Honolulu Chapter

Archive for 2015

You remember the cowardly lion from The Wizard of Oz don’t you? He was supposed to be the king of the jungle but he had no courage. Sadly I see this missing in much leadership today. Let’s face it. Leading others is hard. There is often loneliness to leadership. (I wrote about it HERE.) Leadership takes great courage. Here are 7 characteristics of cowardly leadership:

Source: 7 Characteristics of Cowardly Lion Leadership – Ron Edmondson

Interview with physicist Luke Barnes on the incredible fine-tuning in the universe:

Source: 040-LukeBarnes.mp3

This article is written from a Neo-Darwinistic perspective, but in my opinion, it evinces design in symbiosis:

“Aphids have symbiotic bacteria called Hamiltonella defensa that protect them against wasps. But the bacteria are only protective if they’re infected by a certain virus. So the virus, within the symbiont, within the aphid, is protecting all of them. It’s a multilevel system; all three benefit if the aphid is resistant to the wasp.”

The biologist Nancy Moran has spent a career investigating the surprising nature of symbiosis, a phenomenon in which two species can appear to merge into one.

Source: Nancy Moran on Bees, Microbes, Symbiosis | Quanta Magazine

Poor leadership is usually due to a lack of faith. Many people are dying to lead, but they don’t have the guts to stand alone — the most important aspect of leadership:

You remember the cowardly lion from The Wizard of Oz don’t you? He was supposed to be the king of the jungle but he had no courage. Sadly I see this missing in much leadership today. Let’s face it. Leading others is hard. There is often loneliness to leadership. (I wrote about it HERE.) Leadership takes great courage. Here are 7 characteristics of cowardly leadership:

Source: 7 Characteristics of Cowardly Lion Leadership – Ron Edmondson

Nice sermon by RF UNK director Tim Stratton, MA:

 

Tim Stratton’s debate with a physicist, which underscored Einstein’s maxim “The man of Science is a poor philosopher” (advanced vocabulary alert!):

I recently engaged in a debate with a physicist who objected to the Kalam Cosmological Argument based on his metaphysical assumption of the B-theory of time (he referred to this theory as “eternalism”). I have written about some of the problems with the logical conclusions that follow from this metaphysical assumption here and here. When I joined this Facebook conversation, Charles Einman (who claims he has a PhD is physics from Cambridge) had already been railing against the Kalam and the existence of God based on his “eternalism.” After reading his objections I responded and this led to a rather long dialogue that I think you will find enlightening. Ultimately, this physicist tacitly admitted that in order to avoid the theistic conclusions of the Kalam, he must affirm that he, Charles, exists timelessly, eternally, and necessarily! Talk about self-idolatry! In order to reject the idea of a timeless, eternal, and necessary God, the committed atheist must affirm that he exists

Source: The B-theory of Time: My Debate with a Physicist | FreakEng Ministries

I don’t agree with everything Smolin holds, but I agree on the A-theory of time, causal connectedness, and a few other key things:

“He goes on to propose a variety of revolutionary ideas to codify further his notion of “real time.” In one, he suggests that every atom in the universe is causally connected to every other atom in the universe, no matter how many light-years away. According to his notion, the failure of standard quantum mechanics to predict the behavior of individual atoms arises from the fact that it does not take into account the vast numbers of interconnections extending across the universe. Furthermore, this picture of the cosmos requires an absolute time (in violation of relativity), which he calls “preferred global time.”

Source: ‘Time Reborn,’ by Lee Smolin – The New York Times

D.M. Murdock had an article published in the Examiner titled “Top 10 Myths About the Religion of Zeitgeist.”  These are ten responses to the Jesus myth that she thinks are false. I would like to respond briefly to each of the ten myths. 10. Zeitgeist has no sources. Murdock responds by mentioning her own Zeitgeist …

Source: 10 Responses to D.M. Murdock and the Zeitgeist Movie | Stephen J. Bedard

By Dr. Ann Gauger.

“Dumping conspecifics down a hole may be better than letting them decay around you”:

Evolution News and Views (ENV) provides original reporting and analysis about the debate over intelligent design and evolution.

Source: Homo naledi as Spin Detector – Evolution News & Views

Another fine article by RF UNK chapter director Tim Stratton:

Some in academia today claim that science has “killed God!” They do not mean that in a literal sense. What they hope to communicate is that science has removed need for God, or stronger, that science has demonstrated the non-existence of God. Statements like these lead many to think these two concepts – God and science – are mutually exclusive. In this article I address the question: Can God and science both be true? Before answering this question, clarification is needed. Specifically, defining both science and God is required. Science is commonly understood to be the study of nature. It follows that a scientist is one who studies nature. This means scientists have specific expertise in understanding nature based on observable/empirical data via the scientific method. This is the field of a scientist. A chemist, for example, can share insights about chemistry, but they begin departing their field when they make statements about other areas of science (such as biology or physics). A

Source: God vs. Science | FreakEng Ministries

A quick glimpse into the mindset of cold case homicide detective J. Warner Wallace:

 

Atheist megachurches exist. But, do they sing worship songs? And what about children’s church? Brand new snippet from Tim Hawkin’s “That’s the Worst”, new concert DVD available at http://www.timhawkins.net

Source: Tim Hawkins – Atheist Kids’ Songs – Comedy Videos