Face Palm Sunday

FacepalmYesterday was Palm Sunday. The face palm moment came early.

Before church, I visited a place on Facebook called The Battlefield. The group consists of theists and atheists who are interested in (more or less) cordial debate.

I felt compelled to respond after one of my atheist friends asserted if Sir Isaac Newton were alive today, he would reject Young Earth Creationism and more than likely be an atheist, according to these statistics.

Several replies came to mind. Naturally, I responded with all of them.

First of all, such speculation is both silly and irrelevant. Newton has been dead almost 300 years. It’s impossible to say what he would be like today. And it seems rather foolish to assume modern science would be anywhere close to where it is today if Newton hadn’t lived and accomplished what he did, when he did. The issue of Young Earth Creationism is semantic, and especially for this argument. It can help divide Christians from each other, but does not separate theists from atheists, the more important point of contention in that forum.

Secondly, historically speaking, the polar opposite has been true in regard to the relationship between super-intellect and spiritual beliefs. Polymaths like Newton, da Vinci, and Emmanuel Swedenborg were if anything uber-religious people, and most certainly not atheists. Modern polymath Michael Guillen has three PhDs, and he’s a Christian. The appeal to modern authority falls flat because Newton was the authority of his time. If he were alive today, it would be reasonable to assume that Newton would still be an authority figure. More than likely, Newton wouldn’t follow the crowd. He would lead it.

And finally, to be fair to my atheist friend, I also mentioned that wasn’t the dumbest thing I’d heard when it came to “if so-and-so were alive today, he’d be an atheist…”

Richard Dawkins owned that dubious distinction, for having said that a person as intelligent as Jesus would not believe in God if he were alive today, raising the stakes beyond mere silly speculation to the truly ludicrous unfounded opinion.

It would seem much safer to assume that someone who claimed to be God would make that claim no matter when and where he lived. Jesus would never submit to human authority. If he wasn’t afraid of the cross, he certainly wouldn’t be afraid of one little guy like Richard Dawkins mocking him.

But Dawkins had a lot of curious things to say in this interview, for example:

A lot of people think we need religion in order to be moral. There are a lot of people who think that if you took religion away, people would start rushing around smashing shop windows and robbing and raping, things like that. No evidence of that whatever. I mean, absolutely none. So I think one important thing we’ve got to do is prise apart religion and morality. It’s absolute nonsense to say you need religion in order to be moral.

No one that I know of has suggested that atheists are inherently amoral. However, without the objective morality that can only come from God, the issue of whether there is consistency in morality from one atheist to another becomes painfully obvious.

Personally speaking, I’ve never had to waste any time wondering whether or not things like infanticide or adultery were immoral.

Both clearly violate the Ten Commandments, found in my primary source of objective morality, the Bible. But by the same token, Dawkins can’t say the same.

Dawkins can’t bring himself to say that infanticide is immoral. He even has the audacity to defend adultery, going as far as lambasting the humiliated wives being cheated upon for being jealous of their philandering spouses. I haven’t checked to see if his opinions on cuckolds are consistent.

And the problem isn’t just Dawkins. It’s troubling to know that his friend, atheist and physicist Lawrence Krauss, can’t bring himself to say that incest is always morally wrong.

In that same interview with The Guardian, Dawkins also made this very interesting comment:

Science is wonderful. Science is amazing. The fact that you could understand why you exist, who could not be turned on, who could not be excited by that? Who could ever want to live in a world where you live your life, you go to work, you go to the office, whatever it is, you go to the football match, and this goes on year after year…and then you die. And you don’t have any understanding of why you were there in the first place. That’s desiccated. That’s dry. What is not dry and desiccated, is coming into the world as it were awakening in the world, an awakening in the fullest sense of seeing the universe, seeing the stars, seeing down a microscope, seeing what’s inside every single cell, seeing what’s inside the brain and marveling at this wonderful gift of life, that we have, albeit temporarily, marveling at this gift of understanding why we exist, and rejoicing in it for as long as we do exist.

Now, anyone who has actually read The God Delusion should immediately recognize the glaring contradictions between what he wrote in his book, and the language Dawkins used in the interview. In the book, he made it very clear that as the product of natural selection, there is no real reason for our existence except “to have a good lunch” — and certainly there is no one to thank for “this wonderful gift of life.”

His bolded words above describe what atheism actually robs from a person, which is their sense of purpose. The atheist has no one to thank for the good things in life, except possibly their mother, for not having an abortion.

There’s nothing wrong with science. It’s the only method that we can effectively use to examine the potential evidence of a Creator.

However, if a creator God did not exist, our own existence would also have no rational meaning or purpose…which happens to be the exact opposite of what Mr. Dawkins said.

Science is not God. It can be respected, but not worshiped.


Mel Maguire to appear on Sean Hannity’s radio show

Be suresean_hannity to listen to Sean Hannity’s radio show later today.

My friend Mel Maguire will be speaking with Sean today, April 8th, about her excellent commentary regarding the forced resignation of Mozilla CEO Brendan Eich.

Mel represents a small but very brave minority – gay conservatives unafraid to speak against political correctness, in favor of freedom.

Be sure to listen!

It seems like Mel always has something interesting to say…

Can a Smart Person Believe in God?

guillen_michael[ Hat tip and many thanks to fellow Prince of Peace Lutheran Church member Jim Jimenez, for lending me his book.]

The title of theoretical physicist and author Michael Guillen’s book Can a Smart Person Believe in God? is actually a rhetorical question.

The author is obviously a very intelligent man as well as a professed Christian, who leaves nothing open to interpretation when he wrote: “I believe in the monotheistic God of Abraham, Isaac, and Jacob — the God of the Book. The One who created the universe.”

Furthermore, his credibility as author of this work is beyond dispute — Dr. Guillen holds a trio of PhD’s from Cornell University, in astronomy, mathematics, and physics, respectively.

Dr. Guillen also taught physics at Harvard University for eight years, and served as the ABC News science correspondent. In other words, his academic/scientist credentials are impeccable.

He explained his motives for writing it by saying:

In fact, the main reason for writing this book is not to rebut atheism (although, inevitably, I do that) but to discredit the arrogant manner in which its proponents often present and defend it — especially these days, when being cool often means coming across as sassy and self-reliant.

Probably the best word to describe Dr. Guillen (and his book) would be balanced. 

His professional experience as a teacher, his training as a scientist, and his ability to articulate useful information in a conversational, easy-to-understand style combine to create a book that is concise and very easy to read.

He elaborated further on his reasons for writing this particular book:

That’s why I’ve written this book: first, to contribute some civility to the overall debate, and second, to rebut the argument that those who believe in God are dumber than those who do not. I hear this unseemly and unfounded prejudice voiced a lot these days, mainly from secular humanists who see themselves as smart, free-thinking realists and believers in God as dim-witted, superstitious sheep.

In addition to the measure of Intelligence Quotient, or IQ, in which so many secular intellectuals take great pride, Guillen devised a test to determine one’s Spiritual Quotient, or SQ, “a measure of our ability to perceive the subtler, nonphysical aspects of reality, to solve problems and acquire conviction spiritually.”

This book was obviously his reaction to “arrogant atheism,” which he eloquently summarized with an anecdote about the audacity of a fellow Harvard physics professor to describe Nobel Prize-winning physicist Robert Millikan as a “low-brow” because of his personal religious beliefs.

The irony is delicious: a professor whose most notable accomplishment was becoming a professor at a prestigious Ivy-League school, while teaching his physics class about Millikan’s famous oil-drop experiment, insulted the memory of the man who discovered every atom has an invisible electric charge.

Dr. Guillen stressed the importance of developing what he terms our need “to see with both eyes,” what he calls stereoscopic sight. To communicate these ideas, he coined a few new terms that easily communicated some very important concepts.

For example, Intellectual Cyclops are your typical atheist, in other words, people who rely only on IQ to see the world.

At the other end of the spectrum are Spiritual Cyclops, people who consider their own intellect a stumbling block in seeking God, relying strictly on a literal interpretation of the Bible, and blind faith.

According to Guillen, the Ideal Person has stereoscopic faith, striking a perfect balance between intellect and spirituality.

At the polar opposite end of the spectrum are the “blind”, people who are neither intelligent or spiritual.

Dr. Guillen gives atheists an extremely gentle rebuke, suggesting the ideal person should substitute any potential hard feelings for atheists with compassion for these reasons…

Pity the brilliant attorney with an underdeveloped SQ, for example, whose beautiful young wife is killed in a car accident, leaving him alone to raise their infant son and agonize over the seeming cruelty and capriciousness of life. Pity the brilliant but low-SQ biologist who spends her whole life studying the human retina yet has nothing to credit for its spectacular design except the supposedly fortuitous machinations of a mindless, purposeless universe. And pity the brilliant but low-SQ doctor who has no one and nothing to thank in the face of a spontaneous cure that defies all medical explanation.

So, can a smart person believe in God?


Pornographic advertising for Orbit chewing gum

sarah_silvermanAccording to what I learned in my business classes in college, the purpose of advertising is to help a company market a product to customers, whether repeat or potential.

Some ads are designed to make a lasting impression to improve brand awareness, reminding the customer of their historic shopping preferences. Other ads are intended to simply increase sales.

The question is, what is the purpose of the new advertising campaign for Orbit chewing gum?

The William Wrigley, Jr. company has dominated the chewing gum business for more than 100 years.

Their most popular U.S. products include Altoids breath mints, Skittles and Starburst candies, Lifesavers, as well as Juicy Fruit, DoubleMint, Spearmint, and Big Red gums.

Orbit gum is yet another Wrigley brand of gum, one with a very interesting history. During World War II, every pack of Juicy Fruit, Spearmint, and other well known Wrigley brands manufactured were exported to U.S. troops fighting overseas.

The brand was discontinued in 1946, after the war had ended and the other brands returned to the American market.

In 1976, Orbit was revived as a product, introduced as a sugar-free gum sold in a few European countries. In 2001, the brand was brought back to American markets with the “Dirty Mouth” ad campaign. The first commercials featured a blonde spokeswoman and typically suggested that the reason a person needed to chew Orbit gum was to clean their mouth after they had used bad language.

They were pretty silly ads, but mostly harmless.

The one starring Snoop Dogg was actually pretty funny, especially the included “disclaimer” stating the commercial was a dramatization and that chewing Orbit gum really won’t get you into Heaven.

As if that was something we needed to be told. But now I wonder if continuing to chew Orbit gum should doom me to Hell…

The commercials gradually became more risqué over time, including this one making light of adultery by suggesting we should chew Orbit gum “for a good, clean feeling no matter what.”

Wrigley recently hired “adult” comedienne Sarah Silverman to be their new spokesperson for Orbit gum. The new ads featuring Ms. Silverman might best be described as soft porn, with the unsubtle message now being sent to customers that Orbit should be chewed after oral sex. The only way the message could have been made any more obvious would have been replacing Ms. Silverman with Monica Lewinsky. The commercials feature Silverman and a coffee cup engaging in conversation that is very sexually suggestive.

Look, I’m not a prude. But this campaign raises several issues about the intent of the William Wrigley, Jr. Company, a wholly owned subsidiary of Mars, Incorporated.

First, there is the strong sexual innuendo of the commercials themselves and the message being conveyed. There is also the choice of spokesperson to consider.

Now Sarah Silverman can be pretty funny, if her “breakup video” with Matt Damon for talk show host Jimmy Kimmel was any indication. But late night television is where her brand of humor seems most appropriate for airing.

Her standup routine can also be quite offensive, her judgment often appears questionable – she definitely crossed a line when she used an actor who pretending to be a ultra-liberal, sacrilegious version of Jesus Christ to promote her personal views on “women’s reproductive rights,” meaning abortion.

Nor was that the first time Ms. Silverman has mocked or used Christianity for personal gain. Her 2005 comedy special was titled “Jesus is Magic.”

Obviously, Ms. Silverman isn’t the least bit afraid to risk offending certain groups of people with her comedy. The question is, should gum commercials be sexually provocative and edgy? Should a company employ should a controversial spokesperson to reach a mass audience?

However, Wrigley is free to hire whomever they choose to represent their product. They are also entitled to waste good money to make tasteless advertising.

I firmly believe in freedom of speech. That goes for the Wrigley company and Mars corporation as well as the individual consumer.

If soft porn is the direction in which Wrigley wishes to take this product, that is their prerogative. It’s a shame that a product with such a historic past would be taken in such a sordid direction.

But I also believe in freedom of choice as a two-way street. We don’t have to buy a product just because Wrigley wants to sell it. Customers offended by these Orbit commercials with Sarah Silverman should communicate their displeasure to the manufacturers, but the best response would be chewing a different brand of gum.

Nothing could possibly influence an advertising campaign more than negative results, meaning decreased sales. Money talks.


Questioning Darwin

Darwin_hopeThis month HBO is airing a program that it promotes as a documentary, called Questioning Darwin

Somewhat predictably, the program paints the picture that Ken Ham and his museum for Young Earth Creationism should be considered the only viable and true alternative philosophy to Darwinism,  completely ignoring brilliant thinkers such as John Lennox, Francis Collins, Connor Cunningham, Stephen C. Meyer and Frank Turek, as well as competing ideas such as Intelligent Design and Old Earth Creationism.

The documentary dredges up the old, tired creationism versus evolution debate once more, reinforcing many of the known, misleading stereotypes and repeating the same mistaken assumptions that have pretty much been hashed to death already.

The narrator begins by claiming that Christians who insist the Bible must be accepted as the literal Word of God are creationists who consider Darwin the antichrist. This was news to me.

Based on my limited knowledge mostly gleaned from biographies of his personal life, I was sort of under the impression that Darwin was sort of a spoiled, petulant rich guy who married his cousin and never really had to work for a living.

Curiously, the documentary  described creationism as a growing branch of Christianity, as if “Creationist” was comparable to Baptist, Lutheran, and Catholic.

On the whole, the documentary depicted creationists as stubborn, ignorant and silly deniers of science, while the scientists were portrayed as calm, soft-spoken, rational people. There simply wasn’t an option offered that didn’t fit those two somewhat predictable caricatures, which don’t accurately reflect reality.

For example, Pastor Tim Schofield of Christ Community Church said that God knows “the number of hairs on my head” — which he’d shaved completely bald, making it easy even for me to determine the number of hairs on his head at that moment in time was zero.

In one brief, particularly cringe-inducing clip from an interview, Pastor Peter LaRuffa of Grace Fellowship Church said:

If somewhere in the Bible, I were to find a passage that said two plus two equaled five, I wouldn’t question what I’m reading in the Bible. I would believe it, accept it as true, and then try my best to work it out and understand it.

My initial reaction was probably similar to what I imagine a majority of atheists did after seeing the same clip — a face-palm. Really? I thought to myself.

Even with a subject as simple and basic as first grade math, you wouldn’t even question whether or not the Bible was accurate if it included a claim that you knew couldn’t possibly be true?

But then I stopped to consider Pastor LaRuffa’s comment a while longer, eventually coming to see things from a completely different perspective.

I now think I might know what he meant — after remembering how for years I assumed that the story of Abraham’s near sacrifice of his only son, Isaac, had to be allegorical. There was once a time that the story of Abraham and Isaac made absolutely no sense to me.

The problem was one that I dubbed the enigma of Abraham and Isaac, and bothered me for a long time.

Remember that prior to the near sacrifice, only a few chapters earlier in Genesis God had promised Abraham He would build an entire nation from Abraham’s offspring.

Suddenly in Genesis 22, God then somewhat arbitrarily commands Abraham to offer his son as a human sacrifice, a practice deemed “detestable” in other parts of the Bible, when performed by the followers of Baal.

My mind also failed to comprehend the fact that Abraham hadn’t even questioned the order to kill his only son. The Bible appeared to offer no explanation for what obviously seemed to be God’s capricious and grotesquely unjust cruelty.

Of course, a cruel, violent, and pernicious God did not reconcile very well in my mind with the image embodied by Jesus the Christ, revealed in the New Testament, so eventually I decided the story couldn’t literally be true.

While studying Genesis 21 one day, a new thought struck me that allowed both the story to be literally true, and that God was consistent when Abraham hadn’t been.

In my opinion, the key to solving the enigma is found in the preceding chapter, involving Abraham, a Philistine named Abimelech, and a treaty about a well at Beersheba.

So, much like Pastor LaRuffa seemed to be saying, my default decision is always to assume that whatever I’m reading in the Bible is true.

Still not too sure about that whole 2 + 2 equals 5 thing, though.

Just seemed like an unfortunate choice of words, and a really bad analogy.

Out of touch

As a general ruleGwyneth I try to avoid celebrity bashing, mostly because I don’t want to sound jealous.

Fortunately, after reading Gwyneth Paltrow’s outrageous, whining remarks complaining that “it’s much harder for [Paltrow]” than a working mother, I happened to read another article that made me realize there wasn’t much left to say.

Ms. Paltrow explained:
I think it’s different when you have an office job, because it’s routine and, you know, you can do all the stuff in the morning and then you come home in the evening. When you’re shooting a movie, they’re like, ‘We need you to go to Wisconsin for two weeks,’ and then you work 14 hours a day and that part of it is very difficult. I think to have a regular job and be a mom is not as, of course there are challenges, but it’s not like being on set.

Oh, boohoo. Cry me a river, Ms. Paltrow. Two weeks spent playing make-believe in Wisconsin constitutes a serious hardship in your mind?

Suffice it to say that no one is forcing Gwyneth to earn millions of dollars for a few weeks of “hard” work pretending  to be a real person.

But don’t just take my word for it. Check out the hilarious open letter working mom Mackenzie Dawson penned in response to Ms. Paltrow, recently published in the New York Post.

Ms. Dawson hit the proverbial nail on the head right off the bat when she began,

“Thank God I don’t make millions filming one movie per year” is what I say to myself pretty much every morning as I wait on a windy Metro-North platform, about to begin my 45-minute commute into the city.

Sarcasm practically dripped from Ms. Dawson’s words as she thoroughly skewered the prima donna actress, writing:

After I get home from work, I’m full of energy and ready to cook dinner using one of the recipes you post on your lifestyle Web site, Goop: slow-cooked kale, pancetta and bread crumbs, anyone? After that, I’ll go to yoga, spend a few hours meditating and maybe do some online shopping, picking up a pair of $350 white leopard-printed short-shorts via Goop in preparation for the “spring break” I’ll take with my husband and son.

Any potential sympathy for Ms. Paltrow in the wake of the announcement that her marriage to Coldplay lead singer Chris Martin evaporated after reading that she’s spending her Spring Break vacation on the exotic pink sand beaches of Eleuthera Island after filming a new movie with Johnny Depp.

Some people have a tough life. Ms. Paltrow isn’t one of them.

The creationism versus evolution debate

drstevemcswain[Hat tip to my good friend Hiro for sending me the link to the Beliefnet article that inspired me to write this post.]

Dr. Steve McSwain looks like a nice guy with a friendly smile, if the picture I procured from his website serves as any indication.

Professor of communications at the University of Kentucky, Dr. McSwain is promoted as a former Baptist preacher, a spiritual teacher and motivational speaker with “respect [for] all spiritual traditions” at his website.

That courtesy has apparently not been extended to certain members of his own religion, in particular Ken Hamm and those Christians who advocate Young Earth Creationism, often referred to as YEC.

To be fair, I’m not particularly keen on Mr. Hamm’s apparent position that YEC beliefs are mandatory to be considered a “true” Christian.

But Dr. McSwain doesn’t even pretend to hide his scorn and disdain for these creationists.

He writes of “religious quackery” taught in Sunday School by “misinformed Christian zealots” blithering about like “a bunch of intellectually-bankrupt nitwits.”

Dr. McSwain is so embarrassed by the very idea of creationism that he wrote,

That there are still Christians promoting Creationism is actually more unbelievable than the illogical nonsense in Creationism they wish everyone would just believe.

I am reminded of the famous plea from Rodney King who asked, “Why can’t we all just get along?”

In the spirit of full disclosure, I should mention before going any further that I believe a form of supernatural intelligence called God is directly responsible for my existence.

Therefore, I should probably be labeled a creationist.

However, I do not personally gravitate toward YEC or require the earth to be only 6,000 years old. Instead, I have developed my own unique interpretation of the evidence, something I have coined “iterative creation” and described in some detail in my book Counterargument for God.

I can accept the scientific evidence for the Big Bang and an old earth and still think the catalyst, or First Cause of the extraordinary event was when God spoke and said, “Let there be light.”

And I am no more ashamed to think that some of my fellow Christians believe the earth is only six thousand years old than I am embarrassed to think some of my fellow humans believe that they are related to chimpanzees, bonobo apes and the bananas we all like to eat, and only by simple mutations naturally occurring through the process known as sexual reproduction, simply if given enough time.

My real issue with Dr. McSwain’s essay is that evolution theory has absolutely nothing to do with creation, except that it completely depends on two separate acts of creation to have occurred before anything can evolve. To explain this, I devised something I called my “Big Picture” argument, absolutely required for any serious attempt to answer one of our existential questions.

The problem is simple: life cannot evolve until it exists.

Indeed, theologians such as Dr. Conor Cunningham and scientists such as Dr. Ken Miller advocated a blend of Darwinism and creationism called theistic evolution.

So if it floats your boat to believe as Darwin suggested, that “monkeys make men,” be my guest.

I promise not to imply that you’re an imbecile for thinking so.

Dr. McSwain erroneously titled his article “Creationism Versus Evolutionism: When Will this Debate Ever End?” in spite of the fact that evolution theory does not describe the true origin of anything.

The debate about whether evolution theory can compete with or replace creationism will never end at least not until the really intelligent people such as Dr. McSwain realize the debate he is describing is completely nonsensical, but not for his reasons.

The Big Bang is the popular name of the scientific theory attempting to explain the origin of this remarkably improbable universe, actually capable of supporting complex life forms. In other words, the Big Bang is our attempt using science to explain how the universe was created.

The evidence supporting the Big Bang theory is very strong. There is redshift, indicating the universe is still expanding, first observed by Edwin Hubble.

Additional confirmation of the Big Bang is found in something called cosmic background radiation. Robert Wilson and Arno Penzias shared the Nobel Prize in physics for their discovery.

In his article Dr. McSwain declared,

What the Genesis account is not is a historical account of the creation of the universe.

Dr. Wilson has been quoted as saying,

Certainly, if you are religious, I can’t think of a better theory of the origin of the universe to match with Genesis.

His partner Arno Penzias said,

Astronomy leads us to a unique event, a universe which was created out of nothing and delicately balanced to provide exactly the conditions required to support life. In the absence of an absurdly improbable accident, the observations of modern science seem to suggest an underlying, one might say, supernatural plan.

Physicist Sir Fred Hoyle added:

A common sense interpretation of the facts suggests that a super-intellect has monkeyed with the physics, as well as the chemistry and biology, and that there are no blind forces worth speaking about in nature. The numbers one calculates from the facts seem to me so overwhelming as to put this conclusion almost beyond question.

Life exists; about that particular fact, there should be no doubt.

However, abiogenesis doesn’t even rise to the level of scientific theory. It’s a weak hypothesis that currently offers nothing more than a feeble guess about how code as complex and elegant as DNA came to exist and became the building block for life.

The question is whether God or very improbable good luck deserves all the credit for the events that brought the basic raw materials essential for life into existence.

Curiously, in his article Dr. McSwain quoted Einstein as saying,

Whoever undertakes to set himself up as a judge of Truth and Knowledge will be shipwrecked by the laughter of the Gods.

Before launching into a future diatribe about creationism, perhaps it would behoove Dr. McSwain to learn a lesson in humility, or at least learn what creationism really means. He should know that the only alternative to creationism in some form or fashion is not evolution, but enormously improbable good luck.

The origin of life was either planned and implemented on purpose, or nothing more a happy accident.

There really isn’t a third option. And evolution had nothing to do with it.


Watchmaker fallacies

southernprose_cover_CAFGWilliam Paley’s rather famous teleological “Watchmaker” argument advocating Intelligent Design goes something like this:

[S]uppose I found a watch upon the ground, and it should be inquired how the watch happened to be in that place, I should hardly think … that, for anything I knew, the watch might have always been there. Yet why should not this answer serve for the watch as well as for [a] stone [that happened to be lying on the ground]?… For this reason, and for no other; namely, that, if the different parts had been differently shaped from what they are, if a different size from what they are, or placed after any other manner, or in any order than that in which they are placed, either no motion at all would have been carried on in the machine, or none which would have answered the use that is now served by it (Paley 1867, 1).

Okay, it goes exactly like that…so what’s the problem with the argument?

An obvious one. But Paley’s mistake was both simple, and an easy one to make. He assumed the possibility of an eternal universe, where a rock could have conceivably existed forever.

We now believe that we cannot assume the stone was always there, any more than we can assume the watch always existed.

In his defense, insufficient scientific evidence existed during his lifetime, for William Paley to assume that the universe once had a beginning and the stone could not have always been there.

However, contemporary scientific evidence called “red shift” and “cosmic background radiation” allows modern day scientists to assure us with some degree of certainty that this universe, allegedly “fine-tuned” for life, has not always existed.

There was a beginning, and no justification to assume the universe has always existed in its current state.

If the current scientific consensus is correct, the rock hasn’t always been there. But Paley didn’t know about the Big Bang theory, making his mistake an honest one.

Yet according to biologist Richard Dawkins, the real problem with Paley’s argument for Design is a counterargument that he called The Blind Watchmaker.

Mr. Dawkins wrote,

But of course any God capable of intelligently designing something as complex as DNA/protein replicating machine must have been at least as complex and organized as the machine itself. Far more so if we suppose him additionally capable of such advanced functions as listening to prayers and forgiving sins. To explain the origin of the DNA/protein machine by invoking a supernatural Designer is to explain precisely nothing, for it leaves unexplained the origin of the Designer. You have to say something like “God was always there”, and if you allow yourself that kind of lazy way out, you might as well just say “DNA was always there”, or “Life was always there”, and be done with it.

The logical fallacy committed by Mr. Dawkins is far more egregious and virtually impossible to justify, because he happens to be well aware of the Big Bang.

Surely Mr. Dawkins must know that you can’t just as well say “DNA was always there” or “Life was always there”, because there wasn’t always there.

Life, or DNA, could not have existed prior to the existence of the universe that contains it. Nor does chaos does not randomly organize itself into useful information. Not ever, that we can prove. Therefore, we should not assume it.

Elegant code and intelligent code does not write itself or spontaneously come into existence. Furthermore, life cannot evolve until it exists.

Now he’s certainly not stupid. So why is Mr. Dawkins pretending to be this dense?

Apparently in order to placate his fan base of fawning atheists, Mr. Dawkins doesn’t actually have to be clever; sounding clever is obviously sufficient to sell claptrap like that found in his book The God Delusion.

The only possible way Mr. Dawkins can maintain his charade of speaking with authority on matters existential is to deny rather clear and incontrovertible evidence that a supernatural realm probably exists.

It is also rather clear, from reading his books, that Mr. Dawkins asserts himself to be a strict materialist.

However, strong evidence of supernatural phenomena can easily be found in well-documented cases of corroborated veridical NDE events, notably found in the extraordinarily experience of Pam Reynolds, which comes complete with detailed medical records.

Therefore, Mr. Dawkins can only manage to perpetuate such a convoluted and irrational argument by demonstrating his willingness and determination to remain ignorant of any real truth.

In stark contrast, “the lazy way out” as Mr. Dawkins describes my conclusions based on the Big Picture argument found in my book Counterargument for God took more than five years of research and writing, plus a lifetime of experience, to complete.

If only Mr. Dawkins was as lazy as me, his logic wouldn’t be so easy to eviscerate.

I must go wherever the evidence leads me because I only care about one thing: the real truth, not winning a popularity contest, or winning an argument against a person who clearly and willingly limits his own intelligence.

The unbiased reader will be left to decide whether my counterargument to Mr. Dawkins’ atheism is more solidly supported by logic and scientific evidence than the best argument he has offered.

Sadly, more than likely, the biased atheist won’t read my book, even if I offer it to them for free, and the electronic copy only costs three dollars.

The body of evidence needed to see the Big Picture overwhelmingly supports a rational belief in a supernatural Creator.

Only a blind fool doesn’t see it.

Shiloh’s Accident

shiloh2_bwOur dog Shiloh might not be the sharpest tool in the shed, but we love him dearly. He’s the goofball of our pack, a giant galoot of a German Shepherd with a staggering number of genetic defects due to unscrupulous overbreeding. He looks ferocious and his bark is intimidating, but the image he projects is in stark contrast with his sweet and gentle personality.

Shiloh suffers from several physical maladies, but never acts like he’s in pain. He’s one tough cookie. We keep him as healthy as possible. We watch his weight and give him regular exercise in walks. True, not everybody would put up with his quirks and eccentric behavior. Shiloh’s powerful bark rattles the windows of our house daily at the crack of dawn, alerting us of the onset of morning traffic… especially motorcycles and school buses. He barks at cars, trucks, joggers, clouds, and butterflies — anything on the move, because he always wants to go along for the ride.

This is the other story just added to the revised Always a Next One.

Shiloh’s accident


My heart skipped a beat when I noticed the open fence gate. The exterminator had visited earlier in the day and apparently he hadn’t closed the gate well enough when he left our backyard. I rushed back inside the house to do a quick head count. I checked every corner of every room with a rising dread in the pit of my stomach.

Three of our dogs were missing.

The timing of their escape couldn’t have been worse. It was approaching the late afternoon rush hour, and we live near a busy road. I shouted for my son Matt, who happened to be home on a break between classes and work. We decided to split up and look for the dogs, each of us heading off in the opposite direction to search for our fugitives.

I jumped in the van and rolled down the windows. As I drove slowly down the street, I called out the names of our missing dogs, hoping to find them before the flood of commuters started coming home for the day. Matt took off on foot in the opposite direction, running around the block following the route we normally walked the pack.

Matt found Shiloh first. “Dad! Come quick! Shiloh’s been hit by a car. He’s hurt really bad,” he said from his cell phone.

Those are the most horrible words an animal lover can hear about any dog, but devastating when the dog in question was Shiloh. My stomach churned, but I tried to stay calm. “Where are you?” I asked.

Of all our rescued pack members, Shiloh had the most special needs. He could least afford to be involved in a serious accident. The large but goofy German Shepherd with a gentle disposition comfortably blended in with the other misfits that make up our pack. The overbreeding that is unfortunately all too common in many popular dog breeds had ruined the genetic makeup of the poor dog. His lower spine was malformed and he suffered from dysplasia in both of his hips. Although he stood taller at the shoulder than any of our dogs, his back sloped dramatically down to his hips and his loose joints gave him a shaky, swaying gait.

Matt said that he and Shiloh were in a neighbor’s car, not very far from our house, so I turned the van around. As I drove back toward home to find them, Matt began to describe Shiloh’s injuries in graphic detail. “Shiloh was hit in the face. Blood’s dripping from his mouth. And Dad — his back leg is mangled. I don’t think he can walk.”

His injuries sounded like they couldn’t be worse. Hit in the head and his back legs run over? How is Shiloh still alive? Why was anyone going that fast in the neighborhood? Why didn’t they stop to help my dog?

I braced myself for the worst. I was afraid that our lovable goofball might not recover. He might have to be euthanized. We’d always been exceptionally concerned about his frail physique — an accidental fall and broken hip would probably make it all but impossible for him ever to walk again. We had “Shiloh-proofed” our house by adding carpet runners on the wood floors, and added an extra door and a shorter flight of steps off the garage, into our backyard. The big dog might look formidable, but his body was as fragile as porcelain.

The thought of Shiloh suffering in pain made me ill, but so did the idea of ending his life prematurely. With any other of our dogs, my mind would have latched onto images of leg splints and recuperation, but Shiloh’s legs might never mend properly. If he lost the use of even one of his hind legs, how would Shiloh be able to walk or even stand on his own? He could live in constant pain from his injuries. I pushed the disturbing thoughts aside. If and when the time came, I would make whatever decision was in Shiloh’s best interest. In the meantime, the only thing that was important was getting him to the vet for examination and treatment as soon as possible.

I remembered how Shiloh had come into our lives. When I first saw him, he was living isolated in a large, fenced pen on top of a concrete slab. His owner had declared that he planned to “get rid of the dog” so he could keep another one that I had brought with me for him to adopt. Those words alone would make the prospective adoption home visit a short one. The man went on, complaining that Shiloh barked too much. I noticed an open wound on the dog’s foot and pointed it out, but his owner seemed disinterested in having the injury treated. Instead of leaving him with another dog, I convinced him to let me take Shiloh away from him.

We briefly fostered Shiloh for adoption through our local Humane Society, until the vet diagnosed the hip dysplasia. A trip to the specialists at the UGA veterinary school told us that he would need more than fifteen thousand dollars of surgery to repair all of his physical ailments, exceeding the abilities and budget of our little rescue group. My wife and I recognized that Shiloh would always have special needs, so we bought foam dog beds for his comfort, changed the flooring in our house to a friendlier surface for his hips, and accepted the fact that we had one more dog with nowhere else to go.

As I remembered how Shiloh ended up with us, I refused to think about the decisions that might be coming. My only concern was getting him to the vet, and finding our other two missing dogs. I dreaded even looking into Shiloh’s eyes, after Matt’s gruesome description. I knew that I would do everything possible to see him through the accident.

Matt lifted the big dog out of our neighbor’s car, carried him over, and gently placed him in the back of our van. Shiloh never even whimpered. The only noise Shiloh made almost sounded like a squeal of delight, as if he was excited to be going for a car ride.

“Don’t worry, I’ll find the other dogs,” said Matt. “Call me and let me know what the vet says.”

As I drove toward the animal hospital, I called to give them advance notice that I was rushing in with a dog that had been hit by a car, and needed an emergency appointment to see the vet. After I hung up I thought to myself, Shiloh sure is one tough cookie. He’s hasn’t even whimpered, and he’s got to be in serious pain.

I was astonished when Shiloh wobbled up to me from his spot in the back of the van and tried to jump into the front seat. “Shiloh, stop it! You’re gonna hurt yourself even worse. You can’t get in the front seat.” I used my free arm to block the gap between the driver and passenger seats, but he slammed into it, nearly dislocating my elbow in the process. He might be hurt, but he didn’t seem to know it. Impatiently, he pushed my arm, trying to bat it out of the way with his muzzle. “No! You can’t get up here,” I said, nearly missing the turn into the parking lot.

When I slid open the side door to the van, Shiloh jumped out as if nothing was wrong. I grabbed his collar and attached the leash, then stepped back to look at him. He didn’t show any signs of having difficulties with his back legs. In fact, there didn’t seem to be a mark on him.

Surprised and curious, I called Matt. “I found the other two dogs,” he said without preamble. “Everybody’s home, safe and sound. I didn’t have any trouble finding them, by the way. Gracie and Sasha wandered back into the yard on their own. How’s Shiloh?”

“Um…we haven’t seen the vet yet. Which leg got mangled? He seems to be walking just fine.”

“The one that’s all bloody,” Matt said with an exasperated sigh.

“Huh… he’s not bleeding,” I said. “In fact, I don’t see any blood on him, at all. It looks like maybe he bit his tongue. But it quit bleeding, if he did.”

“I don’t know what to tell you,” Matt said.

“I’ll call you back after Dr. McGruder checks him out,” I said. “We just got to his office. I’d better get him checked, just to be safe, in case he’s got internal injuries or something,” I said with a growing doubt.

Dr. McGruder checked Shiloh over thoroughly and confirmed my suspicions. “He’s a very lucky dog. He’ll be fine. Won’t even need a stitch in that tongue,” he said. Then he laughed. “He’s a big boy. Maybe the car got hurt worse than he did.”

I breathed a sigh of relief. There would be no difficult choices to make. Our lumbering clown of a dog could go back to barking at clouds and trying to catch shadows in his teeth.

Once Shiloh was safely back at the house, gnawing on a chew treat to comfort him after his traumatic experience, I went to the grocery store and bought a six-pack of beer. I took the six-pack over to my neighbor to thank him for his willingness to help both my dog and son. Not just anyone would put a strange dog into their own car and rush them to get help.

“How’s your dog?” my neighbor asked, after I introduced myself.

“Shiloh will be fine,” I said. “Apparently the car wasn’t going very fast when it hit him.”

“It wasn’t a car, it was a truck.”

What?” I was shocked.

“Yep. Actually, it was a UPS truck,” my neighbor said with an odd smile.

What?” I repeated. “I can’t believe a driver for UPS would hit my dog and just leave him lying there,” I said incredulously. “I should call their offices right now and complain,” I snapped, the unnecessary expense of the vet’s bill still fresh in my mind.

“You could, but that’s not what happened,” my neighbor laughed. “The truck didn’t hit him. He came to a complete stop, just fine. Your dog bolted into the street and ran right into that truck, face first, right into the grill. He even tried to bite the front bumper on the truck. The driver was afraid to get out of his truck. And you know they don’t have doors on those things. Old Shiloh really scared the crap out of that UPS guy.”

I felt bad for the driver, but this version of the story sounded exactly like something our affable lunkhead would do. After years of barking at delivery trucks driving past our house, Shiloh had decided to catch one for himself.

Willful ignorance

southernprose_cover_CAFG A couple of years ago, I faced the rather formidable challenge of engaging in public debate against Ed Buckner, former president of American Atheists.

Ed was very experienced in that sort of thing; it was my first and remains as of today, the only formal debate I’ve ever had in my life.

Therefore, my work was certainly cut out for me.

Fortunately for me, video existed on You Tube showing Ed present his best arguments while debating a Muslim scholar in the U.K. named Hamza Andreas Tzortzis.

So I took copious notes, seizing upon the opportunity to anticipate Ed’s best shots.

In fairness, Ed also should have been able to anticipate my best shots coming, if he’d bothered to read some of my work as the Atlanta Creationism Examiner.

In my opening remarks, I enumerated the seven points that Ed made that were the foundation his best arguments for atheism and then eviscerated them, point-by-point.

I sort of expected that once the logical flaws in Ed’s argument were systematically exposed and shredded before he’d ever opened his mouth, we would then be able to spend the remainder of our time arguing about points about the science that has now officially become the crux of my Counterargument for God.

Because I knew Ed to be quite an intelligent man, I will now confess that I was expecting the alleged “freethinker” would be a little bit more open-minded.

I foolishly assumed that Ed would be able to defend his own beliefs, rather than simply attacking what he supposed to be mine with every opportunity.Sadly, Ed disappointed me.

Also in my opening statement, I had suggested we conduct the debate without making reference to the Bible, saying we could “leave that anthology in the narthex.”

But Ed would have none of that. It turned out that his argument solely depended on attacking the Bible, which is most certainly not “God.”

I countered that the Bible should be thought of as nothing more than a useful tool, such as a hammer, and pointed out that a hammer would never be worshiped.

In reflection, I now realize why Ed was so compelled to focus his attack on Christian beliefs based on literal interpretations of the Bible and the Old Testament in particular. Ed realized if he wasn’t the offensive, his argument was quite vulnerable.

When the debate did temporarily stray into my science arguments, Ed got into some trouble by making factually incorrect statements. For example, he incorrectly exclaimed that Darwin never wrote the words, “Monkeys make men.”

It didn’t matter to him when I said that I’d just seen the Darwin exhibit at the Fernbank museum, which included a page from his notebook highlighting that exact phrase, and I was quoting it verbatim.

Ed seemed to naturally assume that I was somehow being deceptive or distorting the truth by telling it.

He wasn’t the least bit receptive to any possibility that my argument might have been formed using superior logic and constructed with more accurate information than that in his possession.

He must have assumed he would win the debate merely because I freely admit that I am a Christian.

Ed finally conceded his mistake on that one minor point, but that admission came privately, long after the debate was over.

But implying that I had somehow been deceitful wasn’t the worst part of our debate. I was more disappointed when Ed showed me a brief glimpse of his hypocritical side, admitting to his own willful ignorance. After all, he was the one who suggested that our epistemic duty was to seek knowledge and test the truth. Ironically, that had been the only one of his seven points arguing his atheist philosophy that I conceded was true.

However, when I offered Ed several examples of scientific research that he should investigate because he had made statements that conflicted with scientific evidence, he changed his tune and claimed that his real duty was only limited to topics of his personal interest.

In other words, Ed had no real interest in seeking truth. He was only there to win an argument, and I’m not even sure he accomplished that.

But if nothing else, he gave me plenty of fodder for the second half of my Counterargument.

Yet the debate against Ed was nevertheless quite instructive, and therefore well worth the time and effort I invested. I learned that one of the most prominent atheists in America was willing to admit he would not consider new ideas with an open mind, in spite of what he had claimed was his epistemic duty.

But what isn’t worth my time is having an argument on the internet with some character who calls himself “Doc Cos”, who lurks on a Facebook page called God on the Slide.

While Dr. Buckner was pleasant and quite cordial, and without question an authentic doctor, this “Doc Cos” person hides behind a pseudonym and only seems capable of personal attack.

His most frequently used descriptors of me are “idiot” or “liar”, which he invariably spews using poor grammar and misspelled words. The delicious irony of that faux pas is apparently lost on him.

The only reason this nebulous “Doc Cos” merits any mention outside of Facebook is because he accused me of willful ignorance.

This is the same man who refused to accept a free copy of my now award-winning book Counterargument for God so that his criticisms would no longer be littered with ignorant remarks.

However, if ignorance is bliss, Doc Cos is determined that he will live in ecstasy.

And then again recently, I was reading Tom Krattenmaker’s editorial piece for USA Today that asserted “Evolution is not a matter of belief” but an indisputable fact.

Krattenmaker wrote,

But here’s the problem: As settled science, evolution is not a matter of opinion, or something one chooses to believe in or not, like a religious proposition. And by often framing the matter this way, we involved in the news media, Internet debates and everyday conversation do a disservice to science, religion and our prospects for having a scientifically literate country.

Here’s a real problem with Mr. Krattenmaker’s assertion — there’s no such thing as settled science.

If science were ever “settled”, people would still be taught that the earth was flat.

Only a couple hundred years ago,the prevailing wisdom about combustion was phlogiston theory.

Within the last century, many of our smartest scientists and philosophers were convinced the universe was eternal beginning because they recognized the problems posed by the universe having an origin.

Then Edwin Hubble provided evidence of red shift, validating the Big Bang theory in the minds of an overwhelming majority of astronomers and physicists.

The consensus of opinion is now that [the universe] all started with a big bang, as the jingle for the television show of the same name suggests. Yet even today, not every physicist agrees with the Big Bang theory. There are competing theories, like the Big Crunch, and brane cosmology.

Now, I have been known to express my utter contempt for phrases such as “scientific consensus” or “peer review”, but with good reason.

Those are nothing more than buzzwords, simple phrases that censor competing opinions out from public consumption.

If you don’t believe me, read the true story of what happened to Boris Belousov.

Consensus is the death of original thought. A consensus of opinion in the scientific community may well exist about any given theory at some point in time, but there is no such thing as a theory that is immune to challenge. The challenge itself may very well fail, but the ability to challenge will always remain.

But what really irritated me the most with Mr. Krattenmaker was his assumption that my beliefs about evolution theory are borne of willful ignorance, as he insinuated in this passage:

As a progressive, I’m tempted to blame willful ignorance by those on the “other side” when I see the sharp rise in Republicans rejecting evolution, and the always-high percentage of white evangelical Protestants (64% in the Pew poll) who believe that humans were created by God in their present form; i.e. no evolution.

I would be more than happy to debate Mr. Krattenmaker about the science of evolution theory.

Because of the willful ignorance of people such as “Doc Cos”, I haven’t been able to even give away a free copy of Counterargument for God  to an atheist willing to read it, even thought it has won an award.

Alleged “freethinkers” like Mr. Krattenmaker mistakenly believe that the evidence for speciation is as conclusive as the evidence for natural selection.

But the real problem with speciation is not to think that humans and apes could be related by descent via sexual reproduction, simply given enough time. The real problem occurs after one realizes that the exact same biological processes allegedly explain the relationship of both humans and apes to the bananas we both like to eat.

People who believe in the possibility of Divine Evolution  could consider our cousin-ship to both turtles and turnips via sexual reproduction a questionable proposition at best.

And they may very well take umbrage at the suggestion that they suffer from mental defect merely for having a few doubts about how much Darwin’s theory can do about answering our existential questions.

On the other hand, antitheists such as “Doc Cos” revel in their own willful ignorance, smugly confident that their limited knowledge is somehow superior to an argument they don’t even know.

“Doc Cos” won’t even spend a couple of hours reading a book that was offered to him for free.

Sure, it’s easier to criticize what you don’t understand.

But if that isn’t a prime example of willful ignorance, what is?