The spiritual side of health from a solid foundation of creation teaching.
One of the important and counterintuitive insights that C.S. Lewis offered was his observation that far from encouraging skepticism, the mention of "science" can call forth a perilous gullibility, not least from educated, intelligent people who should know better. Healthy skepticism is a cornerstone of the scientific process. Knowledge is advanced and new discoveries are made by challenging scientific results and testing alternative hypotheses. Lewis recognized, though, that science can also promote an uncritical acceptance of views that are said to be backed by science or wrapped in science-y language. In Lewis's time, most scientists supported eugenics, or the belief that the gene pool of humans should be improved, and they argued that their views were supported by science. These views led to policies such as forced sterilization of those deemed to be of less worth, such as criminals and the handicapped. These policies were not only popular in authoritarian regimes like Nazi Germany, but in democracies such as the United States and England. Anyone who opposed what the vast majority of scientists were saying must be "anti-science," it was argued. So what has changed since then? Are we supposed to believe that just a century ago, elite opinion in science and in the culture at large was so terribly fallible and vulnerable to being misled by prejudice -- yet today, it cannot err?
We have previously reported how Dr. Paul Offit, the mainstream media's go-to doctor to support vaccines, has huge conflicts of interest, and is a very dangerous man. We mentioned how Paul Offit wants mandatory vaccines for every single child in the United States, and he feels his voice in the matter should over-rule parental choice. So with the mainstream media giving him basically a free pass to preach his message, Offit has attacked anyone who dares to question his view on vaccines. Earlier this year, he publicly stated at the Health Journalism 2014 meeting that journalists should NOT be balanced in their reporting about vaccines. He wants only one side reported, his side, and he stated publicly that journalists who publish the other side should go to "journalism jail." Offit thinks that only medical exemptions should be issued for vaccines, and has campaigned for ending religious and philosophical exemptions. Allowing only medical exemptions would give complete control of America's school-age children to the medical system in regards to vaccines. So should doctors like Offit be considered authorities on religious and philosophical exemptions to vaccines? He claims science trumps philosophy or religion. So if you object to things in vaccines such as cells from aborted human embryos, monkey kidneys, aborted calf fetus blood, mouse brains, etc. - too bad. According to Offit, only doctors should make those decisions. For a response to Dr. Offit by another doctor, Dr. Suzanne Humphries, we republish with her consent a previous rebuttal she wrote to Dr. Offit below. Turns out that not all doctors agree with Offit after all...
When Biologists Think Like Engineers: How the Burgeoning Field of Systems Biology Supports Intelligent Design
Opponents of the intelligent design (ID) approach to biology have sometimes argued that the ID perspective discourages scientific investigation. To the contrary, it can be argued that the most productive new paradigm in systems biology is actually much more compatible with a belief in the intelligent design of life than with a belief in neo-Darwinian evolution. This new paradigm in system biology, which has arisen in the past ten years or so, analyzes living systems in terms of systems engineering concepts such as design, information processing, optimization, and other explicitly teleological concepts. This new paradigm offers a successful, quantitative, predictive theory for biology. Although the main practitioners of the field attribute the presence of such things to the outworking of natural selection, they cannot avoid using design language and design concepts in their research, and a straightforward look at the field indicates it is really a design approach altogether.
It's a struggle out there. You have to be fit to survive. When the pressure is on, nature favors the ones who can take the heat. It's a theme that has been drummed into our heads since school. It's a cultural meme. Social Darwinists used it to justify atrocities. Today's kinder, gentler Darwinists downplay the violence in the struggle for existence, yet the fact as they see it is inescapable: environmental circumstances select random genetic mutations that confer fitness, i.e., survival, by allowing organisms to adapt. That in a nutshell explains the development of complex life forms. We're assured there are gobs of evidence for it, too. Looking into a recent paper in PNAS about evolutionary fitness tradeoffs, you have to feel sorry for a team of five evolutionists from UC Irvine who did their level best to produce clear evidence for the favored story.
The evolution of consciousness is presently inexplicable: Can we really understand a transition from the excrement-throwing ape to the early cave paintings as a long, slow series?
A honest look at our present day medical system and its relationship to idolatrous religious practices throughout history involving such activities as child sacrifices. Is modern-day medicine the new religion?
Throughout most of the history of human nutrition, fats and oils (lipids) have been considered healthy and desirable. In the Bible, the most ancient writings known to man and the world's best-selling book, oil is always mentioned in a positive light, whether it be aromatic anointing oils or dietary oils: "He will love you and bless you and multiply you; He will also bless the fruit of your womb and the fruit of your ground, your grain and your new wine and your oil..." (Deuteronomy 7:13) "When the Almighty was yet with me, and my children were around me; When my steps were bathed in butter, and the rock poured out for me streams of oil!" (Job 29:5-6) "There is precious treasure and oil in the dwelling of the wise..." (Proverbs 21:20) Modern dietary history has been an anomaly in condemning certain dietary fats, especially since the 1970s when official USDA dietary guidelines condemned saturated fats, in spite of their long history of use in human nutrition. Much of modern science is based on Darwinian evolution, however, and faulty premises that often don't hold up in real science. Much of the "science" regarding dietary fats and oils has today been proven false, and the field of lipids (fatty acids) is bringing to light what the ancients inherently already knew: that fats and oils were key nutritional components essential to good health. Evolution and News brings a good commentary on the journal Nature's June cover issue regarding lipids, showing how they are the building blocks of membranes, and pointing to a master designer rather than a result of pure chance via evolution.
If you want to experience healing through “energy medicine,” which would you prefer? A practioner manipulating the created energy patterns, or the one who created it to begin with?
We have a popular article titled, Arguments we think creationists should not use. Indeed, even many misotheistic evolutionists, including Richard Dawkins, have commended the existence of such a page. Well, as the saying goes, ‘What is good for the goose is also good for the gander.’ Here are 21 bad arguments that evolutionists should not use to help further their stance on evolution. Clearly, evolution is about keeping out God, not an open approach to the actual evidence.
There is no pursuit of knowledge that does not seek to affect the world. Science is made by people with interests, intentions and ambitions; and it's funded by governments and companies with agendas. Scientific development is subject to funding rules, to expectations about outcomes, and to social forces and institutions that shape our research.