Jan01

American Political Reset

by Ross on January 1st, 2012 at 6:12 PM
Posted In: Politics

I have a problem with the toxicity of current American poiltical discourse. When it comes to politics, I’m not a polly-anna, sing Kum-bah-ya and let’s-just-all-get-along kind of guy: I have passionately-held opinions and I expect others to as well. But the problem right now for both right and left is our most basic assumption about those who disagree with us: We think they’re evil.

The idea that anyone who disagrees could still have the best interests of the country as their motivation is now an unusual concept and a foreign thought. The concept of “loyal dissent” has been lost.

I see this on the left with statements about how the right is loyal to greedy corporate fat cats, cigar-smoking bankers and protecting the rich.

The right counterpunches with equally insidious commentary implying that those on the left are drug abusing, pot-smoking, work-avoiding communists with bad personal hygiene.

The irony is that each side is really calling the other selfish.

Here’s where I have reset things for myself: I will start by assuming those who disagree with me are still loyal Americans who genuinely believe their political views and policies are the best for the country. All I ask is that those of you who disagree with me do likewise–because I genuinely do believe my political views and policies are best for the country.

Ross

 Comment 
Jan01

God at the Bellagio

by Ross on January 1st, 2012 at 5:39 PM
Posted In: Christianity

God and an Evolutionist decided to have a boxing match in Las Vegas at The Bellagio Science Center (OK, now this really sounds like a setup to a joke).

They each put on their gloves, but the rules were amended immediately before the bell: God would not be allowed to participate. The Bellagio would only allow scientific participants. So the Evolutionist got into the ring, did some shadowboxing, and declared himself the winner, and the crowd cheered wildly.

That my friends, is the true nature of the origins debate.

Darwin’s biggest contribution to science was not a rock-solid theory of origins (it ain’t that, fer darn shure), but rather that from Darwin forward God was not allowed to play. Science decided that it could produce plausible non-theological explanations for origins, so all this God talk is unscientific.

I can actually deal with that. By definition, I am not female and I have no problem with that, either. But let’s just be clear on what our definitions are and what we’re doing with them. Defining away God’s participation in the origin of the universe as unscientific is a long, long way from making it untrue or worse yet, proving that He does not exist. All it proves is that those who defined the game don’t want God to play.

Unfortunately, in modern media and science, the word unscientific is equated with untrue or at least superstition. All too often, the very scientists who screech in judgement that science cannot indulge in theology also nod approvingly when commentators allude that God does not exist because of recent discoveries.They want to have their cake and eat it, too, i.e. keep God out of the discussion and proclaim evolution the winner.

The question of origins transcends science. Even dyed-in-the-wool evolutionists will admit to that. Unfortunately, when we start to discuss the evidence from biology, physics, chemistry, and other sciences that point to a Designer and Creator, the very idea is rejected because it is unscientific–by definition.

Thus our culture has declared evolution the winner, even though really all that has transpired is that God was removed from the ring. And the crowd cheered wildly.

Ross

 Comment