Good Shepherd
Initiative

Free Since 1983
To Educate & Motivate
- not "entertain" -
HIS Character Matters

Human Trafficking & Slavery
Don't Just Happen
(Jesus said in Mark 7:21-23)

Would a "good" God design
"survival of the fittest"
as His WAY?
(Isaiah 65:25)

Canyon
Grand Canyon Expedition
(Thanks Tom & Paula)

Rights - Any discussion about human rights (slavery, oppression) or animal rights (cruelty, abuse) must first address our Creator's rights. He has the right to command how we treat both His people and His animals.

raccoon_river_sidarms

* * Videos of Animal Friends
- More Pics / Vids -

Responsibilities - Jesus said the root cause of suffering in this world is a distorted view of and/or the rejection of the true WAY of our Creator. (John 8:1-59)

Mistakes - Man's self-serving, misguided, mischaracterizations of God have historically led to personal and cultural conflict, corruption, and collapse.

Hope - Discovering the WHO?, the WHY?, and the "WAY"? of origins is the foundation for true transformation.

Change - Truly lasting change for individuals and cultures must begin at the cornerstone - the Creator of creation.

sidotter
"Squirt" the Otter

honeyislandswamp
Honey Island Swamp


"Boatie" - Lizaboa

"Then I looked again
at all the acts of oppression
which were being done
under the sun.
And behold I saw the tears
of the oppressed
and that they had no one
to comfort them;
and on the side
of their oppressors was power,
but they had no one
to comfort them."

Ecclesiastes 4:1

GSI:

Interviews with Scholars
and other PhD's

who have risked/suffered
great personal & professional
cost simply for seeking & speaking "Truth"

(Men and Women for whom I now have great respect)

© Sid Galloway BS, M.Div.
Just an old sheepdog of the Good Shepherd
Genesis 1:1

Communicating conclusions from 100's of PhD scholars (and children)
Supporting the authority of His Word
& the consistency of His character

Human Rights? Slavery? - Animal Rights? Cruelty?
What about God's right to command compassion for all of His creatures?


- Why would a search for Truth involve great risk?
- What motivates their personal sacrifice?
- How have they suffered as a result?
- Who are these courageous scholars?

Survival of the Coolest is sadly very real, even among adults. When a person, especially professional researchers and academicians, choose to take a stand in opposition to current cultural beliefs, he or she often pays an extremely high price.
(please see the excellent expose, EXPELLED: No Intelligence Allowed)

So, why would 1,000's of PhD's and 100's of internationally respected scholars in science, philosophy, theology, etc willingly risk such personal costs by taking a public stand against dominant beliefs, such as macroevolution via mutation/selection? My personal interviews (and ongoing communication) with many of these courageous scholars have convinced me that one central motive is common to virtually all of them. That core motivation is simply the sincere, humble desire to know and share what they are convinced by evidence are the most logical inferences (conclusions) based upon the best available evidence, leading to the best explanation of facts.

As the renowned philosopher of science Dr. Karl Popper so ably taught, a
good hypothesis/theory is one that could be falsified by testing and thus
should be tested continually toward that goal.  That has been, is today,
and always will be the primary path to discovering and clarifying
scientific truths. The history of science is a long chain of supported scientific theories and even scientific laws, many of which were found to be false through honest critical evaluation. However, the history of science is also fraught with politically correct power struggles in which scientific assumptions were held to emotionally and "religiously" until new evidence finally broke through the wall of academic censorship.

As warned by John Mattick, PhD, professor of molecular biology at the University of Queensland and director of the Institute for Molecular Bioscience:

Assumptions can be dangerous, especially in science.  They usually start as the most plausible or comfortable interpretation of the available facts.  But when their truth cannot be immediately tested and their flaws are not obvious, assumptions often graduate to articles of faith, and new observations are forced to fit them.  Eventually, if the volume of troublesome information becomes unsustainable, the orthodoxy must collapse.” [Emphasis added]

“The Hidden Genetic Program of Complex Organisms”, Scientific American, October 2004, p. 61

Historically, the courageous stands taken by sincere researchers have often resulted in censorship and persecution. Most immediate for many has been the loss of public esteem - being shunned by coworkers and blacklisted from peer reviewed journals. In many cases, they have suffered rejection for promotion or tenure, and sometimes even termination of employment - "You're Fired!". Today, some of these consequences have occurred merely for suggesting that the evidence indicates an Intelligent Designer.

* PLEASE NOTE:
The following examples represent individuals who are renowned as "scholars" in their fields. However, there are also 1,000's of lesser known respected experts who represent the same commitment to critical thinking who challenge the primary axiomatic assumption of the macroevolutionary hypothesis.
* I do not agree with every inference or belief of the following scholars, and of course they do not fully agree with one another on every issue.
Yet they all bravely challenge the prevailing dogmatic belief that macroevolution created the vast, intricately interdependent information systems of living cells through the mechanism of mutation-selection.


First, grief regarding evolutionist Francis Collins PhD
(former head of the Human Genome Project)
* An example of culturally conditioned consensus,
instead of scientific critical thinking.

February 4, 2009 at Tulane University in New Orleans, theistic evolutionist Dr. Francis Collins was invited by Veritas Forum to speak on "The Language of God: Intellectual Reflections of a Christian Geneticist". Prior to his presentation, I had the privilege to very briefly interview Dr. Collins on new discoveries regarding junk DNA and mutations in light of the problem they cause for those like him who still believe the hypo-theses (underlying-beliefs) of macroevolution.

Dr. Collins told me that he was unaware of Dr. John Sanford (inventor of the Gene Gun at Cornell University) and that he did not know of Dr. Sanford's book or the work of any world renowned geneticists indicating mutational GENETIC ENTROPY. (Examples: Crow, Haldane, Kimura, Kondrashov, Muller, etc) Even more surprising, was Dr. Collins' admission that the subject of mutations (information errors in genetic coding) was not an area that he had investigated thoroughly. This is understandable, since Dr. Collins' primary role for his many years as head of the HGP was administrative director. It is easy to fall out of the knowledge loop even in related areas of science, especially when focused on one very narrow area administratively.

Yet, the very heart of macroevolutionary theory is the belief that mutations somehow repeatedly created new, incomprehensibly complex, multi-layered and inseparably interdependent genetic information systems now known to exist among the many millions of life forms. In addition, Dr. Collins down-played as minor his previous serious error in which he had claimed "junk DNA" was one of the strongest evidences for macroevolution. Collins had claimed this as evidence, because he firmly believed they were nonfunctional left over genetic fossils from past ancestors.

Regarding the grossly erroneous "junk DNA" claim by Collins and other evolutionists, geneticist Dr. Mattick (see his biographical data in a previous quote above) humbly and as a scientist says:

"The failure to recognize the full implications of [non-protein–coding DNA] may well go down as one of the biggest mistakes in the history of molecular biology."[emphasis added][Mattick, J., cited in: Gibbs, W. W., The unseen genome: gems among the junk, Scientific American 289(5):26–33, November 2003.] Emphasis Added

In his second book, The Language of Life (2010), Dr. Collins acknowledges that due to new discoveries, "some DNA we used to call 'junk' is useful" (p. 10). However, in light of Dr. Mattick's statement above, Dr. Collins' mere acknowledgement falls far short of the admission of personal error and apology that would be expected for a man who had repeatedly proclaimed junk DNA as one of the strongest genetic verifications of macroevolution.
(See Dr. Jonathan Wells' chronology of Dr. Collins' views in Ch. 10 of his excellent new book, The Myth of Junk DNA.)

In Genetic Entropy, Dr. John Sanford includes his past personal wrestling with the power of consensus thinking. Dr. Sanford's struggle mirrors the testimony I've heard from many top scholars and countless other professionals. The first was shared with me by former biology professor and graduate school dean of Tulane University, Dr. Richard Lumsden decades ago.

"I suspect most geneticists have never even seriously considered such weaknesses . . . . This is because by faith they have always accepted [neo-Darwinian theory] as axiomatically true, even as I once did myself. So they have not even bothered to examine the full extent of the problems with an open mind or an open heart." [Sanford, J., Genetic Entropy & the Mystery of the Genome. pp. 161-162] Emphasis Added

Below are examples of courageous men and women, like Dr. Sanford, who are willing to critically and logically follow the evidence and not the mere majority opinion of culturally conditioned consensus "thinking". In fact, many openly and boldly chose to admit they had been in gross error regarding the very cornerstone of macroevolution's foundation, that is, mutations as the mechanism for creating new kinds of creatures - microbes to man. This is the mark of true science, in contrast to politics. More significantly, they have done so bearing risks and often great costs from censorship and persecution from militant materialists, theistic evolutionists, atheists, and now a very vocal group of anti-theists.


Examples of Courageous Science Scholars:

- Damadian MD, Raymond - MRI Inventor

- Lumsden PhD, Richard - Former Dean of Biology Dept, Tulane Univ

- Sanford PhD, John - Gene Gun Inventor, Cornell University

- Baumgardner PhD, John - TERRA Inventor, Los Alamos Labs

- Hartnett PhD, John - Cosmology Theorist, Univ. of W. Australia

- Gitt PhD, Werner - German Federal Institute of Physics & Technology

- McIntosh PhD, DSc, Andy - Univ. of Leeds, Thermodynamics

- Wells PhD, PhD, Jonathan - Discovery Institute

- Behe PhD, Michael - Leigh Univeristy

. . . more will be added as time allows

 


Examples of Courageous Philosophy Scholars

- Meyer PhD, Stephen - Philosopher of Science, PhD Cambridge

. . . more will be added as time allows


Examples of Courageous Theology Scholars

- MacArthur DD, John - Pres. Master's College/Seminary

- Mohler, Albert PhD - Pres. Southern Baptist Theological Seminary

- Grudem PhD, Wayne - Systematic Theologian, Trinity Evangelical Divinity School, Council Biblical Manhood & Womanhood


cbmw

* I strongly urge you to read the article/chapter below:

"Myth of Mutual Submission"

by Wayne Grudem PhD - renowned biblical scholar

  • B.A., Harvard University
  • M.Div., Westminster Theological Seminary
  • Ph.D., University of Cambridge

Experience

Dr. Grudem became Research Professor of Theology and Biblical Studies at Phoenix Seminary in 2001 after teaching at Trinity Evangelical Divinity School for 20 years. He has served as the President of the Council on Biblical Manhood and Womanhood, as President of the Evangelical Theological Society (1999), and as a member of the Translation Oversight Committee for the English Standard Version of the Bible. He also served as the General Editor for the ESV Study Bible (Crossway Bibles, 2008).

Leadership Positions

Here is the BOOK from which the chapter was taken:
Foundations for Biblical Manhood & Womanhood

 

. . . more will be added as time allows