The HR2454 Republican Hall of Shame

The Cap and Trade bill (HR2454) passed by a slim, 7 vote margin in the house late Friday evening (6/26). That’s bad news. It’s made worse when you realize that 8 Republican turn-coats – I mean, “Representatives” – voted for the measure. Since the bills passed by only 7 votes, these 8 RINO’s can be held directly accountable for the bills passage in the house. All I can say is shame on them all.

Bono Mack (CA) (202) 225-5330

Castle (DE) (202) 225-4165

Kirk (IL) (202) 225-4385
Lance (NJ) (202) 225-5361

LoBiondo (NJ) (202) 225-6572

McHugh (NY) (202) 225-4611

Reichert (WA) (202) 225-7761

Smith (NJ) (202) 225-3765

If any of these are your Representatives, I would suggest you let them know how you feel about their vote. Especially don’t forget in 2010!

If this bill is ever enacted into law, Obama himself admits that energy bills will necessarily “skyrocket.” I’ve heard varying estimates between $175–700 more each year on the average utility bill. Of course, that’s on top of the already high utility rates foisted upon us over the last couple of years.

Besides higher utility costs, the bill will necessarily make us more energy dependent. There will be no more power plants built in the US. I’m sure Obama and his partners in crime are hoping we don’t remember that he said cap and trade will bankrupt the coal companies who try to build more plants. In the same clip, Obama says that cap and trade will raise “billions of dollars” that we can invest in solar and wind technology. Let me translate: “We will collect billions of dollars from every American family and use it to force them to live in caves and read by candle light.”

There are no two ways about it. This is a big government grab for more money and more intrusion, which is fueled by more costs and higher unemployment for the average American family.

We must stop this bill in the Senate. Contact your Senators now and tell them to vote, “no.”

Maybe Birds Aren’t Dinos After All!

This is big. I mean, this is huge! As far as I’m concerned this is the story of the year – maybe even of the decade. Physorg.com reports, “Discovery raises new doubts about dinosaur-bird links.” From the article: “Researchers at Oregon State University have made a fundamental new discovery about how birds breathe and have a lung capacity that allows for flight - and the finding means it's unlikely that birds descended from any known theropod dinosaurs.”

The transition of dino-to-bird has been a basic tenet of evolutionary dogma for decades. As an example of an evolutionary series, I’d say the dino-to-bird series is way ahead of the horse or whale series and is second only to ape-to-man evolution. In most evolutionists’ minds, bird from dinosaur evolution is settled. National Geographic once reported that we can say that birds are dinosaurs with as much confidence as we say humans are mammals. Of course, they later had to retract that statement with much red-facedness but we won’t go there now.

The confidence of evolutionists in the dino-to-bird theory can be seen in the way they present their theories to the public. Does anyone remember the velociraptors from the movie, Jurassic Park? In that movie, velociraptors were very dino-like. Lately, however, artistic renderings of velociraptors make them appear much more bird-like. It seems like dino-to-bird evolution truly has occurred in the minds of artists. This is what they believe and they’ve been selling it to the public as a done deal.

This new research could change all that. Again from the article, “The conclusions add to other evolving evidence that may finally force many paleontologists to reconsider their long-held belief that modern birds are the direct descendants of ancient, meat-eating dinosaurs, OSU researchers say.”

What insightful new facts did the OSU researchers uncover that led them to this about face? Here’s a quote from the article:

"For one thing, birds are found earlier in the fossil record than the dinosaurs they are supposed to have descended from," Ruben said. "That's a pretty serious problem, and there are other inconsistencies with the bird-from-dinosaur theories.

Duh!! You think? I’m not a scientist or anything but even I could have told that you can’t have descendants older than their ancestors. And evolutionists are just now figuring it out? That should have been their first clue! But as they say, “love is blind” and if you have a theory you love, you can’t let facts get in the way!

Even though the reverse daughter/parent relationship should have sunk the whole dino-to-bird idea, what really did it for the OSU researchers involved the avian respiratory system and the characteristics of the femur (thigh) bone. According to the article, warm-blooded birds use about 20 times more oxygen than cold-blooded reptiles (I guess they’re assuming dinos are cold-blooded reptiles). By the way, this has been brought up many times before by creationists: how likely it is that animals having perhaps the lowest metabolic rate (reptiles) would directly evolve into animals having perhaps the highest metabolic rate (birds)? Because of their complex respiratory system, birds have a fixed femur that keeps their air-sac lung from collapsing as it breathes. Dinosaurs, as well as every other walking land animal, lack this critical feature and, instead, have a moving femur. A moving femur in dinos means they could not have had a respiratory system like birds.

What really made me laugh as I read the article are these two candid quotes:

"It's really kind of amazing that after centuries of studying birds and flight we still didn't understand a basic aspect of bird biology," said John Ruben, an OSU professor of zoology….

"This is fundamental to bird physiology," said Devon Quick, an OSU instructor of zoology who completed this work as part of her doctoral studies. "It's really strange that no one realized this before.

No, it’s not really strange or amazing. When you’re committed to a theory, you project your theory onto the evidence. The theory becomes a paradigm through which all new data is viewed. If you go looking for evolution, you will see evolution where there is none. It’s like the saying, “when you’re a hammer, everything else looks like a nail.”

Now don’t get me wrong. The scientists at OSU aren’t becoming creationists. They’re not rejecting evolution over this flap – not even close. I’m sure they’re still 100% committed to evolution. I consider this to be another example of the Constanza Tactic which I’ve blogged about in the past. Evolutionists will push some highly touted evidence as “proof” of their theory, they will convince the public evolution is true, later they will quietly discard the evidence when they discover they were all wrong about it, and the public will continue believing in evolution.

Sometimes I wonder how many sub theories of evolution must be proven wrong before people begin to suspect the overall theory might not be true. Indeed, it doesn’t matter at all to many people that their “cherished theories” were wrong because they just come up with a new theory to explain the new evidence. If the new theory is later shown to be wrong as well, then it will be on to the next theory. But THE theory - the theory of evolution - can never be wrong.

Ignorance on Display at the Creation Museum

There was ignorance on display at the Creation Museum. No, I’m not talking about my good friends at Answers in Genesis. I’m talking about a group that visited there recently. There was a nerd… I mean “paleontologist”… convention held at the University of Cincinnati and a group of 80 of the nerds… I mean paleontologists… decided to take a fieldtrip and tour the museum. OK, I know I should be nicer because, after all, the museum’s tour guide greeted the group graciously saying, “Praise God, we are excited to have you here.”

So, what was their impression of the museum? The Courier Journal characterized their responses this way, “some were skeptical, some were amused, some were offended.” That’s typical. Professional evolutionists like these are militant about their beliefs. They don’t just disagree with creationists – they loathe them! Weren’t any of them curious? Weren’t any of them surprised? Didn’t any of them learn anything? No, I guess that’s expecting too much.

But even though their snobby attitudes are typical, I continued to be annoyed by them. Here are a few of their quotes for your consideration:

“I think it’s a very professional outfit and they put on a good show,” said Jason Rosenhouse, a math professor at James Madison University in Harrisonburg, Va., and manager of a blog on evolution. “If you can sort of suspend disbelief, you can see why people get caught up in it.”

Do you see what I mean? The Mr. Rosenhouse’s not-so-subtle implication is that the museum is merely “a good show” but only those people who “suspend disbelief” [sic] could “get caught up in it.” And he didn’t stop there. He went on to say this:

“I hate the fact that this exists,” he added. “But given that it exists, I can see why people would find it compelling.”

Can you believe that? He hates the fact that the museum exists!! I’ve said before that if it were in their power, there would be a pad lock on the museum right now. It’s a textbook example of the attitudes exposed in Ben Stein’s “Expelled, No Intelligence Allowed”.

Arnie Miller, a geology professor at UC, echoed Rosenhouse’s sentiments during the tour:

“From a pure audio-visual standpoint, it’s spectacular,” he said. “Part of it I find offensive as a scientist. It’s more than just a different point of view. They contend that if you don’t accept their view of the story in Genesis, you’re responsible for the ills of society.”

Mr. Miller has misrepresented AiG’s position. Here are AiG’s true thoughts on the matter:

The concepts of right and wrong must have an ultimate basis from which to appeal, or else they become simply relative to the culture. This is what we see happening in today‘s Western world. The Bible teaches that God the Creator made men and women for each other, and experience confirms that we are made for each other physically. This was the Creator’s intention and plan. And any deviation from this is outside the created order. So it has been until very recent times, when, backed up by evolutionary ‘science’, the concept of homosexual acts being ‘wrong’ has been changed. Now they are promoted as neither right nor wrong, but a ‘choice’. And, unless one appeals to a Creator who sets the absolute laws for life, who can say this is incorrect? If there is no Creator who has made us and set the rules, then all our morals and ideas of what is right or wrong are simply subjective—what we ourselves decide.

The Courier Journal article concludes:

Julia Sankey, a geology professor at California State University at Stanislaus, said she wanted to know more about the attitudes some of her students are bringing to class.

“I’m not offended, just annoyed,” Sankey said. “Why are we wasting our time on this (evolution debate)? It’s not science, and we’re wasting our time.”

I suppose I should acknowledge that at least she sought to know more about her students’ attitudes but I’m sorry that Ms. Sankey feels she is wasting her time with this. After all, according to various polls, up to ½ of the US population believes in creation. I predict that one day her “it’s already settled” attitude is going to be the undoing of evolution.

Here’s what I predict. One weakness in creation science is the lack of enough practicing scientists. However, thanks to the efforts of creation ministries like AiG, more and more students will become interested in science, they will then study science in college, and eventually become practicing scientists. They will begin doing research, publishing papers, and making contributions to their field. The difference will be that they will be doing it from a creation perspective. When that happens, scientists will be forced to argue the science and can no longer argue by consensus (argumentum ad populum).

I say, let the nerds scoff. They have no idea what’s really going on at the museum!

The Five Solas Part 2: Sola Fide

The next Sola we will review in this series is Sola Fide or “Faith Alone” which is sometimes referred to as “justification by faith.” It is the belief that we receive salvation only through faith in Christ; good works of any sort play no role whatsoever in our salvation.

Among the Five Solas this is may be the most controversial and is the dividing line between many most mainstream protestant denominations and other beliefs. For example, there are some groups that believe that after a person accepts Christ he must immediately be baptized before he is saved. So they believe in salvation by faith + baptism and not “faith alone.” Mormons (which is not a Christian group anyway) believe they must work toward their salvation and Jesus simply “makes up the difference” where they fall short.

I believe the Bible is clear about how we are saved. There are many verses that support this but let’s start with perhaps the most definitive: Romans 10:9:

That if thou shalt confess with thy mouth the Lord Jesus, and shalt believe in thine heart that God hath raised him from the dead, thou shalt be saved.

This passage leaves very little wiggle room for interpretation. Of course, one text is not a proof text so we need to look at the abundance of Scripture that supports salvation by faith alone. Salvation by faith is the primary theme of John’s gospel consider John 1:12, John 3:15-16, John 3:18, John 3:36, John 5:24, John 6:47, John 8:24, John 11:25-26, John 12:46, and John 20:31. Indeed, from John’s gospel alone, one would be hard pressed to add to salvation any ingredient other than faith.

We also have the example of the publican and Pharisee (Luke 18:10-14). The Pharisee essentially bragged to God about how good he was in keeping the Law. The publican only prayed, “God be merciful to me a sinner.” Jesus said it was the publican and not the Pharisee who was justified.

As an additional thought, we must be careful to understand that even faith could be considered a work. Look at Ephesians 2:8-9:

For by grace are ye saved through faith; and that not of yourselves: it is the gift of God: Not of works, lest any man should boast.

You see, we are saved “through faith”; we are not saved “because of faith.” We do not say to God, “God, I have faith so You are required to save me.” Even the faith we have is not of ourselves – God gives us even the faith through which He saves us! How wonderful is God!!

Though I believe the Bible is clear that we are saved through faith many people will use some passages to argue otherwise.

Some will point to passages that command us to obey the Law (such as Matthew 5:48). I concede that Christ expects us to try to follow the Law but following the Law is not what saves us. Indeed, no one except Christ has ever kept the Law. Read Romans 3:10. If we must do good works to be saved, then we have no hope for salvation because our works are nothing more than filthy rags (Isaiah 64:6).

Some people will point to Matthew 7:21, “Not every one that saith unto me, Lord, Lord, shall enter into the kingdom of heaven; but he that doeth the will of my Father which is in heaven.” The irony is that, in context, the people discussed in v. 21 are the ones who rely on their works to save them: they cast out demons, prophesied, and performed miracles. However, Jesus still calls them workers of iniquity! Jesus tells us the will of the Father in John 6:40, “And this is the will of him that sent me, that every one which seeth the Son, and believeth on him, may have everlasting life: and I will raise him up at the last day.” Doing the will of the Father does not mean doing good works; it means we must have faith in the Son!

Still others read passages that discuss God judging our deeds and confuse our reward with our salvation (Matthew 16:27, Revelation 14:12-13, et al). At the White Throne Judgment, the lost are indeed judged by their works (Revelation 20:13) but they are all condemned because their names are not written in the Book of Life. Christians’ works are judged for our reward but our salvation is already secured. Read 1 Corinthians 3:14-15:

If any man's work abide which he hath built thereupon, he shall receive a reward. If any man's work shall be burned, he shall suffer loss: but he himself shall be saved; yet so as by fire.

In other words, when our works are judged we might lose our reward but we are still saved.

But the chief text cited by believers in salvation by works is certainly James 2. Consider, for example, v. 14, “What doth it profit, my brethren, though a man say he hath faith, and have not works? can faith save him?” Wow! The clear implication of that verse alone is that faith by itself cannot save a person.

However, in the context of the entire chapter, James is talking about how works are the evidence of faith. A person who claims to have faith but demonstrates no evidence of faith (that is, continues to live like a sinner) likely isn’t truly saved. Look at v. 21-22, “Was not Abraham our father justified by works, when he had offered Isaac his son upon the altar? Seest thou how faith wrought with his works, and by works was faith made perfect?” We see then that Abraham’s works were wrought by his faith. He had faith and so he performed the works. Likewise, if we truly have faith there should be evidence of our faith in our works. I believe James’s point is summed up well in v. 18, “Yea, a man may say, Thou hast faith, and I have works: shew me thy faith without thy works, and I will shew thee my faith by my works.”

Let me conclude by saying that Christ’s work on the cross is sufficient to cover my sins. When Jesus said, “It is finished” (John 19:30), He meant just that. No more work is necessary. If we feel we must add something done by our own hands, we are basically saying to Jesus that His death wasn’t enough! I know that nothing I can do could compare to His sacrifice and so I will put my trust completely in Him to save me.

Further reading:

The Five Solas Part 1: Sola Scriptura

The Five Solas Part 3: Sola Gratia

The Five Solas Part 4: Solus Christus

The Five Solas Part 5: Soli Deo Gloria

Some More Comments About Sola Scriptura