These are a couple of blog posts by one Tim Challies:
♠ One policeman killed and two wounded in an attack in Paris. The shooter was reported to have arrived by train from Belgium. There is an election on Sunday in France, which is closely contested, according to some reports. Update: Two policemen are now dead from the shooting.
♣ The FBI is investigating to determine which CIA traitor gave the most recent batch of intelligence leaks to WikiLeaks.
♥ Georgia Gwinnett College says that the Gospel is “Fightin’ Words“, and won’t allow it. Eventually, the First Amendment, which supposedly prevents the FedGov from interfering in religious worship, will be determined by the Supreme Court to actually mean that people can’t be Christians.
♦ Not many people are filing unemployment claims right now. The rate is, in fact, at a 17 year low.
We often distinguish between the science of present processes and the science of figuring out what happened in the past (see ‘It’s not science’ and Argument: Creationism is religion, not science). It’s a helpful distinction to make because it shows that we need to test evolution and millions of years differently than we would test, say, gravity or the speed of light. It also shows how there is generally a greater potential for uncertainty in the science of past events than there is in the science of present processes.
But many critics of biblical creation have found what they think is a good counter to this distinction. They claim that the science used to show that evolution is fact “works just like CSI” (Crime Scene Investigation).2 This argument seems stronger than the simplistic ‘religion vs science’ idea. The scientific approach used by evolutionists to try to reconstruct the past does have a lot in common with CSI—they are both examples of what could be called ‘forensic’ or ‘historical’ science (see CSI … and CMI). In each case, there is an attempt to use good science to reconstruct the past.
“The thesis that Jesus never existed has hovered around the fringes of research into the New Testament for centuries but never been able to become an accepted theory. This is for good reason, as it is simply a bad hypothesis based on arguments from silence, special pleading and an awful lot of wishful thinking. It is ironic that atheists will buy into this idea and leave all their pretensions of critical thinking behind. I will adapt what has become popular usage and call people who deny Jesus’ existence ‘Jesus Mythologists’.”
By James Hannam