The Backyard Professor

Scientific Creationism is Anything but "Scientific"

What actually caught my attention about the serious problem of Scientific Creationism was an essay by Stephen Jay Gould, in his book "Hen's Teeth and Horse's Toes," W. W. Norton, 1983: chapter 19. He discussed what science is and isn't, and in the process found that Duane Gish of Scientific Creation fame was completely clueless. It is amusing, sad, startling, and seriously educational about the problems with Scientific Creationism, and it's latest evolved outpost, Intelligent Design. Comments in [ ] s - brackets, are mine, not Gould's.

"'Scientific creationism' is a self-contradictory, nonsense phrase precisely because it cannot be falsified. I can envision observations and experiments that would disprove any evolutionary theory I know, but I cannot imagine what potential data could lead creationists to abandon their beliefs. Unbeatable systems are dogma, not science. Lest I seem harsh or rhetorical, I quote creationism's leading intellectual, Duane Gish, Ph.D., from his recent (1978) book, "Evolution? The Fossil Say No!" "By creation we mean the bringing into being by a supernatural Creator [for ID, say "Intelligent Designer" here]  of the basic kinds of plants and animals by the process of sudden, or fiat, creation. We do not know how the Creator [Intelligent Designer] created [designed], what processes He used, for he used processes which are not now operating anywhere in the natural universe {Gish's Italics}. This is why we refer to creation as special creation. We cannot discover by scientific investigations anything about the creative processes being used by the Creator." [Now Gould's absolutely devistating question] - "Pray tell, Dr. Gish, in the light of your last sentence, what then is 'scientific' creationism?" (p. 256 - 257)

In the various court battles of Intelligent Design advocates over the last couple decades, it has been no less proven that they are simply warmed over re-runs of the Scientific creationism of the 1970's. They are every bit as disingenuous and dishonest about their approach, their definitions about *who* the Intelligent designer is (we now have their "insider" documents which proves they think it is the Judeo-Christian God Jesus Christ, and they *HAVE* to hide that, otherwise their case IS religious, and they will lose in court, well, guess what? They lost in court, the documents were found). The dishonesty of the ID approach being obviously religious, though couching their comments to sound very scientific and objective, and whatever else they wish to present themselves as, in trying to say theirs is a scientific alternative to evolution is pure hypocrisy. They say evolution = atheist [guffaws!], and that religion of God is what produces good morality, yet they lie and cheat and deliberately deceive in order to get their way. Their "lying for God" is as amoral as atheism, even though they pretend to cringe at evolution. I have sad and bad, and yet fabulous news for us all. evolution does not necessarily lead one to be an atheist, Richard Dawkins idiotic polemics to the contrary. I believe evolution has occurred and is occurring, and yet I am a Christian-Mormon.

Intelligent Design is Not Science

I believe there are serious misperceptions about evolution. They are sometimes bordering on the ridiculous, not to mention the wars against science by the Intelligent Design (cited as ID hereafter) advocates. Straight up, they are being dishonest about trying to present their materials as science. It isn’t. It is religion. There is nothing wrong with that, but there is something wrong when they try to redefine science for their own religious purposes.  It is blatantly wrong for them to try and force their religious views into the classroom as science, and force politicians to define science. This isn’t a political decision as to rightness and wrongness of science and its definitions. It is about discovering the *natural world* through natural means. The spiritual world has its guide for discovering spiritual insights and knowledge. It is dishonest any other way, especially when trying to force its way into something it is not. That is what I am against.

Ken Ham, the Executive Director of “Answers in Genesis,” says “Evolution was promoted as science, but it is not science – it is a belief system about the past.” (as found in Brian J. Alters and Sandra M. Alters, “Defending Evolution: A Guide to the creation/evolution controversy,” Jones and Bartlett Company, 2001: 37). This is simply wrong. It is wrong headed to try to force evolution into being a religion as much as trying to make ID religion into a science. I am opposed to ID trying to force its way into our education system *as* science, when it is nothing but warmed over creationism from the 1970’s. ID is creationism dressed up in a cheap tuxedo, as one scientist has said. I am going to explore this fascinating issue as I have time, both here on my blog, and in my You Tube videos. It is time to get the issue straight.

545 People & Our Country

Charley Reese has been a journalist for 49 years.

 

545 PEOPLE

By Charlie Reese

Politicians are the only people in the world who create problems and then campaign against them.

Have you ever wondered why, if both the Democrats and the Republicans are against deficits, WHY do we have deficits?

Have you ever wondered why, if all the politicians are against inflation and high taxes, WHY do we have inflation and high taxes?

You and I don't propose a federal budget. The president does.

You and I don't have the Constitutional authority to vote on appropriations. The House of Representatives does.

You and I don't write the tax code, Congress does.

You and I don't set fiscal policy, Congress does.

You and I don't control monetary policy, the Federal Reserve Bank does.

One hundred senators, 435 congressmen, one president, and nine Supreme Court justices, 545 human beings out of the 300 million are directly, legally, morally, and individually responsible for the domestic problems that plague this country. I excluded the members of the Federal Reserve Board because that problem was created by the Congress. In 1913, Congress delegated its Constitutional duty to provide a sound currency to a federally chartered, but private, central bank. I excluded all the special interests and lobbyists for a sound reason. They have no legal authority. They have no ability to coerce a senator, a congressman, or a president to do one cotton-picking thing. I don't care if they offer a politician $1 million dollars in cash. The politician has the power to accept or reject it. No matter what the lobbyist promises, it is the legislator's responsibility to determine how he votes.

Those 545 human beings spend much of their energy convincing you that what they did is not their fault. They cooperate in this common con regardless of party.

What separates a politician from a normal human being is an excessive amount of gall. No normal human being would have the gall of a Speaker, who stood up and criticized the President for creating deficits. The president can only propose a budget. He cannot force the Congress to accept it. The Constitution, which is the supreme law of the land, gives sole responsibility to the House of Representatives for originating and approving appropriations and taxes.

Who is the speaker of the House? Nancy Pellocci. She is the leader of the majority party. She and fellow House members, not the president, can approve any budget they want. If the president vetoes it, they can pass it over his veto if they agree to.

It seems inconceivable to me that a nation of 300 million cannot replace 545 people who stand convicted -- by present facts -- of incompetence and irresponsibility. I can't think of a single domestic problem that is not traceable directly to those 545 people. When you fully grasp the plain truth that 545 people exercise the power of the federal government, then it must follow that what exists is what they want to exist.

If the tax code is unfair, it's because they want it unfair.

If the budget is in the red, it's because they want it in the red.

If the Army & Marines are in IRAQ, it's because they want them in IRAQ.

If they do not receive social security but are on an elite retirement plan not available to the people, it's because they want it that way.

There are no insoluble government problems.

Do not let these 545 people shift the blame to bureaucrats, whom they hire and whose jobs they can abolish; to lobbyists, whose gifts and advice they can reject; to regulators, to whom they give the power to regulate and from whom they can take this power. Above all, do not let them con you into the belief that there exists disembodied mystical forces like "the economy," "inflation," or "politics" that prevent them from doing what they take an oath to do.

Those 545 people, and they alone, are responsible.

They, and they alone, have the power.

They, and they alone, should be held accountable by the people who are their bosses.

Provided the voters have the gumption to manage their own employees.

We should vote all of them out of office and clean up their mess!

 

Charlie Reese is a former columnist of the Orlando Sentinel Newspaper.

What you do with this article now that you have read it is up to you though you appear to have several choices.

1.  You can send this to everyone in your address book, and hope "they" do something about it.

2.  You can agree to "vote against" everyone that is currently in office, knowing that the process will take several years.

3.  You can decide to "run for office" yourself and agree to do the job properly.

4.  Lastly, you can sit back and do nothing, or re-elect the current bunch.

Michael S. Heiser's Council of the Gods

Here is a small ditty from one of my favorite Biblical scholars Michael S. Heiser. I just received his Ph.d Dissertation on the Council of the Gods, and it is magnificent!

To this point we’ve learned that even before the very beginning of creation God was not alone. There was a second, uncreated person with him, who shared his own essence and was an independent, but not autonomous, being. As Christians we are familiar with this second person by such terms as "the Son," and we believe that this second "deity person" became incarnated as Jesus of Nazareth. In the Old Testament, "the Son" is manifest physically and visually, but is referred to by other names, such as Wisdom and the Word. There are several other names taken by "the Son" in the Old Testament, and we’ll get to them. For now, though, we need to look at the other members of God’s family and their relationship to "the Son."

I put "the Son" in quotation marks and used capitalization in the above paragraph to draw your attention. God’s co-ruler and co-creator, the second deity person we think of as "the Son" since we are living after the incarnation, crucifixion, and resurrection of that person, is qualitatively different than God’s other sons. That will be made clear as we progress. And if you just asked yourself, "what other sons?" you’re tracking—and you wouldn’t be alone. God’s other sons are the focus of this chapter and the next. What we’ll discuss here and in the next chapter is one of the most neglected, misunderstood, side-stepped—and critical—doctrinal areas in the Old Testament. In fact, it is the backdrop for most of New Testament theology.

I don’t make that last assertion lightly. I’m not saying that without an understanding of this issue you can’t comprehend the Bible. I’m saying that without it you can’t comprehend it precisely or fully, or even well. You will inevitably miss out on the context for much of what goes on in the New Testament, a context understood and utilized by the apostles at every turn. Remember back in the introduction when I talked about how the church has been missing the ancient context for its theology for millennia? How we’ve lost the ancient Israelite and first century lenses for understanding what’s going on in the Bible? Well, if the first two chapters haven’t demonstrated that for you, the next few will. Read prayerfully and closely, because you’ll never look at your Bible the same way again once you meet God’s original heavenly family—the sons of God.

Here is his website. Read it! He is very informative.

http://www.thedivinecouncil.com/

Do LDS Scholars Shy Away from Book of Mormon Research with *Real* Scholars?

I have been told, and have read here on the Internet, that LDS scholars are either afraid to share their Book of Mormon research with Biblical scholars, and otherwise "real" scholars, who would shred their arguments to tatters. This paper by Hebraist John A. Tvedtnes, amongst others, puts the rubber to the road. Read and ENJOY! It is a very fine crafted piece, and notice who he delivered it to. It's right on the first page, in the first column.

http://www.fairlds.org/pubs/HebrewNames.pdf

Heads Up! New Book on the Book of Mormon!

I am thrilled, so far, with John W. Welch's new book Legal Cases in the Book of Mormon. It is a surprisingly BIG book at that. I was really fascinated by his including his own personal journey into this, the schools he attended, the peoples he studied with, the organizations (both Jewish and Christian) which he participated in and joined and led, etc. I have just read the first 129 pages because I purchased it while on vacation. I have made videos on his introduction which I will post on my You Tube site some time this week. So far, his inisghts are serious. They are informed. They are fascinating! As usual, Welch just does a smash up job on shedding important new light onto the Book of Mormon. It took 30 years to research and write. It is a masteful job, and one we all ought to be getting our noses into.

DNA and the Jews

My good and dear friend Dr. Ken Larsen brought up a most stimulating observation concerning DNA and the Jews I wish to share with you all.

 

Just a thought about DNA. Is it possible that the "Jews" in Israel today
are not genetically descended from the people who inhabited that land at
the time of Lehi. Before the settlements from Europe, Russia and
elsewhere, the only people in Palestine were Arabs. They were genetically
separated from the Jews 4,000 years ago when Abraham kicked Ismael out.
Maybe the newcomers that established "Israel" after WWII were descended
from converts to Judaism without any genetic ties to the people in the land
2,600 years ago. Just a thought. Dig up the remains of someone who lived
in Israel two and a half thousand years ago, before the Babylonian
conquest, and see if their DNA matches modern Jews. How do we know the
majority of returnees to Jerusalem from Babylonia were of the tribe of
Judah? Maybe the problem is reversed. It isn't why isn't there any Jewish
blood in Native Americans. It's what if there isn't any Jewish blood in
modern "Jews." Besides all that, wasn't Lehi of a different tribe,
Ephraim? Maybe we're testing the Indians with the wrong standard.

See how silly it is to look for physical evidence of spiritual truths.

Fabulous Interview of Mesoamerican Scholar Michael D. Coe

http://www.pbs.org/mormons/interviews/coe.html

Updating and Expanding

Sorry I haven't been here on the blog as much as I was anticipating. Things have been really busy, and I think I can begin squeezing some more writing in here also. So, hang in there with me. THANKS to all for helping make the FAIR Conference a success, again! It was a great line up of powerhouse speakers and subjects.

Raed Tihs and Be Atsonsihed

fi yuo cna raed
tihs, yuo hvae a sgtrane mnid to
  
  Cna yuo raed tihs?
Olny 55 plepoe out of 100 can. 


I cdnuolt blveiee
taht I cluod aulaclty uesdnatnrd waht I was rdanieg. The phaonmneal pweor of the
hmuan mnid, aoccdrnig to a rscheearch at Cmabrigde Uinervtisy, it dseno't mtaetr
in waht oerdr the ltteres in a wrod are, the olny iproamtnt tihng is taht the
frsit and lsat ltteer be in the rghit pclae. The rset can be a taotl mses and
you can sitll raed it whotuit a pboerlm. Tihs is bcuseae the huamn mnid deos not
raed ervey lteter by istlef, but the wrod as a wlohe. Azanmig huh? yaeh and I
awlyas tghuhot slpeling was ipmorantt!

Hugh Nibley in Context

Personal e-mail, Todd Compton to Boyd Petersen, 8 January 2005; Glen Cooper to Boyd Petersen, 25 December 2004; William Hamblin to Boyd Petersen, 24 December 2004; Stephen Ricks to Boyd Petersen, 9 January 2005; John Gee to Boyd Petersen, 27 December 2004.

Likely the most damning review of Hugh's scholarly work has been Kent P. Jackson's review of Old Testament and Related Studies, Volume 1 of the Collected Works of Hugh Nibley, which appeared in BYU Studies 28.4 (1988): 114-118. In that review, Jackson critiques Nibley's "tendency to gather sources from a variety of cultures all over the ancient world, lump them all together, and then pick and choose the bits and pieces he wants" and to read into these sources things that "simply don't seem to be there" (115). He says Hugh takes phrases out of context, didn't provide sufficient documentation for some sources, provides documentation "overkill" on others, and doesn't give sufficient evidence for some of his assertions. Additionally, Jackson took Nibley to task for his sarcasm and name-calling, "which have no place in serious scholarship" (116). But in all of this, Jackson never hints that Nibley simply "made up" his sources.
John Gee recently completed a statistical analysis of one of Hugh's articles chosen at random to establish the accuracy of the footnotes. In looking at Hugh's essay, "Victoriosa Loquacitas: The Rise of Rhetoric and the Decline of Everything Else" as it appeared in its original form in Western Speech 20 (1956): 57-82 (reprinted in The Ancient State [Salt Lake City: Deseret Book Company and FARMS, 1991]: 243-286) Gee discovered that "87% of the footnotes were completely correct, 8% of the footnotes contained typographical errors, 5% were wrong in some other way (e.g. frequently right author, right page, wrong title). In no case could I determine that any of the errors in the footnotes was intentional or that any of the footnotes were fabrications" (personal e-mail, John Gee to Boyd Petersen, 13 January 2005).
In a later study Gee analyzed the footnotes in one of Hugh's Egyptian works, Message of the Joseph Smith Papyri: An Egyptian Endowment (Salt Lake City: Deseret Book Company, 1975). Selecting a chapter from the book at random (Chapter 3, the second-longest chapter in the book), Gee found that "94% of the citations were correct, 4% were typographical errors, and 2% were wrong." It was Gee's determination that "the results seem to show that Nibley was more accurate when dealing with a Mormon topic, that his Egyptian work was more accurate than his classics work, and that his work on Message was better than normal, not worse." Further, Gee stated that "I have never seen any case where Hugh Nibley ever fabricated or made up a source. After looking up thousands of citations, I have seen him make just about every mistake I think one could make, but I have never seen him make up anything" (personal e-mail, John Gee to Boyd Petersen, 14 March 2005).
Todd Compton wrote me that he "was very disillusioned with Nibley's scholarship when I checked his footnotes carefully. However, I believe he was misinterpreting, not making things up. Furthermore, I believe that saying that 90% of his footnotes were wrong is a wild overstatement, based on my experience editing Mormonism and Early Christianity." As William Hamblin has pointed out, "sloppiness is not dishonesty; it is not good, but it is not fraud" (personal e-mail, William Hamblin to Boyd Petersen, 12 January 2005).

Brent Metcalfe's Positivistic Assumptions Exposed

Alan Goff has handed Brent Lee Metcalfe his hat and taken him to the woodshed on his positivistic assumptions of his revisionist historical claims against the Book of Mormon. This is one of the finest and most stunning reviews I have ever read. Alan Goff, you get 5 stars! Using Metcalfe's own sources which he proposes refute the apologetic method of understanding the Book of Mormon, Alan Goff shows those same sources destroy Metcalfe's own "ideology" and methodology! It is a masterful exposition against the assumption that history and literature are separate categories, and that if the Book of Mormon appears Biblical then it can just simplistically be labeled plagiarism. This assumption is naive according to the most recent and update Biblical scholarship. Read this review and ENJOY!

http://farms.byu.edu/display.php?table=review&id=179

School of the Prophets Hebrew Podcast Lesson #7

Here is the next Hebrew lesson, reading in Genesis 2:1-7.

Download hebrew_lesson07.mp3 

More Light on Book of Abraham and Egyptology

A stimulating study worth reading by the LDS Egyptologist John Gee.

http://farms.byu.edu/display.php?table=review&id=670

Ancient Temples, John Welch on Margaret Barker's New Book

A very interesting analysis of Margaret Barker's new book on early Christianity and temples is at T&T Clark Blog. Worth looking at!

http://tandtclark.typepad.com/ttc/2008/05/responses-to-ma.html

Hebrew Lesson #6 - Grammar - School of the Prophets

I have attempted to type this in Hebrew, alas, it is more difficult than I had supposed. So I have hand written it. We'll take it one step at a time. I shall begin reading in the podcast in Genesis 2 tomorrow. THANKS! You can click on the picture to enlarge it also, so you can see it better. Remember to start on the right side of the masculine and read from right to left, and then the feminine and you can see the feminine ending and how it's different.

Another nice blog

Yes, this is a shameless plug, since this gent is featuring my YouTube videos right now, but even past that, he has a lot of nice work on his blog. Many fun and interesting ditties and ideas about the scriptures.

http://lehislibrary.wordpress.com/

Hebrew Lessons Update

I apologize for getting a little behind in our weekly Hebrew lessons. I have been swamped with work, and the YouTube videos on Book of Mormon evidences that I have been producing. I have 30 produced this last two weeks. But, we definitely will have some grammar and continued reading in Genesis 2 in Hebrew. Between the Book of Mormon and the Hebrew Bible, I am going to be wore out by the time I reach 154 years old - GRIN!

The Naked Archaeologist

The guy who is on the History channel calling himself "The Naked Archaeologist," had a special recently with Dr. Barklay and the 2 silver scrolls discovered at Jerusalem dating 600 B.C. These scrolls have been discussed by BYU scholar William J. Adams in the Journal of Book of Mormon Studies, and other scholars have shown had religious writing of scriptures on them, a perfect Book of Mormon theme. I have done some videos on these on my YouTube site, where I have many dozens of videos on the Book of Mormon now. You can see it by typing all one word - thebackyardprofessor. Or, just go here:

http://www.youtube.com/profile_videos?user=TheBackyardProfessor

Aha! A Klue!

Yes, I stole this directly from Jeff Lindsay's website. Yes he can sue me for untold of horrendous damages, but it's still good enough I used it. Love ya bro!

http://mormanity.blogspot.com/2005/05/aha-interesting-evidence-in-national.html

The April 2005 National Geographic provides at least two facts of interest to students of the LDS scriptures. Look at their Web page for the April 2005 issue. Notice especially the opening and closing sentences. Do you see the relevance? Here is an excerpt:

King Aha, "The Fighter," was not killed while unifying the Nile's two warring kingdoms, nor while building the capital of Memphis. No, one legend has it that the first ruler of a united Egypt was killed in a hunting accident after a reign of 62 years, unceremoniously trampled to death by a rampaging hippopotamus. News of his demise brought a separate, special terror to his staff. For many, the honor of serving the king in life would lead to the more dubious distinction of serving the king in death. . . .

x