Thanks for coming back!
The Church and most religious institutions are behind in marketing and branding campaigns. Spreading their message is critical to the fabric of their cause but the medium through which you share it, is critical for people to hear your message.
But this one takes the cake.
Story by Huffington Post
Kirk Cameron decided to market towards 50,000 (or 100,000 if they get the needed donations) universities. He has no relationship with them. He isn’t formally telling these universities about his “book dump” on Darwin’s 150 b-day. He’s just spamming them. Spam is an interrupted message you receive without prior approval. I doubt these universities will be happy about receiving these altered books and it’s probably going to cause a lot of controversy via the media.
Even if he nicely shared what he’s doing…does he have an ‘opt-out’ option? I doubt it. He thinks he’s being revolutionary with spamming universities with a new book. Content doesn’t matter when it’s medium is forceful. If no permission was given by the receiver, then the person doesn’t want to hear your good/bad message.
His book might have valid points. Science isn’t beyond reproach/question. It embraces questions and then disproves them with physical data. But, even if his book has valid points, I doubt anyone (maybe 1-2 brave souls) will even read it. Because of the flawed medium which he is about to do.
Kirk will have wasted all that money, time, trees, because his strategy is inherently flawed.
What if some evolution-believing people sent 50k-100k to churches? What would happen? There would be outrage. And I’m very confident that the church would bitch louder. Yea. I said bitch…
Good luck. But I already know the outcome Kirk. You’re going to do yourself (and your cause) a dis-service by doing this. Find a way to get people’s permission and people might hear you but this won’t change anything.
FYI, if you watch the spoof. I almost agree with everything she said. It explains a lot about the issues the church is facing with bringing people to their idea of faith.
No Facts
Simply put, according to science, there are no facts, there are no absolutes. The closest thing science gets to a ‘fact’ is called a LAW. For example, you know the reason why we don’t float away from earth? It’s called gravity, or more technically, the LAW of Gravity. It’s not called the fact of gravity, not the truth of gravity, nothing more than the LAW of Gravity.
What is a LAW? A law is the closest thing to ‘fact’ and ‘absolute’. It’s 99.9% true, in 99.9% situations. When is it not true? Well, none. But remember science is understanding through a completely NATURAL, PHYSICAL, and TANGIBLE REALM. You can’t know the future in a natural, physical, and tangible way. There are no ‘assumptions’ in science. So, when is the LAW not true? None, but science doesn’t assume that it will be true in the future, so therefore, science takes a humble and natural route of the uncertainty of tomorrow. Tomorrow something might happen and cause gravity to just not work. Something, somehow, someway. In that case, gravity will no longer be a LAW.
But Evolution is a fact
So, when I hear people, from any background say Evolution is fact. I just stop talking to them about the subject because they obviously aren’t someone wanting to discuss something based on the principles of science. It’s very wise to let this argument go because in their mind it is ‘fact’ and they feel entitled to their ‘new found truth’ and won’t let it go even if you tell them plainly “Gravity isn’t a fact sir…how can evolution?” They will rant and rant. It’s very annoying.
But then, on the other hand, Christians saying Creation in 6 days is fact are very foolish. This is an impossible task because according to the 1st LAW of Thermodynamics, you can’t produce something from nothing. (From what I’ve heard from others, this is true…I’m no scientist…but I’m going on the information I’ve received; So, If I’m totally wrong about this, please comment intelligently) So, within the 1st LAW of Thermodynamics even the Big Bang Theory doesn’t hold weight.
But the Big Bang Theory isn’t LAW. Evolution isn’t LAW. Creation isn’t LAW. None of it is. Big Bang and Creation will probably never ever become a LAW, according to science, since the theory is going against existing LAW’s of science. Evolution holds more possibility to become LAW but it’s still nothing but a hypothesis. I’m not sure if you could even call it a theory because some friends (that have PH.D’s in Science junk) say that Theory means it’s about 33% ‘true’. Hypothesis are just a rough idea with no proof.
Another example: If for some strange reason, I thought the world was implanted by Alien’s and somehow the Alien’s did it all. I’d have to have proof backing every inch, every thought, answering every rebuttal, if I ever wanted my theory to become LAW in science. Science doesn’t make assumptions and science Alien’s are material and natural, it is a possibility it’s proven true and declared a LAW, according to science.
Within science, no idea is shunned. I don’t shun evolution. I just ask, Where is the proof? Science doesn’t answer a question, with another question. To science 1 + 1 = X The answer isn’t “Well, what about dinosaurs?” Although science must seek an answer for every question, it’s all one step at a time. No hypothesis becomes a LAW overnight, thousands, millions of scientists research and criticize every aspect of the idea.
If Evolution is true (as Darwin even wrote in his book) it would have million/billions of missing links from the water pond to the human. Today, we haven’t created a cell…..we have not even one link between an ape to a human. So, my question is how can something be ‘fact’ when it’s not a legitimate theory (33% true).
What Evolution is and The Only Aspect I BELIEVE is true
The idea of evolution is from one cell….it adapted and made everything you see. Therefore every mammal is a by-product of this one cell. Just because this happens over millions of years, it doesn’t negate the aspect of science. It must be proven, in every case. Everything that surrounds evolution is hypothesis un-top of hypothesis un-top of hypothesis. There is nothing wrong with this. This is how science figures out LAW versus hypothesis. There is nothing wrong with a hypothesis with other hypothesis surrounding it. But to call it FACT, much less a LAW, is a 100% black-hearted lie. It’s saying this theory is true, until proven other-wise. Actually, science works the opposite way, false until proven true. But for some reason people want to have this hypothesis true, so they spread propaganda to see that the people believe it’s true.
One aspect of evolution is true, that is adaptation, at least I believe it could be considered a strong theory or even a LAW. We adapt to our environment. Our bodies modify. The animals modify. For example, I’m on the computer a lot and I read a lot therefore I’m becoming near-sighted. Why? Because my eyes are adapting to the situations I put them through.
Conclusion
Basically, Science doesn’t have the answer to ‘where did we come from’, it’s still figuring out different theories and testing them out. Science cannot prove ’supernatural’ ideas. But evolution, without big bang, (which is Darwin’s original idea) is a solid idea to answer this question naturally, through science. One day, science might arise with an answer, but as of today Jan. 5th 2008, it doesn’t have an answer.