Anyways, here you can find the article that I am talking about. In the opening paragraph, the editors continually put forth the blatant lie that the Kansas Board of Education (KBOE) has just approved standards that mandate teaching Intelligent Design alongside evolution. This is simply not true. The new standards, which are available here in their entirety, actually say quite the opposite. What's that? You'd like proof? Here is a quote directly from the standards:

Huh. Seems like pretty strong words against the teaching of ID in the classroom. So I point this out to the Wikipedia folks, edit it, and hours later it has been reverted, with them telling me to check the facts linked to in the article. So what do I do? I tell them to check their facts. Has any of them actually read the standards? Probably not. Does it stop them from perpetuating falsehoods in an online encyclopedia? No. My edits get changed back every few hours. I thought I would go on a crusade and make sure that the truth was told in this one little place. But, I don't have the time or the nerve to put with this kind of nonsense. Let them have their falsehoods, if it makes them feel better. The truth will win out. I'm actually more concerned about it because, as a native Kansan, I would like to see the truth be told about my home, and not some lies that make us look like a bunch of blithering "yokels."

Viva La Truth!

Now, I personally don't believe with their assertion of a young-earth (6,000 years +/- 2,000), but they are doing some interesting things there. They recently completed an eight year research project in which they tested the accuracy of the Radiometric age of the Earth. Tests performed were to standard protocol, independent labs were used, and much of it was double blind testing, meaning that ICR had no control over the testing results, and the labs had no idea what the testing was for. The results turned out to be very different than one expected. Some of the tests, such as the amount of radiogenic helium found in granite 3 miles deep, tested out to be about 6,000 years old, completely against the popular age given to these rocks. Other tests didn't turn out quite as in favor of their hypothesis, but they still reported the findings. They gathered samples from the Grand Canyon, had them tested with radiometric dating, and compared the results with for portions tested using the same method from the same sample. The result? Differing ages, up to 100-300%, from the exact same sample. Kind of makes you doubt the accuracy of the method, huh? You can read more about the studies on there website or check it out more here.(The author here is Christian, but of the Old-Earth variety. You might have to scroll down some.)

Now, I understand that these are "Creation Scientists" and we shouldn't take them seriously, right? Well, if we were like everyone else, we could just rule out their research a priori, instead of looking seriously into their methods and results. I think, at least, they have a exposed major flaw in the accuracy of the radiometric dating of rocks of the earth. Did they prove a young earth? I don't really think so. Plus, there is no rebuttal for the age of the universe from cosmology that I found on their site. But, one could always argue that God created with the appearance of age (as I am sure they would argue....)

Well, my main point in bringing this up is the fact that not everything is as set in stone as mainstream scientists want us to think. (Also noted here. )

Here's to the Truth!

There, I said it.

I get so sick of reading various websites, journals, etc. etc. that basically say that you must check religion at the door when performing science. The argument that I find is the most ridiculous? That a belief in God will impair/halt scientific progress.

Are they really serious when they say this? In undergrad, there was an article written in the student newspaper about how we should all be afraid of the ID movement because scientific research would then stop. The author didn't just imply this, he flat out said that him and his colleagues in the Biochemistry dept. would be out of jobs, as if the IDer's had their way, we would stop research and throw up our arms and say that God did it. Unbelievable. I responded to his article and, to my surprise, they published it.

The truth of the matter is, most scientists have a certain personality trait in common, that being, they all have the desire to find out how things work or how to make them work better. From a Christian perspective, why wouldn't I want to find out all that I could about how God's creation works? Why would a belief in God keep me from wanting to know how things work?

Really, they must realize how silly and irrational this line of thought is. Groundbreaking research can be done and is being done to which evolution is irrelevent. Think of all the discoveries being made daily about the innerworkings of the cell. Figuring out how it works and how we can use it to our advantage as humans is the relevent part, not whether or not it was possible for it to have evolved from something else. Think of the emerging field of Biomimetics, which is basically reverse engineering the design we see in nature and then using what we learn in the process to our advantage. We speak as if the cell was designed. Perhaps we will be able to make astounding technological leaps once we start doing research with the assumption that this design is present in life. (I believe a scientist named Scott Minnich of the University of Idaho is at least one working from a design inference.) And I'm not talking about microevolution. Obviously, this is an important and short term fact that is used repeatedly in science. Take, for instance, the Avian Flu that has everyone up in arms about. It is not proof, as some have claimed, that this why evolution is so important to science, making it sound as if a new species has formed.(It's actually a genetic recombinant of viruses) If we didn't believe in evolution, they say, we wouldn't know how to deal with it. Really? Any scientist, Christian or not, believes that there is microevolution and uses that fact to their advantage. To claim that ID or Christianity beliefs would keep one from dealing with this is really just a tactic to get people to rally against those things.

Well, my main point is this. There is no reason you can't bring your Christianity into the laboratory. Belief in God doesn't hinder your ability to do research. It doesn't stop research. I don't know any Christians who think we should quit the pursuit of science because of our belief in God. (I know there are some groups with this view...) To say that, though, is to be ignorant. As I said earlier, one doesn't need to believe that this certain species evolved from so and so species, in order to continue to move science forward. If animals are genetically similar, and so you think that a vaccine that worked on one might lead to something that would work in another, that's fine. I don't think that it naturally flows from that, that they evolved from each other. To further prove my point, you can quickly research the greatest scientists in history (pre 20th century), and find that a strong majority were either Christians or believer's in God one way or another. It didn't stop them from coming up with discoveries that drive everything that is done today.

Deadly Alliance

Oh yeah, it's actually a fake headline from Lark News. (I love this site. It's great satire of the Christian pop culture and all of the ridiculous things that sometimes go on.)

Well, the alliance didn't actually happen. I guess I'll just have to keep waiting for some real proof that everyone is out to get Christianity!!

Bush Nominates Alito

Let the Partisan Wars begin again!

And I'm not Nathan, I'm Duplicate #12, the one with a sense of humor. We drew straws, and I'm the one that has to post to the blog today. He created me in his "Duplicator" so that people would actually read his blog.

Man, I wish I had duplicates that went to school for me. I could also use a couple for studying, test taking, for the times my wife and I go out with people that I don't want to go out with, for the phone calls I don't want to take, and one to do the dishes. I HATE the dishes.

Calvin always had it figured out. It's funny, but I really did learn a lot from reading Calvin and Hobbes as I was growing up. If he wasn't travelling through space via his trusty cardboard box, changing into a T-Rex, becoming 2 dimensional, or having gravity lose it's power over him, he was locking out the baby-sitter, getting beat up by the school bully, and wrestling his stuffed tiger. I am going to have to buy the new collection . Well, at least I would if I had any money. (Feel free to make donations. I'll accept check, money order, or the spare change in your couch cushions.) I miss that little guy.