A Sure Word

Science Nazis: Part Deux

2012-01-27T10:07:00.000-05:00

Iordinarily try to keep my posts to about two typed pages. You mightthink that sounds easy because whenever I write on a topic, I seldomhave trouble deciding what to say about it. Instead, I usually havetrouble deciding what to leave out. The consequence of this is thatno matter how well I may (or may not) have made a point, I'm usuallyunsatisfied with the end product. There's always more I wished I'dsaid. I had not intended to make this a two part post but it seemsI've stirred up little controversy of my own with my first post. So,I'm going to add a few more comments that I could have said in myfirst post.

Forwhat it's worth, here are some of my thoughts about global warming. First, I'm a little puzzled why some scientists are so alarmed abouta slight increase in the average global temperature over the lastcentury or so. Don't most of these people also believe the earth is4.5 billion years old? If that were true, then a century or twoisn't a long enough period of time to be statistically significant. It's less than blip. Such a small sample is not sufficient toestablish a trend but even assuming we can identify a trend howconfident should we be in the measurements anyway? 100 years ago wehad no satellites, no weather stations in Antarctica, or a fractionof the technology available to us now. Bill Clinton once said the90's was the warmest decade of the last 500 years. Really? So whenColumbus arrived in North America in 1492, did he ask the natives tobegin recording temperature changes? I'm sure Captain Cook got theAborigines busy in Australia but who was measuring the temperature atthe poles about this time? Any warming trend seen in ourmeasurements could be nothing more than more accurate measurements.

Secondly,I would like to point out that most people agree there was at leastone ice age in the past. Do global warming alarmists lament thedisappearance of glaciers from the lower 48 states? Certainly thatwarming trend wasn't the result of human activity – or did theNeanderthal equivalent of Al Gore run around telling other people tostop cooking their food because the fires were melting the ice? Ifthere have been periods of cooling and warming in the past, why aresome people surprised to see it happening now (assuming that it ishappening)?

Andspeaking of Al Gore, this brings me to my final point: Al Gore oncesaid that the earth was sick – “it has a fever”. Doesn't sucha statement presuppose that we know what the ideal temperature of theearth should be. Well, what is it? Was the earth at its idealtemperature 100 or so years ago before the supposed trend began? Isit what the temperature is right now? Was the earth at its idealtemperature at the peak of the last ice age? Maybe the earth isheading toward the temperature it is “supposed” to be. And, ofcourse, if warming and cooling is the usual condition of the earthover its (alleged) billions of years history, then our herculeanefforts to reverse the current warming trend is for naught. Ourefforts would be better spent preparing for life in a warmer world.

Bythe way, maybe a warmer world wouldn't be so bad. I hear peopletalking about “greenhouse gases” but do they understand thatplants grow like crazy in greenhouses? Perhaps we could grow morefood all year around. Maybe a more temperate climate would help usturn uninhabitable deserts into lush gardens. Maybe the polar capscould be turned into farm land.

Ofcourse, many people disagree with me. I know because they've told meso; rather, I've been called, “a stupid, ignorant, lying,science-hater.” But tell me the truth: in spite of ourdisagreements, am I really being unreasonable by just asking thesequestions or having these doubts? I've asked these questions beforeand so have many others and I've not heard satisfactory answers. Inmany cases, I've not been given any answer. So is there somethingwrong with doubting? Even more than that, what is wrong withdisagreeing?

Thisthen, brings me back to the point of my post – the regime of thescience Nazis. You see, to them, discussion is only allowed in thescientific community. Lay people (i.e. the masses) must comply withscientific consensus. You cannot question the establishment. Youcannot hold personal beliefs contradictory to their agenda.

Askyourself this: why exactly have they cast their lot so stronglyone-sided in this debate? This isn't a matter of “religion inschools,” which is a criticism that has been raised againstcreationism. People who are suspect of climate change are objectingto the conclusions of some scientists but they're not objecting forreligious reasons. There are things they're not convinced about. Some people don't believe there's a warming trend, or that it'sman-made, or they may believe spending billions of dollars to reversewhat is occurring naturally would be a huge waste of resources. These are scientific questions. These are political questions. They're not religious questions. Then why does the quasi-scientificgroup NCSE and others like them seek to squelch the debate?

Rememberthat the Nature article said, “25–30%of [surveyed] respondents reported that students, parents,administrators or other community members had argued with [educators]that climate change is not happening or that it is not the result ofhuman activity.” Assuming that statistic is 100% accurate, what is the controversy? Are these educators so elite that they feel they must bring in thebig guns to figure out how to keep people from disagreeing with them? Scott said their group is not a political think-tank. That's a lie. Their group is nothing else but a think-tank seeking ways to advancea liberal agenda. In the case of climate change, they have throwntheir hat into the ring of a controversial, political issue and seekto equip educators with arguments to silence opposition. Would westand still if an economics teacher sought advice from China on howto deal with his students who feel capitalism is superior tosocialism?

Ifyou are not convinced, let me ask also why educators believe it is a“threat” that school boards ask that they “teach thecontroversy”? If up to 1/3 of the teachers have been challengedabout a controversial issue, then obviously a sizable percentage ofthe public questions it. As I asked in my reply to Steven J'scomment, “Is it really better to teach kids to simply trust theoverwhelming majority of scientists rather than teach them toconsider both sides of an controversial issue like global warming?” Apparently these schools think so and so are not interested inpresenting the evidence but rather want to allow kids to hear only asingle view of the evidence. I would expect schools to be objectiveand noncommittal in such divisive issues. For school boards to askteachers to present both sides of a controversial issue is only athreat if someone is afraid of students hearing both sides. Let mealso remind you that it is precisely the job of the school boards andparents in the community to establish school curriculum. No matterhow enlightened they think they are, it is not a “right” of theestablishment to demand students be taught only what the scientificelite deems to be correct.

Idon't mind having a discussion about global warming. I very muchmind schools resorting to Scott and her ilk to figure out ways to enddiscussion. That's not an education. It's indoctrination.

Science Nazis

2012-01-23T11:14:00.001-05:00

That'sright. I said it. Some people are science Nazis. They are Nazis inthe sense that they are militant about their scientific conclusionsand feel perfectly just in forcing the “ignorant” masses intocompliance through propaganda or whatever means possible. The JosephGoebbels of the movement is Eugenie Scott, director of the NationalCenter for Science Education (NCSE).

BeforeI begin, let me say that I may be annoyed but I am not unhinged. Many times in the past, I have read comments by evolutionists who, I amsure, were foaming at the mouth as they wrote. It's typical forpeople with this attitude to argue by insult. That's not what I'mtrying to do here. I sincerely believe that Eugenie Scott is apropagandist as are many others like her.

OK,now to the meat of my “rant.”

Nature.comrecently published a piece titled, “Evolutionadvocate turns to climate change.” The subtitle of the article says,“Educationcentre known for battling creationists aims to help science teachersconvey understanding of global warming.” It's interesting that they use the term, “battling creationists.” I think the subtitle conveys the general impression held by thescientific community of the NCSE's true agenda as being militantlyanti-creationist. They are not just concerned about keeping“religion” out of science education in schools, they are battlingcreationists wherever they are found. This has long beendemonstrated by Scott's years-long crusade against the CreationMuseumand Answersin Genesis.

AiGhas always admitted that they are not interested in changing publicschool curriculum. Like myself, they do not want public schoolteachers (especially those who might be unbelieving) teaching theBible to our kids. This is the job of parents and the Church. Also,the Creation Museum is a private institution. It was built entirelywith donated dollars and does not receive – nor ever received –any type of public grant or funding. Why then does Scott, and othersof her ilk, concern herself with them? The reason is simple: it'sbecause she loathes the idea that anyone anywhere believes increation.

Inthe Nature article, reporter Susan Young highlights the same attitudetoward global warming. Young begins her article lamenting that, inthe same way some students have rejected the theory of evolution,some students are also rejecting the idea of global warming (orman-made global warming). She says that Scott has chosen tointervene because of the “entreaties from educators and textbookauthors.” The article quotes Scott as saying, “Ithink we can make an important contribution. If teachers understandthat there is a place that they can go to for help, we can use someof the expertise that we’ve gained over the years dealing withevolution to apply to this related problem.”

Well,first off, one might ask how is evolution related to climate change? During any discussion, if a creationist happens to mention somethinglike the Big Bang, the evolutionist is quick to point out that theBig Bang has nothing to do with evolution (cosmology v. biology). Here, though. Scott says two unrelated sciences (biology andmeteorology) share a related problem. In her mind, the“problem” is that there are people who don't fall lock-step intoestablished, scientific consensus. Her's is a political agenda - not a scientific one.

Accordingto the article, “25–30% of [surveyed] respondents reported thatstudents, parents, administrators or other community members hadargued with [educators] that climate change is not happening or thatit is not the result of human activity.” What is even morealarming is that “[s]omeschool boards and state legislators have threatened to requireeducators to ‘teach the controversy’ about climate change — aterm coined in relation to evolution that amounts to presenting ascientific theory as one of various possible viewpoints.”

Ohmy goodness! You mean there are actually school boards out there whowant educators to tell their students that some people – maybe evensome scientists – disagree with their theory?! I can see why Scottis up in arms. (I am using sarcasm in case it isn't obvious). Honestly, I can't see a "controversy" in teaching students to be skeptical. In the case of global warming, I believe there is more dissent among scientists about the issue than there is concerning creation. However, Scott is a propagandist and she sees it as her job to sway the masses to the desired point of view.

Scottbelieves the solution to this imagined problem is “helpingpeople to understand the reasons why scientists overwhelmingly acceptclimate change.” This is the crux of the issue. It's the elitism of thescientific establishment or “truth by consensus.” Scott believesthat the science is settled. Since the overwhelming majority ofscientists accept climate change, we know that it's true so dissentis no longer allowed. Her approach is cleverly worded but it'slittle more than a thinly veiled “appeal to authority.”

Iwonder how Scott might have behaved a few centuries ago when Galileowas introducing ideas that upset the scientific establishment. Wouldshe have said, “Look people, the science is settled on this –Ptolemy was right”? Even well established science can still bewrong. Most scientists will admit this. Still, certainelitists only allow debate within the scientific community. Laypeople are not allowed to have an opinion other than then currentconsensus of the establishment.

Whatis most amusing about the article is this disclaimer:

Thestatement also says that the NCSE will not take a position on what,if anything, should be done to counteract global warming or mitigateits effects. “What to do about it ranges widely and gets outside ofthe strict science and into policy issues in which many, manyvariables are going to have to be considered,” says Scott. “Weare not a policy think tank; we don’t have expertise in this area.”

Waita minute! They don't have expertise in this area? Why exactly,then, is she taking a side on this issue? On the one hand, theyclaim not to know enough to recommend a solution but on the otherhand, they know enough to know it's absolutely true and studentsdon't just need to be taught about it but need to believe it. I knowwhy they are interested. Even though their expertise is not inglobal warming, Scott is still commenting on her area of expertise –propaganda!

Hell: Hades, Sheol, Paradise, and Gehenna

2012-01-20T10:16:00.000-05:00

Tomy last post concerning the “gates of hell,” a frequent visitor,Steven J, asked some interesting questions. While I was forming areply to his comments, I realized that a lot of people might havesimilar questions so I thought I'd add a few more details and make ita post. As I began writing it, though, I realized the subject is alittle more broad that I originally considered and wasn't sure Icould keep it to a reasonable post length. It seemed that anything Iwanted to omit seemed necessary to the whole post. I finally decidedto scrap the whole thing and write an abbreviated version fromscratch.

Isay all that to say this: My views about hell probably reflect thoseheld by the slight majority but opinions still abound. Consider thisa disclaimer - the Bible gives us much detail about the lives of thecharacters it mentions and also give us instructions on how toconduct ourselves now. It gives surprisingly few details about helland even fewer about heaven. The popular ideas of a “fire andbrimstone” hell are not entirely wrong but they're not entirelyright either. What I include here is correct to my bestunderstanding of the Bible but I remain open to correction if I amconvincingly persuaded by Scripture.

Bythe way, for the purpose of this post, we will stick primarily to theNew Testament.

TheEnglish word “hell” invokes images of fire, brimstone, flames,and eternal torment. Many people are surprised, though, when I tellthem the Bible does not use the word “hell” at all. The Biblewas originally written in Hebrew, Aramaic, and Greek. There aredifferent words that have all been rendered as “hell” in theEnglish translations. For a few of those words, the fiery judgmentis the correct understanding but not in every instance.

Inthe New Testament, the word most often translated as “hell” isthe Greek word ᾅδης(hadēs). In general, Hades refers to the abode of the dead. It includes allthe dead, regardless of their faith while on earth. However, withinHades, souls are segregated into two groups – believers andnon-believers – to await the resurrection. Hades is the functionalequivalent of the Old Testament, Hebrew word שׁאל(sh^e'ôl). Sheolliterally means “grave” or “pit.” Oh, and if you haven'tnoticed already, for the sakes of ease of typing and reading, I amreferring to these here as Hades and Sheol.

InJohn 5:28-29, Jesus makes it clear that the “grave” (μνημεῖον(mnēmeion)is the Greek word in this passage) holds both the believing andunbelieving:

Marvelnot at this: for the hour is coming, in the which all that are in thegraves shall hear his voice, Andshall come forth; they that have done good, unto the resurrection oflife; and they that have done evil, unto the resurrection ofdamnation. (KJV)

Thosewho die while believing are taken to a place of rest in Hades. Thishas also been called “the Bosom of Abraham” (Luke 16:22)or“Paradise' (Luke 23:43, 2 Corinthians 12:4). Those who diedwhile outside of the faith are taken to a place of torment. It isalso referred to as Gehenna (Matthew 5:22), Tartarus (2 Peter 2:4),or the abyss (Revelation 9:1).

Sometimes,this realm of the damned is also referred to as Hades (Luke 16:23) orSheol which leads to a little confusion. Let me see if I can offeran analogy that could clear up the confusion. I live in Louisville,Kentucky (KY). Louisville is the city and it is in the state of KY. While I am in Louisville, I am simultaneously in KY. So, I couldsay, “I live in Louisville” and just as correctly say, “I livein KY.” Likewise, a damned soul in the place of torment (likeGehenna) can simultaneously said to be in Hades.

Wesee a good contrast between the place of rest and the place oftorment in Luke 16:19-31 – the account of the rich man andLazarus. The Bible says that when Lazarus died, he was carried byangels to the Bosom of Abraham. The rich man died and “wasburied.” Then, in “hell” (Hades),he lifted his eyes and saw Abraham with Lazarus “in his bosom.” It is frightening to read as the rich man says he is being tormentedin flames. Abraham reminds him that he received good things in lifewhile Lazarus suffered evil things. Now the rich man is “tormented”while Lazarus is “comforted” (KJV). In the passage, Abraham alsodescribes there is a gulf or chasm that divides the two areas. WhileAbraham and the rich man are obviously able to see each other andeven converse, neither can cross to the other side.

WhenJesus died, He descended to “Paradise” as is attested in Hiscomment to the thief on the cross, “Todayyou will be with me in paradise.” When Jesus ascended, He took with Him all the saints who now dwell inthe presence of the Father (Ephesians 4:8-10). Most people agreethat Paradise no longer receives spirits. Now, when a believer dies,he is immediately present with the Lord (2 Corinthians 5:8).

Revelationtells us that there will be a final judgment of the lost. Revelation20:13 says that “death and hell (Hades)” will give up the deadthat are in them to stand before the white throne where their worksare judged. At the end of the judgment, Hades, along with all thosewhose names are not in the Book of Life are cast into the Lake ofFire. This is the “second death” and is their final destiny forall eternity.

Inmany cases, a discussion of hell raises the criticism that God iscruel and unjust (the “argument of outrage”). Such a discussionwill have to be for another post. Suffice it to say here and nowthat hell (the place of the damned) is a very real place and judgmentawaits all who reject Jesus. However, salvation is available to all. Now is the time to decide.

Matthew 16:18: The Gates of Hell

2012-01-13T00:01:00.000-05:00

“AndI say also unto thee, That thou art Peter, and upon this rock I willbuild my church; and the gates of hell shall not prevail against it.”Matthew 16:18

When Jesus uttered these words to Peter, it isthe only recorded example where He used the term, “the gates ofhell.” What exactly did He mean when He said, “the gatesof hell shall not prevail against it”? Over the years I’veheard various interpretations and there are at least three thatwarrant serious consideration.

The Minions of Hell:

InBiblical times, the gates of a city represented the seat of power.Most large cities then were walled and whenever visitors and traderswould enter a city, they had to enter through the gates. Merchantsand notable men of the city would wait there to greet them. Anexample of this appears in Genesis 19:1:

“And there cametwo angels to Sodom at even; and Lot sat in the gate of Sodom: andLot seeing them rose up to meet them; and he bowed himself with hisface toward the ground;”

Another example is from Estherwhere Mordecai was often seen sitting at the gate with the king’sservants (Esther 2:19, Esther 2:21, Esther 3:2, et al).

Inthis light, the “gates of hell” could mean the powerfulforces of hell (the Devil and his demons). They will not prevailagainst Christ’s church.

The Dominion of Hell:

Asmentioned before large cities in the Bible were walled. The obviouspurpose of this was defense. Whenever an enemy army attacked thecity, they would try to breach the gate. Strong walls and a stronggate would thwart the efforts of the attackers and the city would besafe.

The Devil is the ruler of this world (John 14:30). Heseeks to protect his domain and his gates are designed to hold offthe true King. The gates of hell are his defense. But even thestrongest gates cannot prevail against the power of Christ’schurch.

Hades:

The Greek word used for Hell inMatthew is ᾅδης (hadēs). This is not the place ofjudgment or eternal torment but the place of rest for the dead untilthe resurrection. Other passages describe this as the Bosom ofAbraham (Luke 16:22). It’s the same word used in Acts 2:31:

“Heseeing this before spake of the resurrection of Christ, that his soulwas not left in hell, neither his flesh did see corruption.”

Gatesare often used to keep things out; but they are sometimes used tokeep things in. The gates of hell that admit the dead, also keep themin. When Christ died, His soul descended to hell (hadēs).However, these gates were not able to keep Jesus in. The gates ofhell could not prevail against the Risen Savior and neither will theyprevail against His church!

Whatever the meaning of the term,the promise of Christ is clear. The gates of hell, whenever theystand before us, either to keep us out or keep us in, they will notprevail. Amen!

How Do You Like My New Blog Design?

2012-01-12T09:23:00.000-05:00

After 4 years of blogging, it's funnythat I really don't know much more about blog design than when Istarted. The difference is that now Blogger has more featuresavailable and they're fairly easy to employ. When I started, theavailable templates were very limited. I'm not kidding – therewere only about 20 to choose from. Oh yeah, they looked cool atfirst but after I started visiting other people's blogs, I realizedthey all looked like mine. When I saw these same templates on otherpeople's sites, I also realized they were boring.

I stumbled upon (through normal surfing– not the app of the same name) a site with a LOT of cool templatesthat could be applied to Blogger. I chose one I liked and applied itto my blog right away. It was great for a while. My blog had a coolnew look and was different than all the other blogs out there. Unfortunately for me, though, Blogger soon offered all those sametemplates as well so my blog suddenly wasn't quite as unique anymore.

Regardless of that, I really liked thelook of my last design. I thought it was attractive to look at andhad a more “professional” appearance than the cookie cuttertemplates I had been used to. Yet I always had this nagging feelingthat the color scheme made it a little difficult to read. Also, theside bar seemed to be lost in clutter. I almost never had clicks onmy side bar and I think it was simply because people never noticedanything in there so they didn't click on anything.

I previewed several new themes to seehow they'd look on my blog. This one caught my eye. It's rathersimple but elegant. Pictures are a big part of my blog and I likethe way they stand out against the white background. I think theside bar now looks more like content and less like ads that peopleignore. And certainly the text is much more readable. At the riskof sounding cliche,I think this new theme “pops.”

Ihope it improves the reading experience of all my visitors. I mightmake a few tweaks still. If you have any suggestions or comments,please comment. Feedback is always welcome on ASure Word.

Thanksfor visiting. God bless!!

How Did Diseases Survive the Flood?

2012-01-09T16:09:00.000-05:00

There are a couple of reasons I like toread questions asked by skeptics. First, it demonstrates how littlestudied many skeptics are about creation. Often, the questions areso absurdly easy to answer, it gives me an opportunity to point outto the skeptic that he needs to study creation more thoroughly beforerejecting it. A second reason, however, is that it gives meinspiration for items to blog about.

Such is the case from a skeptic usingthe online name, Clever Name (not really very clever but that's thename he chose). Clever Name posted about a dozen questionsconcerning the Flood. Some of them are interesting and may be usedin upcoming posts but he prompted another skeptic (going by the namerossum) to ask how diseases – like small pox, tape worms, and polio– survived the Flood. OK, “tape worm” is not really a diseasebut you get the point. This isn't a new criticism but one I've heardmany times before. I merely haven't addressed it before now.

I've heard it suggested (via a strawman argument) that Noah and his family had to be the most sicklypeople that had ever lived because they had to carry among them allknown human maladies and parasites. The Bible does not say howbacteria and viruses et al survived the Flood so any answergiven by creationists are educated guesses. There are many plausibleexplanations - any one of which is possible (or a combination of allof them). I will offer a few possibilities but this is by no meansmeant to be an exhaustive list of options.

CARRIED BY THE FAMILY

Noah and his family could possibly havehad ailments that survived the Flood though this is the leastplausible explanation. Most viruses do not infect human hosts for ayear without being defeated by our immune system but some diseasesare chronic. Since I'm not a doctor, I can't say if there are anyviruses that hosts can “carry” for years without symptoms andstill be contagious but, if so, some of Noah's family can be blamedif those maladies still plague us. Parasites, on the other hand, candefinitely be carried for long periods by their hosts and still bepassed along to others. Tapeworms, which were specifically mentionedby rossum, are such parasites.

Even if some diseases survived viaNoah's family, this certainly cannot account for all of the diseasessuffered by humans today. There must be other methods as well.

CARRIED BY ANIMALS

There were at least a few thousandanimals on the Ark. There can be no doubt that many of them carriedparasites like tics, fleas, and tapeworms. Many also likely carriedviruses. Now, I already know that some critics out there will bringup the fact that many diseases that infect humans cannot be borne byanimals. While that may be true of modern strains, it may not betrue of their ancestors. Viruses that can now only survive in humansmay have once been more robust and able to live in animals as well. Viruses, like animals, have adapted to their environments and becomemore specialized. The further back we go in time, the more generaland robust species may have been.

The funny thing is that this must be apart of the evolutionary theory even if evolutionists don't see it asan option for creationists. If certain viruses can only live inhumans now, how did the viruses survive millions of years ago beforehumans evolved? Obviously, the ancestors of these modern, humanstrains were borne by something other than humans. Evolutionistsmust concede that viruses that only infect humans now must once havesurvived in non-humans. If the evolutionists are honest, they shouldalso admit this solution exists for the creationist as well.

CONTACT WITH INFECTED DEAD PEOPLE ORANIMALS

Under the right conditions, things likebacteria and viruses can survive extended periods without a host. About one year ago, I wrote about the discovery of living bacteriathat was supposedly 34,000 years old. Decades old viruses havealso be recovered from a doomed, arctic expedition. For years afterthe Flood, humans may have come into contact with the carcasses ofinfected people or animals that had perished in the Deluge.

SOME DISEASES DIDN'T EXIST BEFORETHE FLOOD

Though I risk hearing a big “gotcha”from my opponents, I know that some germs that cause disease now, maynot have been disease causing in the antediluvean world. Many thingswe now consider harmful may have once served a beneficial purposebut, because of the Curse, has mutated to become the malevolent agentit is now. Such a notion brings to mind the ultimate origin ofpathogens in the first place. Surely, God would not have intendedthings like cancer to be part of the initial, “very good”creation. Where then did they come from? Perhaps God, in Hisforeknowledge, programed latent features into DNA that becameexpressed as part of His judgment. I don't know. However it mayhave happened, the same mechanism could be at work after the Flood. Mutations that cause deformities and maladies in other species, couldalso make helpful bacteria become harmful. This is the cursed worldwe live in.

IN CONCLUSION, there's no reason tobelieve that diseases are somehow an argument against the Flood. There are many ways these survived the Flood without resorting to theridiculous idea that Noah and his sickly family carried them all.

Does Racism Shape Evolutionary Theory?

2012-01-06T09:52:00.000-05:00

I'veheard many Christians attack evolution with claims of racism. Forexample, many people have made much hay over the title of Darwin'sbook, “Onthe Origin of Species by Means of Natural Selection, or thePreservation of Favoured Races in the Struggle for Life”While there is always room in any subject for a discussion of themoral implications of a particular view, we need to be careful whenplaying the race card. If evolution is true, then it's trueregardless of any racial tendencies the theory might carry. Besides,racism far preceded Darwin. The simple fact that some people havetried used evolution as a scientific justification for their bigotrydoesn't disqualify the theory from consideration. This is thelogical fallacy of “guiltby association.” Evolution is wrong but it's not wrong becauseit's a “racist” theory.

Havingsaid that, though, I'm going to go out on a limb and say that much ofour understanding of hominid evolution is wrong because racialattitudes have shaped our interpretation of the evidence. I'llexplain how in a moment but let me start with a disclaimer: I do notbelieve the distinction of races among humans is biblically sound. The Bible says that God has made all nations of one blood (Acts17:26). Those features that we use to identify a person's race is aninvented concept. It's true that certain groups of people tend topossess certain combinations of traits but to identify someone as adifferent “race” based on their skin color makes about as muchsense as segregating people based on their eye color.

Now,on to my point. I'm not a scientist; I'm often reminded of this bymy evolutionary friends – many of whom are not scientists either bythe way. Yet even though I'm not a scientist, I can still see thedifferences between a Neanderthalskull and a Homosapienskull. Neanderthalspossessed, among other things, heavy brow ridges, elongated jaws, anda sloping forehead. Homosapienshave a distinctly dome-shaped skull and flat faces.

Whenevolutionists recreate the appearance of Neanderthals, they tend toview their facial characteristics as being “primitive.” Theresult is a brutish-looking caveman. Besides the thick brow ridge,Neanderthalshave also been portrayed with thick lips, wide noses, and even darkskin. Let me ask you, what is necessarily “primitive” aboutthese features? Some groups of people alive today possess thesesames traits.

Considerthese photos of American-Indian, Wolf Robe. Note the heavy brow andsloping forehead. Was this noble Chief a brute? Was he a savage? Was he even one iota less evolved than white Europeans? Excuse mefor saying this but I think it's offensive that certain “racial”characteristics have been labeled as primitive. A thick brow and sloping forehead are more ape like? Are you kidding me?

What'sespecially sad is that some Christians have actually believed certaingroups like American-Indians or Australian Aborigines are notdescended from Adam and so do not need the gospel. Still others havebelieved that dark skin is the “mark of Cain” (Genesis 4:15). How many people have died without hearing the gospel simply becausesome Christians were racists?

It'sfair to say that racial features are merely different combinations oftraits that God encoded into the DNA of Adam and Eve. Certaincombinations might be more common among certain groups, but there isnothing significant about them. It is a gross misunderstanding whenscientists use normal variations among people groups as clues toidentify which groups are closer to the apes. I would even say it'sracist!

Is Shark Hybridization “Evolution in Action”

2012-01-05T18:43:00.000-05:00

Scientistsare excited about finding hybrid sharks off the coast of Australia. Lead researcher, Jess Morgan, said of the discovery, “This isevolution in action.” You can read the article (here)but here's the gist of the story:

TheAustralian black-tip shark can live only in tropical waters. Thecommon black-tip shark (described as the Australian black-tip's“cousin”) can live in more temperate water. Scientist have foundabout 57 specimens of hybrids (the offspring of a mating between different species) of the Australian black-tip and common black-tip. The hybrids can livein the cooler waters. One spin that article suggested is thathybridization is helping the Australian black-tip adapt to “climatechange.” That's fodder for another post.

Anyway,is this an example of “evolution in action”? If by “evolution”one simply means “change,” then this is certainly an example ofchange. However, there is no “evolution” of the type that couldchange a bird into dinosaur. The article is very interesting andthere's a lot we can learn here. But for the sake of thecreation-evolution debate, this article demonstrates a few things inparticular.

First,it's another good example of the equivocal use of the word“evolution.” Any “change” identified in nature is touted as“evolution in action” which serves to embolden evolutionists. When I say I don't believe in “evolution” (the descent of allspecies from a common ancestor), I'm chided for denying somethingthey claim has been observed.

Second,this highlights the subjective meaning of the term “species.” Speciesis typically defined as “agroup of organisms capable of interbreeding and producing fertileoffspring.”¹Thisdefinition is, at best, ambiguous. At worst, it's useless. TheAustralian black-tip and the common black-tip can obviouslyinterbreed (as evidenced by this finding). Why are they differentspecies? Polar bears (Ursusmaritimus)and grizzly bears (Ursusarctos horribilis)can hybridize (and have done so in the wild) yet they are differentspecies. The gray wolf (Canislupus)can hybridize with the coyote (Canislatrans). Hybridization is so common among flora and fauna that I really don'tsee how this definition of species endures. Evolutionists oftendemand that creationists provide a rigorous definition of the term“kind.” This is rather hypocritical of them since they cannotpresent a rigorous definition of the term “species.” Also,evolutionists sometimes define “macro-evolution” as “changethat occurs at or above the level of species.”²Thatterm too is rather useless since evolutionists can't seem to pin downwhat a species is. In other words, how can we know that change hasoccurred “at or above the level of species” if we don't even knowwhat a species is?

Thirdly,this finding is a better example of the creationist model. Both thecommon black-tip and Australian black-tip belong to the same “kind.” Each species merely possess different combinations of traits thatwere already present in the ancestral population. It's obvious thatthe common ancestor of both species was more robust and could likelytolerate a wider range of temperatures. Natural selection is aprocess that tends to eliminate traits which aren't suited to aparticular environment and the modern species of Australian black-tiphave become specialized and adapted to more tropical waters.

Iwrote about this very subject in my post “Werethere Fish on the Ark?” All the things discussed in thisrecent article are consistent with the post I had written nearly ayear ago. In that post, where I focused on the adaptation of modernfish species to their environments, I also mentioned the Biblicalconcept of “kind” and the creationist explanation of speciation. It all comes into play in this new finding. I'm even tempted to say,“This is creation in action!”

Ann Coulter's book: Demonic, How the Liberal Mob is Endangering America

2012-01-03T21:40:00.000-05:00

Ireceived Ann Coulter's book, Demonic: How the Liberal Mob Is Endangering America,for Christmas this year. Thus far, I've only had a chance to readthe first four or five chapters yet I've read enough to see it'sanother winner. Ann Coulter is definitely one of my favoritepolitical authors. She's funny, insightful, and straightforward. She articulates the conservative position as well as anyone I'veheard. Perhaps what I like most about her is that she drivesliberals absolutely crazy! The mere mention of her name brings outthat demonic frenzy she has correctly identified that exists insideliberals. As always, her book fails to disappoint.

Thepremise of her book is how liberals exhibit a mob mentality. Mobsare unable to think rationally and are instead driven by baseemotions. According to Coulter, “All the characteristics of mobbehavior set forth by [Gustave]Le Bon in 1895 are evident in modern liberalism – simplistic,extreme, black-and-white thinking, fear of novelty, inability tofollow logical arguments, acceptance of contradictory ideas, beingtransfixed by images, a religious worship of their leaders, and ablind hatred of their opponents.”

Coulterintroduces the book by quoting Mark 5:2-9 which details the encounterbetween Jesus and the demon possessed man, Legion. It's an attentiongrabber and sets the tone for her myriad of examples of how liberalmobs exhibit the same demonic behaviors.

Imight write a more thorough review once I've finished the book butthe close of Chapter One is so intriguing that I wanted toreproduce it here. Coulter uses the biblical account of thecrucifixion of Jesus to illustrate the typical, demonic mob.

Theseminal event of the New Testament – Jesus' cricifixion – is adramatic illustration of the power of the mob.

Whenthe mob was howling for Pontius Pilate to sentence Jesus to death,even Pilate's wife couldn't convince him to spare Jesus. Afterhaving a dream about Jesus, Pilate's wife sent her husband a notesaying Jesus was innocent – a “just man.” Pilate knew it to betrue and that the mob hated Jesus out of “envy.” But not hiswife, not even his own common sense, was enough for him to resist themob.

Threetimes Pilate told the “multitude” that Jesus was innocent andshould be spared. He pleaded with the mob, proposing to “chastisehim, and release him.” But the mob was immovable, demanding Jesus'crucifixion. Pilate was required to release one of the prisoners, sohe gave the mob the choice of Jesus or Barabbas, a notorious murdererand insurrectionist – in other words, someone who incites mobs. Again, the mob “spoke with one voice,” demanding “with loudshouts” that Jesus be crucified.

Capitulatingto the mob, Pilate ordered Jesus' death.

Evenone of the mob's victims, a thief being crucified alongside Jesus,joined the mob's taunting, saying to Jesus, “If thou be Christ,save thyself and us.” The other thief rebuked him, noting thatthey were guilty and Jesus was not. He said to Jesus, “Lord,remember me when thou comest into they kingdom.” And Jesus said,“Today shalt though be with me in paradise.”

Pilategave in to the mob out of fear. The thief joined the mob to sidewith the majority. The mob itself was driven by envy.

Althoughit all worked out in the end – Jesus died, darkness fell over theEarth, the ground trembled, and the temple veil was ripped in two,and three days later, Jesus rose from the dead, giving all people thepromise of everlasting life - here was the stark choice, to berepeated like Nietzsche's eternal recurrence: Jesus or Barabbas?

Liberalssay Barabbas: Go with the crowd. C'mon, everybody's doing it –it's cool. Now let's go mock Jesus. (As is so often the case, themob said, “Kill the Jew.”)

Conservatives– sublimely uninterested in the opinion of the mob - say Jesus.

Keeping Your New Year's Resolutions

2012-01-02T00:01:00.000-05:00

Inmy last post, I talked about how New Year's Day is an opportunity toreflect on the glory and mercy of God and to ponder how we mightspend the time He has given us in this new year. At this time, manypeople start out the year telling a great big fat lie called a “newyear's resolution.” I call it a lie because the failure rate forthese resolutions is staggeringly high. Some statistics that I'veread say that only 12 people of the people who make a resolution everreach their goal. One third fail before the end of January. Twentypercent fail in the first week!

Withso few people actually keeping their resolutions, there has been muchdiscussion about whether or not Christians should even makeresolutions. I have my own opinion about this. First, resolutionstend to be things that most people realize they should be doingalready. If there is something worthwhile that you should be doing,why not take the opportunity of the New Year to simply do it? Secondly, I believe that many of reasons we fail to keep ourresolutions are also the reasons we struggle in so many areas of ourspiritual lives. If we examine the reasons why we fail to keep ourresolutions, it may help improve our walk with Christ. For thesereasons, I see nothing necessarily wrong with a resolution andbelieve there is actually value in examining why we fail when we makethem.

TheBible is certainly the best judge of human nature. From Scriptures,I believe I have identified at least five reasons why people do notkeep their resolutions.

I.Wedon't take our oaths seriously

Matthew5:33-37 Again,ye have heard that it hath been said by them of old time, Thou shaltnot forswear thyself, but shalt perform unto the Lord thine oaths: But I say unto you, Swear not atall; neither by heaven; for it is God's throne: Nor by the earth; for it is hisfootstool: neither by Jerusalem; for it is the city of the greatKing. Neithershalt thou swear by thy head, because thou canst not make one hairwhite or black. Butlet your communication be, Yea, yea; Nay, nay: for whatsoever is morethan these cometh of evil.

Jesustalked about the foolishness of making empty oaths. A person mightsay that he swears by heaven but would still not keep his word. Today, we sometimes swear on a Bible. Jesus reminded us that theseoaths are not frivolous. The heaven and earth on not trivial thingsthat we might vainly invoke to add weight to our promise. Instead,we should simply mean what we say. If you say “yes” then meanyes. If you say “no” then mean no.

Perhapsit might benefit people to look up the definition of “resolution.” You are resolving yourself to do something. If youabandon your goal in the first week, it's not very likely you wereever very resolute about it.

If youmake a resolution, take it seriously.

II.We don't count the cost

Luke14:28-30 Forwhich of you, intending to build a tower, sitteth not down first, andcounteth the cost, whether he havesufficientto finishit? Lest haply, after he hath laidthe foundation, and is not able to finishit,all that beholditbegin to mock him, Saying, This man began to build,and was not able to finish.

Sometimeswe resolve to do something without fully realizing what all will beinvolved in keeping it. Some people, for example, might resolve tosave 10% of their paycheck every time they get paid. That soundslike a great idea but they continue spending money the way theyalways have. Before they get their next paycheck, they realizethey've spent all of their money and immediately have to dip intotheir savings. Before starting their resolution, they should haveplanned what they will give up in order to make their resolutionpossible.

Includedin this category is the vague resolution. Someone might resolve to“be a better person.” Exactly how is that measured? Withoutsome quantitative or measurable standard, one cannot tell if he iskeeping his resolution. He could just as vaguely justify that he has- “Well, I feel like I haven't yelled at my kids as much.”

III.We have unrealistic expectations

Somepeople believe that if they keep their resolution, the world willsuddenly become a better place. It's as though they feel if theylost 30 pounds, they would suddenly feel like a teenager again. Theyfeel like if they could save money, then they could travel, have nicethings, and pay off their mortgage in a year.

Jesussaid, (John16:33)Thesethings I have spoken unto you, that in me ye might have peace. In theworld ye shall have tribulation: but be of good cheer; I haveovercome the world.

Theold saying is that life is strife. The world will not suddenlybecome a paradise because you have lost 10 pounds. The things thatadded stress to your life will still be there. If what you haveresolved is worthwhile, don't be discouraged if it doesn't create theUtopia you had imagined.

IV.We labor in the flesh

Isaiah64:6 But we are all as an unclean thing,and all our righteousnesses areas filthy rags; and we all do fade as a leaf; and our iniquities,like the wind, have taken us away.

I've written about Isaiah 64:6 before. Rags are not necessarily worthless. We use them for many things like cleaning. But the Bible says our righteousness is likefilthy rags. A filthy rage really is worthless. Ifyou tried to clean off your hands with a filthy rag, you will simplyget your hands dirtier.

Anyattempt we make to clean up our act is doomed to fail if we try to doit on our own. We are simply trying to clean ourselves up with ourown righteousness – our own dirty rags. If we're pursuingsomething worthwhile, we shouldn't rely only on our own abilities toaccomplish it. Ask the Lord for strength and guidance.

V.We have misguided motives

James4:3 Yeask, and receive not, because ye ask amiss, that ye may consume itupon your lusts.

Whenyou make a resolution, ask yourself why you want it. Why might wewant to lose weight, for example? Is it out of simple vanity? Ifso, the God might not be interested in helping us keeping ourresolution. If we makea commitment to do something that's not really worthwhile, we'recertainly going to be more apt to abandon it.

Alot of our resolutions center around the material. That doesn'tautomatically make them bad but they're not necessarily worthwhileeither. Consider if your resolution is truly important. Besides theusual resolutions to lose weight, go to the gym, quit smoking, savemoney, and payoff bills, consider some of these resolutions:

I resolve to attend church every week this year
I resolve to tithe
I resolve to read the Bible all the way through this year
I resolve to share the gospel with at least one person per month this year
I resolve to lead someone to Christ this year

Inconclusion

There'sa danger in associating our resolutions with the New Year. If wehave planned since November that we would lose weight in the NewYear, it means we probably ate like a pig since Thanksgiving. Also,if we fail, there is an attitude of, “Oh well, maybe I'll try againnext year.” If you fail then just pick yourself up, dust yourselfoff, and try again.

Ifyou make a resolution, take it seriously, count the cost, haverealistic expectations, pray for guidance, and examine your motives. There's no need to wait to do better. Just do it.

Happy New Year, 2012

2012-01-01T00:01:00.000-05:00

Genesis 1:14 "And God said, Let therebe lights in the firmament of the heaven to divide the day from thenight; and let them be for signs, and for seasons, and for days, andyears:"

When people think about Christianholidays, New Year doesn't immediately come to mind. However, we cansee in the above verse from Genesis that God originally intendedthere to be years. A “year” is not an invention of man. Neitheris it an accident of nature. It is the design of God that we countyears and He arranged the universe so that we could accomplish that. It's rather humbling when you think about it.

We also can see that time is literallya gift from God. We're not guaranteed another year. We're not evenguaranteed another day. Every moment we live demonstrates God'sprovidence and His mercy. We who are all guilty of sin and deservingand death, He has allowed to live to see another year.

The New Year, then, proclaims God'ssovereignty and providence. Today is a great day to praise God andreflect on His glory and mercies. Today is also a great day toponder how we're going to spend the gift of time He has given us.

Happy New Year!!

Did the Ancient Hebrews Believe in a Literal Genesis?

2011-12-31T00:24:00.000-05:00

Many liberal theists have made theclaim that the ancient readers of the Bible never believed Genesiswas meant to be literal. When I hear people make this claim, I'veoften asked them what literary clues are present that identifyGenesis (or other relevant passages) as figurative and how can wedistinguish them from simple narrative. The usual responses I getare a swift change of the subject (a red herring), links to liberalscholars who have made the same claim (appeals to authority), or anavalanche of literary terms that have absolutely no substance(argument by verbosity). I intend to write a more detaileddiscussion of this criticism in the future but on this occasion ofNew Years Eve, I wanted to point out a simple fact that might shinesome light on the matter.

Our Gregorian calender was intended tocount the years since the birth of Christ. There was a little goofin our math but, for the most part, it's been approximately 2,012years since the birth of Christ.

Now the Jews, of course, do notrecognize Jesus as the Messiah of Scripture and so their calenderdoesn't count the years since His birth. Instead, they have countedthe years since creation. So, what year is it on the Jewishcalender? It's 5,772.

Hmmm. Is it just a coincidence or isthat not too far off from the typical creationist's understanding ofthe age of the earth? The claim has been made that creationists likemyself are simply fanatical fundamentalists who take a hyper-literalview of Genesis that is not intended by the text. It seems to methat the Jewish calender agrees with me. If they are counting theyears since the creation, they are far closer to my estimate of theearth's age than any evolutionist's estimate. I guess that means theancient Hebrews were also young earth creationists!

Merry Christmas, 2011

2011-12-25T00:01:00.000-05:00

And the Word was made flesh, and dwelt among us, (and we beheld his glory, the glory as of the only begotten of the Father,) full of grace and truth.

(John 1:14)

The Linus Monologue: What Christmas Is All About

2011-12-23T00:01:00.000-05:00

More Christmas Cheer

2011-12-22T07:03:00.000-05:00

Enjoy!

Attention Evolutionists: I'm Still Waiting on Evidence for Your Theory

2011-12-18T23:57:00.000-05:00

A while back, there was an evo postingunder the name of the_elf who challenged me on my claim aboutempiricism. I had said a lot of things in that conversation but hefocused on one quote in particular. I had said, “You seem tobelieve that truth is obtained by observation and evidence.” He made a lot of hay about it and came up with some ridiculousexperiments to “test” if we can learn something by observations. Obviously, he didn't get the point. OK, I admit he quoted mecorrectly. I wrote that. But I wrote a lot of other things sohighlighting this single quote is more like a quote mine. Forexample, he completely glossed over the part where I said,“Observation and evidence are fine ways to learn about thecreation.” Since some people are still having troubleunderstanding this concept, I thought I'd take a moment and expoundon it a little more.

According to Wikipedia, empiricismis the “theory of knowledge that asserts that knowledge comesonly or primarily via sensory experience.” It seems that a lotof evos suffer from this worldview. Not only do they demand evidencefor my belief, they often ridicule all religion as irrational. Inthe same discussion, another evo (named “edge”) said, “RK,there is nothing rational about religion. Religion is belief withoutevidence. That is practically the definition of irrational.”

What strikes me as most peculiar aboutthis attitude is the sheer contradiction of it. Where is theevidence that knowledge is only gained by evidence? It's laughablewhen you think about it. There are people who believe – withoutany evidence – that they won't believe anything without evidence. And they say “religion” is irrational? Also, according to thisbelief, we can never really know anything because we have not beeneverywhere and observed everything.

Yet an even more fundamental flaw thanthese is how seemingly obvious it is that there is another way togain knowledge. I'm going to tell something very personal about myself: I have brown eyes. Now, most of the people who read my bloghave never met me nor have they seen a picture of me. There is noway they could know that I have brown eyes except that I have toldthem. So we can see, knowledge can also be gained by revelation.

Of course, the usual rebuttal to myexample is to point out that I could be lying. Maybe I really haveblue eyes. So even though I claim to have brown eyes, skepticswouldn't really know I had brown eyes until they seefor themselves. This is rather arbitrary of them because they don'tuse this same skepticism concerning other evidence. For example, howmuch evidence for evolution have these skeptics seen first hand? Have they seen the fossils with their own eyes? Very few people haveactually laid eyes on any fossils of supposed ancestors. Theoriginals are all sequestered away. Also, have these skeptics doneresearch in a lab? Of all the people who believe in evolution, onlya fraction are scientists with training and experience in a relatedfield.

You see, most people who insist onhaving evidence, rely only on revelation from people who haveactually seen the evidence. That is, they believe in evolutionbecause of what others have told them about it, not because they'veseen the evidence for themselves. Yet so many evolutionists (eventhe non-scientist kind) demand evidence from me and then ridicule mefor relying on revelation and for seeming to believe something theyclaim I have no evidence for.

In summary, I'm not interested in theevidence for evolution (at least not in this post). I'm moreinterested in the evidence for the philosophic underpinning for yourbrand of secular science. If you're only interested in evidence,then where is your evidence that knowledge is only gained byevidence? Where is your evidence that everything must have a naturalexplanation? Where is the evidence that only “scientific”evidence is valid evidence? Edge said religion is a belief withoutevidence. I'm still waiting on the evidence for your theory.

Some Christmas Cheer

2011-12-18T16:06:00.000-05:00

Extra-Biblical References to Jesus

2011-12-15T23:42:00.001-05:00

Criticsof Christianity attack the faith on many fronts. Certainly theydisparage the Scriptures with claims that the Bible was written bymen, it is not inspired by God, it is rife with errors, and it hasbeen revised so much that we cannot possibly know what the originaltexts even said. Some other outrageous claims leveled againstChristianity is that the Person of Christ is, Himself, a mythologythat was invented and embellished centuries after He “supposedly”lived. The integrity of the Bible is far beyond any other book ofantiquity (which will probably be the subject of a future post). TheBible is certainly the greatest witness we have to Jesus. Yet evenbeyond the Bible, we have other historical sources that attest to thehistoricity of Jesus as well as other people and events from theBible.

Becausethe passages themselves are longer, I will let them speak forthemselves with little commentary from me. Even so, I know this willbe a longer post than usual. I apologize in advance.

FLAVIUSJOSEPHUS (37 – 100 AD)

FlaviusJosephus (aka Joseph ben Matthias) was a 1^st century,Jewish priest and renowned historian. In his important work, TheAntiquities of the Jews, Josephus made this very famous referenceto Christ, which has come to be called the Testimonium Flavianum (thetestimony of Flavius):

Nowthere was about this time Jesus, a wise man, if it be lawful to callhim a man, for he was a doer of wonderful works, a teacher of suchmen as receive the truth with pleasure. He drew over to him both manyof the Jews, and many of the Gentiles. He was the Christ, and whenPilate, at the suggestion of the principal men among us, hadcondemned him to the cross, those that loved him at the first did notforsake him; for he appeared to them alive again the third day; asthe divine prophets had foretold these and ten thousand otherwonderful things concerning him. And the tribe of Christians so namedfrom him are not extinct at this day.

Now,many skeptics are suspicious of this passage. The usual claim isthat it is not authentic but was added later by some Christianinterpolater. Some of the arguments I've heard supporting thisposition seem compelling. However, the majority of scholars hold toa “partial authenticity” view of this passage; that is, theybelieve even the original text contained a reference to Christ,albeit much less spectacular. They agree on something similar to thefollowing reconstruction:

At thistime there appeared Jesus, a wise man. For he was a doer of startlingdeeds, a teacher of people who receive the truth with pleasure. Andhe gained a following among many Jews and among many of Gentileorigin. And when Pilate, because of an accusation made by the leadingmen among us, condemned him to the cross, those who had loved himpreviously did not cease to do so. And up until this very day thetribe of Christians (named after him) had not died out.

Evenin this more tame version of the Testimonium Flavianum is remarkable. It attests not only the person of Jesus but also that He was a greatteacher of truth, popular among both Jews and Gentiles, and that He wascrucified by Pilate yet continued to be loved by His followers whocalled themselves “Christians” for His namesake.

Anotherpassage from the Antiquities of the Jews, also mentions Jesus and isnot disputed:

But theyounger Ananus who, as we said, received the high priesthood, was ofa bold disposition and exceptionally daring; he followed the party ofthe Sadducees, who are severe in judgment above all the Jews, as wehave already shown. As therefore Ananus was of such a disposition, hethought he had now a good opportunity, as Festus was now dead, andAlbinus was still on the road; so he assembled a council of judges,and brought before it the brother of Jesus the so-called Christ,whose name was James, together with some others, and having accusedthem as lawbreakers, he delivered them over to be stoned.

Wesee in this passage, James, the half-brother of Jesus and the authorof the Epistle which bears his name. Josephus states clearly thatJesus is commonly identified as the “Christ” (the Annointed One).

Ona final note from Josephus, we have another passage that does notmention Jesus but does discuss another well known character in theBible, John the Baptist. This too is undisputed:

Nowsome of the Jews thought that the destruction of Herod's army camefrom God as a just punishment of what Herod had done against John,who was called the Baptist. For Herod had killed this good man, whohad commanded the Jews to exercise virtue, righteousness towards oneanother and piety towards God. For only thus, in John's opinion,would the baptism he administered be acceptable to God, namely, ifthey used it to obtain not pardon for some sins but rather thecleansing of their bodies, inasmuch as it was taken for granted thattheir souls had already been purified by justice.

PUBLIUSCORNELIUS TACITUS (56-117 AD)

Tacituswas a Roman Senator and historian whose two major works – theAnnals and the Histories – examine the reigns of Roman EmperorsTiberius, Claudius, and Nero. From the Annals, we have this passage:

Consequently,to get rid of the report, Nero fastened the guilt and inflictedthe most exquisite tortures on a class hated for theirabominations, called Christians by the populace. Christus, fromwhom the name had its origin, suffered the extreme penalty during thereign of Tiberius at the hands of one of our procurators, PontiusPilatus, and a most mischievous superstition, thus checked forthe moment, again broke out not only in Judaea, the first sourceof the evil, but even in Rome, where all things hideous andshameful from every part of the world find their centre andbecome popular.

Wesee here that Tacitus attests to several details in the Bibleincluding the crucifixion of Christ at the hand of Pontius Pilate.

GAIUSPLINIUS CAECILIUS SECUNDUS (61 – 112 AD)

Betterknown as Pliny the Younger, here was a lawyer and imperial magistrateunder Roman emperor Trajan. In a letter he wrote to Trajan seekingadvice, we find the following:

… [T]hey[Christians] were accustomed to meet on a fixed day before dawn andsing responsively a hymn to Christ as to a god, and to bindthemselves by oath, not to some crime, but not to commit fraud,theft, or adultery, not falsify their trust, nor to refuse to returna trust when called upon to do so. When this was over, it was theircustom to depart and to assemble again to partake of food--butordinary and innocent food.

Hereis a glimpse at a first century worship service. In this quote,Pliny attests to the fact that the early Christians (whom hepersecuted) would not worship idols nor the emperor, yet would singsongs to Jesus “as to a god.”

AsI have already said, the Bible is the greatest witness to the Personof Jesus. However, these few historical sources quickly dispel theweak argument that Jesus was a myth.

What Do Scotsmen and Creationists Have in Common?

2011-12-14T00:01:00.002-05:00

I've written before how the evolutionists' demand for “evidence” is usually nothing more than special pleading. We're accused of having a faith bias for our theory (which we do) but they also have a philosophical foundation for their brand of science that is very “faith-like” in practice (which they deny). Just recently, though, I've spotted a No True Scotsman spin thrown into the mix. The illogical argument has been there all along, I just failed to correctly identify it before now. How embarrassing for me.

Anyway, I'm in another forum discussing the philosophical foundations of science while being insulted in return (as usual), when one of the nicer evos (who posts under the name GrannyM) made this comment:

“What you [RKBentley] say here is absolutely true and it illustrates convincingly why Creationism is not science and can never be considered science: We do not know, and can not know, what an omnipotent deity could do, or would do. Where such a being is in play, there can be no science at all.”

GrannyM is referring to the philosophical, faith-like assumption of methodical naturalism which underpins all of secular science. Her point seems to be that if God were to perform a miracle, then all of nature is suspect. We could never be sure if something truly occurs naturally or if God simply made it appear that way.

I fail to see how a miraculous creation has any impact on science. If Adam were alive today, we could study him “scientifically.” We could take his pulse, temperature, blood pressure, etc. We could take blood samples, x-rays, study his DNA, and submit him to a battery of medical tests. We could have him run obstacle courses, take IQ tests, and test his abilities in a variety of ways. There is nothing about his supernatural origin that shields him from scientific inquiry. The same is true about the universe. So a refusal to consider a supernatural origin is a philosophical choice and not a scientific one.

Curiously absent from GrannyM's comments is any demonstration that creation is false; she only argues that it's not “scientific.” That's where the “No True Scotsman” argument lies.

I've written before how the No True Scotsman argument is a fallacy. In summary, it's an arbitrary qualifier that some people impose to disqualify their opponent's argument without having to deal with it. In this instance, the evolutionist is disqualifying creation from being “scientific” on the arbitrary grounds that it holds to a supernatural explanation. The demand for a natural explanation is a tenet of secular science and not an objective standard. There is no scientific evidence that says only natural explanations are scientific!

The word “science” means “knowledge” and not “natural.” It seems to me, people should be more interested in what is true than what is natural. If God created the universe by fiat, than that is what is true regardless of whether or not it is “scientific”.

The militant evolutionist says, “Real science only looks for natural explanations.” Yep, that's a No True Scotsman argument alright. It's text book. I just can't believe I didn't catch it before.

We Should Have Zero Tolerance for Stupidity

2011-12-13T00:20:00.001-05:00

OK all you guys out there, did you ever once think one of your school teachers was cute? I remember the first teacher (perhaps it was the only teacher) who I thought was cute. It was my fifth grade teacher, Mrs. Beagle. I started school young so, in the fifth grade, I would have been about 10 years old. Since I was prepubescent then, I certainly didn't think of her in an overtly sexual way. I just thought she was “cute”. Maybe I would have even described her as pretty. I don't recall ever telling anyone I thought she was cute but maybe I did. You know how boys are.

Well, I guess boys haven't changed too much since I was young. In North Carolina recently, a 9 year old boy was suspended for calling his teacher “cute.”¹ Actually, he didn't “call” her cute; he was overheard telling a friend she was cute. A substitute teacher overheard the comment, reported the “offense,” and 9 year old, Emanyea Lockett was suspended for 3 days. “What “offense” had occurred?”, you might ask. It seems the school has a “zero-tolerance” policy concerning sexual harassment. Keep in mind that he had not said anything to the teacher – his comment to a friend that she was “cute” was itself considered harassment.

We've gone a little overboard with sexual harassment claims. The idea that harassment occurs in the mind of the victim without regard to the intent of the “assailant” is an invitation for abuse. But in this situation, the supposed victim wasn't even being harassed. She was merely being discussed. And she was being discussed in the most benign of terms. “Cute” might be used to describe pretty girls but it also applies to puppy dogs. It's certainly not a sexually charged term.

The story doesn't end there, though. School officials investigated the “incident” and determined Emanyea had done nothing wrong. THAT required an investigation? Anyway, they apparently felt the incident was so outrageous that the principal had used extremely poor judgment. They gave the principal, Jerry Bostic, an ultimatum: step down or be fired. Bostic, who had enjoyed a 44 year long career, stepped down.

After his resignation, Bostic spoke out against school superintendent, Reeves McGlohon, who had given him the ultimatum. Bostic said, “I admit I made some errors in what I did, but to fire me or to demote me with 44 years in it, it just doesn't make sense. To me he [McGlohon] was a very heartless man, and he did it because of politics.” Now that's funny. He thinks McGlohon did this because of politics?

Why exactly did the school adopt a zero-tolerance policy in the first place? I suggest it precisely was because of politics. Bostics mistakes didn't begin with little Emanyea's comment but when he first bought into political correctness. He then painted himself into a corner by adopting a zero-tolerance policy. Bostic had made a series of bad judgments and stacked them up like a line of dominoes just waiting for some innocent comment, like the word “cute”, to tip them over.

Let this be a lesson to schools who adopt zero-tolerance policies. No matter how noble sounding the cause, it's always a bad idea. We've seen how zero-tolerance for sexual harassment can be abused but so can any other policy. A student who draws a picture of a gun gets suspended because of zero-tolerance for violence. A student who has an aspirin in his backpack gets suspended because of zero-tolerance for drugs. Where exactly do we draw the line?

Well, maybe there's one policy I might adopt. I think we should have zero-tolerance for stupidity.

The Dinosaur Death Pose: Just Add Water

2011-12-12T00:01:00.002-05:00

Answers in Genesis posted a great find in their weekly News to Note. They've highlighted a gem from New Scientist titled, “Watery secret of the dinosaur death pose.” Here's the gist of the article: when scientists are lucky enough to find the complete skeleton of a dinosaur, there's a good chance it will have its head thrown backward and its tail arched upward. The position is so common, it has earned its own name, the “opisthotonic death pose.”

What causes the pose has been much speculated. An enduring opinion has been that the pose is the result of the dying creature's death throes. A team from Brigham Young University recently attempted to recreate the condition. Leaving the carcasses of plucked chickens on a bed of sand for three months did not produce the muscle contortions. However, when the scientists placed seven chickens in cool, fresh water, their head was thrown back in seconds.

The article ends saying, “Cutler has confidence in her freshwater study: "Although the roads to the opisthotonic death pose are many, immersion in water is the simplest explanation.”

Needless to say, the finding is significant to the creation theory. Creationists have long held that the majority of fossils were created during the global deluge described in Genesis. These results seem to support that idea. It could be that the dinosaurs were immersed in water (the Flood), their muscles contorted as did the chickens, then they were buried rapidly in sediment – forever preserving their grim posture. And since the pose is so usual and is found everywhere in the world, it suggests the cause was global.

I like NewScientist's opening line, “Recreating the spectacular pose many dinosaurs adopted in death might involve following the simplest of instructions: just add water.” That should be on the mind of every scientist as they examine the world around us. As they consider why the world is as it is, they need to add water to the equation. They need to add the Flood!

A Social Media Christmas

2011-12-11T17:53:00.000-05:00

Remembering Pearl Harbor

2011-12-07T06:32:00.001-05:00

When we say, "We will never forget," we mean it.

The Plain Meaning of Words

2011-12-06T22:31:00.003-05:00

As usual, I was discussing the creation and evolution debate online when an evolutionist who posts under the name HRG starts questioning my interpretation of the Scriptures. Here are a few of his comments:

The plain words of the Bible tell us that the Earth is stationary and flat, covered with a solid dome. It took science to tell Christians not to interpret them literally.... Start with the objective evidence for an old Earth and common descent, and if you believe that the Bible is the word of a non-deceptive god, let this evidence be your guide to interpret it and distinguish myth and metaphor from reality.... Which interpretation of the Bible should we start with ?.... Are you infallible when interpreting a particular text ?

The omitted parts represented by the ellipses are primarily my comments that HRG was responding to. You can see that he means to say that the Bible can't mean what it plainly says and actually questions my ability to correctly interpret Scripture. I found a couple of things curious about HRG's comments.

First, nowhere does the Bible “literally” say the earth is stationary, flat, and covered with a solid dome. HRG is confusing terms here. There is a difference between “plain meaning” and “literal meaning.” If I said someone has a heart of gold, would most people understand plainly what I am saying? I suspect so. On the other hand, we all know that no one “literally” has a heart made of gold so it's a straw man to say that Christians mean the Bible to be taken “literally.”

The plain meaning of Genesis 1 needs little interpretation. If we can't understand the plain meaning of the words, then I would maintain it would be impossible to understand ANY part of the Bible. When the Bible says, for example, that Jesus rose in three days, how do I know that means three days? How can I be sure it even means He rose? How can I be sure it means Jesus is even a real person? If Adam is a metaphor then maybe Jesus (the second Adam) is a metaphor as well. It's no secret that some passages in the Bible are difficult to understand. However, I don't believe there's any passage in Genesis 1-11 that fits in that category.

But there's a glaring irony in HRG's comments. HRG is questioning my ability to correctly interpret Scripture and is trying to convince me that the words of the Bible do not mean what they plainly say. At the same time, however, he is counting on my ability to understand the plain meaning of his words! HRG seems to think I'm able to understand his arguments but just not able to understand words of the Bible.

What kind of discussion could anyone ever have if words don't mean anything? What if we applied the same standards toward critics of the Bible that they ask us to apply to the Bible? According to the critics “six days” can mean billions of years. OK then, when a critic “says” he doesn't believe the Genesis account of creation, I know he really means to say Jesus is the Creator of the universe.

No Intelligent Designer Would Have Done It That Way

2011-12-02T09:52:00.003-05:00

I hear from evolutionists all the time that the human body is riddled with poorly designed structures. The most commonly cited example is probably the “backward wired eye” but I've heard many, many other examples. Their allegation is that no intelligent designer would ever create such a structure. On the other hand, since evolution is all about “descent with modification,” it makes perfect sense that these structures were piecemealed together over many generations and so their “poor” design is evidence of evolution.

I've always scoffed at these arguments. To me, it seems much like armchair quarter backing. How credible is it when an overweight couch potato screams at the TV telling the professional quarterback how to play football? It's easy to ridicule the design of the eye but even with all of our technological advances, we aren't able to produce anything that even comes close to it. Nothing we have built can compare to the human body. No lens is as perfect as the eye. No computer is as powerful as the brain. No tool is as versatile as the hand.

Of course, technology is improving all time. Maybe someday, we will be able to build a computer that can compete with the brain. When that day comes, I'll welcome it. It's more evidence that the brain is the product of design!

But there's another flaw in this argument. Is seemingly poor design really evidence against design? Let me tell you a true story. My daughter just recently moved her bedroom into the basement. She has a nice, 29 inch, flat screen TV mounted on one of the walls. When I was unhooking the cable from the TV, I realized there was a plastic tab right next to the cable jack. I'm not sure what purpose it served by being there but its presence presented a problem. I could barely get my fingers around the cable to unscrew it. While I was unscrewing it, I could only turn it a fraction of a turn each time. I got so frustrated at one point that I almost grabbed some pliers to break the tab off but I was afraid it might crack the back cover.

So I ask you, what intelligent designer would put a piece of plastic right there whose only purpose seems to be to impede screwing and unscrewing the coaxial cable? The only reasonable conclusion then is that the TV evolved.

Is the Holy Spirit an “It”?

2011-11-30T22:55:00.008-05:00

English follows what is called “natural gender.” Practically speaking, English nouns are genderless. However, there are a very few English nouns that change according to gender: “Duke” refers only to males while “Duchess” refers only to females. Ordinarily, though the use of gender applies almost exclusively to singular, 3^rd person pronouns. Men are referred to as “he/him” and women are “she/her.” Everything else is an “it.” Because English uses natural gender, the appearance of a pronoun clearly identifies the sex or "person-ness" of the antecedent.

In many other languages, the use of gender is more of a grammatical designation. In Spanish, for example, all nouns are either masculine or feminine. Whether a Spanish noun is masculine or feminine is not as intuitive as it is in English. The word for dress (el vestido) is masculine while the word for necktie (la corbata) is feminine. Therefore, the pronoun for “dress” would be masculine and the pronoun for “necktie” would be feminine.

Greek is similar to Spanish in that all nouns have a gender. Greek, however, uses three genders: masculine, feminine, and neuter. Since English uses these three genders among its pronouns, we are prone to project our understanding of gender onto the Greek usage. Because of this confusion, problems sometimes arise when people try to use the gender of a Greek noun to make a doctrinal point. This has been especially true concerning the Holy Spirit. The Greek word for Spirit (pneuma) is neuter. Since English uses the neuter pronoun "it" for inanimate objects, some people mistakenly argue that the Holy Spirit isn't really a Person but rather is a thing. Look at the following quote (source):

But "Holy Spirit" in the original Greek is neuter and therefore the neuter pronouns "it," "itself" are used with it in the original NT Greek! Any strictly literal Bible translation would have to use "it" for the holy spirit (since it is really not a person, but God's active force, a literal translation would be helpful in this case).

This is an extremely amateurish argument. It demonstrates how a little knowledge can be dangerous. Most people who use this argument really can't read Greek. Instead, they have heard once that the Greek word for “Spirit” is neuter so, because of their understanding of English, they buy into the argument that the Spirit is an “it.” Of course, there are some people who indeed understand Greek's grammatical use of gender but still repeat the argument with the intention of preying on the audience's ignorance of the subject.

This is also a blatant example of special pleading because the same people who raise this argument, don't apply this same standard everywhere. In Matthew 2:11, the Bible says the wise men, “saw the young child with Mary his mother.” The Greek word for child here (paidion) is neuter so, to be consistent, they should translate this verse as “they saw the young child with Mary its mother.” Of course they don't do that. Neither do they refer to “church” as “her” or “word” as “he” or correctly render the hundred other instances where Greek gender does not agree with English gender.

There's another subtle flaw in the above quote that might escape notice. The author seems unaware of the flaw and cites a source that commits the same mistake. See if you can spot it in this quote:

The Greek word for 'spirit' is neuter, and while we use personal pronouns in English ('he,' 'his,' 'him'), most Greek manuscripts employ 'it.' [bold in original]

Did you catch it? If not, don't feel bad because it's sort of a technicality and some might accuse me of splitting hairs. However, I feel it's an important consideration. This quote says, “most Greek manuscripts employ 'it.'” The reality is that NO Greek manuscript contains the word, “it!” The word “it” is an English word which conveys a certain meaning in English. It is more precise to say that the Greek manuscripts use the neuter pronoun (auton) whenever the antecedent is a neuter noun. The original authors were not thinking “it” whenever they wrote "auton."

A language is more than its vocabulary; each language also has its own grammar as well as its own idioms. The goal of any translation is to express the same meaning in the target language that is conveyed in the original language. A good translation should obey the rules of the target language – not slavishly render a hyper-literal, word for word exchange of the original language. The pronouns used in our translations should follow the rules of English not the Greek! If the antecedent is an object, the English pronoun should be “it.” If the antecedent is a person, the English pronoun should be “he” or “she.”

If anyone wants to deny the Personhood of the Holy Spirit, he must make his case using Scripture. A weak appeal to the gender of a Greek word – especially an appeal made by someone who can't even read Greek – isn't even close.

How Much Thanksgiving Was Going On This Year?

2011-11-29T03:43:00.005-05:00

Did you see a lot of “Give thanks” commercials this year? Neither did I. Mostly I saw black Friday shopping deals. Now, I'll admit that I watched a little less TV over this Thanksgiving weekend than I have in previous years but I still don't recall seeing any real “Thanksgiving” wishes. It was mostly ads about Thanksgiving sales. It seems Thanksgiving is becoming a bit like Christmas where it's more about the stores than about God. How sad.

I've noticed too that there's also a lot less giving thanks to God. Instead, it's more an attitude of “being thankful” rather than being thankful to God in particular. This was especially obvious in President Obama's Thanksgiving Proclamation. Written in typical, liberal fashion, his proclamation was so obviously secular, it could easily pass as a parody of itself. You can read the entire proclamation here but let me hit a few highlights for you.

It begins by saying, “Thanksgiving Day brings us closer to our loved ones and invites us to reflect on the blessings that enrich our lives.” OK. I could almost agree with that except that absent from this statement is any acknowledgment of Who has bestowed those blessings on us. As a Christian, I give thanks to God for His blessings. I don't think that's what President Obama had in mind. He immediately goes on to say, “The observance recalls the celebration of an autumn harvest centuries ago, when the Wampanoag tribe joined the Pilgrims at Plymouth Colony to share in the fruits of a bountiful season. The feast honored the Wampanoag for generously extending their knowledge of local game and agriculture to the Pilgrims, and today we renew our gratitude to all American Indians and Alaska Natives.”

Do you see what I mean? Obama seems to say that the Pilgrims held a feast to give thanks to the Indians (er... Native Americans). And did he really say, “thank you” to Indian and Alaskan Natives? This is why I say this proclamation could pass for a parody without changing a word. It's so politically correct that it's like a cliché.

The first paragraph ends with still another vague, “As we come together with friends, family, and neighbors to celebrate, let us set aside our daily concerns and give thanks for the providence bestowed upon us.” Again I ask, “Give thanks to Who?” The entire proclamation is filled with platitudes of “being thankful” but is a bit scant on specifics.

The next paragraph is equally humorous. It reads, “Though our traditions have evolved, the spirit of grace and humility at the heart of Thanksgiving has persisted through every chapter of our story. When President George Washington proclaimed our country's first Thanksgiving, he praised a generous and knowing God for shepherding our young Republic through its uncertain beginnings. Decades later, President Abraham Lincoln looked to the divine to protect those who had known the worst of civil war....” In the midst of these references to God, it almost would escape notice that the President isn't actually calling on anyone to acknowledge God. Instead, he's merely recalling how previous Presidents acknowledged God. But this is only after he reminds us that our “traditions have evolved” - that is, “we don't do this now but people used to thank God at Thanksgiving.”

Next, Obama says, “let us offer gratitude to our men and women in uniform for their many sacrifices, and keep in our thoughts the families who save an empty seat at the table for a loved one stationed in harm's way.” Well, I certainly have the highest respect for our military. They are the protectors of my God given rights as I recently discussed this past Veterans Day. However, is Thanksgiving really supposed to be about thanking our military? I don't think so.

Finally, Obama gets to the part about God. You will immediately see that it's almost an afterthought. It's an insertion that Obama included more from a sense of obligation than sincerity (an obligation to Christian voters – not to God). He says, “As we gather in our communities and in our homes, around the table or near the hearth, we give thanks to each other and to God for the many kindnesses and comforts that grace our lives.”

So, let's get this straight. According to Obama, Thanksgiving is the time when we thank American Indians, Alaskan Natives, the Pilgrims, our military, friends and neighbors, each other, and – oh yeah – we thank God too. Well, no thanks. This year, as always, I celebrated the old fashioned way: I thanked God! I thanked Him first and foremost. Thank God for our forefathers. Thank God for our country. Thank God for our military. Thank God for our neighbors. Thank God for our friends and family. Thank God for everything!!

Praise Him from Whom all blessings flow!!

Happy Thanksgiving 2011

2011-11-24T00:01:00.000-05:00

A Presidential Proclamation

2011-11-23T09:13:00.006-05:00

I have long believed that John Adams (the father of John Q. Adams) was the most pious of the American Presidents. While George Washington, another contender for this title, had issued the first Thanksgiving Proclamation, on at least two occasions, John Adams issued ad hoc calls for prayer, fasting, and repentance. Since Adams' proclamations weren't true Thanksgiving Day proclamations, I don't believe they get much press at this time of year. However, I believe the sentiments they display capture the spirit of Thanksgiving as well as any. On this Thanksgiving Eve, I thought I'd share John Adams' 1798 proclamation:

As the safety and prosperity of nations ultimately and essentially depend on the protection and the blessing of Almighty God, and the national acknowledgment of this truth is not only an indispensable duty which the people owe to Him, but a duty whose natural influence is favorable to the promotion of that morality and piety without which social happiness can not exist nor the blessings of a free government be enjoyed; and as this duty, at all times incumbent, is so especially in seasons of difficulty or of danger, when existing or threatening calamities, the just judgments of God against prevalent iniquity, are a loud call to repentance and reformation; and as the United States of America are at present placed in a hazardous and afflictive situation by the unfriendly disposition, conduct, and demands of a foreign power, evinced by repeated refusals to receive our messengers of reconciliation and peace, by depredations on our commerce, and the infliction of injuries on very many of our fellow-citizens while engaged in their lawful business on the seas – under these considerations it has appeared to me that the duty of imploring the mercy and benediction of Heaven on our country demands at this time a special attention from its inhabitants.
I have therefore thought fit to recommend, and I do hereby recommend, that Wednesday, the 9th day of May next, be observed throughout the United States as a day of solemn humiliation, fasting, and prayer; that the citizens of these States, abstaining on that day from their customary worldly occupations, offer their devout addresses to the Father of Mercies agreeably to those forms or methods which they have severally adopted as the most suitable and becoming; that all religious congregations do, with the deepest humility, acknowledge before God the manifold sins and transgressions with which we are justly chargeable as individuals and as a nation, beseeching Him at the same time, of His infinite grace, through the Redeemer of the World, freely to remit all our offenses, and to incline us by His Holy Spirit to that sincere repentance and reformation which may afford us reason to hope for his inestimable favor and heavenly benediction; that it be made the subject of particular and earnest supplication that our country may be protected from all the dangers which threaten it; that our civil and religious privileges may be preserved inviolate and perpetuated to the latest generations; that our public councils and magistrates may be especially enlightened and directed at this critical period; that the American people may be united in those bonds of amity and mutual confidence and inspired with that vigor and fortitude by which they have in times past been so highly distinguished and by which they have obtained such invaluable advantages; that the health of the inhabitants of our land may be preserved, and their agriculture, commerce, fisheries, arts, and manufactures be blessed and prospered; that the principles of genuine piety and sound morality may influence the minds and govern the lives of every description of our citizens and that the blessings of peace, freedom, and pure religion may be speedily extended to all the nations of the earth.
And finally, I recommend that on the said day the duties of humiliation and prayer be accompanied by fervent thanksgiving to the Bestower of Every Good Gift, not only for His having hitherto protected and preserved the people of these United States in the independent enjoyment of their religious and civil freedom, but also for having prospered them in a wonderful progress of population, and for conferring on them many and great favors conducive to the happiness and prosperity of a nation.
Given under my hand the seal of the United States of America, at Philadelphia, this 23d day of March, A.D. 1798, and of the Independence of the said States the twenty-second.
By the President: John Adams

They Don't Care Because It's Not Theirs

2011-11-22T07:06:00.004-05:00

In responding to my last post, “Why do they Occupy in Tents?”, an anonymous visitor said, “[E]ven if we want equality in a lot of ways is it really okay with us for people to invade and take over our personal belongings? If I bought a Park and told every body they could come use it as a park, I wouldn't expect them to use it as a free camp ground. I didn't say it was a camp ground.” This visitor has struck upon the very reason why liberalism never works. These people don't care about the park because it's not theirs.

It has always been the case that people tend to take better care of things that they own. Landlords will certainly attest to this fact once they've had renter after renter trash their house. People who own the home and pay for its maintenance would never treat the home as poorly as many renters would. And neighborhoods with lots of federally subsidized housing are usually the worst.

We often see this attitude in teenagers. Parents work hard to buy nice things for their kids. Sometimes the kids don't even care as much about their own stuff as the parents do. Have you ever heard your kid say something like, “Oh, mom, I spilled nail polish on those new jeans so I'll need another pair before Friday”? It's not until they work, earn their own money, and pay for their own things that they begin to appreciate the fact that money is a limited resource.

This disregard for the property of others permeates throughout the entire Occupy movement. For example, one thing I've heard them demand is student loan forgiveness. Never mind that the lenders who made the loans and the tax payers who subsidized them will be out millions of dollars. The protestors don't think it's fair that they have to pay back tens of thousands when all they got out of it was a college education! So you see, they don't care that other people will lose money as long as they get to keep their money.

We see this attitude the most in the movement's “class warfare” rhetoric. The “tax the rich” mantra is simply a demand to take something away from other people so the protestors can have it. They want free college, free health care, free housing, and even free banking but they certainly don't want to pay more taxes to get any of it. Just let the rich people pay for it.

Newt Gingrich had it right when he said:

“All the Occupy movement starts with the premise that we owe them everything. They take over a public park they didn't pay for, to go nearby to use bathrooms they didn't pay for, to beg for food from places they don't want to pay for, to obstruct those who are going to work to pay the taxes to sustain the bathrooms and to sustain the park, so they can self-righteously explain they are the paragons of virtue to which we owe everything.”

What more can I say? Amen!

Why Do They Occupy in Tents?

2011-11-16T23:09:00.003-05:00

Just a quick post today.

I heard on the news today that the Occupy protesters were evicted from Zuccotti Park in New York where they basically have lived since mid-September. After a short legal battle, the protesters were allowed to return – but without the tents. Several of the protesters I heard were very vocal about their dissatisfaction with the ruling. You would think the courts had taken Linus' blanket away from him.

Many pundits are saying that, without being allowed to have tents, the protest movement will begin to wane. That was inevitable. It's mid-November and soon there will be snow on the ground. When you're living in a tent, I'm sure it's easier to be principled on a crisp, fall evening rather than on a freezing night under a foot of snow.

What exactly is it about the tents? I ask in earnest because I really don't see why they can't protest like everyone else. Many people have tried to compare the Occupy protests with the Tea Party protests. There's nothing to compare. The Tea Party was all about less government spending and regulation and Occupy wants more government regulation and spending. And the Tea Party was able to make their statement without pitching tents.

I think the difference might lie in the demographic of who was protesting. The Tea Party protestors were primarily hard working, middle class, TAX PAYERS! They couldn't sleep in the parks because they had jobs to be at in the morning. On the other hand, the Occupy protestors, while claiming to represent the “99%,” seem to be largely made up of college students and other “non-working” folks. How else would anyone be able to sleep in a park for two months? Obviously, the Occupy protestors can't represent the 99%. Most working folks have responsibilities which require bathing, shaving, and having laundered clothes.

We All Have Our Priorities

2011-11-13T20:01:00.004-05:00

At the end of the service at my Church today, all of the veterans were called to the front and received a standing ovation from the congregation along with a handshake and personal “thank you” to each one from the Pastor. Since I attend a fairly large Church, there were a few dozen veterans and the ovation and handshaking took a few minutes. It was very touching.

So how did other people celebrate Veterans Day? Well, one mayor in California is receiving grief because she chose to skip a Veterans Day salute (read the story here). She didn't stay home, though, and reflect on the wonderful service all veterans have done for our country. Instead, she chose to attend an Occupy rally. Well, we all have our priorities.

One Marine veteran pointedly asked, “She could pick any day she wanted to attend these protests. Why choose Veterans Day?” I'm sure this man asked rhetorically because we all know why. She's a flaming liberal who hates the military and loves the utopic ideas of the socialist left. Am I wrong?

As I wrote on my blog on Veterans Day, our rights come from God but they are protected by our veterans. It's been said that we are able to sleep peaceably at night only because rough men stand ready to do violence on our behalf. Neither this mayor nor these protestors seems to fathom that it's only because of our veterans that they even have the right to protest (even though half of them cannot even enunciate what they are protesting).

I say, let them be idiots. Far be it from me to deny people their right to be stupid – just don't expect it to go unnoticed.

Happy Veterans Day

2011-11-11T09:05:00.002-05:00

Famous American philosopher and statesman, Ben Franklin, once said, “Force shites on reason's back.” I know it's rather crude sounding but it's true notwithstanding. We like to think that brilliant men with noble ideas make nations but ultimately it's the men with guns that seal the deal.

Some have said the pen is mightier than the sword. Ha! Perhaps people with pens can change minds but nothing gets done until someone takes up arms. Here on my blog, I exercise my God-given right to voice my opinions. I know, though, that I'm only able to do this because someone with a gun protects my right to do so.

Here's a big THANK YOU to all our veterans. God bless!!

How Are Myths Born?

2011-11-09T14:12:00.010-05:00

After my last post about unicorns, I began to wonder how the legend of the western unicorn arose. As I discussed already, there have been true one horned animals throughout history but how did the idea of a horned horse become popular? I did a cursory search on Google and found there are many opinions. Interestingly, all of the various theories had one thing in common – they all involved elaboration on real animals. Even if we never know which animal it might have been, the mere fact that everyone thinks it was based on a real animal intrigued me. Is that how myths are born?

What other legendary animals might have been born out of encounters with real animals. Many creation apologists have long speculated that dragon legends were depictions of man's encounters with dinosaurs. I've thought about writing on that in the past but there's been so much said on the subject that I decided not to unless I come up with some original angle. However, there are many other creatures of legend. Could they too be elaborated upon depictions of real animals? Let's look at a few.

In the movie, Jurassic Park, velociraptors were very dinosaur-looking. Since then, a few new fossil finds and much artistic license have made more recent renderings much more bird-like. I've always said that dino-to-bird evolution has been occurring in the minds of scientists. Anyway, if a Renaissance-era person were to describe a modern depiction of a velociraptor, he might say it looks like a cross between a bird and a reptile. Are there any bird-reptile creatures of myth? Certainly there is. According to Wikipedia, "the cockatrice is a legendary creature, essentially a two-legged dragon with a rooster's head." If the modern renderings of velociraptors are accurate, I would say it very much looks like a cockatrice. So perhaps the velociraptor gave birth to the cockatrice legend.

The lindworm is described by Wikipedia as “a wingless, bipedal dragon.” That's interesting. If there is any truth to the claim that “dragons” is a reference to “dinosaurs”, then the lindworm is basically a wingless, bipedal dinosaur. The lindworm shown here was used in British heraldry. Tell me the truth, doesn't it resemble a bipedal dinosaur?

The wyvern is basically a winged reptile with two legs (sometimes depicted with no legs) and a barbed tail. Here, I have placed a drawing of a wyvern next to a depiction of a rhamphorhynchus. Again, isn't there an uncanny resemblance?

If modern scholars look to real animals as the inspiration for mythical animals (as they have done with the unicorn), then we would have to admit that these “prehistoric” creatures could serve as candidates for these various creatures of myth – assuming they were contemporaries of men. Now, I can't claim with absolute certainty that these are the very animals that gave rise to legends. However, I do know with certainty that men lived together with dinosaurs. It wouldn't surprise me, then, to find depictions and descriptions of various types of dinosaurs. If some dinosaurs were feathered, what better animal would serve as a candidate for the legend of the cockatrice? If a lindworm is a bipedal “dragon,” wouldn't a bipedal dinosaur be the most likely source of that legend?

In this post you've seen the legendary creatures side by side with real creatures. No one can credibly deny there are similarities. The only reason they would not be considered by some as the inspiration of legends is because evolutionists believe dinosaurs to be separated from man by millions of years. If that is the case, then they aren't going where the evidence leads but they are using their theory to shape the evidence. I say the fantastic depictions of dinosaur-looking animals are evidence of man's eye witness to these animals.

How to Answer “The Bible says that Bats are Birds” and Similar Criticisms

Does The Bible Say There Are Unicorns?

2011-11-08T13:35:00.013-05:00

He hath as it were the strength of an unicorn. (Numbers 23:22 KJV)

The King James Bible mentions unicorns in six verses. It doesn't give much detail about the creature except to say that it noted for having great strength. To the western mind, unicorns are mythical creatures that now only exist in fantasy novels and Dungeons & Dragons but the Bible talks about them as though they are real creatures. Many people pounce on this fact as an opportunity to label the Bible as a work of fiction. Even liberal Christians use the mention of unicorns as an excuse to say the Bible shouldn't be taken literally.

In response to such criticisms, we must first acknowledge them for what they are – straw man criticisms that don't accurately represent what the Bible says. Many critics aren't intentionally making a straw man. Instead, they are committing the exegetical fallacy of reverse etymology. That is, they are forcing the modern meaning of a word onto its original meaning. When the Bible was written in Hebrew, the Medieval concepts of unicorns did not even exist. The writers of the Bible certainly did not have the western image of unicorns in mind when the original text was penned.

My understanding of Hebrew is next to nothing but, according to Brown-Driver-Brigg's Hebrew Definitions the word translated as “unicorn” in Numbers 23:22 above is the Hebrew word “rêm” (ראם). BDB defines it as “wild bulls which are now extinct.” There's nothing about that definition that suggests the Hebrew writers specifically understood this beast to have a single horn. It could be a description of an animal using terminology similar to our name for the modern breed of cattle, the “long horn.”

Since I'm more comfortable reading Greek, I looked up the verse in the Septuagint where I found it is rendered as monokerōtos (μονοκέρωτος) which literally means “only horn” or “one horn.” So, even long before the KJV translation, it seems the idea of a one-horned animal was already understood. What we have then, is the Bible mentions a one-horned animal renowned for having great strength. Do such animals exist? Of course they do!

Even today there exists a species of rhinoceros with one horn. Interestingly, the Latin name for the animal is Rhinoceros unicornis. Did you see that, “unicornis”? It's the word unicorn! So even according to modern taxonomy, there are true unicorns alive today. Rhinos also possess great strength so a one-horned rhino would definitely fit the bill of the biblical unicorn.

Now, there are many other horned animals that have lived throughout history. For example, there is a group of horned animals called, ceratopsians. The most famous critter belonging to this group is the triceratops. The triceratops, of course, has three horns but another member of this club is monoclonius. Would you care to guess how many horns the monoclonius had? I don't know exactly how strong the monoclonius was but given the fact it about the size of a car, I would suspect it was likely impressive.

I'm sure there are still other candidates that would fit the description of the biblical unicorns. It's not my objective to prove exactly what species of creature it was. My objective is demonstrate what it was not – it was not the horned horse of European folklore.

How to Answer “The Bible says that Bats are Birds” and Similar Criticisms

How Are Myths Born?

A Bible Study in Discernment

2011-11-07T09:21:00.005-05:00

Recently, my Sunday School class has been studying the book of Job. Much of the book details the conversations Job had with his three friends who had come to “comfort” him but actually spend more time accusing him. As you read through the conversations, though, in many places we find that the friends weren't too far off from sound doctrine. In many cases, their only error was attributing Job's tragedy to some unconfessed sin of Job. Much of what they said was correct but a little bit was garbage.

As we live our lives day to day, there is no shortage of opinions we hear about God and the Bible. Some of what we hear is correct but some of it is garbage. As Christians, it is our responsibility to identify what is right and what is wrong. The Bible refers to this as “discernment.” 1 Thessalonians 5:21-22 says, "But examine everything carefully; hold fast to that which is good; abstain from every form of evil."

For some people, discernment is a spiritual gift. When discussing gifts of the Spirit, Paul said, “to some [are given] the discerning of spirits” (1 Corinthians 12:10). For others, it must be learned. Job says that wisdom and understanding comes with age (Job 12:12). Even so, I believe there are six steps we can follow to help us gain discernment.

TRUST THE BIBLE

The law of the LORD is perfect, converting the soul: the testimony of the LORD is sure, making wise the simple. (Psalms 19:7)

We don't have to be geniuses or scholars. Psalms tells us that with the Bible, even the simple become wise. If we base our thinking on the Bible, we can never be very wrong on any subject.

STUDY THE BIBLE

Even if you sincerely trust the Bible, what good does it do if you don't know what the Bible says? What if someone said, “I believe the Bible when it says, 'The Lord helps those that help themselves'”? Do you say, “Amen!”? Nothing resembling that verse appears in the Bible but you can't know that if you don't study the Bible.

I worked in a bank for many years. Before the Federal Reserve issued any new currency, we would get detailed descriptions of what the new bills would look like. The best way to spot a fake bill is to know what the real bill looks like. Likewise, we can easily spot false doctrine if we know what correct doctrine is.

Study to shew thyself approved unto God, a workman that needeth not to be ashamed, rightly dividing the word of truth. (2 Timothy 2:15)

Let's look at this passage in reverse: This passage says we need to study to show ourselves approved. So what does it mean if we don't study? Obviously it must mean we aren't approved. Furthermore, if we don't study, we should be ashamed. Finally, if we don't study, we will not be able rightly divide the word of truth.

SEEK THE ADVICE OF OTHERS

Most people have heard the expression, “Two heads are better than one.” This is based on a sound, biblical doctrine.

Where there is no guidance, a people falls, but in an abundance of counselors there is safety. (Proverbs 11:14)

There are abundant resources available today that Christians can turn to to find answers to tough questions. Also, a Christian can seek the advice of godly men or women.

BE SKEPTICAL

Though we should seek the advice of others, we must never mistake their opinions for Scriptures. In your study Bible, the notes written in the margin are not part of the text. You need to compare whatever advice you receive to the Scriptures to make sure it is sound.

Now the Berean Jews were of more noble character than those in Thessalonica, for they received the message with great eagerness and examined the Scriptures every day to see if what Paul said was true. Acts 17:11

Paul is normally someone whose opinion I would trust. Yet the Bereans were even skeptical of him. As he preached the gospel, they compared his words to the Scriptures to confirm what he was saying was true. We should do the same.

BE OPEN MINDED

There's a difference between being skeptical and refusing to believe. Sometimes, we are wrong in something we believe and we need to be available to the truth. The Bible uses the term “stiff-necked” to describe certain, stubborn people who won't listen to the truth.

But they hearkened not, neither inclined their ear, but made their neck stiff, that they might not hear, and might not receive instruction. (Jeremiah 17:23)

BE PRAYERFUL

Finally, we should always remember to seek understanding from God.

If any of you lack wisdom, let him ask of God, that giveth to all men liberally, and upbraideth not; and it shall be given him. (James 1:5)

Each was partly in the right, And all were in the wrong!

2011-10-29T07:27:00.003-04:00

John Godfrey Saxe took an old Indian parable and made this wonderful poem:

It was six men of Indostan
To learning much inclined,
Who went to see the Elephant
(Though all of them were blind),
That each by observation
Might satisfy his mind.

The First approach'd the Elephant,
And happening to fall
Against his broad and sturdy side,
At once began to bawl:
"God bless me! but the Elephant
Is very like a wall!"

The Second, feeling of the tusk,
Cried, -"Ho! what have we here
So very round and smooth and sharp?
To me 'tis mighty clear
This wonder of an Elephant
Is very like a spear!"

The Third approached the animal,
And happening to take
The squirming trunk within his hands,
Thus boldly up and spake:
"I see," quoth he, "the Elephant
Is very like a snake!"

The Fourth reached out his eager hand,
And felt about the knee.
"What most this wondrous beast is like
Is mighty plain," quoth he,
"'Tis clear enough the Elephant
Is very like a tree!"

The Fifth, who chanced to touch the ear,
Said: "E'en the blindest man
Can tell what this resembles most;
Deny the fact who can,
This marvel of an Elephant
Is very like a fan!"

The Sixth no sooner had begun
About the beast to grope,
Then, seizing on the swinging tail
That fell within his scope,
"I see," quoth he, "the Elephant
Is very like a rope!"

And so these men of Indostan
Disputed loud and long,
Each in his own opinion
Exceeding stiff and strong,
Though each was partly in the right,
And all were in the wrong!

I've always thought it was funny how people with such limited knowledge and understanding can still have such confidence in their opinions. In regards to science and evolution, there's far more that we don't know than what we do know. It doesn't matter how certain we are about what we do know, what we don't know can still greatly shape what is true.

But beyond the creation v. evolution debate, this poem highlights the error of disbelief in general. The famous atheist, Richard Dawkins, has said many times that he doesn't believe there is a God and hasn't seen any evidence for one. Considering the enormity of the universe and how tiny the fraction is that we have experienced, his view is very much like that of a blind many who has touched only one part of an elephant. He has based his opinion only on his limited experience and can't see the big picture.

I wish I could leave it at that but I've been doing this for a while and I know the common rebuttal offered up by critics who hear this argument. They usually try to turn the tables and say something like, “We'll, Mr. RKBentley, how do you know that somewhere out there in the universe there isn't a Flying Spaghetti Monster?” Here's the big difference: there is evidence for God. We have the revelation of the Bible. We have the historical accounts of Jesus. We have the nation of Israel. All of these things attest there is a God. What similar evidence do we have for the Flying Spaghetti Monster?

I admit that I don't know everything. I also admit there's far more that I don't know than I do know. However, there is One who does know everything and even though I don't know everything, I know Him. I also trust what He says. Other people are welcome to grope about in the dark but His children walk in the light! (John 11:9-10)

Loving God with our Minds: A Series in Logic. Conclusion

2011-10-21T09:25:00.005-04:00

It's time to wrap up this series on logic. There are many more things that could be said but we've gone on long enough and I've covered the most common logical fallacies Christian apologists are likely to encounter. I'll conclude this series with a couple of more points.

First, I want to be clear about one thing. A logical fallacy is not automatic proof that a person is wrong. I came across an amusing example a while back that demonstrates how bad logic could occasionally lead to a correct answer. Look at the following:

64/16 > 64/16 > 4/1 > 4

In this mathematical expression, the person canceled out the sixes so 64/16 became 4/1 which equals 4. Ironically, 64/16 really does equal 4 but you obviously can't cancel out the sixes that way. The same approach would not work with most other fractions. It becomes frustrating, then, to explain to the person how he is wrong even though his answer is correct.

Along those same lines, while you are defending the faith against critics, sometimes they will present correct facts couched in bad arguments. If a person sprinkles in some logical fallacies in the midst of some valid arguments, we still need to address the valid points he's raised. If we do nothing but point out his errors in logic, then we are, in a way, using a red herring. You might stymie the critic into silence but you won't persuade him unless you eventually can answer legitimate concerns he has. Pointing out logical fallacies helps rid the debate of irrelevant static and allows you to have a substantive discussion.

Finally, as I said in the start of my series, Christians need to be careful with the arguments we use. One of the visitors to my blog, Steven J, left a comment detailing how he has sometimes heard Christians using logical fallacies. Sadly, he's correct. I've heard them too. It's unfortunate because we don't need to resort to such tactics. Remember, we are the ones on the solid rock. Our thinking should rest on the One who is the Author of logic.

Our job is laid out very clearly in 2 Corinthians 10:5 KJV:

Casting down imaginations, and every high thing that exalteth itself against the knowledge of God, and bringing into captivity every thought to the obedience of Christ;

Further Reading

Loving God with our Minds: A Series in Logic. Part 7

2011-10-18T10:12:00.008-04:00

BALD ASSERTION

Sometimes a critic will simply state his opinion is a fact without offering any argument to support it. In my series addressing the “10 Questions Every Christian Must Answer,” I encountered several examples of bald assertions (along with numerous other logical fallacies). Here's one example:

“Jonah did not live inside a fish's stomach for three days like the Bible says.”

That's it. That was the entire statement. There was no reason given why the critic believed such a thing didn't happen. He cited no evidence to support his conclusion. Here merely said it didn't happen.

Since bald assertions have no supporting arguments, they are they can be rebutted with an opposing assertion: Jonah didn't live for three days inside a fish? Yes he did! You can see how easy that is.

Bald assertions are a type of red herring. They add nothing to a discussion.

ARGUMENT FROM SILENCE (argumentum ex silentio)

When a person cites the lack of evidence for something as evidence against that thing, he is using an argument from silence. Here's an example so that you can see how this is a fallacy:

The Bible does not say that Jesus ever had a cold. Therefore, Jesus never had a cold.

John attests there were a great many things that Jesus said and did that aren't written down (John 21:25). So it would be wrong to conclude that Jesus didn't have a cold on the flimsy grounds that it's not mentioned in the Bible.

In the creation v. evolution debate, one common example of the argument from silence is this: Human fossils have not be found with dinosaur fossils. Therefore, humans did not live with dinosaurs.

My critics rail when I point it out but this is absolutely an argument from silence.

ARGUMENT FROM IGNORANCE (argumentum ad ignorantiam)

This is similar to the argument from silence but varies in a significant way. It argues that a position is true because merely because it has not been proven false. For example, in 1895, Lord Kelvin, the President of the Royal Society of England, confidently announced, “Heavier-than-air flying machines are impossible.” Lord Kelvin spoke out of ignorance. No one had ever flown before and so he believed flight was impossible. Of course, a few short years later, two brothers who owned a bicycle shop in Ohio flew the first airplane at Kitty Hawk, NC.

In my dealings with opponents of the Bible, one argument from ignorance I've heard deals with the Ark and the Flood. An evolutionist poster went into great detail describing large wooden ships of recent history. In the last couple of centuries, wooden ships have been built that measure 300-400’ – sometimes longer. It’s been our experience, however, that wooden ships this large leak terribly and require constant pumping to stay afloat. His point was this: if modern ship builders are not able to build large, water-tight wooden ships, then how could Noah have built the Ark? He was saying, in a sense, “We can’t build a water-tight, wooden ship of this size so therefore the Ark is impossible.”

The flaw is this argument is that it isn’t evidence that the Ark truly couldn’t be built – it’s only evidence that the poster didn’t know how such a boat could be built. It’s evidence of our lack of imagination or understanding. It’s simply an argument of our ignorance.

NON SEQUITUR

In Latin, non sequitur means, “it doesn't follow.” This is where a person's conclusion is not supported by his premise. There are several forms of non sequitur but they all fall under the umbrella of the conclusion not following the premise. An extreme example of this would be: “Men wear pants. Therefore Sally does not wear pants.”

Real examples are seldom as extreme as that but you'd be surprised how blatant Bible critics can be. Here is a real world example I've come across that is about as ridiculous as my example above:

“You know how science works. You happily use the products of science every day: Your car. Your cell phone. Your microwave oven. Your TV. Your computer. These are all products of the scientific process. You know that science is incredibly important to our economy and to our lives... [conclusion] God did not make the world in 6 days.”

Do you see what I mean? The premise about how important science is, in spite of being true, does not support the conclusion that God did not create the world.

Further Reading

Loving God with our Minds: A Series in Logic. Part 6

2011-10-13T21:57:00.006-04:00

FALSE DILEMMA

The false dilemma is when a person presents only a few alternatives when more might exist. A textbook example of this is Richard Dawkins famous quote about creationists: “It is absolutely safe to say that if you meet somebody who claims not to believe in evolution, that person is ignorant, stupid or insane (or wicked, but I'd rather not consider that).” This is a false dilemma because Mr. Dawkins left out still one other possible alternative – namely that creationists are correct.

HASTY GENERALIZATION

Occasionally, critics will cite an anecdotal example as being representative of the whole. Kent Hovind, for example, is a young-earth creationist whose ministry was to debate evolutionists. He is a gifted speaker but he received his doctorate from a less-than-prestigious college. Later, he was convicted of not paying taxes and was sentenced to prison. He's not really representative of the modern creationist movement but you wouldn't know that from what critics say about him.

A website called, “The Sensuous Curmudgeon” posted an article titled, “Kent Hovind: Creationist Role Model.” Hmm, do you see how that might suggest that all creationists are like Hovind? The article details the personal problems of Hovind and ends by saying, “Mammas, Don’t Let Your Babies Grow Up to Be Creationists.”

APPEAL TO EMOTION

Sometimes in a debate, instead of using a reasoned argument, a person will appeal to some emotion in his audience. This can take several forms but they all fall under this one broad category. Here are some specific types of appeals to emotions:

Appeal to Consequences: The folks at the National Center for Science Education have been claiming for years that if we teach creation to kids, they will suffer academically and America will fall behind the rest of the world in scientific advancement. This claim is not only completely unfounded (see my post on this topic), it is also irrelevant. If something is true then it is true regardless of the consequences. Would the critic prefer we teach a lie because it is more socially beneficial?

Appeal to Fear: Sometimes a critic will portray his opponent's position as dangerous. “If these Christians have their way, we will return to the dark ages and the Inquisition!”

Appeal to Incredulity: This occurs when a critic doesn't explain exactly how his opponent is wrong but merely states how the idea seems far fetched. “Christians actually believe Jesus will appear in the sky someday and 'call them home.'”

Appeal to Motive: This is a type of ad homenim where the critic attempts to make the audience suspicious of his opponent by questioning his motives. “My opponent is very committed to the creation issue because he makes a lot of money selling books about creation.”

Appeal to Flattery: In a debate, a critic might try to flatter his audience in an attempt to win them over. “I know that most people listening tonight are intelligent and rational people. They will certainly see how my opponent is wrong.”

Loaded Words: This is a clever, rhetorical device where a critic will insert unflattering and emotionally charged words into his argument. “Creationists believe the ridiculous idea that God magically spoke the world into existence.”

Guilt by Association: Sometimes a critic will compare his opponent or his opponent's position to some unpopular person or group. A very common example of this is to say, “Hitler was a Christian.” It's funny how they never point out how Mother Theresa was a Christian. Besides that though, no large group is represented by a single member (see “hasty generalization”). To condemn Christianity based on the beliefs of Hitler would be as irrational as condemning evolution by saying, “Hitler believed in evolution.” If something is true, then it's true regardless of who might endorse it.

Wishful Thinking: Some people believe something is true simply because they want it to be true. An example of this might be a mother who says, “I know my son didn't commit this crime.” The mother might not really know it, she just really wants to believe he's innocent. In a discussion about Christianity, you might have heard someone say something like, “I know God will accept everyone into heaven.” Obviously, the person has no foundation for such a belief. It's merely wishful thinking.

Further Reading

Loving God with our Minds: A Series in Logic. Part 5

2011-10-10T23:37:00.004-04:00

REIFICATION

I have posted this quote on my blog before:

When the rocks say they are 4 billion years old and the Bible says they are less than 10,000 years old; who do you believe: the author of the Bible or the author of the rocks?

Quotes like this are examples of reification where people attempt to turn abstract ideas into concrete terms. In literature, it's similar to the grammatical device of personification. This is fine in literature or poetry but it's a fallacy in a logical debate.

In the above quote, the speaker claims “the rocks say they are 4 billion years old.” My family is from eastern Kentucky and I grew up visiting my grandparents and cousins who lived in the Appalachian mountains. Needless to say, I've seen more than a few rocks in my life and I've never heard one of them talk! I can say with certainty that you have never heard a rock talk either. How then, can rocks “say” they are billions of years old? The reality is that it's some scientists who study rocks that say the rocks are billions of years old. The rocks haven't said a word.

Reification occurs fairly frequently. Here are some other examples:

“Science has proven the Bible wrong.”

“The evidence says that evolution is true.”

“Fossils tell us that the earth is very old.”

Things like “science”, “evidence”, and “fossils” are not living. They don't “do” anything. Only people can say or do things. In any debate, remember that you're not debating the evidence; you're debating what someone is saying about the evidence.

SPECIAL PLEADING

Special pleading is where a person holds himself to a different standard than he applies to you. This fallacy rivals ad hominem as the most common in the evolution v. creation debate because most secular science rests on a premise that contradicts itself. Here's an example that I've posted many times before. It's one of my favorite quotes from evolutionists:

"Creation science" is a contradiction in terms. A central tenet of modern science is methodological naturalism--it seeks to explain the universe purely in terms of observed or testable natural mechanisms. Scientific American Magazine, July 2002 [emphasis added]

In this quote, Scientific American claims that methodological naturalism is a fundamental tenet of modern science. However, there is no “scientific evidence” for this. They admit it's a “tenet” - a philosophical assumption akin to a religious belief (look it up).

Whenever evolutionists demand we only use “scientific evidence” in a debate, they are engaging in special pleading. They are saying that our philosophical or religious belief that there was a supernatural creation is not valid while their philosophical or religious belief that there must be a natural explanation is valid.

CIRCULAR REASONING

A lot of evolution involves circular reasoning. Perhaps the most glaring example is the use of index fossils. Evolutionists often date rocks according to the fossils they find in the rocks AND they use rocks to date the fossils. Here's a hypothetical conversation that illustrates this:

EVO: “This rock is 60 million years old.”

CREO: “How do you know that?”

EVO: “Because the fossils in the rock are of animals that lived 60 million years ago.”

CREO: “But how do you know the animals lived 60 million years ago?”

EVO: “Because they're in rocks that are 60 million years old!”

Of course, evolutionists don't see it that way. However, when scientists date a stratum as Triassic, for example, simply because of the fossils found in it, it is absolutely a case of circular reasoning.

Another example of circular reasoning is found in the term “survival of the fittest.” If “fit” is defined by something's ability to survive, we're left with a tautology – namely, “things that survive survive.”

While circular reasoning may occur within evolutionary theory, in this series we're more interested in circular reasoning that occurs in discussions between Christians and non-Christians. We sometimes see this when evolutionists reject the “evidence” for creation.

Evolutionists often ask for “evidence” for our theory. I believe that fossils are evidence for creation. Yet when we present them as evidence, evolutionists reject it based on their own interpretation of fossils. In other words, they claim fossils aren't evidence for creation because they are evidence for evolution. They are saying, in a sense, “these rocks can't be young because they're old.” You can see the circular argument.

Now one interesting thing about circular reasoning is that Christians are often accused of using it. The claim usually centers on our view of the Bible. Critics claim that we believe the Bible is the word of God merely because the Bible says it's the word of God. That's not exactly accurate. If the Bible is true, I would expect it to affirm itself to be true. By analogy, if someone asked me if I'm RKBentley, I would answer that I am. It's not circular to expect something true to affirm itself to be true.

On the other hand, many atheists hold a worldview that contradicts itself. They might claim, for example, they don't believe anything without evidence yet there is no evidence that truth is only obtained by evidence so they indeed believe something without evidence. They're being irrational. It would be as though someone believed I'm John Smith in spite of the fact that I claim to not be John Smith.

Irrational people are difficult to persuade. When someone follows circular reasoning, he sees everything as proof for his beliefs.

Further Reading

Loving God with our Minds: A Series in Logic. Part 4

2011-10-08T22:22:00.007-04:00

RED HERRING

An extremely common tactic employed by critics is to use the red herring. A red herring is a fact or detail raised by your opponent that is unrelated to the topic. This is done in an attempt to derail the conversation or to force the Christian to waste time addressing irrelevant issues. The thing that is so annoying about red herrings is that the points raised often contain an element of truth – they're just not pertinent to the subject. In a debate about evolution and creation, for example, my views on something like Revelation are not directly relevant.

One of my very early blogs was a response to an editorial in the Courier Journal written by militant evolutionist, James K Willmot in which Willmot committed a number of logical fallacies. In the midst of his rant against the then new Creation Museum, Willmot made the comment, “AIG also believes in a literal interpretation of the Book of Revelation.” This would certainly qualify as a red herring. It contains an element of truth since I'm sure that AiG accepts the entire Bible as the inspired word of God. However, they also recognize the obvious use of symbolism in the book of Revelation. AiG certainly does not believe there will be a “literal” harlot named Babylon who rides on the back of a scarlet beast in the last days. However, just the simple fact that AiG would have to clarify this point demonstrates the danger of a red herring. AiG is put on the defensive and is forced to waste time defending a point that's not relevant to the creation v. evolution debate in the first place.

The best way to deal with a red herring is to let it go. If someone you've engaged in debate throws out a red herring, tell him, “that's interesting. Maybe we'll discuss that later but for now could you please address the topic?”

ARGUMENT BY VERBOSITY (Argumentum verbosium)

Many evolutionists will often try to make a point by simply throwing out terms. It's a type of red herring. One very common example of this occurs when an evolutionist says something like, “Evolution is supported by geology, biology, physics, astronomy, chemistry, paleontology, anthropology, dendrochronology, … etc.” It seems like the longer the evolutionist can make the list, the more evidence it is for evolution. The reality is that none of it is “evidence” for evolution; they're merely empty words. “Biology” for example, is a scientific discipline which studies living things. To merely say “biology” isn't evidence for evolution any more than saying “theology” is evidence there is a God. How does biology support evolution? When the critic answers that, then he actually begins to address the topic. Until then, he is merely spouting words.

One time on FaceBook, an atheist once wrote, “Things creationists must deny” followed by about 20 terms; included were many of the terms above but there were several others including “logic” and “trigonometry.” Besides being a straw man, how should a Christian respond to that? Does anyone really expect me to write even a short paragraph for each term explaining how I don't disagree with it?

Besides simply throwing out terms, another variation of this fallacy is to roll out long, detailed terminology in hopes of confusing your opponent or even to wear him down. I cannot count the number of times I've been in internet debate forums where an evolutionist will merely cut and paste a lengthy section from some technical paper. The sad fact is that, in most cases, it would simply take too long or too much space to post a reply so it's easier to just skip over it. This gives the false impression that the creationist is unable to answer the question.

It's true that we defend our positions with words. However, there's no rule that says the most words wins. Throwing around long lists of terms or minutia isn't an argument.

NO TRUE SCOTSMAN

The No True Scotsman fallacy is where a critic argues that the only legitimate position is his and thus every dissenting position is illegitimate. The name of this fallacy is derived from this classic example:

Person 1: “No Scotsman puts sugar on his porridge.”

Person 2: “My uncle Angus puts sugar on his porridge.”

Person 1: “Well, no true Scotsman puts sugar on his porridge.”

In that example, poor uncle Angus is disqualified from being a true Scotsman only on the flimsy grounds that he puts sugar on his porridge when such a qualifier is merely arbitrary.

I've mentioned before that the ad hominem is the fallacy most frequently used by critics. Since the No True Scotsman is a type of ad hominem, we see it too used frequently. Here are some common examples:

“No legitimate scientist believes in creation.”

“The Creation Museum is not a real museum.”

“No rational person believes in God.”

Have you ever heard any of these before? If you've spent any time debating opponents of Christianity, I'll bet you have. We identify groups by a common denominator. All Christians, for example, believe in Christ (though they might believe different things). Be on the look out, though, for arbitrary conditions. There are legitimate scientists who believe in creation. The Creation Museum is a real museum. And rational people do believe in God!

Further Reading

Loving God with our Minds: A Series in Logic. Part 3

2011-09-28T07:16:00.009-04:00

EQUIVOCATION

Equivocation occurs when a person changes the meaning of a word in the middle of his argument. Here is an extreme example: The Bible says that Jesus rose from the dead; a rose is a flower; therefore, the Bible says that Jesus is a flower. Like I said, it's an extreme example but you see how it works. I changed the meaning of the word “rose” in the middle of my argument so even though both of my premises are true, my conclusion is false.

Evolutionists equivocate over the word “evolution.” In ordinary conversation, most people understand evolution to mean the changing of creatures from one kind to another over time (like a dinosaurs evolving into birds or apes evolving into people). Most people also understand “evolution” to mean the descent of all species from a common ancestor. However, scientists have a more technical meaning for the term evolution – namely that evolution is “any change in the frequency of alleles within a gene pool from one generation to the next.”

The problem is that evolutionists use the same term – evolution – to describe both change AND the descent of all life from a common ancestor. By doing this, they often use examples of one as evidence for the other. They seldom word it this way but their argument goes something like this: evolution is change, we see animals change, therefore evolution is true and all animals have a common ancestor.

Do you think I'm kidding? I'm sometimes accused of making straw men (see below). Look at this quote: “Biologists define evolution as a change in the gene pool of a population over time. One example is insects developing a resistance to pesticides over the period of a few years. Even most Creationists recognize that evolution at this level is a fact. What they don't appreciate is that this rate of evolution is all that is required to produce the diversity of all living things from a common ancestor.” (source)

In this quote, the folks at Talk Origin use one example of “evolution” (a change to insects' resistance to pesticides) and suggest it is all that is needed for “evolution” (the descent of all animals from a common ancestor).

Many times, when discussing the issue with creationists, an evolutionist will say something like, “How can you deny evolution? We see evolution happening all the time.” What he means to say is that we see animals changing. Of course, creationists don't deny that animals change. We do deny that dinosaurs have changed into birds or that apes have changed into people which are things we have never seen.

Evolutionists aren't careful about their use of the word evolution. I think they're happy for the confusion. In what is understood to be a discussion about common descent, evolutionists will constantly resort to examples of change. It's equivocation of the worst sort.

STRAW MAN

Another fallacy frequently employed by critics of the Bible is the straw man fallacy. In this fallacy, the critic doesn't address his opponent's argument directly. Instead, he creates a caricature of his opponent's argument and then attacks the caricature. In other words, he builds up a “straw man” that supposedly represents his opponent and then knocks down the straw man.

In apologetics, a typical example of this is when critics accuse Christians of taking the Bible “literally.” The critic might say something like, “My opponent believes every word in the Bible must be taken literally. I guess that means he believes trees have hands because Psalms says that the trees will clap their hands.” This criticism isn't accurate because I've never heard any Christian say that “every word in the Bible must be taken literally.” The Bible uses many literary devices like metaphor, simile, and personification. So the claim that any Christian takes every word in the Bible “literally” gives a false impression of what the Christian really believes. It's a false impression created by the critic. It's a “straw man” that the critic can then ridicule in order to make the Christian's position seem weak.

Here are some other examples of straw man fallacies that I've heard: “Creationists believe the Flintstones represent real history.” “Fundamental Christians believe we should stone gays and witches.” “The Bible teaches that women are second class citizens and treats them as property.” There are many others, of course.

In the course of any discussion, there are times when a person will try to “sum up” his opponent's position. I did so above when I said, “They seldom word it this way but their argument goes something like this...” Yet when this happens, there's a possibility that he's really creating a straw man. Don't let your critic characterize your position. Make your position plainly known and let the critic know he's being deceptive by creating a straw man of your argument.

QUOTE MINING

I don't want to make this post too long but I wanted to discuss quote mining now. This is not one of the fallacious arguments that atheists use frequently (though they do use it occasionally), however, I bring it up for two reasons: First, it's a type of straw man so it would be natural to include it now. Second, evolutionists often accuse creationists of quote mining so I want to explain exactly what quote mining is since they seem to use the term incorrectly.

Quote mining is a type of straw man argument where a person's quote is taken out of context in order to make it seem like he believes something which he really doesn't. For example, someone could quote mine me here and say, “RKBentley once said that the Flintstones represent real history.” Even though I wrote those words above, I obviously don't believe it. It is a false impression of what I truly believe, thus it is a type of straw man.

Creationists are often accused of quote mining when we cite some secular scientist with whom we agree on some particular point. The secular scientists hate this because they loath creationists and so they claim we are misrepresenting what they said. The times I've seen this, I've never really suspected the creationist of misrepresenting the evolutionist.

One, very famous example is when creationists quote Gould about the lack of transitional forms in the fossil record. He said, for example, “An average species of fossil invertebrates lives five to ten million years (terrestrial vertebrates have shorter average durations). During this time, they rarely change in any fundamental way. They become extinct, without issue, looking much as they did when they first appeared.”

Gould, of course, believed in evolution. No one has ever claimed he was a closet creationist. However, he noticed that there is no clear progression of forms in the fossil record from one species to another (though he did recognize certain transitional forms at a more macro level). It is because of this lack of transitional forms that he came up with his theory of punctuated equilibrium. We quote him not because he believed in creation (because he didn't) but because we too have noticed the lack of transitional forms and have a different explanation for it. Therefore, Gould is sort of a hostile witness who sees the same evidence that we see even though he has a different interpretation of it. Therefore, when we talk about the lack of progression evident in the fossil record, we sometimes cite someone like Gould.

Quote mining only occurs when a quote is being misused to create a false impression of what the speaker truly believes. It is not appropriate to call every creationist's quote of an evolutionist a quote mine. I'm not sure if there is a technical term for mislabeling a logical fallacy. At the very least, we might say it's “crying wolf.”

Further Reading

Loving God with our Minds: A Series in Logic. Part 2

2011-09-23T09:42:00.009-04:00

In this series, I intend to highlight 2 – 3 fallacies in each post. In this post, we'll be looking at two of the most commonly used logical fallacies: Ad hominem and the appeal to authority

ARGUMENTUM AD HOMINEM

The first logical fallacy a Christian is likely to encounter when defending the faith is argumentum ad hominem – usually abbreviated to ad hominem. Ad hominem is a Latin term that literally means “to the man” (or so I'm told since I don't read Latin). It occurs when someone responds not to an argument but to the person making the argument. This is, by far, the most common tactic employed by the critic and is usually used in one of two ways: the ordinary insult and to undermine the speaker.

Ordinary insults are just that. The critic will say things like, “Creationists are stupid”; “Christians are gullible”; “Ken Ham is a charlatan”; etc. None of these things are an argument or proof of anything. Instead, they are the simple rantings of the critic who speaks them. Insults are easy to spot so there is not much need to explain how to recognize them. Just keep in mind that no matter how they are used, insults do not add anything to the discussion.

The other form of ad hominem is a little more subtle. Instead of directly insulting the Christian, a critic will make a statement meant to undermine the Christian's credibility. I hear this most often when critics attempt to point out that I'm “not a scientist” and therefore suggest – either overtly or by implication – I am not qualified to judge their theory. Of course, simply not being a scientist by itself isn't proof that anything I've said is wrong. I could say, “it's raining”; does the fact that I'm not a meteorologist somehow prove it's not raining?

Ad hominem is also used to diminish a written article. Besides attacking the author of the article, evolutionists will also tout the fact that the article wasn't published in a peer-reviewed journal and so (allege) the article is suspect and not worthy of consideration. Again, the simple fact that something has not been peer reviewed is not evidence that it is wrong.

Careful arguments are what make a debate. The truth of what is said seldom rests on the person who speaks them. Even if a person is a habitual liar, that fact alone is not proof that any particular thing he said is a lie.

When your opponent does not respond to your points but, instead, attacks you then it is usually a sign of desperation. He either has no rebuttal or he believes his best rebuttal is to merely insult you. Don't get caught up in these bad arguments. When someone insults you, your first instinct will be to defend yourself. This often leads to a lengthy discussion that isn't directly related to the topic at hand. A better response will be to point out to your opponent that he hasn't answered your arguments. Let him know that he is making a fool of himself.

Finally, remember the words of Jesus in Matthew 5:11, “Blessed are ye, when men shall revile you, and persecute you, and shall say all manner of evil against you falsely, for my sake.” The insults with which the critic intends harm actually bring you a blessing!

APPEAL TO AUTHORITY

The second fallacy we'll look at is the appeal to authority (argumentum ad verecundiam in Latin). This is sort of the opposite of ad hominem – instead of discrediting the person who makes the argument, the critic appeals to the credentials of the person making the argument (often it's himself). It goes something like this: Authority “A” believes “X” is true so therefore “X” is true.

This fallacy often seems to have legs because we sometimes seek the opinions of experts. If I'm sick, I don't necessarily rely on a diagnosis from my mother-in-law. Instead, I seek out an opinion from a doctor. Because the doctor has been trained in medicine, I give his diagnosis more weight.

The reason this is a fallacy is because even experts can be wrong. The truth is objective and something isn't true simply because some expert says it's true. Even if a majority of experts agree, it still doesn't make it true. Take a look at this old advertisement. Look at all those physicians who said that Lucky Strike cigarettes are less irritating. Since these people are doctors, then it must be true, right? Wrong!

The appeal to authority is often employed in the creation v. evolution debate. I've heard it claimed, more than once, that 99% of scientists believe evolution is true. That statistic is a flat out lie – 99% of scientists cannot agree on anything. But even if the statistic were true, it still doesn't prove anything. In Galileo's day, the majority of scientists still believed the Ptolemaic model of the universe.

On a little more personal level, I've had many evolutionists tell me their credentials as though it's proof of something. Sometimes, they're college students who are studying some related field but occasionally they are practicing scientists with PhD's in their discipline. This might intimidate some people but it shouldn't. Consider these two quotes:

“There is not the slightest indication that nuclear energy will ever be obtainable. It would mean that the atom would have to be shattered at will.” Albert Einstein, 1932

"The bomb will never go off. I speak as an expert in explosives," Admiral William Leahy, U.S. Atomic Bomb Project.

These were made by people whose opinions we might trust. Nevertheless, they were wrong. In that same manner, even a PhD biologist is wrong about evolution. I don't care how smart someone is or how many degrees he has or how many scientists agree with him – none of this proves he is right.

As above, careful arguments are what make a debate. In the creation v. evolution debate, we need to discuss the evidence and our theory. Don't get carried away with the credentials of the person making the argument. It's not proof of anything.

Further Reading

Loving God with our Minds: A Series in Logic. Part 1

2011-09-20T21:16:00.004-04:00

In Matthew 7:24-26, Jesus gives us a parable of two men: one man hears the words of Jesus and heeds them. Jesus says he is a like a wise man who builds his house upon a rock and it is able to stand against the wind and floods. The other man is a foolish man who does not heed the teachings of Jesus. He is like a man who builds his house upon the sand. When the rains come and the winds blow, the house cannot stand because it is built on sand.

As Christians, we are commanded to always be ready to give an answer to those who ask about our faith (1 Peter 3:15). While we do this, we must keep in mind who we are dealing with – foolish people. We are dealing with people who have built a worldview upon sand and their arguments cannot stand up to scrutiny. Over the many years that I've engaged critics of the Bible, I've consistently found that nearly all of them resort to some logical fallacy in their arguments. It's unavoidable, really. When one's worldview begins with a premise that there is no God, he stands in stark contrast with reality. Every other belief he builds upon that faulty foundation is simply another brick he adds to the house he's built on sand. It won't stand.

The word translated as answer in 1 Peter 3:15 KJV is the Greek word “apologia” (ἀπολογία). This is where we derive the English term, apologetics. Like many Greek words, it's a compound word. “Apo” is a preposition of separation. It means away or from. We see it in the English word apostrophe, which is a mark that sets a letter apart from the rest of the word. “Logia” is derived from the Greek word “logos” which is usually translated as word. It's used in John 1:1, “In the beginning was the word....” When we talk about something like “the Word of God,” we're not referring to any single word but rather to everything God said. It's the entire body of thought. This is where we get the common suffix -ology as in biology or anthropology. From logos we also have the English word logic. Apologetics, therefore, literally means, “from words” or “from logic.” We are to give the critic a logical and reasonable defense of the Faith.

As we debate nonbelievers, we must always be careful of the arguments we are using and be alert to the arguments they are using. Remember that we have a house built on a rock while theirs is upon the sand. If we are not careful, we can get caught up in their foolish arguments and become removed from our strong foundation. Proverbs 26:4-5 warn us that we should not answer a fool by acting like a fool. Instead, we need to show him how foolish he is.

Studying formal logic is one of those things that intimidates a lot of people. Because of this, many people avoid it all together. It's really a shame, too, because the Bible says that we should love God with all our heart, soul, strength, and mind (Mark 12:30). Since we are commanded by God to give a reasonable defense of our faith, we owe it to Him to engage in a little mental exercise and study logic.

I don't know if I can say that God invented logic. God Himself is logical therefore logic has existed for as long as God has existed. Since nature reveals the glory of God, we see some of His logical nature revealed in His creation. Logic, is also absolute. It exists as certainly as anything exists. One cannot credibly argue that logic does not exist because he could not logically defend such a position. Any argument the critic could articulate must presuppose that logic exists. Therefore, any argument against logic only proves that logic is real!

Since God is logical, Christians have a rational basis to use and apply logic. However, an atheistic worldview has no rational reason to believe there should be uniform laws of logic. If the universe is without purpose, there is no reason to expect order or uniformity. Of course, this doesn't stop atheists from appealing to logic to defend their beliefs. Such a tactic is demonstrative of their irrationality. If atheists were consistent with their worldview, they would have no foundation on which to base a logical argument. Logic exists only because God is real yet they appeal to logic to argue that God doesn't exist! In his book, The Ultimate Proof of Creation, Dr. Jason Lisle uses the analogy of a man who argues against the existence of air. It is only because there is air moving past his vocal cords that he can form words. It is only because there is air to carry the sound waves that his argument can be heard. The more someone argues against air, the more he proves there is air. Yet this is what a fool does.

I thought it would be a good investment of time to do a short series on logical arguments and logical fallacies. Over the years, I've heard evolutionists and atheists use nearly every logical fallacy you could imagine. A Christian can hardly discuss anything with a critic without hearing some logical fallacy. Therefore, I have many real life comments that I can use for examples. I'm not sure how long this series will be but please check in often.

Further Reading

Remembering 9/11

2011-09-11T00:01:00.000-04:00

How Not to Create Jobs

2011-09-09T07:22:00.004-04:00

Part of the President's job speech last night proposed increasing taxes on wealthy Americans & CEO's (i.e. “employers”) and extending benefits to unemployed people. It sounds a little strange to me. Once again I suggest it might benefit our elected officials in Washington to brush up on economics. Let me give a thumbnail:

We work to make money, right? It's nice if we enjoy our jobs but if we don't get paid then it's not a job – it's a hobby. We work for a paycheck. When we get paid, we pay our bills. We pay our rent or mortgage, our car payments, we buy gas, we buy groceries, etc. We also have disposable income that we use for our enjoyment: we go out to dinner, we buy video games, we go to the movies, we take vacations, or whatever. When we spend our paychecks, we're helping to pay other peoples' paychecks. We pay for the salaries of people who work at the gas stations, the grocery stores, the restaurants, the theaters, etc. When they get paid, they spend the money much the same way as everybody else. In short, I work to produce goods or services so that I can buy goods and services that other people work to produce. This IS the economy!

With unemployment so high, we have a lot of people who aren't producing goods or services. They are removed from an important part of the equation. There is “less economy” when more people aren't working. The economy is only sustained by the people who are still working and producing. So what is the President's solution? It seems that part of his solution is to take more money from the people who are working and sustaining the economy and give to the people who are aren't contributing to the economy!

It would almost be laughable that Democrats think this way but the effect of their policies is so tragic. I've heard Democrats, more than once, claim that paying unemployment benefits to non-producing individuals is the most “bang for the buck” in stimulating the economy. With staggeringly high unemployment and people already receiving benefits for 99 weeks, we should have climbed out of this pit a long time ago but we're still limping along. Now the President has suggested extending unemployment benefits another year? I'm telling you that is part of the problem. People aren't working because they don't have to and the economy isn't growing because so many people aren't producing.

If you want to make the claim that we need a safety net for people suddenly out of work then make that argument. It might be reasonable to help people but it should only be for a few months. If you enable people to remain unemployed then we're merely sustaining their poverty. I've written before how the Bible suggested we handle the problem: if an able bodied man doesn't work, then neither let him eat! When people aren't getting a government check each week for not working, and they have to decide between ANY job and starving, I guarantee you they'll take ANY job.

My advice to the President and all other Democrats out there is to drop the idea that taxing producers to pay non-producers can create jobs. It was a joke in 2009 and it's an old joke now.

No Surprises There

2011-09-08T23:13:00.004-04:00

I would like to brag and say that I called it in advance. Instead, I'll say that the reports I heard in advance of Obama's speech had it right. There weren't any surprises in tonight's speech. Just to be clear – there weren't any surprises in the “job creating” proposals Obama gave and neither were there any surprises in the political rhetoric we've come to expect.

The payroll tax cut was there as expected. Did anyone pay attention to the careful wording the President used to describe it? To wit, “Pass this jobs bill, and the typical working family will get a fifteen hundred dollar tax cut next year. Fifteen hundred dollars that would have been taken out of your paycheck will go right into your pocket. This expands on the tax cut that Democrats and Republicans already passed for this year.” Wow! Talk about spin. Let me translate that for those of you who don't understand Obama-speak. Congress has already passed a payroll tax “holiday” that has been in effect all this year. The average worker will save about $1,500 this year. Let me ask, what has this done to help create jobs? Unemployment still towers at around 9.5%. Anyway, the “holiday” is about to expire and next year our taxes were going back to normal – that is, we would have to pay an extra $1,500 in taxes next year. Obama's proposal is to simply extend the “holiday” another year. The so called “tax cut” next year is that you won't have to spend $1,500 more in taxes after all! See? It's spin. And this $1,500 “tax cut” that hasn't created jobs this year is supposed to create jobs next year. Yeah, right.

Another “non-surprise” was the temporary nature of the plan. Again, a one time tax incentive given to an employer to hire is not going to help the employer pay the employee's salary next year. Instead, employers worry about the other parts of Obama's speech. They are concerned, for example, when Obama talks disparagingly about how “affluent citizens and corporations enjoy tax breaks and loopholes that nobody else gets.” In other words, “we going to give you a small tax break now but we're going to stick you with higher taxes later.” Obama said this overtly when he said, “And I believe the vast majority of wealthy Americans and CEOs are willing to do just that [pay higher taxes], if it helps the economy grow and gets our fiscal house in order.” The simple fact of the matter is that raising taxes on anyone doesn't help grow the economy or create jobs. Anytime you hear a Democrat talk about “wealthy Americans and CEOs”, just remind yourself they are talking about “employers.” It is absurd to think that taxing job creators creates jobs.

Consider this quote from the speech: “Should we keep tax loopholes for oil companies? Or should we use that money to give small business owners a tax credit when they hire new workers?” In logic, this is known as a false dichotomy. Has it not occurred to Mr. Obama that oil companies also hire workers? Obama believes he can create jobs by giving one time tax breaks to small (and sometimes struggling) businesses and imposing permanent tax burdens on more established businesses like oil companies.

The President also said, “We need a tax code where everyone gets a fair shake, and everybody pays their fair share.” Let me say again: taxes do not create jobs. Never. It's counter productive to talk about raising taxes in a speech aimed at creating jobs. But besides that, please explain to me how everybody pays their fair share when nearly 1/2 of the people pay no income tax at all. There's a common expression that talks about having skin in the game. More Americans might be concerned about the out of control spending going on in Washington if more Americans had to pay for it. As it stands now, 1/2 of the country is enjoying the tune while the other 1/2 is paying the piper.

Finally, Mr. Obama played to his base on more than a few occasions. He mentioned spending more money for teachers no fewer than six times. He talked about modernizing or renovating public school buildings four times. He mentioned a favorite, liberal pet project – namely public transit. He even mentioned how his plan to renovate schools is supported by “America's largest labor organization.”

Oh, I almost forgot – Mr. Obama also proposed extending unemployment benefits for another year. On top of the 99 weeks already available, that means people can get paid nearly three years for not working. I'm going to be talking about unemployment benefits again in an upcoming post.

Like I said, no surprises here. It's all more of the same. Class warfare. Taxing the rich. Increased spending. More government handouts. It's all present and accounted for. The only surprise I could confess to is that he didn't blame Bush for it all.

A Preview of President Obama's Job Speech

2011-09-08T00:33:00.005-04:00

All day on the radio today I've been hearing news briefs previewing Obama's big job speech tomorrow. According to Bloomberg, “The main components of Obama’s jobs plan... have been largely telegraphed by the administration. For weeks, people familiar with deliberations have said the White House is considering tax incentives, infrastructure and assistance to local governments.” Excuse me? Are they serious? It sounds like more of the same to me.

The “center piece” of the plan is supposed to involve extending the cuts in the payroll tax. Hmmm. Let's see. Obama offers a “payroll tax holiday” to spur job growth, it hasn't worked thus far, so the center piece of his new plan is to extend them? Yep, that sounds like Democrat economics all right.

What's new is that in this plan, he's supposed to include a reduction in the employer paid portion of the tax. I don't see how that's going to make a difference. Temporary incentives never work. Why would they? If you give a temporary incentive to an employer to hire someone, the employer knows that next year he will no longer receive the incentive yet he's still stuck paying the employee.

The second point, according to Bloomberg, is spending on infrastructure. I suppose this is like those “shovel ready” projects that were just waiting to be funded with the last stimulus package. As Obama has laughingly admitted, they “were not as shovel ready as we expected.” I'm sure he's a lot more optimistic about these new projects.

One news report suggested some of the money for infrastructure would be used to repair and update public school buildings. Once again, this is a temporary fix. If I own a construction company and I hire a few workers to help repair an old building, once the building is done the workers will go.

And did I read that correctly? Did Bloomberg really suggest that part of the jobs plan includes “assistance to local governments”? I don't see how funding teachers' unions and bloated government workers' pension plans will create jobs but I'm sure it will result in a lot of grateful voters next November.

The funniest thing I heard on the radio all day was how Obama intends to pay for all this. The report said he will offset the programs with “future deficit reductions.” That is a riot. That would be like me personally saying, “I'm going to borrow $200,000 now and I'm going to pay it back by borrowing less later.” You can see how that doesn't quite work.

I'm sure somewhere in the speech he'll also be blaming Bush and the Republicans. Right after the election, I predicted that Obama would continue for a while to blame Bush. I had no idea, though, that he would continue blaming him 3 years later.

Maybe I'm putting the cart before the horse. Maybe I should wait until I hear the President's plan before I comment on it. Maybe the President has some good ideas about how to create jobs. I just wonder why he's waited until now to present them. I guess he wanted to try placing a moratorium on offshore oil drilling and promoting “green jobs” first.

Happy Labor Day

2011-09-05T08:12:00.002-04:00

Servants, obey in all things your masters according to the flesh; not with eyeservice, as menpleasers; but in singleness of heart, fearing God: And whatsoever ye do, do it heartily, as to the Lord, and not unto men; Knowing that of the Lord ye shall receive the reward of the inheritance: for ye serve the Lord Christ.

(Colossians 3:22-24)

A lot of things seem to have evolved “earlier than thought”

2011-08-26T23:33:00.007-04:00

I came across an interesting article titled “Fossil redefines mammal history.” The title struck me as funny because, over the years, I've read about many fossil finds that overturn previously held beliefs about evolution. I wrote a post about it nearly 4 years ago called, “Rethinking Evolution.” It's curious how scientists will find something that proves they were completely wrong about some cherished theory but no evidence, no matter how damning, will ever shake their faith in THE theory (the theory of evolution). In this case, scientists “know” placental and marsupial mammals are descended from a common ancestor; they simply haven't found the supposed common ancestor and neither do they know when it supposedly happened. They thought it was about 125 million years ago, but this find is dated (by their dating methods) to be 160 million years ago. I guess a 28% margin of error isn't enough to raise any doubts about the theory.

Let me say in advance that I didn't miss the part of the story that says the new find “sits more comfortably with what genetic studies have been suggesting....” I know that if I didn't mention that, some critic would accuse me of missing an important point. However, I was more struck by something else mentioned in the article. It was that it said the fossil showed the split occurred “much earlier” than thought. Hmmm. I've heard that phrase before. In fact, I hear it all the time. Just for fun, I did a Google search on the phrase “evolved 'earlier than thought'”. Here are a few of the 1.5 million hits I got:

Complex vision evolved earlier than thought

Fossil Shows Ants Evolved Much Earlier Than Thought

Human ancestors in Eurasia earlier than thought

New Evidence Shows Mobile Animals Could Have Evolved Much Earlier Than Previously Thought

"Lucy" Kin Pushes Back Evolution of Upright Walking?

Family tree of birds and crocodiles split earlier than thought

An earlier appearance for the first land plants

I wonder if any of these scientists ever stop to consider the bias their theory casts on the evidence. What if instead of saying, “evolved earlier than thought” we said, “existed much earlier than thought”? In the first headline above, try reading it as, “Complex vision already existed earlier than thought.” Does that cast a different light on the subject? I think it does. Let me show you:

From the first article, we read, “Scientists from the South Australian Museum and the University of Adelaide examined several 515 million-year-old fossils from Kangaroo Island and found they had highly evolved 'compound eyes' with more than 3000 lenses each.” As you read the rest of the article, it really doesn't say anything about how such complex eyes evolved; it just says they did. Neither does the article say anything about more primitive eyes found in direct ancestors. Assuming for a moment that I agreed with the “millions of years,” I would see this as evidence that even very ancient creatures already had very complex eyes. There's no “obvious progression from simple to complex” in the fossil record as evolutionists have suggested. Even the oldest creatures were already highly complex.

Every time I hear that something in the fossil record happened “earlier than expected” it further demolishes the idea that things ever evolved to be the way they are. When I hear, for example, that “birds and crocodiles split earlier than thought,” I'm not surprised because I believe that birds have always been birds and crocodiles have always been crocodiles. It's my hope that someday scientists will push the separate lineage of birds and crocodiles all the way to the beginning of creation and realize they were never related at all. Ants evolved earlier than thought? No, ants existed from the beginning! People used tools earlier than thought? Duh!, people used tools from the beginning! Land plants appeared earlier than thought? God made plants in the beginning!

Scientists are so blinded by their theory that they can't see the obvious conclusion that's staring them right in the face. These “dates” keep getting pushed back because these things have always existed together. Even humans lived much earlier than thought. Wouldn't it be a hoot if someday we read the headline, “New find shows humans lived with dinosaurs!”?

I See Dead Things

2011-08-22T00:02:00.005-04:00

I've never seen the Grand Canyon personally but I hear it's... well, it's grand! It's considered one of the “Natural Wonders of the World” and I'm sure that to stand overlooking the canyon inspires awe in most people. Yet when I think about the canyon, I see dead things. In those layers of rock are millions of dead things all snuffed out and buried in a moment. From top to bottom, it's a fossil graveyard.

In the Grand Canyon, we have a stone monument attesting to God's wrath. It is the catastrophe of the Flood that formed the canyon. In that deluge, brought on by the wickedness of men, millions of creatures were buried. Every fossil we find tells us that God judges sin. Each one reminds us that the wages of sin is death (Romans 6:23). In every shovel of dirt that we turn over we find another affirmation that the Bible is true.

As we look out and see the physical evidence of God's judgment, we also should stop to consider, “If God destroyed the world because of sin, why are we here to see it?” Therein lies a paradox. It is only because Noah found grace in the eyes of the LORD (Genesis 6:8) that we can be here now to see the evidence of His wrath. The same God Who judged the world, also provided salvation to Noah. Noah was delivered through the Flood in the Ark while all those outside of the Ark perished. So as we see the evidence of God's judgment, we simultaneously experience the evidence of His mercy.

It is as if we can see the gospel written in stone. I'm reminded of Jesus' triumphant entry into Jerusalem where He said that if the people did not praise Him, the stones themselves would cry out (Luke 19:40). Every fossil we find is another stone that cries out about our need of a Savior.

God hasn't changed. He still judges sin and the penalty for sin is still death. And even now, God has provided a deliverance from judgment – Jesus Christ. All those who are in Christ have salvation. All of those who are outside of Christ face destruction.

Are Amino Acids the Building Blocks of Life?

2011-08-16T23:10:00.005-04:00

A few months back, Astronomy.com published this “spectacular” headline: Building blocks of life created in impossible place. The first sentence of the article reads, “NASA-funded scientists have discovered amino acids, a fundamental building block of life, in a meteorite where none were expected.” If you do a Google search on “amino acids building blocks of life,” you'll get about 1.4 million hits. Amino acids are so fundamental to life, anytime scientists find some created “naturally,” it's headline news. They're sure that where there are amino acids, life can begin.

About 50 years ago, two scientists named Miller and Urey conducted what has been called the classic “origin of life” experiment. “Miller took molecules which were believed to represent the major components of the early Earth's atmosphere and put them into a closed system. The gases they used were methane (CH4), ammonia (NH3), hydrogen (H2), and water (H2O). Next, he ran a continuous electric current through the system, to simulate lightning storms believed to be common on the early earth. Analysis of the experiment was done by chromotography. At the end of one week, Miller observed that as much as 10-15% of the carbon was now in the form of organic compounds. Two percent of the carbon had formed some of the amino acids which are used to make proteins.”¹

The Miller-Urey experiment has been cited in high school biology textbooks for decades. It's somewhat hypocritical of them to do so because every time a creationist asks about the origin of life, the retort is usually to say, “that's not part of evolution.” For something that is not supposed to be a part of their theory, biology textbooks have given a lot of ink to the subject. The obvious reason they mention the experiment is to suggest that if amino acids can form naturally, we have made the first step in discovering the origin of the supposed first life form.

The Miller-Urey experiment has been critiqued one a variety of grounds. Scientists disagree on the supposed composition of the primordial atmosphere. Also, the amino acids produced were a mixture of left and right handed amino acids when right handed only are needed. The experiment was never really considered a seriously close attempt at creating life in a test tube.

But let's be generous for a moment. Let's suppose that the conditions of the experiment closely matched earth's original atmosphere. Further, let's suppose that the amino acids were the right handed variety necessary for life. Even if all that is true, how close are we really to discovering the origin of life? Think about this: amino acids are the building blocks of life in the same way that rocks are the building blocks of the pyramids. So, if I find rocks lying around naturally, then couldn't a wind storm arrange them into a pyramid? If aluminum is the building blocks of an airplane, then couldn't a tornado whip up a 747? If trees are the building blocks of homes, then couldn't a log cabin form naturally under just the right conditions?

You see, life is not about substance – it's about organization. Finding amino acids on a meteor and believing they can be arranged naturally to create life is more absurd than believing rocks could naturally arrange themselves to make the pyramids. The pyramids are considered one of the wonders of the world yet DNA is far more complex. Why is it then, that people can seriously believe life began naturally yet simultaneously understand that the pyramids required builders?

Some people say creationists believe in a “God of the gaps.” That is, we invoke divine intervention where ever there is a lack of understanding. However, understanding that complexity is evidence for design isn't about what I don't know – it's about what I do know. I know that planes are built and not just a natural arrangement of aluminum. I know that the pyramids were built and not just a natural arrangement of stone. I know that log cabins are built and not just a natural arrangement of wood. I know that the more complex something is, the less likely it is to have been an accident.

A rock is just a rock. It takes purpose and design to build something out of it. I'm not impressed about finding amino acids on a meteor. I know that it take purpose and design to build something out of it.

Evolution? Impossible!

2011-08-15T17:36:00.004-04:00

I have sometimes thought about making short videos for Youtube or adding my own videos to my blog but I've rejected the idea for a variety of reasons. Maybe sometime I will but, in the meantime, there are already a ton of good videos already on Youtube. The problem is, you have to wade through a bunch of junk to find them.

Anyway, the good folks at Answers in Genesis have put together a short video that does a pretty good job of summing up some fundamental flaws in evolution. I've included it here for your review. It's only about 2 1/2 minutes long and it's a good watch. I'm sure a lot of people have a lot to say about it (rather, say against it) but keep in mind that it's supposed to raise some points that can be used by laypeople and not be a college lecture.

Enjoy!

Yahoo! Is a Bunch of Liberals

2011-08-04T23:40:00.007-04:00

I noticed a few years back that Yahoo! seemed to exhibit some left-leaning tendencies. For example, I mentioned in one blog how Yahoo! Movies seemed to conspicuously not print reviews to pro-Christian or conservative movies. Since then, I've seen a few other examples but I haven't made a big deal about it. Just recently, though. I've been a personal victim of their political correctness.

I occasionally post answers on Yahoo! Answers. Sometimes it gives me inspiration for an idea to write on my blog. Often, the questions are things I've already answered on my blog so I'll copy and paste what I've already written. That's exactly what I did a few weeks ago when someone asked the question, “What are the reasons that gay-marriage should be illegal?”

I have written on this subject a couple of times but when I replied to this question, I copied and pasted a post I'd written called, “Is there a 'Right' to be Gay?” I won't rehash my points here but I invite you to read it for yourself. Certainly, I'm opinionated but I ask you, was I mean? Did I use any gay slurs? Didn't the question directly ask for reasons that gay marriage should be illegal? Of course I addressed that but my answer was really more about the origin of rights than about gays. I just leveraged gay rights as an example.

Well, Yahoo! Answers seems to think the answer was in violation of their “community guidelines”. It seems someone “reported” my post and Yahoo! agreed so they promptly removed it – right after it had been voted as “Best Answer”! They weren't specific about how my answer was in violation of the policy. They merely said,“This answer has been removed. You may not have realized this, but all answers submitted on Yahoo! Answers must comply with the Answers Community Guidelines.”

Some of the “forbidden practices” include:

1) Venting, ranting or using hate speech
2) Chatting or otherwise violating the question-and-answer format
3) Being mean or obscene
4) Exploiting the community
5) Cheating
6) Violating the law
7) Behaving maliciously
8) Misusing Answers
9) Doing harm

Hmmm. Some of those are pretty subjective but I honestly can't see how my reply violated any of them. Someone asked why gay marriage should be illegal and I answered. I didn't vent, rant, chat, or use obscenities. I answered the question. It just looks like someone didn't like that I actually believed gay marriage should be illegal and so he reported me. Perhaps simply being conservative qualifies as “hate speech”?

It offered me the option to appeal which I did. It warned me that a failed appeal will cost me 10 “points” but the points don't really mean anything. What I was a little more concerned about was the warning they have posted:
Violating the Community Guidelines may result in the termination of your Answers account without warning. In extreme cases, violations may result in the termination of your Yahoo! ID, and consequently, access to all other Yahoo! services.
That seems somewhat severe, don't you think? If people don't like my opinion they can black-list me? I hope they don't find my blog! I guess it's a good thing it's hosted by Google, huh? I have a few Yahoo! email addresses that I use for various things. It would be a pain if I were blocked from them. On the other hand, given the direction that Yahoo! seems to be heading, maybe I should have been rid of them a long time ago.

A Logical Argument Against God?

2011-07-27T00:23:00.005-04:00

I would never call myself a philosopher but I do enjoy studying logic. While I was looking into some philosophical arguments concerning the existence of God, I came across a video that made the remarkable claim, “How to prove God doesn't exist, in 3 minutes or less!” Needless to say, it piqued my interest. To even say, “there is no God” commits the logical fallacy of a “universal negative” but here is a person who claims to PROVE God doesn't exist. In the description of his video, the maker, Dhorpatan, says, “I have come to the realization, that this may be one of the greatest, if not THE greatest argument for the non-existence of not just the Judeo-Christian God, or Creator Gods, but ALL Gods!!” That's fairly optimistic. Of course, I believe he fails miserably to live up to his claim.

I've included the video below. As usual, I recommend you watch it so you can follow along with what I'm going to say. It's only 2:58 long so at least Dhorpatan did indeed keep his argument under 3 minutes. He sets up his argument around the question, “Is God infinite?” This is a yes or no question and Dhorpatan gives his supposed “proof” to either answer. I believe that God is infinite so I really shouldn't bother with his argument against a finite god but I do anyway for the purpose of illustration, .

If a Christian claims that God is finite, Dhorpatan actually gives three sub-points. The first two may have a certain validity but in his third sub-point he says, “If you say your god is finite, then your God is disproved because it can't be called a God. Gods are by definition, supernatural, but finitude [sic] is of the natural world. So, saying your God is finite, means it can't even be called a God ” There are a couple of problems with this. First, Dhorpatan commits the logical fallacy of non sequitur. Non sequitur means, “it doesn't follow.” An example of a non sequitur would be, “birds have feathers so therefore dogs don't exist.” Dhorpatan is trying to claim that “finite” is a defining quality of “natural” thus anything finite is necessarily natural. How can he make that connection? I don't believe in ghosts but, if they were real, most people would agree that are “super natural.” So then, are ghosts “infinite”? There's nothing about being supernatural that requires a thing to be infinite yet Dhorpatan claims just that.

Second, Dhorpatan commits a sort of “No True Scotsman” fallacy when he suggests that gods must be infinite. It's an argument over definition. He is defining “god” as meaning infinite so that he can disqualify any god that is not infinite. Again, Zeus is not real yet, if he were, he would be considered a god. However, Dhorpatan disqualifies Zeus on the grounds that Zeus is not infinite.

I must say again, though, that I believe God is infinite so I'm not really concerned about Dhorpatan's arguments against a finite god. I merely address them to demonstrate his shaky logical footing. We'll turn now to Dhorpatan's arguments against the infinite God.

Dhorpatan's main argument rests solely on the philosophical assumption that an actual infinity cannot exist in the universe. His logic seems valid but even valid arguments aren't necessarily true. Consider this logical argument:

Premise 1: All men have mustaches

Premise 2: John is a man

Conclusion: Therefore, John has a mustache

This is a valid argument but it suffers from a flawed premise – namely that not all men have mustaches. Likewise, Dhorpatan's argument, even if valid, is not necessarily true. It is contingent on the truth of his premise – that is, can an actual infinity exist? This is a much debated subject but Dhorpatan seems to KNOW one can't. If an actual infinity can exist, then his entire argument is undone. I, on the other hand, believe in an infinite God and so I believe an actual infinity can and does exist.

Being finite creatures ourselves, it's difficult for us to conceptualize an actual infinity. We understand a potential infinity reasonably well (as in infinite numbers), but an actual infinity is a little too much for us. However, our inability to grasp an actual infinity is not evidence against one. It is an argument from ignorance where one says that since we don't understand how there can be an actual infinity, there can't be an actual infinity. However, I will use some of Dhorpatan's point to show why there must be an infinite God!

Consider Dhorpatan's arguments against a finite god. Dhorpatan says in the video that, “If they [Christians] say, 'no, that God is not infinite,' then He is not beginningless and will require a cause... Further, He could not be the First Cause Creator, since a non-infinite god is limited and would, thus, not be sufficient to halt infinite regress.” Could not these same points be asked about the universe? Is the universe infinite? If not, then it would require a cause as Dhorpatan so readily admits. Then what is the cause of the universe? And what caused that cause? And that cause? Without a First Cause, then beginning of the universe suffers from infinite regress. And as Dhorpatan also admits, an infinite God is necessary to halt an infinite regress.

If the universe is not created, the alternative is an infinitely old universe. That would make the universe itself an actual infinity. But according to Dhorpatan, an actual infinity cannot exist. So therefore the universe either began via an infinite chain of finite causes or else it doesn't exist! Talk about irony!

I don't want to leave Dhorpatan squirming, though. The universe cannot be infinitely old. If it were, it would mean that we would have had to cross an infinite amount of time to reach this point; but it is logically impossible to cross an infinite amount of time so the universe cannot be infinitely old.

I'd love to talk philosophy all day but let's wrap this up. Dhorpatan goes to great lengths to weave a logical web but can't quite tie down all the loose ends. Instead, he hoists himself on his own petard. The very arguments he uses against God, could be used to argue that the universe doesn't exist. It's far more reasonable to believe in the First Cause. He's the God of the Bible. We call Him, Lord!

The Second Law of Thermodynamics and Evolution

2011-07-26T00:01:00.003-04:00

I believe that evolutionists are in denial about the Second Law of Thermodynamics (SLOT), sometimes known as the Law of Increasing Entropy. Any time a creationist mentions the SLOT, evolutionists have a fit. We'll discuss why in a moment. In the simplest terms, entropy means disorder and the SLOT basically says that over time, systems naturally tend toward disorder. This applies in a many ways but here are two examples:

First, imagine I have a 500-piece, jigsaw puzzle and I put together 250 pieces. Then I take all 500 pieces (both the joined and unjoined) and put them back in the box and shake it for 5 minutes. At the end of the shaking, do you think there will be more or less than 250 pieces put together? Obviously there will be less. The more violently I shake the box, the more pieces are likely to come apart. It would be ridiculous to believe that any amount of shaking will arrange all 500 pieces in order.

Second, the SLOT also applies to the transfer of heat. Heat naturally moves from hotter to cooler areas. Again, imagine there is a room where heat cannot enter or leave. In the room is a hot cup of coffee and a cold soft drink. The heat in the room will not enter the coffee and warm it up. The heat in the soft drink will not leave and make the soft drink colder. Instead, the heat will leave the hot coffee and enter the room; the heat will leave the room and enter the soft drink. Eventually, everything in the room will become the same temperature.

In the origins debate, the SLOT seems to argue against evolutionists' theories. After the Big Bang, matter must have arranged itself into orderly systems. Chaos became the cosmos. Lighter elements, like hydrogen (H), somehow arranged themselves into heavier elements. Here on earth, random chemicals arranged themselves into amino acids, which arranged themselves into RNA, which eventually became the first living cell, which eventually evolved into all the current diverse species. It all sounds very uphill and a direct contradiction to the idea that systems naturally run downhill. This is why evos don't like to hear about the SLOT and this is why creationists like to bring it up.

Of course, evolutionists disagree. The most common reason they object, by far, is on the grounds that the SLOT only applies to closed systems – that is, it only applies where neither matter nor energy can enter the system. They claim the earth is not a closed system because it receives energy from the sun. Hmmm. Let's think about that for a second. If I grant, for a moment, that the earth is an open system, what about the solar system? We are 12 light years away from closest star (besides the sun) so we are far removed from any of its effects. So how did the closed system of our solar system arrange itself into our sun and planets? On a broader scale, our universe is certainly a closed system. There is absolutely no matter/energy entering the universe so how did the random matter at the Big Bang arrange into heavier elements and eventually become the galaxies?

The sophomoric retort that the earth is an open system doesn't solve the problem that the universe – from the Big Bang until now – seems to be a history of order out of disorder. It is not what we would expect if systems tend toward disorder.

But here is the dirty secret about the SLOT: it applies even in open systems. Consider my example above about the jigsaw puzzle. Even though the box is closed, my shaking of the box is adding energy to the system. In that case, it is the energy that is accelerating the disorder. The same is true for the sun. The introduction of raw energy doesn't magically introduce order into a system. Sunlight destroys the roof of my house, it fades my furniture, and ruins the paint job on my car. All of these things that were put together with order, are being destroyed by the sun. Likewise, simply applying heat to random chemicals doesn't arrange them into DNA or living cells. Applying heat to chemicals tends to break them down into simpler chemicals – not more complex chemicals.

For energy to create order, there must be some mechanism that directs the energy. Consider putting gasoline in your car. If you just pour gas on the hood and light it, that won't make your car run. You must put the gas into the tank, which delivers it to the combustion engine, which, through a system of controlled explosions, can make the car move. So you see, it's not just “energy” that moves the car. There must be some mechanism that directs the energy. Simply saying the sun gives energy does not overturn the downhill consequences of the SLOT. For that to happen, there must be some mechanism that converts sunlight into useful energy.

A car, of course, is an open system. I must continuously add fuel. I must also continuously do maintenance because the car will wear out. So even though it is an open system, it eventually will succumb to entropy. At some point, my car will become scrap. Every system, open or closed, will eventually fall victim to entropy. In the meanwhile, every time I create order in the car, I'm creating more disorder somewhere else. Burning the gas creates waste. Drilling for the oil that makes the gas also creates waste as does building the parts for my car. The little bit of order which I gain from a tank of gas in my car comes as the expense of greater disorder in the world in which I live which is another demand of the SLOT. In a large system, there could be pockets of order (when there is some mechanism which arranges it) but the order only comes at the expense of more disorder somewhere else in the system. In the universe, while hydrogen was becoming helium and turning into stars and galaxies, where was the disorder that was being created?

This brings me to still another point: if the universe is running down now, the SLOT would demand that it was more orderly in the past! This is exactly the opposite of what the Big Bang theory (cosmologically speaking) and evolution (biologically speaking) claim. As is always the case, creation is a far better explanation of the evidence. The universe was indeed better in the past. When God initially created everything, He said it was very good (Genesis 1:31). The Bible says that heavens and earth are waxing old and wearing out (Isaiah 51:6).

The SLOT is antithetical to all secular ideas of origins yet is perfectly consistent with the Bible. It makes me laugh, then, when I hear evolutionists complain that creationists are “denying science.” It's easy to see who's in denial about entropy!

Epicurus Riddle: The Problem of Evil

2011-07-25T12:45:00.003-04:00

“Is God willing to prevent evil, but not able?
Then he is not omnipotent.
Is he able, but not willing?
Then he is malevolent.
Is he both able and willing?
Then whence cometh evil?
Is he neither able nor willing?
Then why call him God?”

The Greek philosopher, Epicurus, penned this famous “riddle” more than 400 years before Christ. While many people acknowledge that he had the Greek god, Zeus in mind when he wrote this, it's still quoted today and applied to the God of the Bible. It's seen by some people as some logical argument against the existence of God. I intend to show why it is not.

To begin to address these questions, one must consider what is meant by the word 'evil' here? Most people have a general idea of what evil is but what are some specific things that are evil? Is murder evil? Most would agree that it is. What about stealing? What about lying? What about “little” things like viewing pornography, drinking, gambling, or smoking? When we start identifying things as evil, we begin to realize that we are evil. The Bible says there are none that does good (Psalm 14:3). If we want God to do “something” about evil, we must realize that we are asking Him to deal with each one of us personally.

What exactly then do we want God to do about evil? Should He immediately remove anyone that commits an evil act? That might have sounded appealing a few minutes ago but if each of us were to be included, then it suddenly doesn't sound so appealing anymore.

Of course, there are those people who excuse their own vices as “not so bad” and only want God to deal with the “really bad” things. I guess that means that something like telling “white lies” is OK but the “bold faced” liars get zapped. This is a sort of special pleading by some people who want some degree of evil to be acceptable – just enough for them to get by. They want God to deal with evil but not their evil. They are saying, “Zap everyone else, God, just don't zap me!” You can see how this doesn't really solve anything because everyone wants to excuse their own sin. The Bible says that everyone is right in his own eyes but the Lord ponders the heart (Proverbs 21:2).

If anyone wants God to deal with evil by removing it, it's an all or nothing proposition.

A second alternative is to restrain people from doing evil. That is, God should simply not allow anyone to do evil. The problem with this is that evil is a free will issue. If we were to use the 10 Commandments as a standard of understanding what is right and wrong, there are some points everyone would agree on. “Thou shalt not kill” (Exodus 20:13), for example, would be one of those things that most people would agree is wrong. We wouldn't have a problem if God took away our desire or ability to kill. But what about the commandment that says, “Thou shalt have no other gods before me” (Exodus 20:3)? Would the critic be agreeable if God forced everyone to worship Him? Somehow I think he wouldn't like this option. It's a similar dilemma to the one above where we want God to deal with the evil in everyone else, but we want God to let us continue in our own evil.

To be fair to the critic, though, I wouldn't like this option too much either. If God eliminates our ability to do evil, He also eliminates our ability to choose to do good. I want to worship God. I don't want to be a robot who only performs a task because that what it's programmed to do and it doesn't know anything else. Perhaps God too doesn't want this because He has obviously decided not to deal with evil this way.

A third option is this: give people the free will to decide to do good or evil. Everyone chooses to do evil, of course, and the unrepentant will reap the just punishment for their actions. However, God could make a way of forgiveness available to those who repent of their evil. This is the option that God has chosen. God made this option available at a great personal cost to Himself. In doing so, He has demonstrated that He is both able and willing to do something about evil. He has also demonstrated another characteristic that Epicurus did not mention in his riddle; besides being omnipotent and merciful, God is also just.

Somebody is Lying

2011-07-19T14:18:00.006-04:00

With the “drop dead” date on increasing the debt limit fast approaching, we're hearing more and more dire predictions about all the bad things that will happen if we can't borrow any more money. Perhaps the most alarming scare tactic is that Social Security checks will stop being mailed unless the debt limit is raised. Is that true? I guess that depends.

For a long time, I've spoken out against the ponzi-scheme like funding of Social Security. What some people call “pay-as-you-go”, I call a “pyramid.” Social Security benefits being paid out now are coming from the Social Security taxes being paid now. When today's workers eventually retire, they will have to rely on other people paying into the system to pay the retiring people's benefits.

For many years, there was far more money being paid into Social Security than was being paid out. The difference was set aside in a “Trust Fund” to be available for future demands on the system. On the Social Security website, you can find this quote:

The Social Security Trust Funds are the Old-Age and Survivors Insurance (OASI) and the Disability Insurance(DI) Trust Funds. These funds are accounts managed by the Department of the Treasury. They serve two purposes: (1) they provide an accounting mechanism for tracking all income to and disbursements from the trust funds, and (2) they hold the accumulated assets.

Whew! It's comforting to know they've been holding onto these “accumulated assets” because, just recently, the cost of benefits payments has begun to exceed the total receipts. No worries though, because we should be solvent for many decades to come. Consider this quote from the same website:

In the annual Trustees Report, projections are made under three alternative sets of economic and demographic assumptions. Under one of these sets (labeled "Low Cost") the trust funds remain solvent for the next 75 years. Under the other two sets (the "Intermediate" and "High Cost"), the trust funds become depleted within the next 25 years. The intermediate assumptions reflect the Trustees' best estimate of future experience.

You see then, we should have enough funds in the SS “trust fund” to remain solvent for at least 25 years – maybe even 75 years. So why is Obama saying the SS checks will stop unless we increase the debt limit? Before you answer, keep in mind that people will still continue paying their SS tax even if the debt limit isn't raised so that can't be used for an excuse as to why SS checks might stop.

If SS checks stop, then we know there was never really a trust fund that held all these decades of overpayment into the SS system. On the other hand, Obama certainly is aware of this supposed trust fund. If he believes there's such a fund, then he knows the checks aren't going to stop. Either way, somebody is lying.

Of course, if the debt limit is increased then it will be business as usual. The Social Security Administration will continue promoting the falsehood that it will remain solvent for many years to come. Obama will continue to scare seniors by telling them Republicans want to take away their monthly checks. However, the truth is now out. This budget crisis has shone a light on the fragile Social Security system. It's a house of cards. They're just lying about it.

Does “And God Said” Mean God Didn't Do?

2011-07-16T20:55:00.005-04:00

I came across a mildly interesting article called, “Plain Reading of Genesis 1.” It's by a theistic evolutionist, Glenn Morton, who tries to make hay of the term, “And God said...” I think it's most amusing that Glenn Morton titled it, “Plain Reading of Genesis 1” since Morton's reading of Genesis is anything but plain. His point in the article is that the “plain” reading of passages like Genesis 1:11 do not say that God made the grass, for example. He points out that God only “said”, “Let the earth bring forth grass.” Here's how Morton explains the “plain” meaning of that passage:

Oh, God is saying things, he isn't creating things, but anti-evolutionists miss that subtlety. Where is the verb Created that applies to God? It isn't there. What is inside the quote? ¶"Let the earth bring forth grass and herb yielding seed." ¶Where is God in that phrase? Who or what is bringing forth? A simple grammar teacher would tell you that the earth is the subject of that sentence and is the thing doing the action--which is, bringing forth.!!!! God didn't bring forth, the earth DID.

I'm not sure where to begin. Morton's “plain” reading is truly incredible.

To Morton's point that the term “And God said...” somehow has removed God from being “directly” involved in the creation, I would direct your attention to the miracles performed by Jesus in the New Testament. Jesus often performed His miracles by merely speaking the words. For example, Jesus said in John 11:43, “Lazarus, come forth.” So I ask, was Jesus “directly” involved in the resurrection of Lazarus? If not, exactly who brought Lazarus forth? Was it Lazarus? Was it the tomb? Did the molecules in Lazarus' body somehow rearrange themselves over vast eons of deep time until Lazarus finally came forth alive again?

Morton also has a very selective way of reading Genesis. It's true that the phrase “And God said...” is used frequently in Genesis. However, Morton glosses over – with barely a mention – other passages that say, “And God made...” or “And God created....” Genesis 1:25, for example, says, “And God made the beast of the earth...” John 12:1 attests that it was Jesus who raised Lazarus from the dead and He did so by merely speaking the words. Just as Jesus was directly responsible for raising Lazarus with His word, so also God was directly responsible for the creation with His word.

But speaking of the plain meaning, where exactly is Morton's explanation of the plain meaning of the phrase “evening and morning” or the ordinal numbering of days - “first day,” “second day,” etc? If he is so interested in the plain meaning of the text, I maintain the most ordinary meaning of these terms in Genesis 1 is that the earth was created in six days. To believe that “the evening and the morning were the first day” plainly means “billions of years” seems more than a little stretch.

Another thing that is very odd about Morton's article is that he somehow suggests that Genesis “plainly” endorses evolution. Do you really think that the phrase, “And God said, Let the earth bring forth the living creature...” plainly means that over billions of years a single-celled creature, through mutation and selection, over countless generations, eventually evolved to become all the diverse land animals? The plain meaning seems far more likely to say that God spoke and all of the land animals came forth in a single day. The Bible is describing an event, not a process.

Finally, Morton seems to acknowledge that the creation of man was unlike the creation of the animals. The Bible states overtly that Adam was formed from the dust of the earth and not descended from a non-human animal. Thus, the plain meaning of the text is that Adam was created fully human in a moment and not the product of evolution. So, does Morton exclude man from evolution or does he ignore the plain reading of the Bible when it conflicts with his theory?

What Morton claims is the “plain” reading of Genesis is little more than quote-mining and special pleading. God made the world and everything in it in six days. The plain meaning of the Bible needs little explanation.

Genesis 3:22-24, The Tree of Life

2011-07-14T18:02:00.005-04:00

And the LORD God said, Behold, the man is become as one of us, to know good and evil: and now, lest he put forth his hand, and take also of the tree of life, and eat, and live for ever: So he drove out the man; and he placed at the east of the garden of Eden Cherubims, and a flaming sword which turned every way, to keep the way of the tree of life. (Genesis 3:22, 24 KJV)

At first hearing, most people equate the casting of Adam and Eve from the Garden with God's pronouncement of the Curse upon them – that is, they believe God cursed Adam and Eve, then cast them from the Garden as part of the same Judgment. Because the passages appear together, it's a reasonable understanding. However, I believe it is an incorrect understanding.

I think the key to understanding this verse lies in Paul's confession found in Romans 7:18-19

“For I know that nothing good dwells in me, that is, in my flesh; for the willing is present in me, but the doing of the good is not. For the good that I want, I do not do, but I practice the very evil that I do not want.”

Paul ends Romans 7 with this lament (v. 24), “Wretched man that I am! Who will set me free from the body of this death?”

I can certainly empathize with Paul. There are things I know I should do and yet I don't do them. There are also things I know I shouldn't do and yet I do them. I hate it. Our flesh is literally at war with our spirit and thus it will always be as long as we dwell in our fleshly bodies. There are times I long to be rid of the flesh and leave the strife of this world behind.

When Paul asked who would free him from his body of death, he was asking rhetorically. We have a Savior who has promised just that. He is the One who makes all things new (2 Corithians 5:17). One day, our fleshly bodies will die but we have eternal life with Him in a place free from the Curse. That is God's desire for us and that was His desire for Adam.

God would have known that Adam would feel the same way that Paul felt. The Bible says that Adam knew right and wrong and so he would face the same battles as Paul. Adam would know those things he should do yet would not do them. Adam would know those things he should not do and he would do them. God did not want that for Adam. If Adam ate from the Tree of Life he would live forever in his body of death. God had a better plan!

Time Off for Good Behavior?

2011-07-07T16:50:00.005-04:00

There’s not a lot I can add to the Casey Anthony ordeal. It’s already being covered non-stop in the news by people whose full time job is to talk about current events. I didn’t follow the trial as closely as others might have but I understand the prosecution’s allegations and Anthony’s defense. Even if I believed everything Casey Anthony claimed (through her attorneys), I would have to say that she hasn’t acted appropriately.

So the verdict comes down today on the sentencing for the four counts of lying to the police which she was found guilty on: four years in prison. Yet even though she was sentenced to four years, she’s getting out in less than a week. That seems odd. My first thought was that this was a genesis-like interpretation of the sentence where “four years” really means “one week” but that isn’t it. She has been given credit time served and “good behavior.” Really?! I understand that she’s already been in jail for a while but exactly what has been good about her behavior?

I’ve always thought the term “model prisoner” had a certain oxy-moron sound to it. A prisoner can be a model for whom? When someone is found guilty of a crime, his sentence is the punishment for his crime. So then he should serve the entire sentence regardless of how well he behaves afterward while in prison. While someone is in jail/prison, we should expect him to abide by the rules for the entire time of his sentence. It seems ridiculous to let someone out early simply for doing what he is expected to do. Think about this: if someone is uncooperative while in prison, his "punishment" for his bad behavior is that he still gets out when he was supposed to?

I know what critics of my argument will say; the possibility of an early release is an incentive for prisoners to cooperate. I see the logic of that but where is the justice in it? He should serve the time to which he was sentenced. We have it backward. Prisoners should work hard to rehabilitate and prepare to reenter society at the end of their sentence. Prisoners who do not do this could be considered un-rehabilitated and may look at spending more time in prison even after their sentence ends. This would accomplish the same incentive and be just at the same time.

Hearing the Casey Anthony sentence really drove home the irony of crediting criminals for good behavior. “Casey Anthony” and “good behavior” are words that one wouldn’t normally use in the same sentence.

Happy Independence Day

2011-07-04T00:01:00.001-04:00

Social Security Hasn’t Improved With Age

2011-06-23T21:29:00.004-04:00

A few years ago, I wrote a short blog about the dire condition of social security. Rather than simply tell people it was in bad shape, I cited a few quotes that I’d taken right off of social security’s website. I suggest that you read my first post but here are the quotes again for your review:

"Social Security is not sustainable over the long term at present benefit and tax rates without large infusions of additional revenue. There will be a massive and growing shortfall over the 75-year period."

"People are living longer, the first baby boomers are nearing retirement, and the birth rate is low. The result is that the worker-to-beneficiary ratio has fallen from 16.5-to-1 in 1950 to 3.3-to-1 today. Within 40 years it will be 2-to-1. At this ratio there will not be enough workers to pay scheduled benefits at current tax rates."

"If Social Security is not changed, payroll taxes will have to be increased, the benefits of today's younger workers will have to be cut, or massive transfers from general revenues will be required."

Now, being the responsible blogger that I am, I linked to social security’s website so that people could check my source. Here’s the link I gave Social Security website’s FAQ. You can click on it now if you’d like but don’t bother because the page has been taken down. Why was it taken down? Could it be because in the three years since I wrote that, social security has been rescued? Hardly! More likely it’s because the truth was a little too dire.

It took a little digging but I found this Board of Trustees’ announcement that was just published last month. Here are some quotes from that announcement (bold added for emphasis):

The combined assets of the Old-Age and Survivors Insurance, and Disability Insurance (OASDI) Trust Funds will be exhausted in 2036, one year sooner than projected last year. The DI Trust Fund, while unchanged from last year, will be exhausted in 2018 and legislative action will be needed soon. At a minimum, a reallocation of the payroll tax rate between OASI and DI would be necessary, as was done in 1994. The Trustees also project that OASDI program costs will exceed non-interest income in 2011 and will remain higher throughout the remainder of the 75-year period.

The point at which non-interest income fell below program costs was 2010. Program costs are projected to exceed non-interest income throughout the remainder of the 75-year period.

Over the 75-year period, the Trust Funds would require additional revenue equivalent to $6.5 trillion in present value dollars to pay all scheduled benefits.

“The current Trustees Report again reflects what we have long known to be true -- we need changes to ensure the long-term solvency of Social Security and to restore younger workers' confidence in the program,” said Michael J. Astrue, Commissioner of Social Security.

There it is again, folks. Anyone who denies it is simply whistling past the graveyard. If you don’t believe me, just click on the link and read the report for yourself. Do it quickly though – I can’t guarantee how long it will be there this time.

Happy Father's Day

2011-06-19T07:48:00.003-04:00

Then I said to you, "Don't be terrified. Don't be afraid of them. The Lord your God will go ahead of you. He will fight for you. With your own eyes you saw how he fought for you in Egypt. You also saw how the Lord your God brought you through the desert. He carried you everywhere you went, just as a father carries his son.

Deuteronomy 1:29-31 NIV

A Sure Word

Science Nazis: Part Deux

Science Nazis

Hell: Hades, Sheol, Paradise, and Gehenna

Matthew 16:18: The Gates of Hell

How Do You Like My New Blog Design?

How Did Diseases Survive the Flood?

Does Racism Shape Evolutionary Theory?

Is Shark Hybridization “Evolution in Action”

Ann Coulter's book: Demonic, How the Liberal Mob is Endangering America

Keeping Your New Year's Resolutions

Happy New Year, 2012

Did the Ancient Hebrews Believe in a Literal Genesis?

Merry Christmas, 2011

The Linus Monologue: What Christmas Is All About

More Christmas Cheer

Attention Evolutionists: I'm Still Waiting on Evidence for Your Theory

Some Christmas Cheer

Extra-Biblical References to Jesus

What Do Scotsmen and Creationists Have in Common?

We Should Have Zero Tolerance for Stupidity

The Dinosaur Death Pose: Just Add Water

A Social Media Christmas

Remembering Pearl Harbor

The Plain Meaning of Words

No Intelligent Designer Would Have Done It That Way

Is the Holy Spirit an “It”?

How Much Thanksgiving Was Going On This Year?

Happy Thanksgiving 2011

A Presidential Proclamation

They Don't Care Because It's Not Theirs

Why Do They Occupy in Tents?

We All Have Our Priorities

Happy Veterans Day

How Are Myths Born?

Further reading

How to Answer “The Bible says that Bats are Birds” and Similar Criticisms

Does The Bible Say There Are Unicorns?

Does The Bible Say There Are Unicorns?

Further reading

How to Answer “The Bible says that Bats are Birds” and Similar Criticisms

How Are Myths Born?

A Bible Study in Discernment

Each was partly in the right, And all were in the wrong!

Loving God with our Minds: A Series in Logic. Conclusion

Loving God with our Minds: A Series in Logic. Part 7

Loving God with our Minds: A Series in Logic. Part 6

Loving God with our Minds: A Series in Logic. Part 5

Loving God with our Minds: A Series in Logic. Part 4

Loving God with our Minds: A Series in Logic. Part 3

Loving God with our Minds: A Series in Logic. Part 2

Loving God with our Minds: A Series in Logic. Part 1

Remembering 9/11

How Not to Create Jobs

No Surprises There

A Preview of President Obama's Job Speech

Happy Labor Day

A lot of things seem to have evolved “earlier than thought”

I See Dead Things

Are Amino Acids the Building Blocks of Life?

Evolution? Impossible!

Yahoo! Is a Bunch of Liberals

A Logical Argument Against God?

The Second Law of Thermodynamics and Evolution

Epicurus Riddle: The Problem of Evil

Somebody is Lying

Does “And God Said” Mean God Didn't Do?

Genesis 3:22-24, The Tree of Life

Time Off for Good Behavior?

Happy Independence Day

Social Security Hasn’t Improved With Age

Happy Father's Day