Welcome to

If you're new here, you may want to subscribe to my RSS feed or Via e-mail. Thanks for visiting!

No, it is not part of the free love movement gone sci-fi, it is the newest scientific method for explaining away us Christian types that don’t buy into the evolutionary worldview.

In a recent article titled, “Why do some people resist science?”, psychologists Paul Bloom and Deena Weisberg grope for some psychological problem to explain…. me.  A grown-up-who-ought-to-know-better still believing that things have purpose… kinda pitiful, ain’t I?   Here is an excerpt from their article that will explain the title of my post:

…One significant bias is that children naturally see the world in terms of design and purpose. For instance, four year-olds insist that everything has a purpose, including lions (”to go in the zoo”) and clouds (”for raining”), a propensity that Deborah Kelemen has dubbed “promiscuous teleology.” Additionally, when asked about the origin of animals and people, children spontaneously tend to provide and to prefer creationist explanations.

A ’significant bias’?  You have got to be kidding me.  In a world of biases, at least Christians like me admit our bias upfront, that bias being, “God said it and I believe it.”  But am I supposed to believe that these two scientists, while talking about those with a bias towards creationism have no bias of their own?  Why would they have entered into such a study in the first place, I wonder?  I am willing to stake a picture of Ronny Wade with an afro (a priceless posession), that if these two were intellectually honest, they would answer that, in their minds, the only explanation for ‘promiscuous teleology’ among those who ‘prefer creationist explanations’ is some dimwitted childhood psychological phenomenon that we have failed to grow out of… a significant bias, if you ask me.

Now come on everyone, let us hold hands, sing Kumbaya, and “persuade children and adults that the institute of science is, for the most part, worthy of trust (see the last sentence of their article).”  I actually agree with that statement, it is just the activist scientists out to prove evolution is 100% true and religion is a mental disorder that I have a problem with.  Phooey.

Sticking with my pathetic 4-year-old worldview in which things have purpose,

/Here is the convenience-age explanation of what this article is about, written in text-message-ese and graphics for those that can only digest information in tiny misspelled chunks.  (I strive to cater to a wide audience)

//I have not forgotten the series on ‘why bad things happen to good people’ this article just distracted me, must be that 4-year-old ADHD that I also haven’t grown out of…

Popularity: 25% [?]

I feel sorry for the significant other in an evolutionist’s life, but more on that later.

For the next several days, leading up to that gloriously commercialized date on the calendar which is founded in fertility festivals and mythical stories about Catholic saints, that being Valentine’s Day, I will be discussing what else but…LOVE.  This may come as a shock to some who believe I have the heart of the grinch, but hopefully these articles will show that I do have some small grasp on the subject      :-) 

I invite my readers to please leave your comments and added thoughts as we go along, because love is nothing if not subjective, and you as the one being subjected to my thoughts on the subject, may have a totally different view. 

The first ‘love’ topic that I want to address is that of love and the evolutionist, I see no monogomous monkeys and no evolutionary advantage to romantic love and monogamy among humans, yet I wouldn’t have it any other way… would the evolutionist?   Read on –>

Read the rest of this entry »

Next in series

Popularity: 66% [?]

Posted in JW's thoughts, Stupid Headlines, Monkey Business AKA: Evolution | No Comments »