If queried for their opinion about the authenticity of the Shroud of Turin, probably 9 out of every 10 people would essentially say the same thing -- carbon testing performed in 1988 clearly proved that the religious artifact was nothing more than a brilliantly conceived fraud. I can't say that I find fault with the Shroud's critics, because I've seen the same evidence. After all, test results obtained by careful application of the scientific method are really tough to dispute. And the 1988 tests seemed to prove beyond any reasonable doubt that the Shroud was a forgery. Even as stubborn as I can be when it comes to accepting "facts" when other people have told them to me, I must concede that when multiple independent tests have reached the same conclusion, it is almost always because they invariably have gotten the correct answers. It should be noted that the key word in the sentence above is "almost." As part of the Shroud of Turin Research Project (STURP) three different laboratories in Zurich, Oxford, and Tucson performed independent carbon dating tests. They all concluded the alleged fake shroud was supposedly manufactured sometime between 1290 and 1360 AD, ostensibly for no other reason than to fool a lot of people and legitimize belief in the crucifixion and resurrection of Jesus. Interestingly, the STURP experiments produced a puzzling mix of results. Tests and analysis eliminated any possibility the image on the fabric had been painted. One test indicated that a copious amount of human blood had saturated the fabric after oozing from the gruesome … [Read more...]
Atheism and life after death
Why are atheists so adamantly opposed to the idea that consciousness could possibly survive physical death of the human brain? For several years now, I've conducted personal research mostly to satisfy my own curiosity about what might happen when we die. I've read dozens, if not hundreds of articles describing various scientific studies of the near death experience to learn what doctors and scientists think they have discovered about this phenomena. I've personally interviewed people making NDE claims. I seen enough and read enough to believe that the mind and brain separate at death. The spiritual mind survives; the physical brain does not. Dr. Bruce Greyson established what is now called the Greyson NDE scale of 16 specific attributes many alleged NDE claims share in common. These attributes include seeing a bright light at the end of a tunnel, reuniting with dead relatives, the sensation of leaving their physical body, etc. My atheist friends have vehemently argued that these events are hallucinogenic in nature, originating from chemicals produced by the dying brain to make the transition to death more pleasant and less traumatic. However, the typical atheist's arguments are fatally flawed, for two reasons. First of all, not every NDE is a pleasant or euphoric experience. Some are quite terrifying. After learning about his experience from the television program I Survived: Beyond and Back, the reason I sought to interview Matthew Botsford in particular was because he was by every account an innocent bystander accidentally gunned down in a drive-by shooting … [Read more...]
The Big Bang by C. W. Bobbitt
When he noted parallels between his independent research and my musing on the Big Bang theory in my book Counterargument for God, Professor C. W. Bobbitt was kind enough to share his thoughts on that same subject. This post is overdue -- it really should have been published along with his writings on the origin of the universe published on this web page last month. Professor Bobbitt has also offered a unique perspective on Darwin and evolution theory that I will post that article in the near future, as soon as I locate the email that I accidentally filed in the wrong folder. HOW THE UNIVERSE BEGAN: THE BIG BANG The realm of existence contains everything that has being, everything that is. This includes “nothing”, which is the absence of something. This is said to set the stage for our understanding of how something can come from nothing; that is, how the universe could come to be. At some point in existence, “nothing” spontaneously separated into two somethings---two universes, mirror images of each other, each with its own space and time. Since we presently live in a universe which contains matter, let us choose one of these universes to be ours, and let the other universe be one of anti-matter so that the net change of matter due to this event is zero. This has the advantage of satisfying in a measure our innate sense of scientific correctness. We can focus on our universe and forget the other one, which is now in its own space-time .somewhere in existence. The appearance of our universe in existence was instantaneous: there was nothing, then there was … [Read more...]
Oliver the humanzee, and The Origin of Species
The last thing on earth I want to do is create the impression that I'm obstinate, but I'm afraid that's may be my only choice -- unless I choose to go quietly into that good night, pretending that my curiosity has been completely sated, when in fact it hasn't. I almost wish I could fake it. But that will never be my style, I'm afraid. Long before I began writing Rocky Leonard detective novels, I admired the tenacity of fictional police detective Lieutenant Frank Columbo. I guess his stubborn refusal to never admit a problem might have stumped him rubbed off on me. Also, I graduated from the University of Georgia, which makes me a Bulldog -- creatures notorious for refusing to quit. Apparently, it's in my genes and chromosomes. Once I began writing detective novels, I realized I had to train my own mind to think like a detective. I had to learn to apply deductive reasoning in situations where I'm evaluating potential evidence. I'm afraid my reticence to simply believe and accept everything I'm told comes quite naturally to me, even when the information is coming from an authority figure. Trust, but verify. Those are words to live by. When I have questions I feel compelled to ask them, even if they don't get answered...because if I never ask my questions, no one even knows that I'm legitimately seeking answers. Of course, my stubbornness in refusing to believe something until I can understand it sometimes creates an impression that I'm unable, or unwilling to learn, and occasionally I alienate an acquaintance, sometimes even a friend. I have no desire to … [Read more...]
Reply from Dr. Ken Miller
Dr. Ken Miller of Brown University graciously took the time to respond to my onen letter that was addressed to him and Dr. Francis Collins. He has given me permission to publish his reply in full. I will not be making any editorial comments or raising additional questions at this time. I only wish to add my sincere gratitude to Dr. Miller for his kindness and the sincerity with which he answered my questions. I did take the liberty of highlighting excerpts from my original letter in bolded italics to make it easier to distinguish my questions from Dr. Miller's answers. Trust me, my questions are not more important than Dr. Miller's answers. That is not an impression I'm trying to create. Highlighting was added solely for purpose of improved readability. Without any further ado, it is my distinct pleasure and an honor to present Dr. Miller's unexpurgated, detailed reply: May 26, 2015 Dear Mr. Leonard, I don’t know if Dr. Collins will find the time, in the midst of his public duties, to respond to your open letter. But I do have a few minutes right now, after submitting all of my grades for the semester and having finished my last set of recommendation letters, to respond to your inquiries. One thing that you and Professor Miller seem to share in common with Professor Coyne is your apparent belief in the infallibility of evolution theory, and that descent is the only viable explanation for the origin of species. I cannot speak for either Coyne or Collins, but I suspect they would answer this statement the same … [Read more...]
