This is the text of a new bill board advertisement promoted by the American Humanist Association.
I read about this today at the following location on the Internet:
http://global.christianpost.com/news/new-atheist-holiday-ads-accuse-christians-of-intolerance-62786/
The article quotes AHA (American Humanist Association) director Roy Speckhardt, who said:
“Humanists get their knowledge from science rather than ancient texts and divine revelations,” Speckhardt said. “This is the first time we’ve called out those prejudiced against us to rethink that prejudice. I hope people take them to heart and treat everyone as equally as they can this holiday season.”
I am not here to “knock” science, but I have no doubt that Mr. Speckhardt believes that evolution is included in what he would call science.
I have stated here before that evolution is not science, it is philosophy, and those who think otherwise are not informed enough to know the difference.
Mr. Speckhardt appears to disdain any other source of knowledge but science, for he says Humanists do not get their knowledge from ancient texts and divine revelations.
It would do humanists much good if they could be encouraged to be open minded about sources of verifiable truth.
I’ve met professors of mine (well one of them, at least) in graduate school that likewise disdained all other sources of knowledge but science. I let my professor know he had arbitrarily confined himself to a rather small box, ignoring a whole realm of truth that exists beyond it, in the form of history, for example, that cannot be directly verified by the scientific method since it cannot be, like an experiment, repeated at will.
The Bible contains history. Its history has been abundantly verified to be accurate down to the smallest details. Check out the information provided in the Archaeology Study Bible, for a readily available modern resource on the subject.
The Bible contains divine revelation. In fact, it is Divine revelation. And the proof of that? The most remarkable proof is the fact of its fulfilled prophecy.
Mr. Peter W. Stoner wrote a small book titled Science Speaks: Scientific Proof of the Accuracy of Prophecy and the Bible (Moody Press, 1958).
I invite Humanists, Atheists, and Agnostics to carefully check out that resource.
And just who is it that is being naughty and not nice? I suggest that those who would twist the provisions of the Bill of Rights, particularly the First Amendment, to suit and promote their Humanist anti-Bible, anti-God agenda are the ones who are censoring the free speech of others, and who are actually violating the recognition of the absolute right of religious freedom asserted in the First Amendment.
At no time have I censored Humanists, Atheists, or Agnostics. I won’t allow them to censor me either, should they try.
And in the past, they have attempted to censor me, but when I challenged the head of the local ACLU, Mr. Howard Simon, I think his name was, to a public debate, I got no response.
The atheists at the school where I taught (Cass Technical High School in Detroit) challenged the Bible Discussion Club which I was asked to sponsor to a debate. The debate was held. The atheists were truthful though, for after the first debate, they admitted publically in the school newspaper that they had lost the debate with the students of the Bible Discussion Club. The atheists said they were not prepared well enough, so they announced a second debate in The Michigan Chronicle. Apparently, the atheists chickened out of the debate, for though it was announced in The Michigan Chronicle, the debate was never held.
On this site I have encouraged those who differ with me to participate in discussion. Atheists, Agnostics, and Humanists have never done so. The invitation is still open.
Evolution is science, not philosophy. Some philosophers have used it for their own purposes. Some of these purposes have been misguided, such as social darwinism.
Read “Why Evolution is true” by Jerry Coyne. Read “The Greatest Show on earth” by Richard Dawkins. The theory of evolution has stood the test of time and has been validated by more and more evidence.
Dear BobH,
Thank you for your comment and specific references.
When evolution confines itself to testable matters, it surely can be considered science. When evolution ventures into the matter of origins, and makes claims about how things came to be, it has clearly left the field of testable science and entered into speculation and philosophy.
There is some equivocation on the part of scientists who for the most part believe in evolution, equivocation in terms of how they use the word “change.” It is a fallacy in logic.
Evolution has only stood the test of time because it has itself changed its claims over time. This is not a fault. But it shows we may well expect some of what is considered true today may some years from now need to be changed as new knowledge is gained.
Excellent thought Jerry. I have often discussed these same issues with evolutionists as they argue for their religion. To have the faith that all of life is a random chance that just happened to hit the lottery with this one creation is lunacy. The odds of life as we know it on our planet occurring as it has are equivalent to me standing on of the earth’s poles and firing a gun toward the opposite pole and hitting a 1″ square piece of paper dead center. There had to be more. This led me on a long search in my youth that led me to the faith I now embrace and teach to others.
In my youth I encountered fellow students at Cass Technical High School where I was a student in the electrical curriculum. One student in drafting class told me that Noah could not have built an ark the size described in Genesis, for such a large wooden structure would not hold together, especially in a severe storm.
I encountered evolutionary writings of Darwin and Spencer in the science library at the school, though perhaps when I was a student the books were all housed in the school library itself.
Then at the main library in Detroit I encountered the writings of Robert Ingersol, a large set of books. I found in a second hand store on Broadway in downtown Detroit some 19th century books written to answer Thomas Paine’s Age of Reason. One of the books was by a Bishop Watson. When I became an English teacher and taught English 6 at Cass, a course in Early American Literature, I read a portion of Paine’s Age of Reason and the corresponding answer by Bishop Watson to my classes.
In that same secular second-hand bookstore I spotted the set of Ingersol’s writings, and bought the set, and have it to this day.
I forgot to mention earlier that the Bible itself teaches us to be nice to atheists. Peter wrote, at 1 Peter 3:15, citing the NIV,
I must say, though, that I have never personally met an atheist who has actually studied both sides of the question by reading carefully and thoroughly so much as even one of the classic scholarly works in defense of the Bible and the Christian faith. I once had a meeting with the lead attorney of the law firm that at that time handled the legal work for Ford Motor Company. He had been a Baptist, active in church, taught Sunday school, but told me he lost his faith. One of my students in the college and career class at Covenant Baptist had approached me, asking if I would be willing to discuss spiritual things, particularly Christian evidences, with his boss. His boss and I had quite a two hour conversation one Saturday at his offices in Dearborn. I asked him if he had ever read any of the classic defenses of the Bible or Christianity. He said he had. I asked him the author or title of what he had read. He said he couldn’t recall, since he had read it some while ago.
I said, “That is no problem. I’ll start naming the books and when you recognize the title and/or author of the work you read, we can discuss it.” So I began naming the works, and when I reached the name Irwin Linton, A Lawyer Examines the Bible, he identified that as one he had read.
I then pulled the book out of my briefcase, and handed it over to him across his wide desk. I said, what part did not persuade you, or what part do you question.
Well, I had apparently called his bluff.
He then asked what evidence in particular did I know of that ought to persuade him. I presented the evidence. He was floored. He said he had no answer to my evidence, and asked why what I had presented to him was not more widely known. He suggested I ought to write a book!
He had to cut the conversation short because his child was whining and lunchtime was long past. But Mike, the student in my Lamplighter Class, said I had deeply impressed his boss.