RU Institute

Archive for the ‘AA:Amy’ Category

In an Unbelievable podcast discussing the question, "What was the primary cause of Nazi ideology—Darwinism or Christian anti-Semitism?" a listener asked, "Has Darwinism become prescriptive? When did this happen?" Here is the argument I have heard many times against the Darwinism-created-eugenics claim: Darwinism is merely descriptive, not prescriptive. Therefore, those who made it prescriptive (i.e., who reasoned natural selection is true, therefore we can create better human beings through careful breeding, therefore we should) were misusing the scientific knowledge. This was not the fault of Darwinism, but merely a misunderstanding of the role of science. Read the rest of this entry »

New Scientist reports that University College London has published online what remains of Kantsaywhere, a novel by Darwin's cousin and eugenics-promoter, Francis Galton. Most of the book was destroyed by Galton's family after his death, and this article by Michael Marshall explains why: Read the rest of this entry »

Continuing our year in review, here are the five podcasts of STR's radio show with the highest number of downloads in 2011. Have you heard them yet? Read the rest of this entry »

All year, Greg has been collecting people's questions and posting a new video answer each week.  Here are the ten videos that had the most comments in 2011. Catch up on what you missed! Read the rest of this entry »

We're coming to the end of the year, so we thought we'd reflect back on the most-discussed (non-video) posts of 2011. Even if you've read these posts before, there's a lot of detailed discussion happening in the comments that you may have missed. (The #1 post had 446 comments!) So here are the ten posts that sparked the most conversation here in 2011  Read the rest of this entry »

Ed Komoszewski of Parchment and Pen reviewed the recent Bart Ehrman/Dan Wallace debate  ("Can we trust the text of the New Testament?"), offering these six points (abridged below) to summarize Wallace's argument: Read the rest of this entry »

Barnabas Piper clarifies the difference between asking questions and being a skeptic:

There’s a fine line, though, between being someone who questions things and being a skeptic. In fact, many people would call someone who questions everything a skeptic. Here’s the thing; I don’t think many skeptics actually question anything. They may phrase their challenges as questions, but their heart is set on rejection and disproving. To truly question something is to pose questions to it and about it for the sake of understanding. This may lead to disproving or rejecting, but the heart behind it is in learning. And in this sense, we ought to question everything…. [W]hat is more important than seeking every ounce of truth in an established reality? And what is more harmful than abiding in that reality if no truth is to be found there? And so we must question.

I sometimes hear atheists say that as science advances, religion retreats, and soon there will be no need for religion. It's a particularly narrow understanding of our relationship with God (speaking as a Christian here)—as if God's main function in our lives is to provide an explanation for events in nature. Read the rest of this entry »

Russell Moore gives seven reasons why "Judgment Houses" (or "Hell Houses")—haunted-house-type attractions created by churches, depicting sin and judgment for the purpose of evangelism—"often miss the mark." I thought these three points were particularly strong:

They abstract judgment from the love of God. I know most “Judgment Houses” present the gospel at the end. But in the Bible the good news doesn’t come at the end. The prodigal son leaves the father’s house, but the father is eager to receive him back (Luke 16:11-31). The awful news of God’s judgment is always intertwined in Scripture with the message of the gospel of a loving, merciful God. “For God did not send his Son into the world to condemn the world, but in order that the world might be saved through him” (John 3:17). Read the rest of this entry »

The words of C.H. Spurgeon, quoted by J.I. Packer in Knowing God, on the ways in which the study of God changes us:

There is something exceedingly improving to the mind in a contemplation of the Divinity. It is a subject so vast, that all our thoughts are lost in its immensity; so deep, that our pride is drowned in its infinity…. No subject of contemplation will tend more to humble the mind, than thoughts of God….

But while the subject humbles the mind, it also expands it…. Nothing will so enlarge the intellect, nothing so magnify the whole soul of man, as a devout, earnest, continued investigation of the great subject of the Deity.

And whilst humbling and expanding, this subject is eminently consolatory. Oh, there is, in contemplating Christ, a balm for every wound; in musing on the Father, there is a quietus for every grief; and in the influence of the Holy Ghost, there is a balsam for every sore. Would you lose your sorrow? Would you drown your cares? Then go, plunge yourself in the Godhead's deepest sea; be lost in his immensity and you shall come forth as from a couch of rest, refreshed and invigorated. I know nothing which can so comfort the soul; so calm the swelling billows of Sorrow and grief; so speak peace to the winds of trial, as a devout musing upon the subject of the Godhead. It is to that subject that I invite you this morning.