A” at the same time. You cannot promote yourself as a “freethoughts activist” or a “skeptic” while at the same time protesting someone else’s right to think freely and be skeptical about the way you think yourself. You can’t be “pro-freethoughts” AND “anti-freethoughts”, “for skepticism” AND “against skepticism”, “pro-science” AND “anti-science”. Only an unreasonable fool would think they could.

Pray for opportunities to show atheists that their protest is not about scientific things, but about historic things. Christians are not anti-science. In fact, click here and watch how to start a Christian homeschool science co-op. Or click here to learn more about my company and our goal to encourage homeschoolers to finish calculus in high school, and add a few science and math CLEP and AP exams to the transcript along the way. Our goal is to raise the standard in math and science education, not lower it to government school levels or worse.

Pray for ways to show the atheists that they cannot be pro-science and anti-science at the same time. Science confirms human life begins at conception. Therefore, in order to protect all human life, we need to protect all babies in the womb, from the moment of conception onward. Anything less is murder. To defend the right to murder a baby in the womb is anti-science and just plain wrong.

Also, in the 21st century, high school and college biology textbooks are becoming bloated monsters. Something has to go to make room for teaching 21st Century advances in biology, including epigenetics and bioinformatics. Many chapters have way too many pages devoted to speculative historical claims about origins, dogmatically asserting only one interpretation (evolutionism). A pro-science person would want to reduce or remove the history to make room for 21st Century science. An anti-science person would reject the 21st Century science in favor of page after page about origins. Ask the atheist which they would choose to include in an already oversized biology textbook, new science or history? If they would rather keep the history, then they are anti-science, which contradicts their claims of being pro-science.

A great analogy I read recently said “To use science to promote atheism is like using a man’s child to prove he does not exist.” Only a fool would say Christians are anti-science. One of God’s first commands to Christians in Genesis 1:26-28 was to think scientifically. Do we have different interpretations of history than atheists? For the most part, yes. But even Christians don’t all have identical interpretations of history, and neither do non-Christians for that matter. Natural history research is not the same thing as scientific research, and not discerning these two is what generates most of the anti-creationism hysteria.  Francis Bacon, the founder of the scientific method and a young-earth creationist, warned us to be careful about muddling the two. The way we each interpret history is something to discuss, not protest. 

Finally, pray for repentence! God changes hearts, and He can change the heart of the most hardened anti-Christian activist. Remember what He did with Paul, a man who was wise in his own eyes until God opened his eyes and allowed him to see the true Source of everything, including reason. Simple logic reveals you cannot claim to be a freethinker, while at the same time protest the rights of thousands of Christian parents to freely consider the best educational options for each of their children. Pray that God will use the THSC convention to remove the blinders from many.

Explore posts in the same categories: Creation/Evolution

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

Both comments and pings are currently closed.

37 Comments on “Free thinkers to protest the freedom to think?”

  1. Red Mann Says:

    “They are upset with how Christians like myself interpret dinosaur history!And historical interpretation is what they are protesting, not testable, repeatable science.”
    No they are not upset, they are against people like you that deny reality and rely on unsubstantiated myths to spread falsehoods, especially to children. You are following Ken Ham’s egregious distortions of what science is and how it works to support your unsupportable beliefs. The blinders, I’m afraid, are on your eyes.

    • gensci Says:

      Hi Red Mann,
      Sorry, no blinders here! The reality is that every single one of us has access to the same set of historical evidence, but we have different interpretations of that evidence. Conclusions about natural history are things to discuss, not protest!

      Why can’t we discuss differences in historical interpretations? Why do “they” have to be against “us”? What’s wrong with tolerating each others beliefs about historic things so that we can spend more time on scientific things? Would you agree that would be a better use of time?

      • rubedo Says:

        “Why can’t we discuss differences in historical interpretations?”

        Quite simple, because one interpretation (the “evolutionist” one) employs ALL evidence available to reach and support it’s conclusions, whereas all the different flavors of creationist conclusions must by necessity deny, distort and misinterpret pieces of evidence to various degrees in order to sustain their preconceived conclusions (yet another difference between real science and creationism).

        Hell, even if creationism were to be proven correct, you still make the unsupported leap from “an intelligent, willful agent created life and/or the universe” to “praise (my favored version of) Jesus”, which in itself shows just how underhanded and deceitful the whole creationist premise is.
        You are not doing science nor having “differences in historical interpretation”, you’re taking your religion and dressing it up in the coat of science, and that’s why it’s and issue of us vs. you.

      • gensci Says:

        Howdy Rubedo,
        Regarding the unrecorded past, we all have the same set of evidence, correct? What evidence do you have that I don’t have, or vice-versa? Is it okay for me to be skeptical of your version of natural history? What if I see evidence from nature that supports Scripture, and vice versa, and write about it? Is that okay with you?

      • drksky Says:

        If you have to ask those questions, then you clear do not understand the historical data.

      • gensci Says:

        Howdy drksky,
        I guess you meant “clearly”, not “clear”. Historical data requires interpretation, correct? The interpretive framework is based on certain presuppositions (assumptions), correct?

      • Thomas M. Says:

        “The reality is that every single one of us has access to the same set of historical evidence”

        Sure, but not everyone is equally qualified to interpret that information. Yeah, I know that statement will seem terribly elitist, but it’s nevertheless true. Believe it or not, someone who has spent decades researching and studying a subject is generally going to be better able to interpret and draw conclusions relating to that subject than someone who maybe watched a video or listened to someone lecture about it once.

        When you consult those who are actually experts in Biology (and other related fields,) you’ll find that there really isn’t much controversy about this issue. Yeah, there’s debate over certain details, and ideas are constantly being refined as we discover new things – but this whole “why can’t we talk about it” thing is a massive red herring.

        Creationism has been talked about and discussed extensively – and it has come up wanting. It’s not that there’s some cabal of evil atheist scientists who can’t stand the thought of it being discussed – it’s that it has been discussed, and it’s been rather thoroughly shown that creationism isn’t science. This isn’t a matter of “differing historical interpretations” – it’s a matter of truth vs untruth. Anyone who believes that creationism is based on a knowledgeable, legitimate interpretation of the available evidence does not understand science. For that matter, anyone who thinks that evolution isn’t testable or that a “belief” in it is merely a matter of “historical interpretation” doesn’t understand science. (For the record, I am not an atheist and I do believe in a creator. I’ve also studied this issue extensively enough to know that evolution is by far the most plausible explanation for how things came to be – any other explanation features far too many contradictions, ignores or misinterprets far too much evidence, and makes far too many leaps in logic.)

        The fact that some people believe in creationism is irrelevant – there are a lot of different people who believe in a lot of different things, many of them demonstrably false. People are, of course, free to believe whatever they like – but if we start using “someone believes in it” as the criteria for what we teach, students will never have time to actually learn science.

        And, for the record, an understanding of the process of evolution is absolutely essential to an understanding of all those “modern aspects” of science you speak about. Evolution is the foundation of modern biology – without understanding the process of evolution, no student can hope to succeed in the field. Biology is already an incredibly complex field – adding creationism to the curriculum would serve no useful purpose, and it would detract from their already limited class time.

      • gensci Says:

        Hi Thomas,
        Thank you for agreeing that everyone has the same set of historical evidence, what a refreshing breath of reason! I also agree that folks aren’t equally qualified to interpret it, and that’s not elitist, that’s just how it is.

        Regarding historical interpretations, I think you make it way too complex. You interpret as “common descent”, I interpret as “uncommon descent”. 21st Century science proves there are limits to genetic change, correct? I take that as evidence of uncommon descent. There is no testable, repeatable science that has been done to turn a bacteria into a biology teacher. What you refer to though as “testable” evolution, I refer to as “adaptation”. So, until someone comes up with testable, repeatable science on bacteria – to – biology teacher evolution, do you mind if I remain skeptical of that historical interpretation?

        You are right, adding creationism would detract from classtime in a government school, but so does untested bacteria-to-biology teacher evolution. Limit that discussion to 1 page, with some honest discussion of the limitations of science to test the unobservable past, and a paragraph on common vs. uncommon descent. This would make room for more of the 21st Century science topics such as epigenetics, proteomics, bioinformatics, etc. We should also spend more time teaching kids to be naturalists, so that they will be more interested in creation and as a result, more likely to take good care of it. We need to spend less time naval-gazing about origins, and more time learning about what’s out there, how it works, and how we can use it for the glory of God and benefit of others. But, that may not be for government schools to do, which is why we homeschool.

  2. Matt G Says:

    This is about intellectual honesty. Will you follow the evidence wherever it leads, or will you always steer it towards a conclusion that matches your religious beliefs? As soon as you start trying to match outcomes with the bible (or any other religious text), your exploration is no longer free. You are now rationalizing, not reasoning, and not thinking critically. You have now made the evidence subordinate to your beliefs, and you have stopped doing science. In science, we start with the evidence and derive our conclusions; we don’t start with our conclusions and then pick and choose the evidence that gives us the answer we want.

    A quick question for the YECs: according to Genesis, did God create a) humans before other animals; b) other animals before humans; c) both a and b; or d) both at the same time?

    • gensci Says:

      Hi Matt,
      Intellectual honesty should be a given for everyone. Regarding natural history research, ALL researchers build models to help them understand past events, and ALL of those models come with some presuppositions (assumptions). I assume biblical history is true, and I look for patterns in nature that match it, and I find them everywhere. There are reasons to believe the earth is old, and reasons to believe the earth is young. I am more skeptical of the old earth reasons. Is that okay with you that I’m skeptical?

      • Matt G Says:

        WHY do you assume biblical history is true? Based on what evidence? Corroborated by what other historical evidence? Supported by what archeological evidence? How do you reconcile contradictory accounts in the Bible (how do you answer the question at the end of my first post?)? Why do you assume biblical history is true, and not that of another religious tradition? You are not remotely skeptical if you assume the Bible (or any other religious text) is true. Scientists rely on NO religious (or any other) texts, but ONLY the evidence found in nature. That is what distinguishes science from pseudoscience. Scientists reason from evidence, while pseudoscientists manipulate evidence to allow them to reach predetermined conclusions. OF COURSE you find patterns in nature which match your beliefs – you’re looking for them and ignoring anything which might contradict them. You’re rigging the game to give the result you want. That isn’t intellectual honesty, and it isn’t science.

      • gensci Says:

        Hi Matt,
        You’re not the judge here, so I don’t need to give you any evidence. If you want evidence, you are more than capable to go find it. Also the founder of the scientifc method relied on Scripture, the Father of Oceanography (Matthew Maury) relied on Scripture, and pretty much every other Christian scientist relies on Scripture. Genesis 1:26-28 gives us the command to “do science”. In these verses, God also explains that we were created in His image, which means we are designed to be super-creative too. Teaching a child that they are designed to be creative just like the One who made the salmon, the butterfly, and the Universe itself, is a HUGE catalyst for individual creativity. Creativity of God is the foundation of a Christian education, and following His creative abilities will result in liberating children to be super-creative, too. It is the essence of a truly liberating education for a child, not the “creationist child abuse” trash being propagated by atheist bullies.

        Regarding finding patterns which match my beliefs about history, that is really not very difficult to do. The pattern is there, lot’s of work has already been done to interpret it. I just say the majority of earth’s crustal features have been formed by high-energy, short term events. Used to be secular geologists said no features were formed that way (uniformitarianism). Now they say some features were formed catastrophically (actualism). Secular and biblical interpretations of history have more in common now than at any time since Lyell.

  3. sillydaddy6 Says:

    Yes, but all presuppositions are not created equal.

  4. gensci, religious lies and liars are well documented on numerous websites. please state your point.

    • gensci Says:

      Hi David, have you ever told a lie?

      • DaveG Says:

        Other posters have given you excellent reasons to accept evolution. You choose to reject certain facts that don’t fit your worldview, facts that are thoroughly settled in science. Freethinkers typically think that teaching unsupportable “science” to children is abusive (my word). What’s demonstrably illegal in public schools seems to be legal at home.

      • gensci Says:

        Hi Dave,
        Laws change. And you could stand to discern better between scientific research and natural history research. If you want to talk about facts, let’s talk about the fact that 21st Century science brings us the fact that there are limits to genetic change. That is just one of many testable, repeatable scientific facts that make me skeptical about common descent. Is that okay if I’m skeptical about common descent? Can I be skeptical of claims that I am supposed to “accept” billions of years of evolution, as if we in the 21st Century have perfectly figured out all that history?

      • DaveG Says:

        Please give us your alternative hypothesis with evidence.

        You sound like a parrot.

      • gensci Says:

        I don’t need to “give” you any evidence. We all have the same set of evidence.

      • DaveG Says:

        BTW I commend you for posting these dissenting views. Some famous YECs won’t do that.

      • gensci Says:

        Thanks, as long as people keep it clean, I don’t mind, especially because it just shows where the “battle” is. It’s not about testable, repeatable science, it’s about how to interpret the past. We should discuss that, not protest it.

  5. Iain Says:

    You, sir, are what we like to call where I come from, a fooking eejit.

    • gensci Says:

      Lain, thank you for the hateful comment, you’re proving my point yet again regarding religious intolerance. In the future, try to be more tolerant of folks who think and look differently than you.

    • DaveG Says:

      True perhaps but ad hominem isn’t cool.

      • gensci Says:

        What isn’t cool is being intolerant of other people’s religious views!

      • DaveG Says:

        Evidence supports Common Descent. If you refute CD, provide the evidence against it and give us your theory and evidence. Or admit you can’t.

      • gensci Says:

        You interpret the evidence as supportive of Common Descent. I’m skeptical of your claim. Is that okay with you? 21st Century Science shows there are limits to genetic change. Scripture and nature both point to Uncommon Descent.

      • Then we’ll have to agree to disagree.

      • gensci Says:

        Ahh, a voice of reason in this sea of irrational comments! Yes, we certainly can agree to disagree. We can also keep on discussing things, too. Drop me a line if you ever have more questions.

  6. Richard Harris Says:

    Dr David,

    Here’s a poem, on religion or woo,
    for superstitious folk, like you.

    • gensci Says:

      Dear Richard,
      No superstition going on here. You can take your intolerance elsewhere.

  7. Mewslie Says:

    As a bioinformaticist, I would like to protest against your driving away prospective bioinformaticists from learning evolution. It’s an integral part of much of our work in phylogenetics, population genetics, epidemiology and the like. We really need more good researchers in our field to do all the modelled and Bayesian inferencing and estimating. You shouldn’t do a sequence alignment if you don’t understand why you’re using the substitution matrix you’re using. You shouldn’t be a bioinformaticist if you don’t understand the basic processes you are estimating or modelling.

    • gensci Says:

      Hi Mewslie,
      Hey, no need to protest here, how about we just discuss this instead? That is really awesome that you’re a bioinformaticist! I have no doubts that epidemiology, pop. gen, and phylogenetics can all see progress without assuming common ancestry from bacteria to biology teachers.

  8. gensci Says:

    Howdy Witty,
    Lots of Texas children suffer a severe deficiency in the sciences because mathematics is dumbed down. Mathematics is the language of science. Take a look at pretty much any college in the nation. The number one remedial course is mathematics. Math is dumbed down in government schools. If you want to make a difference, be a math teacher, not an anti-religious dino protester. Be happy that the creativity of God is the foundation of Christian education. God created all of us in His image, which means he designed us to be super-creative, too. When a child understands that, it is a huge intellectual and moral boost for them, and they want to discover more out about what He made, and that requires a solid foundation in the study of His word and His works. Believe it, or not.

  9. […] Dr. David Shormann (the “Dr.” must be his first name, he sure flings the title about), who has apparently been a […]

Comments are closed.

%d bloggers like this: