The face of science by consensus.
National Geographic went to hell years ago.
Notice they threw the moon landing in there as if doubting manmade global climate change were the equivalent of doubting the moon landing.
What creationists think can and will do nothing to science concerned with evolution.
What climate change clowns think can and will do a great deal of harm to real science.
Q: What’s the diff between a Starbucks barista and a climate scientist?
Ans: the barista had a higher GPA.
Science is merely man’s methodology for trying to analyzed, understand and categorize what God has created.
Do they mean the old science that meant something or the new, goofy “whatever” type of “science” that retarded former college kids use to apply for government grants?
ROMANS 1:18-21
18 The wrath of God is being revealed from heaven against all the godlessness and wickedness of people, who suppress the truth by their wickedness, 19 since what may be known about God is plain to them, because God has made it plain to them. 20 For since the creation of the world God’s invisible qualities—his eternal power and divine nature—have been clearly seen, being understood from what has been made, so that people are without excuse.
21 For although they knew God, they neither glorified him as God nor gave thanks to him, but their thinking became futile and their foolish hearts were darkened. 22 Although they claimed to be wise, they became fools 23 and exchanged the glory of the immortal God for images made to look like a mortal human being and birds and animals and reptiles.
The war on politicized science.
Alas, “creationism” is a wide spectrum but is pigeonholed as a narrow view. There are creationists who study what actually exists and seek sensible understanding of what & why things are, attributing the ultimate initiation & guidance of everything to God. There are creationists who take a couple pages written by an inspired sheepherder and declare their absolute perfect understanding while denying the plain reality of what physically exists and creating inane explanations for what is. Of course, it’s the latter group which gets all the press, because insulting the wantonly ignorant is fun.
Would that “creationists” would realize
- they don’t know everything
- science works
- what actually happened actually happened regardless of what one says happened
- there are legitimate differing interpretations of both scripture and science
- declaring “God made it _look_ old to test your faith” makes a god of “truth” out as a liar.
I’m fundamentally a creationist, and acknowledge fossils & starlight only make sense in an “old universe”.
(Now where did I put that Nomex suit...)
It’s the Strawman narrative.
Modern takes on the sciences have forgotten the theistic roots of natural philosophy. The sciences have a valid theological basis in the scriptural command to subdue the earth.
It’s a symptom of the age. IMHO, and probably according to scripture too, Christians shouldn’t get all huffy over this. They know the score; they know the world is blind to God. Evolutionary theory is a particularly hot area of conflict, because life on earth is such a witness to God and secular science is trying to do the best it can godlessly.
“National Geographic (NG) is a respected popular science (?)magazine with millions of subscribers.”
“God is a respected Deity* with billions of followers.”
“The fool has said in his heart, “There is no God.”
~Psalm 14:1
In the battle between Science and Evolution, Science always wins.
*The only One, actually
They stopped being interested in Science the day they printed their first Gorebull Warming article.
Who is making war on who?
From http://freekenthovind.com/
The most famous, feared and notable creation speaker Dr. Kent Hovind spent nearly a decade in federal prison. Charged with up to 100 years for ‘mail fraud’ before release.
He was a science teacher for 15 years and began a full-time creation ministry. He was travelling all over the world doing seminars on creation, evolution and dinosaurs. He debated more then 100 scientists concerning evolution versus creation and created the well known 7 part video creation series translated into 32 languages.
In 2007 he was incarcerated for ‘structuring’ based on inaccurate charges. Now on 2 March 2015 he is scheduled to begin a new trial for being charged for using the prison mail system ‘fraudulently’ to appeal his previous 58-felony count conviction ‘contempt’...
Some alarming charges made there against the prosecutors. Nothing to take the breath away from anyone familiar with the prosecution of targeted individuals but the hatred displayed in the charges against Kent Hovind is bare and raw.
In my opinion Global Warming is faith-based science.
With all due respect, National Geographic, if anything, you have it backwards. Religion is not “at war” with science, but “science” seems intent on proving religion wrong.
Science is never wrong right.
/S
There are two main theories about scientific theories:
1) The syntactic approach - theories are a collection of sentences
2) The semantic approach - theories are simplified models of the World.
The semantic approach regard theories as abstract structures that apply not to the world as it is but to an idealized world purged of irrelevant considerations.They enable a scientist to make explanations of observed phenomena.Creationists are entitled to form their models of the world and to see how well they explain observables.
Merriam-Webster offers several definitions for Geography. The conventional definition that I learned at school is: “an area of study that deals with the location of countries, cities, rivers, mountains, lakes, etc.”. A broader definition is “a science that deals with the description, distribution, and interaction of the diverse physical, biological, and cultural features of the earth’s surface”.
The National Geographic magazine long ago exceeded the original boundaries implied by its name. It has pushed Evolution even longer than I can remember, funding and frequently publishing finds of the Leakey family in Africa at least as far back as the early 1960s, for example. There is no question that NG pushes a Liberal agenda through environmentalism and non-geographic topics.