An Enemy Has Done This!

If you've read my blog for a while, you will know that I talk a lot about the creation account in Genesis. I do this because I think it's important. It's important in a lot of different ways but perhaps it's most important to understand how Genesis is foundational to the gospel. There are some compromising Christians who “reconcile” their interpretation of Genesis to fit with secular science. This usually takes the form of theistic evolution. That is, they say God created us via evolution. He also created the universe over billions of years via the Big Bang. Now, since these interpretations aren't compatible with a plain reading of Genesis, the genre of Genesis is assigned to the category of metaphor or – even worse – to myth.

One problem that I see with theistic evolution is that it would mean the world is the way that God intended it to be. Death, therefore, is not the judgment for sin; it is the tool by which natural selection drives a species to evolve. Millions of years of struggle and death and struggle and death is how God turned microbes into men. It was His plan all along.

I'm not exaggerating when I say that theistic evolutionists see death as part of God's plan. Here's a quote I've used before made by a self-proclaimed theistic evolutionist who used to frequent my blog. While commenting on John 12:24, The Paleobabbler said:

Jesus describes a process of change, the bringing about of something new. This can be applied to Christ himself, where his death on the cross changed everything and brought about new life - this alone should be ample reading for seeing the death in the John verse as intended. Evolution by natural selection is a process which involves death, but it does not stop there. The death is instrumental in bringing about change, in bringing about new life. It is an act of redemption, which is small in scale compared to Christ on the cross, yet large in scale with regards to cosmic history. Many scientifically minded theologians have noted that evolution is a cruciform process. It redeems death into new life. What better way for Christ to create?

Now, I must say that I rejoice in knowing that Jesus died to give us life. However, when I look around at the world we live in, I see hunger, famine, disease, and misery everywhere. When tragedies like tsunamis or earthquakes kill thousands of people, it's sad. Yet theistic evolutionists would have us believe these things have been happening for millions of years and it's how God intended it! How awful it is that they would malign the character of God this way. Such a view of God seems ineffective in winning people to Christ. It seems to me that a skeptic would rightly ask, “if there is a God, then why are these bad things happening?” As I was doing a Bible study on the Wheat and the Tares (Matthew 13:24-30), I saw that Jesus has already brought up that question and answered it.

I strongly encourage you to read the parable for yourself (of course, I strongly encourage everyone to read all of the Bible. Often). Here's the dilemma: a landowner sowed wheat in his field. When his workers were sleeping, an enemy sowed tares (weeds) among the wheat seed. When the plants began to bear seed, the tares became apparent. Then the workers asked the landowner the million dollar question (v. 27):

‘Sir, did you not sow good seed in your field? How then does it have tares?’

Wow! That's the same question everyone asks God now. “God, if you made everything, where do the bad things come from?” It's a legitimate question. I believe it's perhaps among the most important questions Christians must be prepared to answer if they seek to evangelize in this modern world. The “problem” of evil is a major stumbling block preventing people from coming to a saving knowledge of Christ.

How does theistic evolution answer that question? Very poorly, I think. People who subscribe to TE would have to say that the bad things happen because God always intended them to happen. Death was the plan all along. But the landowner in the parable correctly pointed out that this wasn't the plan. He didn't want there to be tares in his good field of wheat. He explained to the workers, “An enemy has done this!”

When God created everything, it was all “very good” (Genesis 1:31). There was no death and God never intended for things to die. It was only through Adam's disobedience that death entered into the world. And now, death has also passed on to all men because all have sinned (Romans 5:12). Death is the penalty for sin (Romans 6:23). Death is an enemy that God will abolish when He restores His creation (1 Cor 15:26).

Our beliefs have consequences. The understanding of our origins directly impacts our understanding of the gospel. The word translated as “gospel” in the Bible literally means, “good news.” What is the good news? When someone dies, do we comfort their loved ones by saying, “Sorry for your loss but that's just the way God made things”? That doesn't sound like good news. This is not how God intended it.

God intended there to be no death. We have brought His judgment through our own disobedience.  But God is not only just but He is also merciful.  When men disobey God and earn death, God has sent His Son to pay the penalty for our disobedience.  Finally, God also has a plan to fix everything that sin has spoiled and in the new creation, there will be no more death or curse or tears.

Now that sounds like good news!

Does “Science” Contradict the Bible?

I'm approaching the 7^th year of my blogging career (my first post was October 19, 2007) but my online “ministry” of apologetics goes back way before that. I remember getting my first computer when my now 21 year old daughter was just a baby and began debating people live in AOL chat rooms. But enough reminiscing; I'm getting to a point. I'm not sure when it happened, exactly, but there came a time when I stopped hearing original arguments from evolutionists. It was just the same, tired canards being repeated over and over.

I'm a fairly bright guy. I'm also usually realistic about my own importance. It's not like I'm the mouthpiece for all things conservative nor all things biblical. But sometimes I get frustrated when people bring up arguments to me that I've already discussed many times on my blog before. There's this instinct in me that says, “Why are you bringing this up? I've already answered that.” It's as though I feel like, once I've said something on any particular point, no one is allowed to bring it up to me anymore. Weird, huh? Alas, it isn't so. No matter how many times I address a certain issue, I'm certain to hear it used by evolutionists again in the future. By necessity, then, I have to repeat points I've already made before. I'm sorry to everyone who has heard me say these things already.

One of the most annoying and oft repeated canards I hear from evolutionists is how “science” has proved creation is wrong or if I don't believe evolution then I'm against “science.” This has to rank as perhaps the laziest argument used by evolutionists. It is so full of fallacies that evolutionists should be too embarrassed to ever utter those words. Yet they do repeat them and so they force me to repeat my response.

First off, comments like this reek of conflation. The theory of descent of all biodiversity from a common ancestor is a theory in the discipline of biology. It's a small part of science. When these people say “science” they mean “evolution” as though the words are synonyms. It's shameful. Likewise, if I don't believe the theory of evolution, I'm accused of hating “science” - as though all of science is represented by evolution.

When I point out to people who make this argument that the term “evolution” isn't the same thing as “science,” their correct response should be to reword their argument. However, this is never the case. Instead, they sort of double down on their assertion. They say that the theory of evolution is supported by the scientific method, therefore, it is supported by all of science. They next throw out a long list of terms like geology, chemistry, dendrochronology, trigonometry, anthropology, astronomy, physics, gravity (yes, I've even heard them say gravity), radiometric dating, blah, blah, blah, and again say that all of science supports evolution. They are never careful to distinguish between a single theory in biology and all of science. They always conflate the two as though they are the same thing. Have they no shame?

Besides the error of conflation, comments such as these are also examples of a sweeping generalization. That is, they act as though science is a single body of thought and all of science unanimously disagrees with the Bible (creation in particular). There are many scientists who are creationists and who see no conflict at all between the observed world and the Bible. They are practicing scientists with degrees in their respective fields from reputable universities. So the broad term of “science” should necessarily include them but obviously they don't disagree with the Bible. Also, many fields of science are silent on the veracity of the Bible so neither should they be included in the assertion that “science” disagrees with the Bible. And in the field of evolutionary biology, there is seldom 100% agreement on every point of the theory. Yet hasty comments like, “science has proved the Bible wrong” gives the false impression that all of science stands against the Bible.

Lastly, these comments are also blatant examples of reification. Reification is a logical fallacy where people personify inanimate things or abstract ideas. An example of this would be, “the rocks say the earth is 4 billion years old.” Well, the rocks don't really say anything because rocks can't speak. It's the scientists who study the rocks who are saying the earth is 4 billion years old. Likewise, “science” doesn't say anything about the Bible. “Science” doesn't say anything because science isn't a sentient being and has neither a mind nor a voice. Instead, there are some secular scientists who say the Bible is wrong but, as we've already seen, they don't speak for all of science.

I should conclude by saying something like, “Evolutionists should stop making these comments because it just embarrasses them.” However, I know they won't stop. I've heard it a hundred times before and will probably hear it a thousand times more. At least I can say I've shown how silly such statements are. Let them be embarrassed.

Liberalism: The Cult of Intolerance

My recent visitor, Carvin, has given me a lot of points to discuss. In a reply to him, I mentioned I would make use of some of his comments to write future blog posts. Many of the points he raised are of interest to everyone.

His first comment was to a post I had written titled, “And You Think We're Embarrassing?” You can read the post for yourself, of course, but my main point was how certain liberals (like Pam Platt of the Courier Journal) seem embarrassed by Bible believing Christians while liberals seem to embrace outrageous antics like those seen at Gay Pride parades. In his response to my point, Carvin said:

[M]ost liberals are perfectly fine when you limit your trouble to an opinion which you express. Your certainly do run the risk of being considered homophobic, but that comes with the territory of the fundamentalist view of homosexuality- it is, in fact, homophobic. It is a Biblical interpretation that is used in the oppression and control of non-hetero people. Again, just having a view on this is still fine. Most liberals would be quite happy if the fundamentalist view was kept within house- that is, if you feel it is wrong to be in a homosexual relationship, this is fine: just don't force anyone else to live by your standard.

If liberalism were just someone's opinion, I would happily agree with Carvin. Everyone is entitled to his opinion – even a wrong opinion. Liberals are wrong about a lot of things and I can live with them being wrong. The real problem, though, is that liberals aren't content with expressing their opinions. Liberals are elitists who not only think they know what's best for every, they aggressively seek ways to impose their standards on everyone else.

Do you think I'm exaggerating? I've been writing this blog for almost 7 years now and I have more than a few examples of this occurring. Let me remind you of just a few that I've already discussed.

Compelling Christians to comply with secular standards probably occurs most often in public schools. In June, 2006, valedictorian, Brittan McComb, was asked to give a speech to her graduating class. She was a Christian, and wanted to give thanks to God for His role in her life. School officials warned her to omit references to God and on the day of her graduation, when she began making reference to God, the school officials turned off her mic. This was her speech talking about her achievements yet school officials didn't think she should be thanking God. I guess it would have been OK if she thanked Oprah.

When the Creation Museum opened, a group called DefCon attempted to thwart their efforts. A board member of DefCon was also an elected, public school official who encouraged public school teachers to sign a petition against the museum. What ever happened to the supposed “separation of church and state”?

Nature wrote an article called, “Dealing with Design” wherein it explained to educators how they should teach students to reconcile their religious beliefs (as in the creation account in Genesis) with “science” (meaning “evolution”). This is not just teaching evolution; it's an active attempt to dissuade a student away from his biblical belief and accept a secular belief.

Do I even need to talk about the National Center For Science Education? The groups stated purpose for existing is to combat a belief in creation among students. More recently, the group also has been recruited to combat doubters in global warming.

But of course, liberals don't just limit their attempts to control to just students. In 2001, a lesbian couple sued two Christian doctors who had refused to provide artificial insemination on the grounds of their religious beliefs. The lesbian couple was able to get the service elsewhere but sued in order to punish the Christian doctors for not complying to the liberal lesbians' standards.

Because of his support of traditional marriage, the president of Chick-fil-A was told by an Chicago alderman, “There are consequences for freedom of speech (and) in this case the consequences are... you're not going to have your first free-standing restaurant in Chicago.” So, in this case, who is forcing their standard on whom?

Obamacare is forcing all employers, including businesses owned by Christians, to provide birth control and abortion-inducing drugs to their employees, regardless of the employers' religious objections. Not only is the employer's right to practice his religion made subservient to the employee's unenumerated “right” to an abortion, the employer is ordered by law to pay for it!

There are even more that I have cited on my blog and many, many more that I haven't. People can't buy 32 oz colas in NY because they might get fat. McDonald's can't put toys in their happy meals because parents can't say no to their kids. School officials search students' lunchboxes to make sure parents are doing their job. Parents can't have school vouchers because they might send their kids to white supremacy schools (I'm not kidding). Need I remind Carvin that he himself has endorsed compelling business owners to pay higher wages because the liberal thinks the wage should be more. The list goes on.

When liberals think something is right, they don't just talk about it. They don't just express their opinion about it. They want to force people to comply with it. They do it because they think they're the experts and we just don't know how to take care of ourselves. See this video and hear it for yourself. Time after time after time, liberals are happy to compel people to conform to the liberal standard. I don't blog about liberals just because they annoy me (though they do). I blog about liberals because they are a threat to liberty.

The Minimum Wage

A recent visitor to my blog, who posted under the name, Carvin, shared some sharp opinions about his view of corporations, the wealthy, and the minimum wage. Here's a sample of what Carvin said:

Many of our biggest corporations pay little to no taxes due to their corporate welfare. This money does not go to anyone who works, but the richest people in the company that merely own it, often through nepotism. Meanwhile, they pay their employees so little that they will either starve and/or fall ill because of it. Since the rich control almost all areas of occupation, they can agree that no one should be payed enough, and do. Our minimum wage is criminally low, a point of utter shame. Our healthcare system is set up so only the rich can be healthy.

Carvin is certainly passionate, but his points lack any substance. He paints a picture where America resembles the caste system of medieval Europe. The world he describes is completely foreign to the real world that I live and work in every day. I'm sure most would agree. Where you work, do you see emaciated people chained to their desks? Are there wooden carts being pulled through your neighborhood with a crier ringing a bell saying, “bring out your dead”? How can Carvin say that workers “starve” or “fall ill” and “only the rich can be healthy”? I'm certainly not rich and neither am I ill or starving. This plague on workers he describes exists only in his imagination.

There are a lot of points I could address, but in this post, I'm going to specifically address the minimum wage issue he raised. Considering, too, that an increase in the minimum wage was just defeated in Congress, the topic is rather timely.

I've always wondered how a minimum wage ever became acceptable in the first place. OK, I do see how. It's an example of that old adage that when you rob Peter to pay Paul, you can count on the support of Paul. Some people don't mind when others are being robbed of their property if they know they will be the beneficiaries of it. I see no justice in it at all. On what grounds does the government have the right to set the wage an employer can pay his employee? It seems to me that it should be up to the employer and worker (as in Matthew 20). The employer decides how much a particular task is worth and offers someone that much or less to do it. The worker then decides if the job is worth the pay and might decide to accept. The sounds like the epitome of fairness. What sounds unfair is to demand an employer paid $10 per hour for a job that is only worth $7.

Now, some people might say, “But $7 per hour is not enough to live on.” Well, maybe it's not – but that still doesn't justify paying someone $10 to produce $7 worth of work! This is supposed to be a business, not a charity. Liberals seem to think that the purpose of a business is to provide jobs, promote diversity, and create social equality. I hate to break the news to them but the purpose of a business is to produce goods/services for a profit. Creating jobs is a fortunate consequence of the business's pursuit of profit. Companies that cannot produce a profit eventually go out of business and then there will be not only be no goods and services produced, there will be no jobs either.

Most jobs that pay minimum wage do not require much skill or education. These are often high turn-over jobs (such as in the fast food industry) or temporary, seasonal jobs (like department stores). Many are filled by teenagers or adults who only work part-time. It's also an introductory wage. People who stay with the same employer for any length of time begin receiving raises and/or promotions. According to the US Census Bureau, the average income for an individual in the US is $28,051 – well above the minimum wage. So an increase in the minimum wage won't do anything to help the overwhelming majority of people who work. It will only mean employers will have to pay more for teenagers to flip hamburgers during the summer.

Beyond that, though, increasing the minimum wage will actually hurt many of the people it's intended to help. Let me give you an example that everyone can understand: If you eat at a fast food place that only charges $1 for a burger, but then they suddenly raise their price to $2 for a burger, do you think you'll buy more burgers or fewer burgers in the future? It's obvious that you would probably buy fewer burgers. Most people would. Now, suppose it currently costs an employer $15K to higher a worker but suddenly it costs $20K. Do you think that employer will higher more people or fewer people? Labor is an expense to a business just like food is an expense to an individual. Labor is an expense just like rent or utilities is an expense. People try to save on expenses. You do it and businesses do it. And if labor costs more, businesses will try to reduce their labor costs somehow. It might mean they higher fewer people. The end result is that there will be less jobs available for low skilled workers.  So instead of making more money, many low skilled workers will simply be out of work.

A higher minimum wager also means employers might replace labor with technology.  Think about that for a minute. If a labor saving machine is very expensive, I might continue using cheap labor indefinitely. For example, I might pay a crew $7.25/hr to dig with shovels but if I had to pay them $15/hr, then I might choose to replace the crew with an excavator. Then I only have to pay one man $15/hr to work the machine and the rest are out of work. Once again, a higher costs of labor has cost jobs.

We should also consider the consequence to everyone else if the minimum wage is increased. Suppose a business has 50 employees and its annual labor cost is $1 million. Some of the workers make minimum wage and some make more. If the business suddenly had to pay higher wages to the lowest wage earners, it doesn't magically have more than $1 million to pay. Some workers could be laid off but what else will happen is that the workers who are making more than the minimum wage already will likely get smaller raises or no raises on their incomes. So a raise on the minimum wage actually suppresses the wages of everyone.

Finally, when forced to pay a higher amount for labor, many businesses will be forced to raise the prices on the goods and services they produce. This affects everyone since the value of a dollar is eroded by higher prices on everything. Inflation usually hits poor people the hardest. Do you think McDonald's will still sell burgers for $1 if they have to pay its part-time, teenage workers $15 per hour to cook them? Who eats at McDonald's? Only rich people?

So let's sum up. Increasing the minimum wage will:

• give employers an incentive to cut their labor costs
• cause employers to higher fewer people
• cause some businesses to replace workers with machines
• suppress the wages of everyone
• raise the prices on everything

Did I miss anything? Some people would cut off their nose to spite their face. Raising the minimum wage doesn't mean more prosperity for the poor. It would mean fewer jobs and higher prices. More poor people will be out of work and it will be harder for them to buy food, clothes, and housing. Oh, and by the way, the rich will still be rich.