[Genetically,] Jews today absolutely fit both the biblical expectations and their oral and written history since the completion of the Old Testament canon. From the detailed history of the Jewish nation preserved in the biblical narrative, it should be clear that they started as a mixed population, maintained a degree of mixing with their neighbours, and continue to mix with outsiders today. However, as a Middle Eastern tribal community, they should have Middle Eastern genetic roots, and the evidence tells us they certainly do.
In summary, we can conclude that with scientific advances made in anthropology and with more and more recent discoveries made over the past 150 years, the way Neandertals have been viewed according to evolution has changed dramatically. There are some variations in morphology, quite possibly due to a higher pre-Flood variation. But instead of primitive, brutish animals, half-way between animals and humans, we can state with high enough confidence that Neandertals are the same species as modern humans, and part of the human holobaramin.
In an encouraging turn of events, a secular peer-reviewed paper published in eLIFE,written by a team from the NMBU Centre for Applied Philosophy of Science at the Norwegian University of Life Sciences, backs up this understanding of the importance of worldviews. Their article is entitled, “Philosophy of Biology: Philosophical bias is the one bias that science cannot avoid.”
Basic philosophical assumptions count as biases because they skew the development of hypotheses, the design of experiments, the evaluation of evidence, and the interpretation of results in specific directions.
We saw that basic assumptions are fundamental premises for science. They represent the lens through which we see new information. So even when these assumptions are explicated and challenged, all we can do is replace them with alternative biases.
At last, secular research catches up with what Christian scientists have been saying for ages.
As it happens, not long ago I was yet again in a conversation about diary products, lactose intolerance, and evolution. It is very popular these days to repeat the mantra “cow’s milk is for cows, not for humans”. More and more people are buying into these “veganistic” idea that we were never meant to drink milk, but we “forced ourselves into evolving in drinking it, but it hasn’t worked very well, and that’s why it’s harmful for us”.
When I hear stuff like that, I shake my head, and think “would they believe they if they started ingesting mercury, they would eventually evolve to be able to live off mercury rather than just dying for its poisonous characteristics”?
That said, one colleague made the acute objection that the cows we drink the milk of are those we selectively bred for the very reason they produced milk we could drink. Of course, he also made the blind-faith leap that “this is how evolution works” (no, it isn’t — in fact, human aided selective breading only goes to show that evolution could never work unaidedly; plus, selective adaptation manipulates existing information, but never adds new information).
Fascinating interview on BBC Radio London with Vanessa Feltz where the Metropolitan Police claim it was “very reasonable” to arrest street preacher Olu despite the fact they’ve offered £2,500 in damages. Listen to lawyer Michael Phillips’ response.
“Serious historians do not really believe that the teachings of the historical Jesus are better traced through the Gospel of Judas, the Gospel of Mary, the Gospel of Philip, or even the Gospel of Thomas than through Matthew, Mark, Luke, and John.” Charles E. Hill, Who Chose the Gospels? Probing the Great Gospel Conspiracy (New York: Oxford University Press, 2010), 234.
That’s a common phrase these days. People say it on the wave of the self-entitlement culture. “I am what I am, I fully embrace it, and you have no right to tell me I am wrong. I won’t change, ever, for anybody. Those who love me must accept for what I am”.
Definitely common. And definitely personal, as well. In the sense that someone I once called friend actually said this to me.
But that’s not what I want to talk about. I want to focus on the phrase “I won’t change, ever, for anybody”.
I sure hope that even a non-Christian sees how that’s the very opposite of love. To say that you’re unwilling to change even the slightest thing about yourself out of love for somebody is the antithesis of love.
The outspoken atheist Penn Jillette once said:
I don’t respect people that don’t proselytize. I don’t respect that at all. If you believe that there’s a heaven and hell, and people could be going to hell — or not getting eternal life, or whatever — and you think that, “Well, it’s not really worth tellin’ ’em this, because it would make it socially awkward”, and atheists who think that people shouldn’t proselytize, “Just leave me alone. Keep your religion to yourself”… How much do you have to hate somebody to not proselytize? How much do you have to hate somebody to believe that everlasting life is possible and not tell them that? I mean, if I believe, beyond a shadow of a doubt, that a truck was coming at you and you didn’t believe it —that truck was bearing down on you — there’s a certain point where I tackle you, and this is more important than that.
That is logical, right? Unfortunately, logic has very little place in society these days. The spiritual battle has reached a whole other level, and God’s enemy has made sure that every single last tool that could be used to get closer to the truth of God was removed from education. Logic and sound reason have just no place in school and society these days. Everything has become a function of self, an emotional entitlement at being whatever one wants to be, even if that means you will forfeit the most precious gift of all: eternal life purchased for you by God in the flesh dying on a roman cross for crimes not His, but ours.