Wednesday, July 06, 2005

When I was in high school and the lawyers first started to over-populate the country, it was common to read about people suing their rescuers. Some Good Samaritan would run into a burning building and save someone, then get sued by the family because he didn't save someone else or injured the person in some way while carrying them out. Most states quickly enacted Good Samaritan Laws that shield average citizens from lawsuits when they just stop to help someone. So the lawyer/pigs had to go find some other trough to snout around in.

But now, Good Samaritans can be arrested. This is stupidity on stilts. If law enforcement is trying to lose credibility or authority, then all I can say is "Keep up the good work, guys!!" The money quote:

Police say Dave Newman, 48, disobeyed repeated orders by emergency personnel to leave the water. The police report does not mention Newman's rescue of 35-year-old Abed Duamni of Houston on Sunday afternoon.

[snip]

University spokesman Mark Hendricks said he did not know whether Newman rescued Duamni. Hendricks said it was his understanding that Newman was uncooperative with authorities.


Of course the police report makes no mention of the rescue, because that would make them look like the complete idiots that they are. And we all know since the Martha Stewart case, that being "uncooperative with authorities" will land you in prison. I would think that this sort of stupidity would be rare in Texas, and I do note with pleasure that the crowd gave the pigs a hard time about what they were doing. A lot of people in Texas still think they live in a republic of self-governed individuals and are not likely to take kindly to "police officers" that treat citizens as if they were subjects, especially citizens that risk their lives rescuing someone while the "police officers" stand on the shore barking orders.

Anyway.

I feel I need to address Lindsey's comment to yesterday's entry. I know this guy is small fish and isn't really a scientist. That is part of the problem with the whole Creation Science movement (and its primary cheerleader organization, the ICR). None of these guys are scientists, yet they (not necessarily Scott, but others like Henry Morris, Kent Hovind, etc.) make a living out of giving lectures on scientific topics. Because they have no basic understanding of what they are talking about, they often make complete fools of themselves. But of course, their primary audience is as scientifically illiterate (and generally proud of it) as they are. Preaching to the converted has the advantage of not having to concern yourself with accuracy as along as you bracket every statement with a sufficient number of "Praise God" and "Can I get an aaaaaa-men" -type phrases.

Having said that, I do not intend to stand up in the middle of his talk and try to shoot him down. I may not be able to restrain myself if he says something monumentally stupid, like "Evolution is just a theory." Yea, well so is gravity; so go jump off the roof. But I will content myself with voluminous note-taking so I can later correct him via e-mail or some such. I prefer to do such things in writing because a) it makes it harder to get into he-said/she-said arguments afterwards and b) I can include references to back up what I say.

And while Scott may not be a scientist, his ambition is to teach secondary school science classes from the "creationist viewpoint." Unless he is talking about teaching in private schools only, his plans are in direct conflict with established law here in Michigan and any other state I am aware of. This is main reason for the Intelligent Design movement as promoted by the Discovery Institute. By being vague about who the designer is (according to Bill Dembsky, it could be aliens) they are trying to sneak in under the radar and teach creationism in the classroom. The problem is that every time you turn around, someone is spilling the beans and equating the designer with the Christian God.

And that is all I have time for. Gotta go.

1 comment:

Eric said...

Creation Science Movement? Movement indicates that there has been a change in a held position. This, I believe, is the pot calling the kettle black. These men who hold the belief that the world was, in fact, created as stated in God's Word in six days, these men believe the same as has been believed by all Bible believeing Christians down through the ages. Is this unacceptable? To accually believe God's Holy Words? One can explain away anything I guess, but what is truth is truth and always will be the truth regardless of what you or I think of it. God's Word is absolute truth. Scott simply dares to take God at His word. And for this Scott is now some so-called by your blog: a uber-Creationist "Scientist".
The Bible says in 1 Corinthians 1:21: For after that in the wisdom of God the world by wisdom knew not God, it pleased God by the foolishness of preaching to save them that believe.
I reference this verse because I couldn't resist doing so after reading your words: "they often make complete fools of themselves" when refering to people whom you claim do not understand what they are talking about. These men are preachers and so is Scott. He wants to teach the truth and He has been lead by the Holy Spirit in finding the Truth in the Holy Scriptures. I wish I was as bold as him, to stand there without much if any support being challenged in church by a former pastor of the church concerning the six day creation. And from reading your blog, I get the impression that people like Scott just came up with this notion just a few years ago on their own. Not so, it is written in the Bible. The Bible is absolute Truth because The Lord Jesus Christ cannot lie. He has promised to preserve His very words and He has done just that. So that brings me back to the "movement" at the beginning of this comment. Who has moved? Not I. The Lord has blessed me and given me much faith(Hebrews 12:2) for Christ is the Author and Finisher of our faith. It is not of me. I thank God for it. The men God chose to use down through the ages have not moved. William Tyndale who did much translating into English from the recieved Greek texts. John Huss, he was burned for his beliefs as was Tyndale. These are my beliefs as well. Martin Luther, John Calvin, the Wesley brothers, the Enlish reformation. They moved alright, to what was in line with the Bible and Christ held them there. And these were persecuted for their beliefs. I'm sure you are aware of church history, maybe you might want or need to look into it more. So what is really the movement? What happened back a few years ago about the mid 1800s? A unbeliever be the name of Darwin came up with, oh yes, a theory. Who, on his deathbed, renounced his teachings. And, along with the questioning of God's Word and it's authority, it has crept into mainline fundamentalism. First, multiple bible versions to confuse people and lay doubt. Then, when the Bible is no more the Bible, introduction of Darwinism into evangelical churches who have been numbed by untrustworthy bible versions. My point: Creationist are not the movement, they would have to be moving to be that. Darwinist are moving and that indicates that they have no rock on which to stand. Otherwise, they wouldn't be moving.

Psalms 62:6 He only [is] my rock and my salvation: [he is] my defence; I shall not be moved.

Jeremiah 15:16 Thy words were found, and I did eat them; and thy word was unto me the joy and rejoicing of mine heart: for I am called by thy name, O LORD God of hosts.