DAWKINS’ DOOM IS AS HARSH AS DAWKINS’ ATHEISM

Atheist advertising campaign launched

The fool has said in his heart, ‘There is no God’.” PSALM 14:1.  [example of fool:  atheist Richard Dawkins, photo by The Spectator]

DAWKINS’  DOOM  IS  AS  HARSH  AS  DAWKINS’  ATHEISM    (a lamentation for a self-damned fool named Richard Dawkins,  and that’s not cussing)

Dr. James J. S. Johnson

Though his history, in time, is brief

Proved guilty, he’ll be, as a thief;

Hawkins’ folly exposed,

“Science” career closed

Blasphemies, at death, end in grief.

COMMENTARY:  See Psalm 14:1 & 1st Timothy 6:20.  (See also Romans chapter 1.) This limerick was composed on Father’s Day (June 18th AD2006).  However, please do not suspect that my father was an atheist — he was not (and he is not).  Actually, I was pondering my forefathers (and foremothers) as I reviewed parts of Dr. Bill Cooper’s monumental genealogical/demographic research in his book AFTER THE FLOOD, and afterward I reviewed the introduction that Dr. Bill gave to his edition of PALEY’S WATCHMAKER, which soundly refutes (in advance) the science-fiction-spouting irrationality of Richard Dawkins’ evolutionary atheism, which inane irrationality, incidentally, is strikingly similar to the sanity-abandoning “‘science’ falsely so-called” of atheist Stephen Hawking.

Bogus Brachyurans and Counterfeit Creationists

Blue-Crab-ChesapeakeBay.jpg

Bogus Brachyurans and Counterfeit Creationists

Last summer, in Baltimore, I enjoyed eating “Chesapeake Bay blue crab”—but was that what I actually ate? Why am I suspicious?  Blue crab, the Chesapeake Bay’s most iconic edible species(1), also appears to be its most impersonated.

A report released April 1 [2015] … found that 38 percent of crab cakes labeled as local on menus in the region were made of an entirely different species of crab, predominantly one imported from the Indo-Pacific region.  In Annapolis and Baltimore, nearly 50 percent of “Maryland” and “Chesapeake Bay” crab cakes were mislabeled.(2)

Before getting crabby about such false advertising (a type of bait-and-switch deception), such crustacean counterfeiting should be verified.  How can portunid pretenses be proven?

“I’ve put a lot of seafood in my purse over the last few years,” said Dr. Kimberly Warner, author of the report(3) … [referring to] crab cake samples that she and other testers collected [and] shipped to a lab in Florida that determined whether the cakes contained blue crab, Callinectes sapidus, and, if not, which species were used instead.  Warner said the fraud rate of 38 percent is a conservative estimate. … Mislabeling “is being done because it’s easier to sell a Maryland crab cake than one from the Philippines or Vietnam” [said Steve Vilnit, of Maryland’s Department of Natural Resources].(2)

Dr. Warner lamented that bogus brachyurans are part of a treacherous trend of tricking taste-buds:

Maryland’s favorite seafood dish is not safe from a bait and switch. When diners are expecting the fresh, distinctive flavor of the Chesapeake blue crab, they may instead be served a completely different species, shipped from as far away as Indonesia. … This mislabeling rate is consistent with Oceana’s previous studies on fish and shrimp. In 2013, Oceana found that one-third of more than 1,200 fish samples were mislabeled according to [USDA] guidelines. We also found 30 percent of shrimp samples to be misrepresented to consumers in a similar study in 2014.(3)

Many restaurants, buffets, and sushi bars are swimming in similar seafood scams.  Piscatorial masquerades include pollock playing cod, icefish as anchovies, tilapia as grouper, rockfish as red snapper. Customers, who eagerly eat what is falsely advertised as “albacore” (or “white tuna”), may experience a digestive insult: the look-alike meat of escolar fish (a/k/a “snake mackerel”) is wax-loaded and promptly produces a blasting vermillion diarrhea.

So, buyer, beware seafood mislabeling.

Yet there are worse bait-and-switch scams to warily watch out for, such as “creation apologetics” ministry mislabeling. Not all that is called “Biblical” origins science is genuinely true-to-Genesis.

Some unfaithful-to-Genesis organizations overtly disclose their “creation-by-evolution” doctrines. However, most do not conspicuously admit it, when compromising the Bible’s record of origins.

But you can recognize real messages, of ministries or “experts”, by their compatibility with Genesis.

Does the advertised “creation” teaching follow the uniformitarian dogma (and eons of “deep time”) of deists Charles Lyell and James Hutton?  Is it closed-Bible deism, wedged under another name, such as “Intelligent Design Movement”?  Embracing millions/billions of years means sacrificing Genesis truth – a “huge loss – the high price for listening to a “wolf-mouth.  Does the so-called “Christian apologetics” teaching, like the syncretism of William Lane Craig and Norm Geisler, incorporate Monsignor Lemaître’s “big bang” theory?  Does it presuppose death before Adam, like Alexander Winchell (or William Dembski), within some kind of pre-Adamite “hominids-morphing-into-humans” scenario?  Or, does it promote the animistic “natural selection” idolatries of Charles Darwin and Thomas Huxley?  Or does it do the equivalent, defensively, by trying to shield “natural selection” sophistry from debunking, proffering “genes-in-magic bluff-and-bluster substitutes for real-world genetics?  (See 1st Timothy 6:20.)

Amazingly, as some atheists whisper their doubts about the bait-and-switch mantra “natural selection”, de facto theistic evolutionists(4) zealously defend “natural selection” as if it were a Hindu’s sacred cow or Roman Catholicism’s “sinless” Mary (Isaiah 8:20).  Where are the Berean creationists?

So how should we then live – and discern between true and false?  When scrutinizing the true ingredients—crab or shrimp or tunafish—in seafood cuisine, forensic genetics can detect the telltale DNA of the seafood actually sold. However, when scrutinizing whether an “apologetics expert” is truly a Biblical creationist, compare what those “experts” teach, specifically, with what the authoritative text of Scripture teaches (Acts 17:11).

><> JJSJ

References

(1)William W. Warner, Beautiful Swimmers:  Watermen, Crabs and the Chesapeake Bay (Boston: Little, Brown & Co., 1994, Back Bay edition), 394 pages.  This classic introduces the Chesapeake Bay’s Blue Crab and the people whose livelihoods depend upon those “beautiful swimmers”.

(2)Whitney Pipkin, “Nearly 40% of Blue Crab Mislabeled in Chesapeake Area Eateries”, Chesapeake Bay Journal, 25(3):7 (May 2015).

(3)Kimberly Warner, Beth Lowell, et al., “Ocean Reveals Mislabeling of Iconic Chesapeake Blue Crab” (April 2015), 15 pages, posted at http://usa.oceana.org/sites/default/files/crab_testing_report_final_3.27.15.pdf .

(4)For example, in an ongoing (and  tragic) argument with an under-educated “natural selection” defender/advocate, on September 4th of AD2012, I wrote the following: “At the risk of being misinterpreted as simplistic, please note that a further complication of the peer review process [which all-too-often amounts to only a veneer-review process] is the simple fact that neither you [as an astronomer] nor [your cell biologist ally] have a forensic science expertise background.  Neither of you have served as a trial judge, making what are called ‘Evidence Rule 403 calls (mentioned below], i.e., to critically reject — or to approve — the usage of ‘conventional’ terminology as to its communication accountability when describing evidence, as I have since AD1996.  In other words, if we compare the creation-vs.-evolution debate to an ongoing courtroom contest, — and at times it can be educationally helpful to do so, — it makes sense that an advocate’s deceptive usage of terminology should be spotlighted and labeled for what it is, deceptive, — such as when a party tries to use bait-and-switch wordplays on the jury.  (It’s not just evolutionists who do this; e.g., Emergent Church pastors use misleading terminology all the time.)  Thus, the specific jargon at issue (i.e., ‘natural selection’) does involve biologists, to be sure, — but the thrust of the apologetics perspective is that how conventional terminology is used often indicates truth-vs.-falsity reliability (regarding the information or concepts being represented).  It is the accurate-vs.-misleading communication accountability issue that benefits from a forensic perspective, in order to expose how evolutionists use terms that are confusing and likely to mislead.   . . . Ironically, my main problem with the specific phrase ‘natural selection’ is linked to instances when I was required, as a judicial officer of the State of Texas, to make ruling that applied Evidence Rule 403, which is a rule that is used (inter alia) to bar otherwise-admissible evidence (including well-established professional jargon) if the tendency of that specific jargon is to be so inherently misleading that whatever communicative value that it may have, as industry-accepted terminology (to “insiders”), is outweighed by its semantic tendency to confuse communication about the relevant underlying facts to outsiders, — rather than to transmit accurate, relevant, precise information.  Typically a jargon objection is sustainable, under an ‘Evidence Rule 403 call’, when the objectionable term itself does not clearly match the underlying reality that it is supposed to represent, such that usage of the jargon (even though it may be ‘accepted’ jargon in the industry) is likely to mislead and confuse the evidence presentation.  An example of this is the case of Godard v. Alabama Pilot, Inc., 2007 WL 1266361, *1 (S.D. Ala. 2007), where the federal judge disallowed the use of the professional jargon “seaman” because its semantic ambiguity was interfering with the inquiry’s analysis of the core evidence.  . . .   [please review and show due respect for my earlier article posted at http://www.icr.org/article/dna-rna-providential-coding-revere/ ).”

 

Mystick Mystery: Scientists Investigate Connecticut’s Pequot War Battlefield

mystick-battle-pequotwar-bw-engraving

Mystick Mystery:  Scientists Investigate Connecticut’s Pequot War Battlefield

 James J. S. Johnson, JD, ThD, CIHE, CPEE

O Timothy, keep that which is committed to thy trust, avoiding profane and vain babblings, and oppositions of ‘science’ falsely so-called.   (1st Timothy 6:20)

The Pequot War in New England, during AD1636-AD1637, climaxed in a morning firefight at Fort Mystick, in Connecticut.(1) What really happened there? The explosive battle began and ended quickly, with many dead or wounded, some captured (and enslaved), — and many questions linger about who did what, when, where, how, and why.

The historic battle of Fort Mystick involved Puritans and Pequots, Narragansetts, and Mohegans.(1),(2) The site still bears silent witness to the triumphant yet tragic events of that day, providing physical evidence that forensic scientists can analyze for demonstrative clues.

The most extensive [forensic/archeological] work undertaken by the Battlefields Project has involved retracing the fateful events of May 25 and 26, AD1637, surrounding the fortified Pequot settlement at Mistick (modern Mystic, Connecticut). When English forces stormed the village’s wooden palisades, it was to be the major turning point in the Pequot War, shifting the balance of power in southern New England permanently in English favor.(1) [quoting Urbanus, page 34]

Examining the battlefield of Fort Mystick, almost 400 years later, can illustrate both the value and limitations of forensic science, showcasing some apologetics lessons relevant to origins science and the Genesis record.

 

Scientific Approach #1:  Guessing at Causation Events by Examining Only Physical Evidence

Suppose the battlefield was observed using the fundamental empirical science technique: observation.  Indeed, observation is the heart of the so-called “scientific method”.  What could be learned, by careful inspection and measurements, on the Fort Mystick battlefield?  What kind of inspection can be done, at this late hour, to know what transpired during the conflict involving hundreds of English colonists and various local native tribes? What artifacts (physical items) remain, that help us to understand what occurred that morning in May?

Archeologists use various investigative methods to analyze historic sites, such as military battlefields.  A complete “walkover”, supplemented by satellite maps (and topographical maps, if elevation differences are significant), can provide an introduction to the land where the events occurred.  The specific property where the battle took place is micro-mapped into a grid system, so that each square foot of property can be analyzed as to what is found (or not found) there.  Invasive methods (such as excavation) can be minimized by remote sensing and metal detection technology, to locate the wood-in-soil remains of the Pequot tribe’s “fortress fence” palisade—and to locate miscellaneous items under the soil, such as buried arrowheads or musket balls.(1) Soil testing may also reveal clues of past activities.(3)

The physical topography of the site is relevant to the actions of that fateful day. Did soldiers move uphill or downhill? Would troop movements be affected by the presence of rivers, streams, woods, or jagged rock formations? Assuming military movements, what were the key terrains, strategic observation points, cover/concealment places, obstacles to movement, and avenues of approach (such as palisade openings for ingress and egress)?(4)

What artifacts were found, in the soil? Round musket balls and deformed (“mushroomed”) musket balls are miniature monuments to the shooting activities of Connecticut Puritans. Arrowheads, spearheads, and tomahawk fragments are artifacts evidencing combat actions of Pequots, Narragansetts, and Mohegans.  Sometimes fragments of muskets, such as broken trigger mechanisms, are found in the soil.  Why would muskets get broken like that?

More questions invite answers—such as why would arrowheads be found all over the battle site, both inside and outside the fort’s palisade walls? In reconstructing the history of the battle, does it make sense to infer that the Pequot Indians (who fought from inside the fort) were both shooting arrows at the attacking English Puritans, and also being shot by arrows as well?  Surely English Puritans were not shooting arrows at Pequots! Yet the location of arrowheads appears to indicate that the Pequots inside (and sometimes exiting from) the fort’s palisade walls were being shot by arrows.(1)  What was going on back then?

If only physical evidence is available—observable in the present—we cannot make much sense (i.e., have a reliable understanding) of what really happened there on May 26, 1637.(5)

Why were some musket balls round, yet others deformed?  Why are broken bits of muskets left in the soil? Why were defending Pequot warriors being shot by arrows? If the only evidence available is presently observable physical evidence, the limitations of empirical science provide a dead-end to most of these causation questions.(1),(5)

But forensic science methodology, when applied to analyze no-longer-observable events of the past, is not so limited, because forensic science analysis incorporates reliable eye-witness testimony. And the reports of past events, by reliable eye-witnesses,(5) are what provide a trustworthy framework for recognizing the logical connection between present effects and past causes.

 

Scientific Approach #2:  Matching Physical Effects to Causation Reports by Eye-witnesses

Unlike the prior investigation, limited to physical evidence only, now consider a forensic approach where the physical evidences are analyzed to corroborate (i.e., “fit”) the eye-witness accounts, and thus compared with the physical evidence at the scene, to see if the eye-witness reports are buttressed or impeached by the physical evidences.

Using [Captain] Mason’s written journal, the boundaries of the fort, and the artifact distribution pattern and analysis, archaeologists have been able to ascertain the sequence of events of the Battle of Mystick Fort.(1)

Consider how participants in the Fort Mystick battle reported the events that occurred there, noting the excitement and duress of shooting muskets while being showered with countervailing arrows and spears. Some musketeers spilled musket balls, while trying to load them for shooting.  Those musket balls fell to the ground, still round in shape. Musket balls that were shot, however, and entered human bodies, deformed on impact, so eye-witness accounts of Pequots being shot provide a logical explanation for the causation of “mushroomed” musket balls.

But what explains where arrows were found?  Battle participants all concur that the battle was not limited to English Puritans versus Pequot tribesmen. Rather, the Pequots had many enemies, so the attacking force was composed more of Narragansetts and Mohegans than it was of Englishmen.(1),(2)

In other words, Narragansett arrows and Mohegan arrows were being shot at Pequot defenders, and vice versa, in addition to English musket balls.  Eye-witness reports also account for the broken musket parts, which became soil debris recovered centuries later. When ammunition was exhausted, hand-to-hand combat occurred—tomahawks chopping muskets, as muskets were swung as clubs or as defensive staffs (to ward off tomahawk chops and dagger jabs). It is this integration of eye-witness reports and physical evidence that provides a forensic picture of the past.

The position of the English forces could be gleaned, in part, by the presence of intact musket balls, which were frequently dropped [as eye-witness accounts indicated] as soldiers attempted to reload and fire quickly under duress.  Additionally, the direction of the attacking volley could be identified by concentrations of melted or impacted shot, which deform as they hit targets. In similar fashion, by analyzing the pattern of Pequot projectile points [e.g., arrowheads or spearheads, that remain in the soil centuries after those projectiles were launched], the archaeologists were able to surmise the direction and movement of the Pequot forces. Large concentrations of metal artifacts other than musket balls, such as broken gun parts or armor, indicated areas where hand-to-hand combat likely took place [which “fit” the action described later by battle participants].(1) [quoting Urbanus, page 36]

Apart from divine intervention, eye-witnesses perceptions and memories are finite and fallible, so their reports can be flawed or (if dishonesty complicates the reporting) even fabricated.  Accordingly, comparing controversial witness reports with physical evidences – without automatically trusting every detail in an eye-witness report — is a worthwhile endeavor, to reconstruct how a series of sequential events occurred in the past.(5)

In short, the eye-witness reports provide a potential explanation of cause-and-effect happenings, and that explanation either fits the physical effect facts or it doesn’t.

According to trail-blazing forensic scientist Edmond Locard, “every contact leaves a trace”, although caused effects can be obliterated by later “contaminations” of the physical evidence.(6) However, without an eye-witness report, as a testimonial framework to match physical effects (as either “fit” or “misfit”) to, the physical evidences themselves become mere fodder for unscientific speculations.(5),(7) Physical evidences are especially helpful for testing the reliability of a witness report, by corroborating or impeaching the plausibility and accuracy of the reported facts, because physical facts (like fingerprints or DNA) can serve as an “inferential rebuttal” (e.g., disproving an alibi story).(8)

Forensic Science Lessons, Relevant for Studying Origins Science and the Genesis Record

This need for (and value of) eye-witness testimony applies to investigating and understanding our origins. If a closed-Bible approach is taken to studying origins, unscientific speculations run riot.(5),(7),(9) After all, the physical creation—including complex life-forms that die—can confuse the present-day observer, who tries to reconcile designed beauty and complexity in living things (which exhibits intelligent engineering beyond human imaginations, much moreso beyond human capabilities) with the tragic and ugly realities of parasitism, predation, and death.(5),(7),(10)

In short, the atheist and the deist—both of whom try to explain the physical effects of Earth’s origin (as well as the origins of life-forms, and even our own origin) apart from Scripture—are guaranteed to err on major cause-and-effect questions, such as how was physical stuff made to exist; how was life caused to be; how did humans become male or female; how did death originate; how did the habit of observing a seven-day week begin; how did the reports of a universal Flood get started; how did human languages come into being; etc.(5),(7),(9)

Your origins matter. And you cannot know your origins without studying Genesis (which is the perfectly reliable eye-witness report, provided by the divine Eye-Witness Himself)  —  and believing  —  its report about the no-longer-observable past.(10)  It is only an open-Bible approach, to studying physical evidences, that makes relevant sense of both the big-picture and the details of our origins.

References

(1)          Jason Urbanus, “America’s First War: Uncovering Evidence of a Little Known Colonial-Era Conflict that Forever Altered the Dynamics of Native American and European Relations in North America”, Archaeology (January/February 2015), 32-37.

(2)          John Winthrop, The Journal of John Winthrop 1630-1649 (Harvard University Press, 1996 abridged ed.), 122-123; William Bradford, Of Plymouth Plantation 1620-1647 (Alfred A. Knopf, 1989), 295-296, 396-398. See also Henry R. Stiles, The History and Genealogies of Ancient Windsor, Connecticut – 1635-1891 (Picton Press, 1992), I:69 & II:50; Donald S. Barber, The Connecticut Barbers, 2nd ed. (n.d.), Part 1, entry for First Generation, Sgt. Thomas Barber (“The Pequot War in 1637”).  The Connecticut family history data, used in this research, was provided in large part by my cousin Donald Barber.

(3)          Jennifer Bonetti & Lawrence Quarino, “Comparative Forensic Soil Analysis of New jersey State Parks Using a Combination of Simple Techniques with Multivariate Statistics”, Journal of Forensic Science, 59(3):627-633-636 (May 2014).

(4)          The Military Terrain Analysis model uses the acronym KOCOA:  Key terrain, Observation, Cover and concealment, Obstacles, Avenues of approach.

(5)          Federal Rules of Evidence, Rules 401-403. See also James J. S. Johnson, “Genesis Critics Flunk Forensic Science 101”, Acts & Facts, 41(3):8-9 (March 2012), note 9; James J. S. Johnson, “Tonsils, Forensic Science, and the Recent Fabrication Rule”, Acts & Facts, 41(6):8-9 (June 2012).

(6)          Jim Fraser, Forensic Science, A Very Short Introduction (Oxford University Press, 2010), 2.

(7)        1st Timothy 6:20.  Unlike the usual need to test the verisimilitude of eye-witness reports, the Bible is   perfect and inerrant, so there is no excuse for committing what Dr. Jason Lisle has aptly labeled the “two-book fallacy”, because the Scripture always provided accurate and undistorted coverage of the history it reports. See Jason Lisle, “The Two-Book Fallacy”, Acts & Facts, 42(1):9 (January 2013). See also James J. S. Johnson, “What Good Are Experts?”, Acts & Facts, 41(11):8-10 (November 2012).

(8)        The forensic relevance of “inferential rebuttals” is analyzed in Richardson I.S.D. v. Watkins, TEA Docket # 025-LH-1207 (Texas CIHE decision, 2-1-AD2008), Part IV.  Regarding impeachment exhibits, see Dallas I.S.D. v. Gali, TEA Docket # 029-LH-1205 (Texas CIHE decision, 2-17-AAD2006), applying Texas Evidence Rule 901.

(9)        See Dr. Bill Cooper’s “The Calendar and the Antiquity of Genesis”, Acts & Facts, 38(6):19 (June 2009). See also James J. S. Johnson, “Is the Present the Key to our Past?”, Acts & Facts, 43(6):19 (June 2014); James J. S. Johnson, “The Failed Apologetic of the Wedge Strategy”, Acts & Facts, 40(8):10-11 (August 2011).

(10)      Job 38:4 & 38:21.  See also James J. S. Johnson, “Human Suffering; Why This Isn’t the ‘Best of All Possible Worlds’”, Acts & Facts, 40(11):8-10 (November 2011); James J. S. Johnson, “People Yet to be Created”, Acts &Facts, 43(11):20 (November 2014).


[ A later version of this article is posted on Answers in Genesis website at https://answersingenesis.org/what-is-science/mystick-mystery-scientists-investigate-connecticuts-pequot-war-battlefield/ .]