Consensus and Credibility

In the Creation/Evolution Debate, evolutionists and their sympathizers (like the liberal, secular media) will often point to "scientific consensus" or "what most scientists believe" about the Theory of Evolution as supposed "proof" for its veracity. Three of the most common high-school biology textbooks state that “Evolution is believed by most scientists and is the unifying theory of biology.” (Evolution Exposed, Pg. 53) You may read about creationists that “they believe in a relatively young earth of 6,000-8,000 years, despite scientific consensus to the contrary.” The National Science Teachers Association has stated, "There is no longer a debate among scientists over whether evolution has taken place." ("A Tale of Two Journalists," Answers Magazine, Volume 2, Number 3, July-September 2007, Pg. 32) The implications are clear, but one textbook is unmistakable when it says that “Biblical creation is religion, and evolution is science.” (Evolution Exposed, Pg. 21)
Now, I’m not going to deny that most scientists believe in Evolution. But that concession is no more than what I stated: they believe in Evolution. Although scientific consensus and fact are closely related and interconnected, that does not make Evolution true. That does not make Evolution irrefutable. Creationists should not be intimidated by this ploy. It is an argument littered with logical fallacies, general illogic, and half-truths. The fact is, it's a bad argument.

It’s amazing to hear the liberal media consistently point to “experts” when covering the Creation/Evolution controversy. Rather than cold, hard evidence, we get a 15-second clip of some either painfully dull or hatefully militant "expert" saying, essentially, “We all know that the earth is such-and-such years old and all life originated from a single ancestor. There is indisputable evidence of this and almost all reputable scientists agree.” What evidence? Oh, I guess you don’t have time to go into that one, eh?

It's really a waste of time, and it's a harsh testimony of the short attention-span, "highlight reel" society we live in. These sonic soundbites prove nothing (as I will demonstrate). In their stead, I would like to see an honest argument from the evolutionists, not a propaganda machine piggybacking on the willing participant of the liberal media (and school system, for that matter).

When one points to a consensus or a majority to prove a point or argument, two logical fallacies are committed. First of all, there is the fallacious “bandwagon” argument. The belief that “if everybody is doing it (or everybody believes/says it), it must be right,” is not a case proof. First, we must note that a 100% consensus is almost impossible to achieve. Secondly, the haunting words of my mother inevitably pop into my mind: “If everybody jumped off a cliff, would you, too?” The thinking here is that the masses can err. Let me state, for the record, that I will not jump off the evolutionary cliff.

The other logical fallacy is the “appeal to authority.” Laymen may not know what they are talking about, and experts may not know what they’re talking about (or they may intentionally deceive). Pointing to their opinions en masse, without exterior (other) evidence, does not prove anything, other than, of course, that scientists' opinions line up with evolutionary theory.

Allow me to demonstrate these fallacies further:

In America, we have a governmental system known as a democratic republic. (I know, I speak profound and unknown things, but hang with me.) To simplify a description, one can say that, in such a system, the majority of common people (citizens) elect representatives and leaders—the majority of which legislate the nation’s laws and make other important decisions. In combination with our Constitution and the separation and decentralization of powers, it composes one of—if not—the best system of government that can be attained and maintained on this fallen earth. While protecting core principles and avoiding anarchist chaos, it successfully transmits the will of the people.

But we should not make the mistake of thinking that the “will of the people” is indisputably “right.” We accept the consensus of the people and the politicians because they (usually) do reflect the “will of the people,” but it does not mean they are good decisions. It does not mean they are "correct" or "moral" decisions. In a righteous society, the view of the majority will likely be cohesive with what’s moral and just. However, even in such a case, one must not concede that at face value.

It is easy to visualize the fact that the majority consensus is not universally veracious. For one thing, public opinion can change. Abortion can be looked down upon, then accepted, then (hopefully) condemned. The same sort of thing can happen in the scientific community. The majority can’t always be right if it changes so dramatically, unless one accepts the premise of moral relativism, believing that the majority can be “right” all the time, no matter what it determines, since there can be no real right anyway.
In addition, a consensus can be formed on any level of emotion, misinformation, or presupposition, again compromising its trustworthiness.

Some might claim that these basic truths don’t apply to the elites of society—the politicians and “experts.” But all human beings are fallible (Romans 3:23), and the elites in society may be driven by corruption and agendas, as well as the influences on the common man. For instance, the educational establishment is firmly in the evolutionary camp. So what kind of scientists do we expect to be churned out but that of evolutionists?

This is not to mention that when someone references a majority, they imply the existence of a minority of a varying size from forty-nine to less-than-one percentile. Suffice it to say, the existence of a minority does not automatically eliminate a majority view’s trueness. But considering the minority may consist of a substantial amount of minds, it must be taken seriously, harkening back to the fact that majority opinions are fluid.

It is disingenuous for evolutionists to make it appear that all (or "virtually all reputable/qualified/real/educated") scientists accept the Theory of Evolution. There are many who, in the least, are skeptical of Evolution (See List of Intellectual Doubters of Darwinism. According to the site, "The purpose of this document is to list individuals of high academic training who have publicly expressed serious doubts about Darwinism, other naturalistic theories of life's origin, or have expressed support for intelligent design theory, either in scientific journals, books, web-documents, letters, or other public statements. Our criteria for this page is that each individual must either 1) have a PhD, 2) be a professor at a university or 3) be moderately published in scientific journals, or 4) is a member of a mainstream scientific society.) The organization Answers in Genesis has publicly educated scientists who espouse creationism. In fact, they just gained another one in the form of Dr. Andrew Snelling, who received a Ph.D. in applied geology from the University of Sydney. Others include Dr. David Menton, who holds a Ph.D. in cell biology from Brown University and is Professor Emeritus at the Washington University School of Medicine in St. Louis; and Dr. Georgia Purdom, with a doctorate in molecular genetics from Ohio State University. You can click here to read a list compiled by AiG of well over one hundred "modern scientists who have accepted the biblical account of creation" as well as scientists in the past who believed in a Creator God. This is not to mention proponents of Intelligent Design. For instance, there is astrophysicist/-biologist(?) Guillermo Gonzalez, co-author of the book-turned-DVD The Privileged Planet: How Our Place in the Cosmos is Designed for Discovery, who, as Assistant Professor of Astronomy, was recently denied tenure at Iowa State University, potentially—or should I say probably—because of his strong arguments for I.D. According to the Discovery Institute, he is "a world-class expert on the astrophysical requirements for habitability and on habitable zones and a co-founder of the 'Galactic Habitable Zone' concept, which captured the October 2001 cover story of 'Scientific American.' Astronomers and astrobiologists around the world are pursuing research based on his work on exoplanet host stars, the Galactic Habitable Zone and red giants." Another prominent pioneer of Intelligent Design is biochemist Michael Behe, a professor at Lehigh University, who advanced the idea of "irreducible complexity," and authored Darwin's Black Box: The Biochemical Challenge to Evolution. A third example is William Dembski. "A mathematician and philosopher, [he] is Research Professor in Philosophy at Southwestern Baptist Theological Seminary in Ft. Worth." He has written The Design Inference: Eliminating Chance Through Small Probabilities. In all probability, there are many others, not listed in the anti-Darwin ranks, who doubt Evolution, but do not possess the fortitude to place their scientific reputations on the line.
(Note: There is some amount of overlap between the List of Intellectual Doubters of Darwinism, AiG's list of creationists, and proponents of Intelligent Design.)

Another problem for the “consensus" argument is the possibility for a “bait-and-switch” technique. A person can honestly say that “most scientists believe in Evolution” (though this proves nothing), and then genuinely follow that up with supposed “evidence” for Evolution. But here’s the potential underlying problem with that: just because most scientists believe in Evolution does not necessarily mean that they accept all of the proposed (and frequently debunked after-the-fact) “evidences” for Evolution. A truly objective scientist never would. Yet, when “most scientists believe in Evolution” is paired with “here’s the evidence for Evolution,” a natural connection of the human mind is that “most scientists believe…in this evidence.” That may be true in some or even most cases, but certainly there are more scientists who are skeptical of some proofs of Evolution than people who reject Evolution as a whole. This is point which should not be underestimated.
It’s kind of like this: if someone said “Kingdom Advancer believes the Bible is God’s inerrant, inspired Word,” and then stated, “One proof some use for the Bible being God’s Word is that it consists of black ink printed on white paper,” someone may make the reasonable inference that “Kingdom Advancer believes the Bible is God’s Word because it consists of black ink printed on white paper.” Now, don’t get too deep philosophically on me, but that "evidence" probably wouldn’t be one of my first couple hundred proofs, if it ever were a proof at all.

What is the end result of this “bait-and-switch?” Well, in the case of Evolution, people may believe in it, because they believe the “evidences” for it are preponderance, because they think most scientists believe in all or most of the “evidences.”
Worse yet, some of the "evidences" most or perhaps even all scientists may reject--believing they don't even need them to prove Evolution--might still linger in the minds of laymen and women. Consider Lamarckism, Darwin's finches, and discredited "missing link" hoaxes--two of which were actually mentioned by my barber one day as "proofs" of Evolution.

In spite of the utter inadequacy, already demonstrated, of these arguments, we can dig still deeper. We must look at underlying biases of the scientific community. And they do exist. For instance, look at Richard Dawkins, author of The God Delusion. Am I going to leave my eternal destiny in the hands of someone who expresses such vitriol for an entity he claims he believes does not exist? I don’t think so. But the scientific community as a whole--not as vehement as Dawkins--also has underlying convictions. Naturalism is one. It is “a belief denying that an event or object has a supernatural significance; specifically, the doctrine that scientific laws are adequate to account for all phenomena.” (Evolution Exposed, Pg. 22) Materialism is another, a “belief claiming that physical matter is the only or fundamental reality and that all organisms, processes, and phenomena can be explained as manifestations or interactions of matter.” (Evolution Exposed, Pg. 22) It's great when a scientist honestly confesses, "Even if all the data point to an intelligent designer, such an hypothesis is excluded from science because it is not naturalistic." (Dr. Scott Todd, quoted in Evolution Exposed, Pg. 19)

Of course, I'm not going to attack the Theory of Evolution on the basis of scientists' preconceived notions, because that itself would be a logical fallacy: I would be "attacking the person." An idea cannot rightly be discredited just because the person espousing said idea is not credible, just as an idea cannot be verified just because persons endorsing it are credible. However, this fallacious technique is useful in proving the unreliability of the "consensus" argument. In addition, similar to how scientific consensus is closely interrelated to scientific fact (but not interchangeable inandof themselves), an individual's personal bias can be a key to unlocking the truth behind an ideology, though not sufficient standing alone.

Often, the "attacking the person" cannon is aimed at creationists. Obviously, we're told, since Christians like Ken Ham live by faith, independent of scientific permission (if you will), he cannot be trusted to carry out an intelligent scientific discourse. This is absolutely preposterous. First of all, everyone has preconceived notions, if, in the least, the notion of relativity or inability to decipher absolute truth at all. I already mentioned the secular strongholds and foundations of naturalism and materialism.
Secondly, as I said, "attacking the person" is a logical fallacy. Address the issues, not the person.
Furthermore, this accusation is at odds with Christian theology. Jesus said, "You will know the truth, and the truth will set you free." (John 8:32) People don't know the truth and remain in chains. We cannot expect an outsider to vouch for the truthfulness of a six-day creation six thousand years ago. That's why Christians are told to be ready to make an argument for their faith (1 Peter 3:15). No one else will. No one comes to a true knowledge of the Truth (John 14:6) without being set free. The Bible tells us that “a natural man does not accept the things of the Spirit of God, for they are foolishness to him; and he cannot understand them, because they are spiritually appraised.” (1 Corinthians 2:14) Paul calls Christians to be "transformed by the renewing of your minds." (Romans 12:2) We cannot expect someone "conformed to this world" (Romans 12:2) to validate the Genesis account of creation.

However, this does not mean that evidences for creation cannot be confirmed by non-creationists. Indeed, the Bible makes it clear that a Creator's existence--or necessity--is self-evident (Job 12:7-9; Psalm 19:1; Romans 1:20). That explains why I.D. can be supported by non-creationists, and why there can be so many doubters of Darwin, in general.

I hope this article explains well why the "consensus" argument falls so short on so many levels.

~ Kingdom Advancer

Meshing and Threshing Advantageously and Arbitrarily

There's an old saying which states that the "winners write the history books." Though this doesn't ring 100% true (or else we wouldn't be able to trust any history--nor would there be "two sides to every story"), it makes the point that the one who's victorious often gets to decide how things "were," are, and will be. It's something along the lines of the philosophy that "might makes right," whether true, just, or not.
However, in the field of science, dissenting views can be the spur to the horse of progress. The earth is round? The earth revolves around the sun? These weren't popular ideas at one time or another, but underdogs barked long enough and loud enough, backing their barks with sufficient evidential "bite," to dethrone reigning theories. Even if the primary theories aren't entirely innaccurate, minority positions can be the "cream" that cures imperfections.

Secularists have largely won the battle over science thus far. Quite frankly, they've been winning the battles for society at large, too. Unfortunately, they've left the battlefield quite damaged. Some of science is in a state of disrepair for the sake of secular domination. Despite what we know about "iron sharpening iron" and "gold being refined by fire" in the scientific fields, creationists and proponents of Intelligent Design are relatively silenced in the public sphere. The ever-spreading infectious Theory of Evolution is a disease that wants no competing virus. It's suspicious, isn't it? If evolutionists were really confident in their belief, they would encourage creationists to publicly make fools of themselves--to be "put to shame" (1 Peter 3:16) if evolutionists had a "good conscience." But they know that creationists are "always being ready to make a defense to everyone..." (1 Peter 3:15) Therefore, silence, not debate, is the preferred method of confrontation. The scientific elite, who wants to tell us "how things were," may cry out that we devious creationists will "deceive people," therefore efforts like the Creation Museum must be shut down. But if the evidence for evolution is so compelling and overwhelming, just show it to all, and creationists should have no answer. ...Still waiting... Speak and listen; don't filibuster and hush, which is essentially what the scientific establishment is doing when they continually point to "experts" and "scientific consensus" and never to cold hard facts and refutations of creationism. Besides, you would think that, if the veracity of Evolution is so irrefutable, creationists would be useful tools in simply polishing and solidifying the theory. That's my perspective, anyways, as a creationist, toward evolutionists. They challenge Christians to think more of God's thoughts after Him. They produce endurance. "Consider it all joy...when you encounter various trials, knowing that the testing of your faith produces endurance..." (James 1:2-3)

But, no, that's not the attitude of evolutionists. They decry the private Creation Museum, while controlling virtually every other outlet, including the school system.

Of course, all theories do not hold the same weight and thereby do not require the same level of recognition. If I say that both the earth and moon are made of cheese and only cheese, my voice won't carry very far--and rightfully so. But only the most ardent, arrogant, and ignorant atheists and evolutionists would place creationism in that category.

However, that's the point, isn't it? Those on that side of the spectrum--if not so extreme--do the categorizing, don't they? That brings us to the real gist of this post: Meshing and Threshing... But what do I mean? Simply that the secular, scientific elites artificially, arbitrarily, and advantageously separate and make inseparable what they so please in the fields of science.

In the first place, they collaborate--intentionally or not--historical, origins science and operational, observational science. If you hang around the Creation/Evolution Debate, you may often hear that creationism is unscientific because it "doesn't follow the scientific method." This statement is factual, but it is also inconsequential. It violates the laws of logic with its irrelevance and false dichotomy.

Now, let me clarify that--to believe in creation--one must have faith. Faith is intrical to salvation (Ephesians 2:8) and essential to God's approval (Hebrews 11:6). So I am not denying the faith aspect. "The heavens declare the glory of God" (Psalm 19:1); they do not prove His existence by the scientific method or prove the Creation Account. Christians have faith that the Bible is inspired by God (1 Timothy 3:16), regardless of what scientists may hypothesize. I have no problem saying that, especially when I consider some of the preposterous theories and "evidences" that have arisen before being debunked.

What I do have a problem with is the proverbial "holier than thou" attitudes of evolutionists--that somehow believers in Evolution are "more scientific" than creationists, or that believing in Evolution or in no God doesn't take faith. Both creationism and Molecules-to-man Evolution fall outside the bounds of the scientific method, beyond the scope of observational science, and faith is a requirement for belief in either.

Operational (Observational) Science: a systematic approach to understanding that uses observable, testable, repeatable, and falsifiable experimentation to understand how nature commonly behaves.
...
Historical (Origins) Science: interpreting evidence from past events based on a presupposed philosophical point of view.

(Evolution Exposed, Pg. 24)

Really, it's very much common sense that we can't repeat, control, test, or observe the origin of the universe and the things therein, no matter how it happened. It's just not possible. It goes back to the basic premise, "Were you there?" No one was...except God, who told us how it happened in His Word. But, yes, that's my presupposed philosophical point of view, which places this type of science in an entirely different category than, say, technology, yet Lawrence Krauss, an outspoken evolutionist, in a scathing article, called creationists hypocrites for driving cars!!! According to the book Evolution Exposed, three of the most common high school biology textbooks state that it "is not necessary to distinguish between historical and operational science." (Pg. 21) How can this be?

Some may say that we can "see Evolution all around us." But this falls short on a couple of levels. Adaptation/speciation/micro-evolution--observed, observable, and compatible with creationism--are NOT synonymous with Molecules-to-man or Macro-evolution. The former does not prove the latter. Nor does either (micro- or macro-) prove theories such as the Big Bang or the eternality of the universe.

It is obvious that we do not--and will not--see macro-evolutionary changes, even if they do/did occur. Scientists may say that we simply "have not been observing for long enough." It's rather convenient, when you think about it. One can rid oneself of a plethora of bothersome questions about Evolution by this technique. After all, it "takes massive amounts of time." We'll all be long gone before enough time will have elapsed to expect anything dramatic to transpire.

But this very excuse illustrates the point that Evolution cannot lay a legitimate claim to testable, repeatable, observable science. In fact, even if we did observe, say, humans evolve into "extra-humans," it does not necessarily follow that amoebas definitively evolved all the way up to humans. That conclusion would be based upon the belief that the "present is the key to the past," just like a creationist conclusion would be based on the belief that the Bible--or God Himself--is the "key to the past."

Apparently, evolutionists recognize that this approach of stalling--you could even call it filibustering--pushing the problem into unwieldy amounts of time--only works so much and so far. So, they turn to geology and paleontology as some of the best substitutes for "hands-on," "eyewitness" scientific evidence. After all, if missing links were to be found or the universe was demonstrated to be extremely old, it would go a long way towards swaying the debate to the evolutionists' camp.

Here's the catch: digging up fossils and rock layers unearth problems, not solutions, for the evolutionary outlook, unless you accept evolutionary explanations at face value. Carbon-14 dating? Radio-isotope? Fossil layers? Geologic layers? Transitional forms? Missing links? Living fossils? In all these areas, unreliability, insufficiency, bias/closemindedness, imagination/fantasy, or nonexistence plagues any attempts at a truly evidential basis for Evolution. Notice: preconceived notions required. If you already believe (or are brainwashed into believing) in uniformitarianism, in the ape man-to cave man-to modern man drawing, in the fish-to-frogs-to-reptiles-to-dinosaurs-to-birds chain, etc., etc., you probably can reconcile yourself with the problems that present themselves to portions of evolutionary theories--theories that are frequently devised out of not-so-very-thick air. This is what places the Theory of Evolution squarely in the camp of historical science, and mediocre historical science, at that.

And that brings us to the second stage of meshing, along with some threshing: science and naturalism, as well as science and religion. Creationists are accused of having "presuppositional beliefs." That supposedly excludes them from the realm of science. However, that's just not fair. First of all, such a hard stance would force scientists to always search for but never reach conclusions--never "choose a side," but rather be "tossed here and there by waves and carried about by every wind of doctrine..." (Ephesians 4:14) Why would it do that? Well, because, as we've already discussed, neither creationism nor Evolution falls under testable, falsifiable science. Therefore, a concrete conclusion can never be reached without belief, something some people seem to think shouldn't be a part of science. Evidence in the realm of historical science requires interpretations, things that need a foundation. Secondly, it erroneously assumes that evolutionists and secularists in general don't have fundamental worldviews. (Moreover, who can blame Christians if their faith is strong enough in order for them to be skeptical of such things as Nebraska Man, "identified and drawn based on a single tooth, which was later found to be from an extinct pig." --Evolution Exposed, Pg. 221)

One of my favorite quotes, in a negative sort of way, is this one:

"Even if all the data point to an intelligent designer, such an hypothesis is excluded from science because it is not naturalistic." --Dr. Scott Todd, Kansas State University, Nature 401 (6752) :423, Sept. 30, 1999

That's quite a closeminded creed, especially considering that naturalism is not interchangeable with science itself. Yet, science has been overrun by the "No Divine Foot" philosophy, making there appear to be no differentiation between the two.

Granted, I can see somewhat where naturalists are coming from. Superstititions hinder the progress of science. But naturalism itself becomes a type of superstition when one tries to explain away naturally something entirely un- or super-natural. Moreover, Christianity must not be lumped in with superstitions. Christians endeavor to "think God's thoughts after Him." Although His ways are unfathomable (Romans 11:33), with Christ upholding "all things by the word of His power," (Hebrews 1:3) our God is a God of order (Job 38:4-6, 8-11, 33; Isaiah 40:12; Jeremiah 31:35), who points us to nature (Proverbs 6:6; Matthew 6:26-20; Matthew 10:29), is omnipotent over nature (Job 38:11-12, 23; 41:11; 42:2; Mark 4:41), and is omniscient of nature (Job 38-40; John 16:30). Christians are called to see things as they really are, standing on a Solid Rock foundation (Matthew 7:24-25). "And do not be conformed to this world, but be transformed by the renewing of your mind..." (Romans 12:2) "See to it that no one takes you captive through philosophy and empty deception, according to the tradition of men, according to the elementary principles of the world, rather than according to Christ." (Colossians 2:8) The Bible is scientifically accurate, and some discoveries are just recently being made as to the wisdom of God's commands on what and what not to eat. (See Jordan Rubin's book The Maker's Diet.)

To venture into the materialistic assumption that "this is all there is" is to risk missing out incalculably! If a Supernatural Being created nature, nature would naturally reflect back to Mr. Supernature Himself. The Bible says this is so (Job 12:7-9 ; Psalm 19:1 ; Romans 1:20). Belief in this Supernatural Being would unlock doors to otherwise unknown wisdom and knowledge. The Apostle Paul rhetorically asks, "...who has known the mind of the Lord...?" Then he answers his own question, saying, "But we have the mind of Christ." (1 Corinthians 2:16). Christians have access to "the wealth that comes from the full assurance of understanding, resulting in a true knowledge of God's mystery, that is, Christ Himself, in whom are hidden all the treasures of wisdom and knowledge." (Colossians 2:3) God offers the only worthwhile perspective on everything. "For what does it profit a man if he gains the whole world, and loses his own soul?" (Matthew 16:26-27)

To say Christianity has no place in science is to assume that God does not exist. To say that only naturalism is acceptable is to assume there is nothing supernatural. To say that Christians or creationists have no place in science, or that they cannot be good scientists, is to deny scientific history. In essence, to reject Christianity's place in science is to claim science for one's own religion.

"Many people do not realize that science was actually developed in Christian Europe by men who assumed that God created an orderly universe. If the universe is a product of random chance or a group of gods that interfere in the universe, there is really no reason to expect order in nature. Many of the founders of the principle scientific fields, such as Bacon, Galileo, Kepler, and Newton, were believers in a recently created earth. The idea that science cannot accept a creationist perspective is a denial of scientific history." (Evolution Exposed, Pg. 20)

Let's take back science.

~Kingdom Advancer

You can purchase the book Evolution Exposed here.

You Got Something in Your Eye...

In contrast to several thousand other visitors--most of whom were happy for or at least interested in the opening of the Creation Museum--atheist, humanist, and evolutionist protesters were a pimple on the face of the Creation Museum's grand opening to the public on Memorial Day (which ended with a fireworks display pictured on the right). Or...from another perspective, were they just a beauty mark, a sign of a job well done? After all, if humanists and atheists were not up in arms about something like this, you'd have to wonder if a good job had been executed by those at Answers in Genesis. Jesus told his disciples not to be surprised if the world hated them (which they did). So, perhaps all the protesters and critics are/were more of a pat on the back then a slap in the face to Ken Ham and AiG.

Some of the signs held by the protesters read: Do you deny gravity too? Don't brainwash our children. It's [creationism] NOT science. A plane flew over pulling a sign with the message "Thou shall not lie." The makers of the Museum have been chastised for "instutionalizing" a "scientific lie."

All I can say to these people is: can I borrow your lines and signs? Because, I'd like to picket in front of public schools, college and university campuses, other museums, television studios which make nature shows, and publishing houses which print scientific textbooks.

Jesus said, "Why do you look at the speck that is in your brother's eye, but do not notice the log that is in your own eye? Or how can you say to your brother, 'Let me take the speck out of your eye,' and behold, the log is in your own eye? You hypocrite, first take the log out of your own eye, and then you will see clearly to take the speck out of your brother's eye." (Matthew 7:3-5) Behold, the log is indeed in evolutionistic atheists' eyes! (Read just some of the problems with Evolution here, at Ambassadors of Christ.) Unfortunately, they don't feel compelled to listen to Jesus' words (obviously) or to subject themselves to the law of God (Romans 8:7). Rather, they show conditionally selective moral outrage--like decrying supposed lies of this Museum--when it's convenient for them and their purposes (Judges 17:6).

However, they would do well to heed Jesus' words in this case, as in all cases. Their volatile opposition will likely only rouse more interest into a topic that is attention-grabbing by itself in the unveiling of a $27 million edifice. If people look for answers, some will find them. And those answers--true answers--don't lead to an evolutionary outlook. So, indeed, what was meant for evil, God may mean for good (Genesis 50:20), for--in the least--those who love Him (Romans 8:28).

To demonstrate the "log" of the evolutionists, I am going to break down some of the token phrases I have heard and seen, starting with, "Do you deny gravity too?"

First off, atheists are the ones making the denial of all denials--denying God's existence (Psalm 14:1)--so that type of condescension on the part of atheists is not very sharp, though expected (1 Corinthians 2:14).

Secondly, creationists not only do not reject scientific studies, discoveries, and research, but the law of gravity is observable, operational science. On the contrary, the Theory of Evolution is in the realm of historical, origins science. It cannot be repeated in a controlled setting. No one was there to see the beginning of the universe (except God--from the creationist perspective). And evolutionists even admit today that we cannot expect to see macro-evolutionary changes occur in front of our eyes. Not to mention all the evidence against Molecules-to-man Evolution, all the hypotheticals, all the theoreticals, all the gaps, all the holes--none of which is similar to the law--not theory--of gravity. That's telling in and of itself: atheists put so much faith in Evolution that the person holding this sign equated it with a scientific, testable law. That's how important it is to them for their to be no God. How much must they really love sin?

Speaking of laws, this apparent opponent of a Creator God walks right into a question that she herself cannot satisfactorily answer: where did laws like the law of gravity come from? And what about the precision of the universe's laws and arrangements--a fact which, were it not the case, would make life nonexistent? (See The Privileged Planet.)

Next, we have the doozy, "Don't brainwash our children." This one may take the cake, along with the "institutionalizing a lie" claim. Believe it or not, I did not make these up. For years, and years, and years, evolutionists have had a veritable monopoly on the education of children and young adults...using public funds! (A good book detailing and analyzing the claims of three of the most common high-school biology textobooks is Evolution Exposed) Yet, they have the nerve to rebuke a not-for-profit organization for building a private museum attended by visitors voluntarily (even if a school took a field trip, it could be optional)! While other museums present millions and billions of years like accepted fact, heavily seasoning exhibits and episodes with evolutionary theory, some have the gall to attack the Creation Museum as an "institutionalized lie"! Where's the academic freedom, tolerance, relatavism, and openmindedness? It is apparent that true colors are on display, and that these people are not really that concerned with the "horror" of someone "cornering the market," but rather, with anyone who does not agree with them voicing their opinion.

And that leads me to the next line, which calls for "science, not superstition." First off, it should be noted that it is not uncommon for detractors of Christianity to refer to it as a "cult" or "superstition." These terms carry heavily negative connotations, so they serve the purposes of anti-Christians by appealing to a person's pride of reputation. (Most people don't want to be wrong or grouped with a faction upon which people look down.)

But who is really superstitious? Who is really paranoid? It seems that the atheists have an irrational belief--an irrational fear--of Christianity. Many of them avoid and/or decry anything having to do with God or the Bible as if it is a ladder with a black cat flying underneath it across their path on a witch's broom. Really, the claim of superstition is a hollow one, emotionally-charged in the attempt to bring about an emotional response.

But I haven't seen that attack all that often. One that I do see regularly is that creationism is "not science." Not only is this infinitely easier said than proven, but it is also simply another elementary technique, reaching the headline reader--not the dedicated researcher. It invokes a false dichotomy (Molecules-to-Man Evolution is not, in contrast, "scientific"), a sweeping generalization (Of course some creationists may be very unscientific, but certainly not all), and often a post hoc ergo proper hoc fallacy when the evidence for creationism's unscientificity is the lack of the scientific method (In historical, origins science, the presence of the scientific method of testing, repeating, controlling, and observing is impossible; therefore, either nothing in this sphere is scientific or the scientific method is not the barometer). These logical fallacies will have to be discussed more fully in a later post.

Finally, I should address the idea that the Creation Museum is teaching "lies." This accusation is unbacked and untrue. Conveniently, no evidence is presented to support such a claim, except the appeal-to-authority and bandwagon fallacies of the "scientific consensus" argument, faulty dating methods, and biased interpretations. Besides, to say the Creation Account is scientifically factual and provable would be--at this point in history, anways--lying; but to say that the Creation Account is true by God's Word and supported by scientific discoveries is not lying, for two reasons: 1) It presupposes faith in God's Word--if you throw that out the window, you throw creationism out with it, though evidence may still pull you in the direction of an Intelligent Designer; the Bible spawns creationism, and the science of creationism endorses the Bible; 2) The allegation of deception assumes falsehood; but, if the Creation Account is true, and science therefore (naturally) backs it up, and creationists believe it because of God's word compounded by the testimony of His Creation, there can be no lie. Of course, Evolution is not a lie, in and of itself, either. It's a theory--just like any other theory which can be imagined at any time, without being considered deceptive. However, teaching it as fact, or even close to fact, is dishonest.

Christians know that the Creation Account is indeed true, for Jesus said to the Father, "Sanctify them in the truth; Your word is truth." (John 17:17) How horrifically ironic is it that the Father of lies (John 8:44) would use the deceitful accusation of a lie to bury the truth?

All of this being considered, we must pray and support groups like AiG and efforts like the Creation Museum. The state-of-the-art, $27 million structure is a veritable "city on a hill"; AiG is "salt," attempting to be a preservative in one of the most decayed environments in the modern world--"light" in one of the darkest places: science (Matthew 5:13-15).

The Christian has become a benefactor, a volunteer, a painter, a carpenter, a construction worker, an engineer, a technician, a scientist, and one reviled, "so that by all means we might save some." (1 Corinthians 9:22)

~Kingdom Advancer

P.S. Answers in Genesis has been "Responding to Protesters' Propaganda" all week, and you can read their responses at their website.

The "Divine Foot" Takes a Step in the Direction.....

The Creation Museum presents a unique and unparalleled experience, a walk through time portraying significant, life-altering events from the past illuminating the effects of biblical history on our present and future world.
Be prepared to experience history in a completely unprecedented way.

The state-of-the-art 60,000 square foot museum brings the pages of the Bible to life, casting its characters and animals in dynamic form, and placing them in familiar settings. Adam and Eve live in the Garden of Eden. Children play and dinosaurs roam near Eden's rivers. The serpent coils cunningly in the Tree of the Knowledge of Good and Evil. Peter and John peer into the empty tomb. Majestic murals, great masterpieces brimming with pulsating color and details, provide realistic scenery for many of the settings.

That's what can be read on the front and back of the Creation Museum guide, which I received as I was privileged with a sneak preview this week. The Creation Museum is set to open to the general public on May 28th, and it appears that it will open with a bang. Ken Ham said that he has done 38 interviews since this past Monday, and there's more to come. (Read about it at his blog.) Protests are scheduled against the Museum. Petitions are being signed by educators in an attempt to discredit Answers in Genesis' claims, and I've seen one absurd hit-piece of journalism published in a local newspaper. I'm sure there are more.

The truly "state-of-the-art" museum cost around $27 million to build, but it has been estimated that, without volunteer work and donated equipment, the cost would have been somewhere over $100 million.

Located in Petersburg, KY, the Museum is strategically located, near the airport in Cincinnatti, Ohio, and just a day's drive (or less) from the majority of the U.S. population. The area is beautiful, as is the pond, walking area, and building itself.

Although those who closely study AiG and the Creation-Evolution debate probably won't find any terribly profound information in their Museum experience, it is not to be missed. Highlights include the planetarium, which demonstrates the vastness of God's universe and some problems for evolutionists located therein; a walk through Eden; a video presentation of the Days of Creation; a monologuing Methuselah in his tent; a 40-foot tall replica of a section of Noah's Ark under construction, complete with complaining workers, a worker sawing away, and Noah trying to convince one of the workers to join him on the Ark; models of the Ark and Flood; large, robotic dinosaurs; Martin Luther nailing his theses to the church door; and much, much more.

Criticisms of the Creation Museum have generally been, at worst, pathetic, and, at best, misguided and unbacked. One writer (in fact, Lawrence M. Krauss, Director of the Center for Education and Research in Cosmology and Astrophysics at Case Western Reserve University, as well as the Chair of the Forum on Physics and Society of the American Physical Society) went so far as to say that we creationists, "if we were intellectually honest," wouldn't use any technology, since we obviously don't believe in science. (note: my sarcasm) Never mind the fact that young-earth [biblical] creationists do believe in science, just not the corrupted, evolutionary and atheistic interpretations of it. That's the point: a scientific person does not have to be an evolutionary person--by all means nay (!); a believer in science does not have to be a disbeliever in God. To the Christian, science means to "think God's thoughts after Him." The difference between the scientist who is a Christian and the scientist who is not is this: one starts with God's Word as foundational; the other does not, replacing God's Word with man's reason. The main thrust of the Creation Museum and AiG is to demonstrate that, indeed, a scientifically honest person should not accept Evolution and billions of years as unadulterated fact--quite the contrary! Also, they are showing why Christians should not feel obligated to compromise the Bible in order to reconcile it with man's claims.

Some appear to simply be fear-mongerers, as this aforementioned writer feels compassion for the children who could be "intellectually injured" by this Museum. (DefCon has claimed the Museum is "institutionalizing a lie.") He ended the article by making a battle-cry to parents to bring lawsuits against any school that would use public funds to have a field trip to this Museum. That would be a violation of the separation of church and state, of course. (note again: my sarcasm) Never mind the fact that the theoretical, problematic science found in most natural history museums is connotatively religious at its core anyway. But, these people don't appear to care about separation of religion and state and multi-cultural, open-minded education...so much as separation of Christianity and state. (Read about one group, DefCon, here)
Sure, the claims of this Museum are incredible, but they simply state the plain dichotomy: believe God's Word? Or (non-Christian) man's word?

All I can say without taking much more of your time is, although some outlets are treating Ken Ham and AiG much fairer than others, don't believe everything you see, hear, or read in the press--as if I really needed to tell you that! Something this groundbreaking is bound to scare people; remember that many of these people have not been "trained up in the way they should go" (Proverbs 22:6)--rather, they've been brainwashed with evolutionary theory; and the devil, as the Father of lies (John 8:44), is bound to resort to his characteristic tactics. Be ready, for instance, for the ever-popular "appeal to authority" logical fallacy, as well as the "sweeping generalization" fallacy, along with emotionally charged language, all prominent in this debate.

Christians must rally together, for those against Christianity already have been. The opening of this Museum is another step in the direction of the demise of the intellectual and educational domineering of the evolutionary, atheistic, naturalistic, secular humanist agenda that won't "allow a Divine Foot in the door." This frightens them, but we can't have the Foot take a step backwards. They don't want to believe, or anyone to believe, that the "fool has said in his heart, 'There is no God.'" (Psalm 14:1) They don't want to admit they are "without excuse." (Romans 1:20) They don't want to yield to the reality that they--and all humans--are responsible for the fallenness of nature. (Romans 8:19-22) Why? Why can't they just believe? "Because the mind set on the flesh is hostile toward God..." (Romans 8:7) And because "a natural man does not accept the things of the Spirit of God, for they are foolishness to him; and he cannot understand them, because they are spiritually appraised." (1 Corinthians 2:14)

For this reason, we must pray for these people, as for all people, for God "desires all men to be saved and to come to the knowledge of the truth." (1 Timothy 2:1-4) We must also pray for the safety of Ken Ham, other leaders of AiG, and the Museum itself, especially over these hectic, and potentially volatile, next few weeks.

The debate over origins is pivotal. God's existence is not apathetic knowledge. Trust in the Bible and the biblical account of creation is no insignificant thing. The battle for souls is at stake. A loss here would be a damaging blow--to either side.

"If the foundations are destroyed, What can the righteous do?" (Psalm 11:3)

~Kingdom Advancer

P.S. The debate over whether a Christian should/can believe in Macro-Evolution and billions of years can be found here: Christian Evolutionist: Oxymoron?

Christian Evolutionist: Oxymoron?

8 Reasons Why A True Christian Should Not Be An Evolutionist.

In honor of the Creation Museum, which is located in Northern Kentucky and is set to open this month, this article details all the reasons (that I could think of) why true Christians, for logic and the Bible's sake, should not--even cannot--be theistic evolutionists, at least once they have the knowledge revealed in this post.

Answers in Genesis, (to the best of my knowledge) the largest Christian apologetics organization in the world, is behind this museum. They believe in "Upholding the authority of the Bible from the very first verse." Other Christians, however, don't take such a hard stance. They think they can re-interpret (twist) portions of the Bible and reconcile God's Word with man's science; or perhaps they simply believe that man's say takes precedence. When their theories say "Adam and Eve is just a parable/figure" or something else, that's essentially what they're saying.

Theistic evolutionism has become more common than it used to be. And, while theism is not directly at odds with Evolution, the God of the Bible is. It makes one wonder: are many on the liberal and theistic evolutionist side of the coin even serving the God of Abraham, Isaac, and Jacob?

Of course, the Theory of Evolution has crept into many churches to one extent or another. The devil has been effective and comprehensive in his exploits. Like his first conversation with a human, when he questioned some of God's first words, he is still placing doubt in the hearts and minds of people about the first words of God--the first Written Words of God. Satan is tearing at the foundation, trying to get Christians to "...exchange the truth of God for a lie..." and to worship man's widsom--in fact, man's fallable, preposterous, problematic, hypothetical folly--instead of God's wisdom. (Romans 1:25) What a blunder, as 1 Corinthians 1 states, "...Has not God made foolish the wisdom of the world?...the foolishness of God is wiser than men..." (vs. 20, 25)

But fortunately, for me and my readers, the buck stops here. Here are the nine reasons why Christians who are evolutionists "ought not be":

1.) God's Image.
The Bible tells us that man is made in God's image. (Genesis 1:26, 27 ; 9:6) If mankind evolved from the lowest of life forms, when did human beings attain "image of God status"? When was that last step taken, that last stage developed? And, what of those "missing links," those "before pictures" of the "God Image Product"?

2.) Soul and Stewardship.
In the same sense, if man is a highly-evolved animal, when did God endow him with a soul? When was he separated from and given stewardship over the animals? After all, he was just an animal. What of the predecessors of the "soul-bearers"?
Likewise...

3.) Sin and Death.
Romans 5:12 says, "...through one man sin entered into the world, and death through sin..." Romans 8:20-22 adds onto that, stating, "For the creation was subjected to futility...in hope that the creation itself also will be set free from its slavery to corruption into the freedom of the glory of the children of God. For we know that the whole creation groans and suffers the pains of childbirth together until now." These two passages, paired with the apparent first shedding of blood in Genesis 3:21, clearly shows that Adam brought death and suffering to the whole of creation.
This is problematic on a couple of fronts for the Christian who would be an evolutionist.
First of all, the Theory of Evolution at ist core, subsisting on the "survival of the fittest," lives on death (pardon the pun). Death and suffering are vital components of the evolutionary process. But the Bible informs us that creation was "good," and, as I said, death didn't come till sin entered through Adam. How could Evolution take place without man, and therefore without sin, and therefore without death?
The second problem that is encountered is this: along the lines of my first points, if human beings evolved, when did they "evolve" the "capacity" to sin? If humans evolved, when did they become "human enough" for God to hold them accountable for their actions?

4. Adam's Descendants.
If Adam, Eve, and the Garden of Eden are just mythological, legendary, figurative, or parabolic, it can be concluded that their offspring weren't real people either. Then, one can easily deduce that their children's children didn't exist either...and so on... and so on. Eventually, the whole book of Genesis is discredited, and ultimately, the entire Bible's historical record and geneaology, with it being determined that Jesus Himself was not an actual person. Christians who claim that Adam was not real do not realize that their beliefs would cause Christianity to crumble upon itself.

5. Jesus, the Last Adam.
1 Corinthians 15:45 states, "...'The first man, Adam, became a living soul.' The last Adam became a life-giving spirit." Then, "The first man is from the earth, earthy; the second man is from heaven." (v.47) Romans 5:14 calls Adam a "type" or "foreshadowing" of Christ. Other parts of the chapter also make such comparisons. If Adam was not a living, breathing, real man, the implication about the Messiah is obvious. Once again, we see, that Adam's existence is intrical to Jesus'.

6. After Their Kind.
The Genesis account mentions numerous times that God created creatures "after their kind." (Genesis 1:21, 24, 25) Since Evolution requires a drawn-out, trial-and-error, improbable (to say the least), unproven procedure of one kind of animal (or life-form) transforming into another kind, this repeated biblical phrase appears to speak firmly to the issue of Evolution. Fish didn't evolve into reptiles and amphibians which evolved into mammalls...and on and on. No, it didn't happen that way according to the Bible. It says, "God created the sea monsters and every living creature that moves, with which the waters swarmed AFTER THEIR KIND, and every winged bird AFTER ITS KIND... Let the earth bring forth living creatures AFTER THEIR KIND: cattle and creeping things and beasts of the earth AFTER THEIR KINDS... God made the beasts of the earth AFTER THEIR KINDS, and the cattle AFTER THEIR KIND, and everything that creeps on the ground AFTER ITS KIND." (Emphasis mine)

7. The Flood Conundrum.
Answers in Genesis dedicates a significant portion of its ministry to defending the Great Flood and to demonstrating that much of the erosion and fossilization we see today could have occurred--and likely did--during a catastrophic disaster like the Flood. In fact, the entire last issue of Answers Magazine was about the Flood and Noah's Ark.
But those who would mix the Bible with secular textbooks remove the necessity of the Flood. In actuality, it is unlikely that the earth has experienced millions (even billions) of years of corrosive elements (and localized catastrophes) IN ADDITION to the worldwide Flood. Six to ten thousand years of existence with some natural disasters (including the Flood) is a more plausible scenario. Moreover, God simply could have created the world with some of its natural wonders already partially or fully intact.
So, as we repeatedly see, denying the literal, Genesis account of Creation introduces difficulties outside the realm of the first few chapters of God's Word.

8. Illogical.
A deistic god could put in motion a process lilke Macro-Evolution, because the case could be made that a deistic god wouldn't really care what the result was, and wouldn't really be involved. An impersonal god could start such a process, because the logic could be presented that that this type of god didn't plan on making humans or having a relationship with them; or that, being impersonal, an impersonal god couldn't directly create personal beings. A god who was not omnipotent or omniscient could initiate natural selection, because it could be said that such a god would not be powerful or knowledgeable enough to create extremely complex life forms from the get-go, but rather only the simplest, most miniscule types. An unholy, imperfect god could utilize Evolution, because one could say that death and suffering didn't bother him/her/it. The case could be made that all of the aforementioned gods could/would be "laissez-faire," and therefore Evolution would be an acceptable tool for them.
But we serve a God Who is hands-on, holy, perfect, omnipotent, omniscient, personal, and involved.
He created the universe with a distinct purpose and plan, and the unfolding of that plan, as well as His sovereign control and intervention, continues today.

"...He chose us in Him before the foundation of the world... He predestined us to adoption as sons through Jesus Christ to Himself, according to the kind intention of His will...we have obtained an inheritance, having been predestined according to His purpose who works all things after the counself of His will..." (Ephesians 1:4, 5, 11)

" 'For I know the plans that I have for you,' declares the Lord, 'plans for welfare and not for calamity to give you a future and a hope..." (Jeremiah 29:11)

"...we know that God causes all things to work together for the good to those who love God, to those who are called according to His purpose... If God is for us, who is against us?..." (Romans 8:28, 31)

"Who will separate us from the love of Christ? Will tribulation, or distress, or persecution, or famine, or nakedness, or peril, or sword?...in all these things we overwhelmingly conquer through Him who loved us. For I am convinced that neither death, nor life, nor angels, nor principalities, nor things present, nor things to come, nor powers, nor height, nor depth, nor any other created thing, will be able to separate us from the love of God, which is in Christ Jesus." (Romans 8:35-39)

"Every good thing given and every perfect gift is from above, coming down from the Father of lights..." (James 1:17)

"O Lord, You are my God; I will exalt You, I will give thanks to Your name; For You have worked wonders, Plans formed long ago, with perfect faithfulness." (Isaiah 25:1)

Job 38-39 demonstrates God's omniscience of and omnipotence over nature.

Considering all these things, it is preposterous to think that God would leave His handiwork, for which He had/has plans, to a chance process. Furthermore, the idea of God "directing" a CHANCE process is ridiculous. Though this is not to say that God doesn't use and direct micro-evolution. But, if he designed creatures, including humans, with genetic potential and variation, that is not really chance at all.

And that leads to the conclusion, established by the previous eight points, that the Genesis Record is not a parable, an analogy, or a legend. It is God's truth in the way He decided to reveal it to us, and our choice is simply to accept it...or not. When Jesus says, "There was a man who had two sons," we know it is a story with a moral, a lesson. When Jesus says, "I am the door," we know it is figurative, analogical. All it takes is a little contextual reading of Scripture to determine this. But, when the Bible says, "In the beginning, God created the heavens and the earth," and the verses thereafter, we are left with only one determination.

So, does that mean theistic evolutionists are not true Christians? Well, I would be more inclined to call them "uninformed" or "misinformed" Christians. That is, unless, their view of origins is an indicator of their overall worldview--their overall level of faith. This is likely what it often is. The Bible tells us, "All Scripture is inspired by God..." (2 Timothy 3:17) Hebrews 11:6 states, "...without faith it is impossible to please Him..."
If someone can't have faith in the first chapters of His Story, they likely have a substantial, deep issue in their heart.

~Kingdom Advancer

Leave a Message?

When proponents of Intelligent Design call on the analogical phone to evolutionists, evolutionists can't seem to answer. They simply can't defend the Theory of Evolution satisfactorily in light of the problems presented by Intelligent Design. Irreducible complexity? Evolutionists can't do anything with that. The idea that something could not have evolved upwardly and progressively more complex because it had to be completely as it presently is immediately poses a so-far seemingly unsolvable conundrum for evolutionists. The same goes for the fact that the earth is not a random planet, but The Privileged Planet.

So, since the evolutionists can't answer, what do they do? Rather than conceding defeat and humbly admitting that they were wrong and there must be a God ("God forbid it," I'd bet they'd say.), they simply don't answer. Instead, they attack Intelligent Design childishly, usually in one of a few ways.

1.) "Intelligent Design is bad science."
You know what's bad science? Teaching something as fact that is really an unproven, even disproven hypothesis--not even a theory in reality! You know what's bad science? Ignoring and rejecting evidence that disproves your hypothesis so that you can continue teaching your propaganda as fact. You know what's bad science? Teaching a "theory," but not allowing any other theories in the discussion.

2.) "Intelligent Design belongs in a philosophy or religion class."
I fail to see how disproving and questioning a theory that is in science class belongs in the philosophy room. If anything, it is Evolution that belongs in the philosophy or religion class, because it is built on more faith and unbacked speculation than Intelligent Design is.

3.) "Teaching Intelligent Design in schools would be a violation of the separation between church and state."
I am not exactly sure how saying that "logically, there must have been an Intelligent Designer," is an establishment of religion. There have been thousands of god-belief systems over history, many still intact today, including the apathetic beliefs in some sort of creator and the beliefs in "personal relationships" with "personal gods." I have seen some statistics that say that up to ninety percent of Americans believe in God.
You see, teaching Intelligent Design would be neither exclusive nor polarizing. Students could still believe Evolution did it all, even if Evolution was pushed out of the science classroom or shown to be foolish when standing alongside Intelligent Design. After all, that's what theists are forced to do right now: believe (in their case in the truth) despite what the science teacher is telling them.

Until the majority of people see that these three claims of evolutionists are totally off-base, I guess we'll just have to keep "leaving messages" and trying to work outside of the school system and public square.

~ Kingdom Advancer

P.S. For Christmas, I got The Privileged Planet and Unlocking the Mystery of Life on DVD. You'll have to wait and see whether I have stuff to tell you about it after I watch it.


~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~
This post can also be found on the blog Beginnings... which Kingdom Advancer contributes to.

Remember This On Mothers' Day!

I've been trying to keep my posts themed to the time of year lately. But, I saw this while I was blog surfing, and I can't help myself. Hopefully this will hold you over until I can post something on Thanksgiving.

According to the original poster, this was on a billboard in London:

"If Evolution is true, how come mothers still have only two hands?"

Whether your mom is a Christian or an evolutionist, tell her this line. She should get a good laugh out of it, if nothing else.

~Kingdom Advancer

Fighting Back

In case you haven't noticed, the moral framework upon which the great country of America was built, and of which much of the world has known in the past, is degrading, diminishing, and disappearing seemingly more and more each day. In nearly every aspect of life, the dissolving of any sense of decency or morality is evident. However, also in nearly every aspect of life, battles are being fought by Christians and/or moral traditionalists to turn--or at least stem--the destructive tide of which I speak.
Think of the following: Evolution as the preferred "intellectual" and "scientific" explanation of our origins; the Ten Commandments removed from the public eye; chaplains having their religious freedom and honesty deprived of them; "In God we trust," "Under God," and other phrases attempting to be removed from landmarks and traditions; the homosexual and polygamist movements attempting to redefine marriage; anything vaguely Christian trying to be taken out of schools and off public property; the continuing epidemic of abortion; and, of course, the un-yielding progressing (actually digressing) moral degradation of TV and all other sorts of entertainment.
But, in almost all these areas, Christians and others who hold both common sense and a sense of decency are finally beginning to fight back--enthusiastically and often effectively. Here are some examples:

Origins:

Answers in Genesis is set to open their massive, professional, and expensive Creation Museum in 2007 in Northern Kentucky, within relatively convenient reach of Nashville, Tennessee; Cincinnatti, Ohio; Columbus, Ohio; Louisville, Kentucky; and even St. Louis, Missouri. I recommend you check out the links, but here's what you'll find on the front page of the museum's web page:
The 50,000 sq. ft. Creation Museum will proclaim the Bible as supreme authority in all matters of faith and practice in every area it touches on. Set to open in 2007, this “walk through history” museum will counter evolutionary natural history museums that turn countless minds against Christ and Scripture.

The Intelligent Design Movement, (click here for I.D. Net, here for Origins.org, and here for the Access Research Network) continues to make progress in getting a logical, intelligent, and scientific alternate to the Theory of Evolution into the school systems.

Countless other projects also are advocating in powerful ways the fact of Creation and the Creator, including one of the original efforts: the Institute for Creation Research. Other links can be found on my blog as well.

Ten Commandments:

Depending on where you live, you've probably seen little picket signs in front yards all over the place that have the Ten Commandments printed on them. Now, I live in a relatively conservative area, but it seems like I see one in every other yard. This is the result of efforts by Christians who want to restore and preserve America's moral and Christian heritage. One effort I suggest you check out is Written in Stone, although I'm sure there are other efforts. On this particular one's front page, it states an apparent battlecry: Every School, Every Courthouse. Then it states:
With over 75% of the country supporting the public display of the Ten Commandments, Written In Stone is empowering individuals, groups, businesses and even governments to take a stand to restore the heritage of this great nation. While many great organizations and ministries are taking a stand in many different areas, we are committed to be the lead voice in America on the Ten Commandments.

Use my link to find out more.
This is something encouraging I think about the Ten Commandments: The Ten Commandments have gotten more media and secular coverage since it has been attacked then ever before. Not to mention how it's one more thing that is getting Christians pro-active. You know what they say: don't wake a sleeping beast.

Issues of Politics and Religious Freedom:

Activists like Michael Newdow and organizations like the ACLU are constantly trying to destroy not only the religious freedoms of Christians, but also the heritage of America and any symbol of God on public property. On the other side of the coin, however, you can find organizations like the American Center for Law and Justice (ACLJ), headed by Jay Sekulow. This group of lawyers adamantly and effectively supports religious freedoms (including chaplains'), as well as other pr0-moral and pro-tradition ideals, such as traditional marriage. It is a formidable opponent for the ACLU's secular, atheistic, and amoral ideologies.

Marriage:

In this day and age, it seems to be becoming increasingly popular to think that marriage is "whatever we want to be." Yet, Christians know that's not so, and this thought-process is evidently not in the majority, for wherever a marriage amendment has been proposed or offered, it's been passed by the people.
Perhaps you've seen the bumper stickers that have a picture of a stick man, a plus sign, a picture of a stick woman, an equals sign, and a picture of a stick person family. In other words, it says "one man, one woman, equals a family [or marriage]." President Bush supports a constitutional amendment (to see an article from 2004 about the President's support, click here), and whether one is made could hinge on this upcoming election. Voting is as important as it's ever been. Also, there are some petitions that could be signed, but I don't know enough about them at present to endorse them publicly.

Abortion:

I think one of the biggest mistakes the Christian constituency could make would be to give up on the issue of abortion. Abortion is as unconstitutional, inhumane, murderous, grotesque, deplorable, and shameful as it has ever been. A significant percentage of Americans believe that abortion should be illegal except in cases that threaten the mother's life (and whether that is even appropriate is up for debate). So, what are pro-life people doing about it? Well, like most other issues conservatives and Christians face--not as much as they should be doing. But there are pro-life organizations and efforts out there, including the National Right to Life. And, like in other issues, battles are being fought and much again hinges on this election. Vote for life! If you can't vote, get involved where you'll have more than a one-vote effect!

Media:

If you didn't hear, "Air America," a liberal radio broadcasting network, filed bankruptcy. However, conservatives (many of whom are Christians), including Janet Parshall, Albert Mohler, James Dobson, Sean Hannity, Laura Ingraham, Bill Bennett, Hugh Hewitt, and others are doing quite well it seems. Talk radio--and TV--are big battlegrounds that obviously can't be ignored. Even if you don't agree with everything these people believe or their methods or personalities [I've got to admit, I don't agree on everything with everyone on this list] they're better than the flip side of the coin, aren't they? Even a character like a Bill O'Reilly, with his new book Culture Warrior, is fighting against the "secular progressives," as he calls them. Surely he's on Christians' side of the line in the sand, at least on some issues.

Note: I realize some people's qualms about joining people who aren't necessarily evangelical Christians. Those dilemmas are understandable. But issue by issue, I think it's important to stand for what Christians believe in, and sometimes non-Christians see things the same way Christians do, and I think it is necessary and appropriate to join with these people--issue by issue. Especially if protecting this country, protecting the unborn, protecting traditional marriage, protecting Christians' freedoms, or something similar is at stake.

Entertainment:

And that brings us finally to the realm of entertainment, what has long been becoming more and more a quagmire of sin and anti-Christian sentiment. But even in this spectrum, Christians are working so that Christianity and its values are making a come back.

Believe it or not, this article was originally going to be titled "The Movie Movement," but clearly there's been an unforeseen change of direction. Instead this article has been a quick overview and summarization of some of the hot issues facing Christian society today.

My main focus was going to be on the new Bible epic based on the Book of Esther and the novel Hadasseh by Tommy Tenney: One Night with the King. I also wanted to discuss Facing the Giants, a Christian football movie produced entirely by a Georgia [ I think] church for an economical sum (by Hollywood's standards) of $100,000. I even was planning on mentioning the upcoming Nativity Story and perhaps even discuss not as overtly Christian productions such as the Chronicles of Narnia, the Lord of the Rings, and the Passion of the Christ (yes, this is overtly about Christ, but some would say that it's overtly Catholic, not Protestant). I was even considering doing some research on some other projects that I'm sure are out there.

However, all that will have to wait for a later date. Bear with me, and I hope you enjoyed and got something out of this article.

Conclusion:

In conclusion, I should remind everyone that all of these efforts cannot be sustained without your and my support in four things:

1) Name

2) Deed

3) Finances

4) Prayer

Some efforts need names on petitions. Some efforts need volunteers, or at least help spreading the word about their projects and organizations. Some efforts need financial support, which can often be profitable, when you consider the tangible entertainment value of seeing Christian movies. And all of these efforts need prayer--lots and lots of prayer. It is the easiest thing of the four to do, but often it's the most neglected thing, as well. The Bible affirms and assures that we can do all things through Christ (Philippians 4:13); if we humble ourselves and pray, God will answer our prayers (2 Chronicles 7:14); nothing shall be impossible with God (Luke 1:37; Matthew 17:20; Matthew 19:26; Mark 10:27; Luke 18:27) ; if we delight ourselves in the Lord, He will give us the desires of our hearts (Psalm 37:4); and if we seek, we will find, knock, receive, ask, be given (Matthew 7:7-8; Luke 11:9-10)


~Kingdom Advancer

p.s. I covered the things I'm really concentrating on right now, but if anyone knows of any efforts, organizations, or persons on topics worthy of mention, let me know.

Christians should be encouraged by the fact that there are battles for souls and societies going on right now. Win some, lose some, and some are stalemates--but battles none-the-less. This is not a peaceful takeover by the secularists, if they're winning at all.

The Importance of Origins

Why is the Creation-Evolution debate so important? Why is where we came from--Who we came from, if anyone--so important? Why is the origins debate so important? This is why:
The realization of a creator [or The Creator] is NOT apathetic knowledge. In other words, when the discovery is made that we ARE created--we ARE purposed--and there is Someone out there Who is more powerful than us, then we are forced to take some ensuing actions. Few people can realize that God exists and toss that fact off to the side without investigating it further.
Of course, all those who believe in a creator are not Christians. They don't necessarily feel any conviction to live right, or to live for the "right" God. But it really bugs me when someone says that we should focus on telling people about "the love of Jesus." In reality, someone who doesn' t believe in God is NOT going to believe in God's SON. Someone who doesn't believe in the Christian definition of sin and evil is NOT going to see "a need for a Savior." Someone Who doesn't believe in a Creator Who created the entire universe will not believe in a Creator Who "created" a book filled with His words [The Bible].
Here's a few examples of works by atheists: Jesus is Imaginary; Was Jesus Gay?; Before Jesus [there was Krishna].
The simple fact is this: You can believe in a creator without believing in Jesus [being a Christian], but you can't believe in Jesus [be a Christian] without believing in the Creator.

We should note both parts of this statement:
First of all, yes, you can believe in a creator without being a Christian. That's obvious. Here's a super-short list of non-Christian belief systems that make room for a Creator, noting that MOST religions have an inherent god:
Deism
Agnosticism (doesn't know if there's a God)
Mormonism
Jehovah's Witnesses
Catholicism
Islam
Judeism
...........

In fact, before recent times (the last 300 or 400 years, let's say), it was majoritatively conceded that God, Who created, existed. But we know that much evil has always been in the world: it hasn't just been recently--since a creator was rejected--that immorality has surfaced. People have been willing to ignore the existence of a Creator (rather than deny one) or create a god of their own to be the universe's creator (rather than deny one completely).
Even today, some statistics show that anywhere from sixty to ninety percent of people (especially in America) believe in God. But, when you look at modern facts of life such as abortion, Evolution, prayer out of schools, Ten Commandments out of schools and courthouses, the push for homosexual rights, and restrictions attempting to be put on military chaplains, it can be clearly recognized that most believers in God are not Christians--or at least true ones.

That's where some people and organizations criticize Intelligent Design. Answers in Genesis, for one, which is dedicated "to upholding the Scriptures from the very first verse," doesn't like Intelligent Design for several reasons: 1.) Intelligent Design doesn't point to any particular god as Creator; 2.) Intelligent Design doesn't use or defend the Bible, but rather "discovers" God naturally; and 3.) There are some problems that Intelligent Design can't solve.
Answers in Genesis is correct on all accounts. But there are a few reasons why Christians should not abandon the Intelligent Design Movement, in my opinion.

First off, Christians should support Intelligent Design for the sake of the schools and schoolchildren. Though it's difficult, I admit that the God of the Bible should not (or at least never will be) taught in the science class--or else, yes, in the sake of American religious diversity and equality, every other god-theory would also have to be taught--unless, of course, such a vast majoritative percentage of the American population became Christian that Christianity could be taught in schools without incident . Answers in Genesis, in all likelihood, will never get into the public schools' curriculums. Their efforts are centered on getting the truth directly into the hands, minds, and hearts of students so that they can defy secular falsehoods and theories which are taught as fact. That's a noble and worthwhile endeavor, and I fully support it.
Intelligent Design, on the other hand, no matter what some atheist wants to tell you, IS as unbiased as can be expected--in other words, it is no more biased than the atheistic Theory of Evolution. Its theories, like "Irreducible Complexity," are often much more intelligent and logical than anything Evolution puts forth. Intelligent Design CAN and SHOULD get into the schools, if nothing else, than as an alternate to the Theory of Evolution. Though it's not a guarantee that children will come to Christ because of Intelligent Design, Intelligent Design is certainly a step forward from the science of atheism/secular humanism: Evolution.

Secondly, Christians should support Intelligent Design because it personifies Romans 1:20. Although the Christian has God revealed to him/her through God's Holy Word, anyone can have God revealed to them as Creator through His glorious, magnificent, complex, beautiful, designed creation. Restating what I've said before, no one can become a Christian before first believing in Christ, Who is part of the creating Trinity Godhead (John 1:1). Therefore, we can come to the conclusion that, no, Intelligent Design is not enough, but, it's a start--one of many creationist starts, but a leading, powerful, and effective one that should not be thrown away.

Thirdly, Christians should support Intelligent Design because, like in the schools, Intelligent Design can reach places where more devout biblical creationism cannot. In many intellectual circles and colleges and the like, Intelligent Design is considered and accepted before any other creation theory. Is it watered down? Yes. But perhaps the best thing for Christians to do is build up people's "tolerance" to "God-talk." Intelligent Design now, Answers in Genesis later? Maybe. It's already happening in individuals' lives; perhaps it can become commonplace on a massive scale.

Fourthly, Christians should support Intelligent Design so that Christianity won't become a "kingdom divided against itself" in yet another area. I heard one statistic the other day that said--worldwide--that there are NINE THOUSAND CHRISTIAN DENOMINATIONS. That in and of itself "waters down" Christianity's influence. A pie cut into nine thousand pieces does not feed and satisfy nine thousand people--it starves nine thousand. All agree that there's a Creator--however they might deviate from Scripture. But it seems that all do not agree about the way to PROVE a Creator. Though I would disagree with some ways to prove God (for instance, I would not support the "flipped a coin and it landed on heads, therefore God" method), I think the differences held between some Christians who oppose Intelligent Design and those who support it are too small, trivial, and/or reconcilable to terminate the progress which the movement has already made and is currently making.

Epilogue: Witnessing

Ultimately, the origins debate--from the Christian perspective--is all about salvation. What's the point of proving that we are created if the people who realize this don't get saved? They are lost all the same.
When witnessing to an atheist, Christians can do one of two things. If a person has already been prepared by the Holy Spirit, they can cut straight to the person's heart [conscience]; however, if the person is a staunch and hard-hearted atheist who answers every sincere attempt with "I don't believe in God, I don't believe in the Bible, I don't believe in Jesus, I don't believe in evil or 'sin,'" then first you must show that person the logic and inevitably of a Creator, since an atheist has blinded himself and scarred his conscience for the sake of denying a Creator.

~Kingdom Advancer

God, The Five Senses, and Beyond

Some say that they don't believe in God because they cannot see God. But it can wisely be said that--to have an excuse not to believe in a Creator God--you'd have to be completely blind--unable to see anything.
Some say that they don't believe in God because they cannot hear Him speak audibly. But it can wisely be said that to be able to really deny a Creator God's existence, you'd have to be deaf--unable to hear anything.
Some say that they don't believe in God because He doesn't seem tangible to them--they can't touch Him, feel Him, "taste" Him, or "smell" Him. But it can wisely be said that to reject a Creator God's existence on this basis, you'd have to be completely insensitive--unable to touch, feel, taste, or smell anything.
Some say that they don't believe in God because of death. But it can wisely be said that--to not believe in God for this reason--you must not be alive--you yourself must be dead, or at least you must be brain "dead"--pardon the pun--enough to not comprehend the miracle of life.
Some say that they don't believe in God because of suffering. But it can wisely be said that to deny God's existence, using this as a valid alibi and leaving the topic un-investigated, you'd have to be experiencing mental "suffering" and/or apathetic, intellectual laziness.
Some say that they don't believe in God because of the presence of evil. But it can wisely be said that to hold this belief would require a comprehensive LACK of knowledge and understanding of good and evil.
Some say that they don't believe in God because they believe in Evolution--that we are just animals who have evolved from lower life forms. But it can wisely be said that--to use this as a viable excuse for denying God's existence--you'd have to BE a lower life form.
Some say that they don't believe in God because an "Intelligent Designer would never have designed such a crazy world." But it can wisely be said that--to seriously use this as a reason--you'd have to BE crazy, or you'd have to totally ignore, or be ignorant of, design.

Some say they don't believe in God because of a combination of the above factors--perhaps all of them. But it could be wisely said, then, to have ample reason and/or excuse to believe such things, you'd have to be a lower life form who's blind, deaf, insensitive, mentally handicapped or un-knowledgeable of certain things, crazy, not diligent, and yes--DEAD.

Of course, we all know there's no such person. We--at least we Christians--also know that sight problems, hearing problems, insentivity to touch and smell and taste and feel issues, mental issues, laziness, and inhumanity are NOT the keys to the epidemic of atheism. The key to atheism is a heart issue. When a person looks at Creation, he or she should clearly see that there is a Creator. Then, upon investigating God's Word many of our more complicated questions are answered, as well as our simple ones. Then, upon maturing as a Christian and praying for wisdom and discernment, even MORE of our questions our answered. At that point, the Christian has learned [if it wasn't learned earlier] to trust in God for any of the remaining questions--rather than rely on one's own finite and fallen reasoning ability.
So why are people so determined to deny God's existence and His will for their lives? As I said, it is because of the heart. People have motives for denying God a place in their lives. They "love the darkness rather than the light." Though their bodies our not dead, the Bible says the unsaved souls are "spiritually dead" and must be raised again to new life by the Work of Christ. Therefore Christians must pray for a work to be done in their hearts by God, as the Bible tells us He can.

And I leave you with this:
Romans 1:20

~ Kingdom Advancer