Ligon Duncan on the Non-Negotiables of the Gospel

Christian Skepticism endorses:

monergism.com

This site contains some of the most valuable God-centered resources a Christian Skeptic could ever want. Whether you peruse the copious free items or purchase something from their excellent online store, your worldview will never be the same!

Start Here to become a Christian Skeptic

We wanted to highlight this compilation by Paul Manata - The Philosophy of the
Christian Religion
- an excellent online resource for the development of the
well-considered Christian worldview.

Good Blogroll (from Pyromaniacs)

  • Colin Adams
  • Charlie Albright
  • Aletheuo
  • Scott Aniol
  • Tom Ascol
  • Derek Ashton (TheoParadox)
  • Zachary Bartels
  • Tim and David Bayly
  • Rick Beckman
  • Tyler Bennicke
  • Bible Geek
  • Big Orange Truck
  • Andy Bird
  • John Bird
  • Bob Bixby
  • Timmy Brister
  • Fred Butler
  • Calvin and Calvinism (Classic and moderate Calvinism)
  • Cal.vini.st
  • Bret Capranica
  • Nathan Casebolt
  • Lane Chaplin
  • Tim ("The World's Most Famous Christian Blogger"®) Challies
  • The Conservative Intelligencer
  • The Contemporary Calvinist
  • The Conventicle
  • Craig's Blog
  • Deliver Detroit
  • Daniel (Doulogos)
  • William Dicks
  • The Doulos' Den
  • Martin Downes
  • Connie Dugas
  • Doug Eaton
  • Nicholas Edinger
  • Brother Eugene
  • Eusebeia
  • Stefan Ewing
  • Eddie Exposito
  • Expository Thoughts
  • Faces Like Flint
  • Reid Ferguson
  • Peter Farrell
  • Bill Fickett
  • Fide-o
  • Foolish Things
  • Chris Freeland
  • Travis Gilbert
  • Ron Gleason
  • Go Share Your Faith!
  • God is My Constant
  • Phil Gons
  • Joel Griffith (Solameanie)
  • Matt Gumm
  • Gregg Hanke
  • Jacob Hantla
  • Chris Harwood
  • J. D. Hatfield
  • Michael Haykin
  • Tony Hayling (Agonizomai)
  • Steve Hays and the amazing "Triablogue" team
  • Scott Head
  • Patrick Heaviside (Paths of Old)
  • Marc Heinrich's Purgatorio
  • Sean Higgins
  • Illumination (Rich Barcellos and Sam Waldron)
  • Inverted Planet
  • Tim Jack
  • Jackhammer
  • Craig Johnson
  • Alex Jordan
  • The Journeymen
  • Justified
  • Lane Keister (Green Baggins)
  • John Killian
  • David Kjos
  • Ted Kluck
  • Patrick Lacson
  • A Little Leaven (Museum of Idolatry)
  • Janet Lee
  • Let My Lifesong Sing
  • Libbie, the English Muffin
  • Light and Heat
  • Greg Linscott
  • Bryan Maes
  • Brian McDaris
  • Doug McMasters
  • Allen Mickle
  • The incomparable Al Mohler
  • Jonathan Moorhead
  • Ryan Moran
  • Stephen Newell
  • Dean Olive
  • Dan Paden
  • Paleoevangelical
  • A Peculiar Pilgrim
  • Jim Pemberton
  • The Persecution Times
  • Bill Pershing
  • Kevin Pierpont
  • Matt Plett
  • Wes Porter
  • Postmortemism
  • The Red and Black Redneck
  • Reformata
  • Reformation 21
  • Reformation Theology (sponsored by Monergism.Com)
  • Reformed Evangelist
  • Remonstrans
  • Carla Rolfe
  • Tony Rose
  • Andrew Roycroft
  • Eric Rung
  • Said at Southern Seminary
  • Seeing Clearly
  • Sharper Iron
  • Kim Shay
  • Neil Shay
  • Brian Shealy
  • Ken Silva
  • Tom Slawson's "Tom in the Box"
  • Tom Slawson's other blog
  • Doug Smith
  • Richard Snoddy
  • Social Hazard
  • SolaFire
  • Rebecca Stark
  • Kevin Stilley
  • Cindy Swanson
  • Talking Out Of Turn
  • Justin Taylor's "Between Two Worlds"
  • Robert Tewart (StreetFishing)
  • TheoJunkie's Thoughts on Theology
  • Theology Bites
  • Through the Veil
  • Three Times a Mom
  • Voice of the Shepherd
  • Jared Wall
  • Adrian Warnock
  • David Wayne
  • Jeremy Weaver
  • Steve Weaver
  • Über-apologist James White's legendary "Pros Apologian" blog
  • Brad Williams
  • Doug Wilson
  • Writing and Living
  • Ryan Wood
  • Todd Young
  • Friday, February 20, 2009

    Darwin Believers Hide Fears of Intelligent Design Behind a Wall of Denial and Ridicule

    Good Article by Casey Luskin.

    "Most Darwinists involved in the public debate today have one, and only one goal: To stifle free debate on this subject and thereby discourage you, the public, from scrutinizing the scientific evidence for yourself.

    Over the years, Darwinists have evolved a variety of strategies to accomplish these goals. We see each of these strategies in play in the op-eds and comments by Darwinists in this present forum on U.S. News and World Report. I'll discuss how my opponents on this forum use the strategies of (1) Ridicule, Demonization, and Character Assassination; (2) Equating Darwin-Skeptics with Religion; (3) Persecute Darwin-Skeptics; and (4) Pretend There Is No Scientific Controversy Over Evolution in order to try to dissuade you, the reader, from thinking for yourself on this subject."


    Read More...

    6 comments:

    jazzycat said...

    Christians should demand that evolutionists defend their atheistic beliefs from the beginning. This would mean they would be required to explain the beginning of the universe. Science and Christians are in agreement that the universe had a beginning. Atheists assert that time, space, and matter popped into being mysteriously at the big bang and Christians say it popped into being due to a creator God. One (atheists) claim is based on nonsense and the other (Christians) is based on an uncaused cause that begins a chain of cause and effect. The Christian creator God not only began the process, but is in complete control of every detail on an ongoing basis and has the power to make things work exactly as he desires.

    It will be God that decides when the sun becomes a red giant and consumes the earth and no gamma ray burst from some super nova will harm earth apart from the will of God.

    swordbearer said...

    Thanks for posting this. The author substantiated his points well... though it may be too length in the sense some may not read it. The tactics are not surprising, but those common when anyone stands for truth.

    skeptimal said...

    Strategy 1: Ridicule, Demonization, and Character Assassination

    Yes, it’s true. Scientists are human and some of them lose their patience with people who throw out all scientific evidence that disagrees with the Bible.

    Strategy 2: Equating Darwin-Skeptics with Religion

    This is actually twisting the truth. The problem is not skepticism of evolution; the problem is claiming that intelligent design is science. There are zero non-religious scientists who believe in creationi… er… intelligent design.

    Strategy 3: Persecute Darwin-Skeptics

    The author has the melodrama to call it “persecution” when a “theory” lacking in any science is not taken seriously, then to claim he is not complaining about the way he’s been treated. Newsbreak: scientists criticize *each other.* What do you expect when you’re not even a scientist?

    Strategy 4: Pretend There Is No Scientific Controversy Over Evolution

    Really? So is the round-earth theory controversial because there are still people who claim the world is flat?

    Puritan Lad said...

    Skeptimal: "The author has the melodrama to call it “persecution” when a “theory” lacking in any science is not taken seriously, then to claim he is not complaining about the way he’s been treated. Newsbreak: scientists criticize *each other.* What do you expect when you’re not even a scientist?"

    Skeptimal, you know better than that. Criticizing is one thing. Denying tenure and attacking the person is another. Surely you know the difference.


    Skeptimal: "Really? So is the round-earth theory controversial because there are still people who claim the world is flat?"

    Like the author said, ridicule and pretend, and use a false analogy.

    skeptimal said...

    "Criticizing is one thing. Denying tenure and attacking the person is another. Surely you know the difference."

    The article doesn't mention denying tenure, and I'm not sure what you mean by "attacking the person." I admit I didn't dig in to the sub-media regarding the legal threat between Pennock and Monton, but I've heard scurrilous claims of "persecution" of creationist scientists before, but nothing that seems to be backed up by facts. This is just another propaganda campaign by religious right activists.

    And my comment about the round-earth "controversy" is not ridicule. There is no qualitative difference between that and creationism. Calling evolution "controversial" doesn't mean creationism has any scientific basis.

    Puritan Lad said...

    "And my comment about the round-earth "controversy" is not ridicule. There is no qualitative difference between that and creationism. Calling evolution "controversial" doesn't mean creationism has any scientific basis."

    It has every bit as much scientific basis as abiogenesis and other Darwinist Faith Tenets.

    Of course, you have yet to justify the use of science without assuming God's Providence over creation, but that is another debate.