Intelligent Thought– 5

Analyzing the essay Evolution and Ethics by Steven Pinker

Ethics is an important issue in the evolution and creation debate and this essay attempts to describe an alternative for their existence. But his arguments fail.

#1. They believe that the theory of evolution corrodes the foundations of ethics. (pg. 143)

If secular science is any example it is an example for this fear.  I do not know how many times I have been told ‘all science is good science’ but we can see that the removal of ethical behavior, right and wrong, morality does not lead to good science.

If it did Dr. Mengele of Nazi fame would not have spent his life in hiding but would have been heralded as a hero in the scientific world. It is an extreme example but let’s face it, his work pales in comparison to some scientific work that has been executed over the decades since the second world war.

The evolutionists I have talked to, or most of them, believe that all restrictions should be removed from scientific work. They do not like ethical or moral rules placed upon their or other scientists’ research.

It is pointless to say that without real rules, being responsible for one’s actions or some authoritative oversight, then anything goes and that is never a smart thing to do. Yet some people believe in science so much that they think that field should have no oversight, no accountability, no punishment if the scientists do wrong.

Of course, as in the case of Dr. Mengele that freedom is to be granted only to those scientists who are on the accepted side. You will not see that freedom extended to creationists who are working in the scientific field.

#2.  These beliefs, they argue, are all that stands between us and a life of moral callousness and hedonistic nihilism. As the slogan goes, if you teach children that they are animals they will act like animals. (pg. 142)

It is very obvious that Dr. Pinker has never taught in public school. You remove right and wrong then you remove the authority of the teachers and administration and soon anarchy reigns. You also need certain punishments to help deter bad behavior.

Unfortunately, too many liberals have removed those certain punishments and teachers have lost control of their classrooms because they are powerless to stop bad behavior. In fact, a lot of teachers have been attacked by their students because the teacher has had their authority undermined by others who think the above quoted slogan is nonsense.

#3. It’s true that science cannot provide us with moral principles. But nether can religion. An understanding of morality is to be found through secular moral reasoning. (pg. 143)

That idealistic thinking is misguided because there is no source for morality in the secular world. The devil runs those people and he is the father of lies thus secular moral reasoning has no real outside force to found any moral principle. Their foundation is sin and we have seen how sin handles real world problems–with more sin.

The problem for Dr. Pinker and evolutionists is that morality and secular are opposites not partners in life. Plus with no real source for morality, the secular world has to borrow their idea of morality from God and then tweak it in order to make morality fit their way of thought.

There is no morality in the secular world. Almost all of the secular world’s laws and judicial ethical conduct are based on the laws of God found in the Bible. There is no alternative source even though they may point to the Hammurabi code as a source. That code was based upon the righteous laws passed down from Noah and his family after the flood.

Those would be the same laws given to Adam and Eve and found in the Bible. I can say that God gave a law code to Adam and Eve for if he didn’t he would not have been able to punish Cain for his evil act. Biblical law has been around since the beginning and did not  begin when Moses went up Mt. Sinai.

If biblical law began with Moses and the Exodus, how then could Noah be labeled as a righteous man?

There is no source for morality, right or wrong  or ethics outside of God.No matter how much reasoning the evolutionist applies to the topic.

#4. It is surprising that so many people take seriously an association  between religion and morality in the first place. A glance at history and current affairs suggests the opposite…(pg. 143)

This is the old evolutionary argument where God is a mass murderer etc. What the secular world continues to ignore is that even those who claim to follow God have free choice to obey God’s rules or not.

The quoted attitude also ignores the difference between punishment and criminal activity. Of course, the evolutionist credits secular government in knowing and implementing the difference yet refuse to grant God that ability.

They take this position because they do not believe in sin and only look upon the surface and not the whole picture. They do not see where, although many individuals in the nations destroyed by God did not commit crimes humans think are wrong, they were still guilty of sinful crimes and were being punished for those acts.

The evolutionist in judgment of these acts of God use their own standard of right and wrong and do not include God’s nor allow God to have his own standard. They feel for God to be right, he must follow the evolutionist ideas of moral behavior. They do not care if the evolutionists standard is subjective and that its authority lasts only for as long as those in power agree with that chosen standard.

The evolutionist likes to accuse  religious people of immoral acts yet they do not consider the fact that; one, those people may not be religious at all but use religion for their own desires; two, that the people accused have disobeyed their own religion and have chosen to follow evil over God.

The evolutionist doesn’t think that they are evil or following evil thus this distortion on religious people’s behavior throughout history. They do not believe or accept that the devil exists so they put sin onto God and blame him for life’s ills and the misdeeds of those disobedient religious people.

The evolutionist makes God out to be worse than the devil thus they do not accept the idea that morality could come from God or religion.

#5. What should you do if God commands you to carry out an act that is patently evil, such as stabbing a child to death. (pg. 144)

This scenario is important to the evolutionist because they do not now or accept the fact that evil disguises themselves as angels of light in order to do their dirty work. Such commands are not of God and God would not tell his people to sin.

Those people who say God told them to do it are deceived by evil. In the case of Abraham, it was not a command to kill Isaac. The order was a test pure and simple; but the evolutionist will not accept that explanation because it stops them from accusing God of commanding, doing or authorizing evil.

Dr. Pinker goes on to say:

If, in contrast, you have good reason for not doing it means that God’s commandments are not the source of morality. (pg. 144)

That is a wild leap and that leap depends upon the idea that humans have a greater sense of morality than God.  That type of thinking also depends upon the fact that God could be wrong and that humans are more holy than God is. Such logic also depends upon the non-existence of evil and that it plays no role in human decisions or supernatural commands.

It is a very limited point of view meant to attack God and his morality but does nothing to spur the human to think that they may have misjudged what they read in the bible. It also does not address the fact that secular humans are deceived and do not know the truth.

But Dr. Pinker doesn’t stop there:

From the genocides in Canaan sanctioned in the Bile to the Islamic suicide bombers today, we find numerous examples of God’s commanding people to do patently evil acts. (pg. 144)

The problem with this accusation is that Dr. Pinker does not have any evidence to support that charge. He assumes God told people to do patently evil acts and takes as his evidence the claims of the suicide bombers who are or were in fact deceived people acting out their warped beliefs.

In the case of the biblical accounts he alludes to, he rejects God’s reasoning for such acts and imports his own. That act allows him to stand in judgment of God, though his judgment is faulty. He also ignores the fact that God commands all to not kill, not steal, not lust, and so on so he needs to choose which command is actually issued by God– the one everyone can read or the ones spoken by the offender as his justification for doing evil.

His limited application of God’s commands ruin his position because he is cherry picking what events he will use to support his contention that morality could not come from God.

#6. The reoccurrence of atrocities committed in the name of God shows that they are not random perversions. (pg. 145)

The evolutionists’ limited perspective renders them blind to the truth. They ignore the verses that state man loves darkness rather than light thus the immoral choices they make are not influenced by God but by some other supernatural force.

This limited view also blinds them to the problem of what about all the unbelievers who kill, rape, and do other patently evil acts. Are they following God’s commands when they do not even believe in him or that he even exists?

The evolutionist view is very one-sided and wrong.

#7. If morality doesn’t come from religion, where does it come from? (pg. 145)

I will agree that morality does not come from religion. Morality comes from God only. There are too many religions that have imported human ideas to make them pure enough to be the source of morality. Besides religious morality is founded upon what God wrote n the Bible. Religion is supposed to be the messenger bringing the message of morality to the people. It is not the source of right and wrong, morality or ethics.

Morality cannot come from evolution or its two supposed process simply because evolution has no lawgiver. No where in its supposed history is their any being supplying the species with any standard of morality, right or wrong and ethics. Evolution has none of those characteristics contained anywhere in its ‘existence’.

We must ask, is it moral, ethical or right to have countless species die over billions of years for no reason other than to develop then into the creatures we see today? Then, how is that more moral than God and his punishing sinful people? Plus how is it moral, ethical or even right for evolution to allow its creatures to have  religious hope when no hope may exist at all?

It seems that the evolutionary alternative is more immoral, more unethical and more wrong than the evolutionist claims God ever was.

What evolution tries to do is make man the ultimate source for ethics, right and wrong or morality. In other words, evolutionists are trying to remove God from any involvement in life and also keep him from being the source for anything. Everything is man’s invention because evolution is basically Satan’s sin wrapped up in a convenient deceptive scientific concept.

#8. …the theory of natural selection has no trouble of explaining the evolution of a moral sense… (pg. 146)

How? Evolutionists describe natural selection as a non-knowing entity that possesses no information to pass on to anything. So how can it help develop what it has no knowledge of? Also, if moral sense came millions or billions of years after countless species and human forms lived and died, how is that fair or just to those who lived without knowing those moral rules?

Such an explanation makes natural selection more immoral and more genocidal than the evolutionist accuse God of being. Without a moral sense being known from the beginning then there is no justice, fairness or even ethical behavior in the whole evolutionary plan. For the supposed natural selection to develop morality,etc., such information has to be present from the very beginning, when that original life form came into existence or evolution has no moral code to develop or and is more immoral than God.

If anyone has studied the theory of evolution, they will see that there is no ultimate lawgiver, no ultimate ethical or moral rule giver and no being presenting what is right or wrong upon any life form until well after the supposed human species came into existence and only then, according to the theory of evolution, such attributes were of human origin.

Morality, ethics, right and wrong could not come from evolutionary development because there is no source and no reason for those characteristics to exist at all.

#9. So not only is Darwinism compatible with our having a moral sense, it can explain why we evolved to have one. (pg. 148)

Not true. Darwinism is not compatible with moral sense for it possesses nothing that is moral. It used very immoral means and methods to supposedly develop life forms on this planet so we must ask, where did the conversion take place that made Darwinism see the error of its ways and change to being moral?

Then we must ask, why would supposedly intelligent people still accept and follow a theory that has its roots in immorality and obeyed no rule of right and wrong? They do not do it for God, even though he is falsely accused of being immoral, so why would they do it for evolution?

At best the theory is hypocritical as it develops a moral sense for its species yet follows no moral code itself. An explanation is not enough to justify or cover the sins of the supposed evolutionary process.

If the evolutionary process is true, then it has killed more men, women and children than the evolutionist claims God has. Why do they not self-righteously judge their own theory as harshly as they judge God? Why do they give this theory a pass on its genocidal tendencies?

The evolutionist is not just, consistent or even honorable in their assessment of God or their own theory. They have no claims to any moral high ground for themselves or their theory.

#10. Customs that were common throughout history and prehistory– slavery, punishment by mutilation, executions by torture, genocide for convenience, endless blood feuds, the summary killing of strangers, rape as the spoils of war, infanticides as a form of birth control and the legal ownership of women–have vanished from large parts of the world. (pg. 148)

I do not know what books and newspapers he has been reading but he is very mistaken and misinformed. He seems to think that sex slavery is not slavery or the ownership of women yet it takes place in just about every country of the world. as does abortion which is infanticide as it is used for birth control and the disposal of unwanted babies.

Evolution certainly does not teach truth or honesty to its advocates. But this isn’t the only unrealistic thing he says:

As people in more parts of the planet become economically independent, the hatred between them decreases for the simple reason you can’t kill someone and trade with him too. (pg. 149)

He really doesn’t pay attention to the news and he certainly doesn’t know people. The sin nature and evil do not stop tempting, influencing or manipulating people once they become rich. If being rich was the end of the problems of the world, why are the oil suppliers not spreading the wealth around? Why are the billionaires of the world sharing with the poorest of people?

This is another reason we know that morality, ethics, right and wrong do not come from evolution. The problems of the world are not solved  but enhanced by those with evil desires. The evolutionist could say that these people have free choice and can do what they want, but then they must grant that argument to the religious and stop accusing them and God from being immoral.

Evolution and the evolutionist has no answer to the sin problem and their failure is their denial of the existence of sin and the devil . Without finding the real source for the world’s ills, evolutionists cannot claim to have developed the answer. There is no reason for the answer to exist in their theory.

The evolutionary theory has no reason to develop a moral sense because immorality, unethical behavior,  and sin does not exist.  There is nothing right or wrong, ethical or unethical, moral or immoral in the evolutionary theory and no reason to develop either. According to the theory everything people do is okay because it is all a part of change and change is evolution.

Without laws, morality or even ethics being taught in the beginning, there is nothing ethical, moral or even right about evolution which leads us back to that slogan Dr. Pinker detests but quoted anyways–you teach people they are animals they will act like animals.

There is no authority in evolution to be accountable to so anything goes which means students will act like animals because you are taking away their reason to be moral, ethical and evolution is taking away right and wrong.

Intelligent Thought– 4

Analysis of the essay The ‘great’ transition by Neil Shubin

I have probably read the worst chapter ever written by an evolutionist over lunch today. The chapter title held so much promise and I was expecting to finally read actual explanations on how evolutionists decide what is a transition and how the evolutionist thinks transitions actually work.

I was greatly disappointed. Not only was there no real evolutionary explanation on how their supposed transitions work but the whole essay boiled down to the idea ‘here we have this fossil in this time period looking like this and there we have another fossil in another time period looking different thus transitions took place.’

That was the whole message of that essay. There was nothing in his work that detailed the whole process and when he got to DNA it was even more ambiguous than the description of the supposed  fossil evidence.

Basically Dr. Shubin admitted that the evolutionist has no clue how their supposed transitions took place or which mechanisms conducted the changes. Here are a few quotes:

#1. To get  a glimpse of the water to land transition, we need to see the creatures that lived on the Earth at that time…(pg. 83)

That is impossible for they are all dead and the few that survive from the ancient world via fossilization do not give us any information on when they lived, how they lived or if they were part of any transition process.

I am not even going to delve into the matter of the millions of years date evolutionists place upon fossils for it is a waste of time to do so. Suffice it to say, they are wrong in their assignment of dates and cannot tell when a fossilized animal lived or when it was fossilized.

To say what & how many  creatures lived in the far past is pure guesswork and the evolutionist could easily work on a misidentified fossil and produce the wrong information.

#2. …then we need to look at our world today…The ancient world was transformed bu ordinary mechanisms of evolution with genes and biological processes that are still at work… (pg. 83)

If, as another evolutionary author has stated, that 90% of the species of the world have gone extinct, how can they actually trace which fish species transitioned into a land based animal? Where is their actual physical evidence tracing even just one transformation?

To say that genes and biology are at work is taking the easy way out and running from the responsibility to produce this physical evidence. There is no rational way to look at the world today and state that a specific animal came from that fish.

As usual the evolutionist avoids producing real evidence by starting at the end result then trying to work backwards. To produce real transition the evolutionist would have to start with the original fish and work forwards showing how the end result came to be. That is the only way prove their theory.

#3. True limbs are not seen in any living fish; for this reason, everything that is descended from fish is called a tetrapod…(pg.83)

The evolutionists problem is that they have not proven that any animal has descended from a fish. see the point immediately above. All they have done is seen some bones in certain species, compared those findings with the findings on amphibians and then declared a transition took place and a relative was discovered.

They have jumped the gun on this idea and have used similarities to declare a process that did not take place even though they cannot connect these similarities to any transition process.

#4. She discovered the skeleton of another truly extraordinary tetrapod (pg. 84)

The thought that came to mind is that these fossil hunters may be confused as to what they find.  They declare a new species almost every time they discover a new fossil but maybe what they discover is not really a new species but a younger fish in the midst of its development to adulthood.

I am not up on all my fish biology so I can be corrected if I am wrong but I do know that tadpoles develop into frogs and they look a lot differently than their adult frog form. It is possible that some of these supposed transitional ‘species’ were discovered by evolutionists and misidentified which in turn led them down the wrong path to the wrong conclusions.

I would have to study up on marine life to make more of an accurate statement. it is also possible that some of their tetrapod fossils are just baby amphibians but misidentified by evolutionists and given their own species.

This is the danger of working from fossils alone and not the whole of the ancient world. evolutionists o not know the whole story surrounding the fish but place their own ideas upon the fossils they find.

#5. We have access to the DNA of every creature alive today. This is an enticing record of evolution because DNA builds our bodies and is passed from generation to generation (pg. 89)

Actually evolutionists skip over a major problem with their use of DNA and the instructions genes use in their work to build bodies. Let me use an illustration to demonstrate what this problem entails.

Let’s call construction workers genes, and houses and skyscrapers bodies. The evolutionist would say that the construction workers evolved by comparing a house to a skyscraper. They will say that each construction worker had instructions on how to build a house then through natural selection then had instructions on how to build a skyscraper. BUT who gave those instruction workers their instructions to build a house and where did the instructions come from to build the skyscraper?

That is what they are saying with DNA. The evolutionist is saying that the genes in our body were magically given instructions to build a lesser structure then over time they were again magically given instructions to build a more complicated structure. At no time do they identify this source and at no time have they observed information addition to the genes.

To credit either the processes of evolution or natural selection with this knowledge and ability would mean that the evolutionist would have made those processes superior beings and demote humans to inferior status. Evolutionists can’t have this so this genetic information just magically appeared and humans are still the superior being with the processes of evolution and natural selection remaining mute, unintelligent, unknowing processes which magically produce something they have no knowledge of.

Evolutionists do not have a source for this genetic instruction that automatically comes with the genes when a person or animal is born. Their original life form had to be some super one-celled creature or it wasn’t the source of life.

We believers know that God gave the genes their instructions enabling the genes to carry out their tasks without transitional processes.

Dr. Shubin just went into generalities and ambiguities when talking about transitions because the evolutionist has nothing to support their transitional phase of their theory. All they are doing is saying- ‘DNA did it’.

The evolutionist relies upon magic and miraculous phenomenon to build their theory and make it seem scientific when it is not.

Intelligent Thought–3

Analyzing the essay The Good Fight by Leonard Susskind

I had high hopes for Susskind’s essay but he did disappoint and wrote his supposedly objective piece with a very biased outlook. It doesn’t come through at the beginning but as you read it, the bias and closed-mind is very easy to spot.

#1. Science and religion have never loved each other for very long (pg. 24)

This misconception is found on both sides of the argument. There is a bit of deceptive writing in that opening statement. The deception is found in generalizing the word science. That generalization makes it seem that good an devil does not apply to that field.

There are two categories to science: secular and true. Secular science produces lies about origins, life and other matters to our existence. Plus it attacks the Bible at every turn.

True science looks for the truth and agrees with the Bible. Since the Bible does not lie and is true any science that contradicts the Bible is false.

Good and evil does apply to all scientific fields like it applies to daily life. There is also right and wrong science and evolution is wrong science.

#2. Meanwhile the literalists claim to believe that God buried dinosaur bones 6,000 years ago just to fool us. (pg. 25)

The only people trying to fool anyone are the evolutionists who claim that dinosaurs died out 60 million years ago. God didn’t bury any dinosaur bones, those creatures died like all other creatures did but they lived a lot more recently than evolutionists claim. There is no evidence supporting the evolutionary claim except faulty dating.

God doesn’t fool anyone, he doesn’t play tricks and he doesn’t falsify evidence. That is the realm of evil and evil is on the side of the evolutionist not truth. The evolutionist makes God equal to the devil and a purveyor of lies but God does not lie. This means that the evolutionist is mistaken or lying about when dinosaurs lived and died.

#3. What is the reason for the recent upsurge of anti-scientific passion? (pg. 25)

There is no real ‘upsurge of anti-scientific passion.’ There is an upsurge against the lies proclaimed by secular science and scientists. There is a big difference. There is a spiritual war going on and science is part of the field of battle. We cannot turn a blind eye and accept announced scientific findings until we consider the source, the motivations the intent of the announced conclusions by scientific experts.

Secular science has no interest in discovering the truth or supporting the Bible. The Bible is their enemy and by extension so is the true Christian. The two are spiritually natural enemies and have different agendas. The secular science has rejected the truth of the Bible thus their purpose is to find alternatives to the Bible no matter how absurd they theories are.

Their words expose their true feelings:

— It looks to me as if there is another hidden agenda to discredit the legitimate scientific community. (pg. 26)

— The stirring up of anti-intellectual sentiments is hardly a new political trick (pg. 26)

–But the country pays a steep price for discrediting and dismissing the advice of eminent well-qualified experts (pg. 27)

In the secular view right and wrong do not really exist nor does true or false teaching. The words above attacking the true Christians who try to point out the errors of the ‘legitimate scientific community’ only point out this flaw in secular scientific thinking.

There is true and false science but the secularist will not admit that they are on the false side but the true Christian knows they are. It is not easy to get the truth out there when dissenting evil voices have so many politicians, judges and educational officials on their side helping their cause.

The evolutionist also uses the words ‘irrational’ (pg. 28) & ‘rational’ (pg.28) to falsely label the combatants with the former applied to true Christians and the latter to evolutionists. The claim the believer is irrational because they believe the truth but in reality it is the height of rationality to believe the person who was there at the beginning and doubt those who arrived on the scene thousands of years after the fact.

#4. I believe we have no choice but to defend and protect the integrity and objectivity of science (pg. 29)

The idealistic views secular scientists hold for their field of research blinds them to the truth. They do not see that secular science does not have integrity or any objectivity. They also do not see the corruption that permeates their field along with the lack of honesty.

If secular science was as good as Dr. Susskind and other scientists claim, then we would see a very different field of study. One that wasn’t arrogant but humble, one that wasn’t a bully or seeking a monopoly on the science classroom but one that was open to different ideas that brought the right answers and the truth.

We would not have 5 different scientists giving 6 different conflicting opinions about the same topic or have them changing their minds each year. Contrary to Dr. Susskind’s belief that secular science is objective, there is no such thing as objectivity.

God made that clear when he said there are only two sides–his and evil’s. Secular science is not on God’s side and it claims to being objective undermine its claim of integrity. To have integrity one has to be honest and secular science is anything but honest.

#5. We all take it for granted that science is the attempt to explain as much of the world as we can by natural mechanisms (pg. 32)

The problem for the secular scientist, not all things in the world or the universe were brought into existence via the natural way initially. The limiting of the field of science to this definition means that secular scientists really do not care for the truth but seek the wrong answers on purpose.

The Bible speaks of people who willfully let themselves be deceived and secular science aids that desire. Secular science has no interest in fighting deception.

By the way, even if secular science provides a natural explanation, that effort doesn’t make their explanation correct. A natural explanation is simply an alternative to supernatural acts and leads people to doubt God and take their eyes off Jesus.

#6. My final advice is to forget arguing with those benighted zealots who would prefer that intellectual history had ended in the fifteenth century. There is no point in trying to convince the hard core creationists—or for that matter, the masters of manipulation. (pg. 32)

Actually we can reverse that advice and apply it to the hard-core and zealot evolutionist who are the true masters of manipulation. Just be wise when encountering someone who accepts evolution and make sure you are following God’s lead.

In other words, ‘do not caste pearls before swine.’


Intelligent Thought–2

Analyzing Jerry Coyne’s essay: Intelligent Design- the faith that dares not speak its name

I find the book Intelligent Thought far more interesting than Your Inner Fish even though it has not disappointed me by the different authors’ closed minds and their bias. Their blind belief that evolution occurs (pg. 6) stops them from being objective in their analysis of contradicting arguments..

The evolutionist complains about how a ‘fundamentalist’ or true believer won’t listen to opposing arguments but they do exactly the same thing with creationist points of views. Their minds shut faster than a speeding bullet when anything remotely related to God or the bible is mentioned.

It is hard to have an honest discussion with an evolutionist. This is one reason I am enjoying reading this book. It is providing me with information I would not normally obtain from an evolutionist in a normal discussion. Hopefully the following will help you in your own discussions with those who reject the truth and accept the evolutionary theory.

#1. Let us suppose that ID might indeed be an alternative and superior scientific theory—one that explains the natural world better than Darwinian evolution does. (pg. 5)

First, believers need to get off this idea that they have to come up with a scientific theory to explain origins or the natural world, including humans. We do not follow the demands of the secular world nor step to their criteria. We follow God’s demands and requirements and none of them make explaining origins or the natural world scientifically mandatory.

We explain everything biblically. There is no better explanation than “in the beginning God created…’ or ‘let there be and it was…’ These statements cover every aspect of the natural world and leaves no gaps. We do not need transition species, we do not need a fossil record nor do we need to date our finds to find a chronological order..

Our chronological order covers 7 days not millions or billions of years.

Second, Darwinian evolution does not explain the natural world at all. It paints a false picture of human history while requiring large amounts of faith to make the theory work. There are large gaps in Darwinian history which have no hope of being filled plus it misuses the evidence uncovered throughout the centuries.

Darwinian evolution also allows for large amounts of eisegetical work to be done along with large portions of conjecture, speculation and theorizing while twisting any supposed evidence they claim to have. One example of this are the series of skeletons on display in the different natural museums.

The skeletons are merely placed in any order and then declared that this represents a processional development. Problem, no transition can be observed in those displays. The transitions are declared not proven nor supported by actual observational evidence. Transitions are all declared not known or proven.

#2. A scientific theory isn’t just a guess or speculation, it is a convincing explanatory framework for a body of evidence about the real world. A good scientific theory makes sense of wide-ranging data that were previously unexplained. In addition, a scientific theory must make testable predictions and be vulnerable to falsification. (pg. 5)

Look at the key words—convincing, explanatory, framework, wide-ranging data, testable, predictions and falsification—a scientific theory doesn’t have to have truth or be true, it just has to be convincing and makes explanations about what doesn’t need explaining.

You probably realized that the criteria for a scientific theory are constructed by secular humans which favor secular thinking over divine truth. God just tells people to be honest and tell the truth. There is nothing scientific about origins. Nor do origins need to be explained as God has already done that in Genesis 1 and 2.

#3. When a theory has withstood many tests and made many correct predictions, it becomes a scientific fact. (pg. 5)

Yet, no tests have been made upon 1 claimed historical event in evolution. We do not see them testing the original conditions to see if they could sustain life, we do not see them testing the original one-celled microbe that supposedly started it all, we do not see one test replicating one claimed ancient transition.

The only thing we see are modern experiments recording genetic chemical reactions when certain ingredients are mixed together extrapolated to historical evolution as Darwin explained it. Then they claim they have proven evolution true. They are taking shortcuts and not proving their own theory.

#4. Individuals carrying genes better suited to the current environment leave more offspring, causing genetic change in populations over time which improves the fit of the organism to the environment (pg. 6)

The problem for the evolutionist is the question: where did these supposedly better genes come from? In all the hundreds of thousands of evolutionary experiments conducted over the past 200 years not one has recorded this information gathering phenomenon occurring. Not once.

The evolutionist has stated that mutations have developed due to the manipulation by outside intelligent beings but none of these mutations have added information to the specimen. The only information added is due to the information in the genetic material contained in the specimen and the added ingredients. Nothing new is formed or brought into the species being tested.

We also know that populations are not improved over time due to the continuation of corruption of human bodies pre, during and post birth, the continuation of diseases and other maladies that were inflicted upon the human race at Adam’s sin.

#5. Every bit of information we have gathered about nature is consonant with the theory of evolution and there is not one whit of evidence contradicting it. (pg. 6)

This is just not so. There is not one whit of information supporting evolution. None at all. Any supposed supporting information is read into the evidence.

#6. Why should divine creation follow such a path, from the simple to the complex? (pg. 7)

Tim D. White in his essay in the same book states, ‘The bodies of most mothers and fathers decay and leave no traces. (pg. 74) So how can we be sure the supposed fossil record is as simple and concise as the evolutionist says? They probably just haven’t found more complex skeletal structures in the earlier layers. If the more complex skeletal bodies left no trace then the evolutionist would not find any meaning their conclusion about the fossil record is false, suspect and in need of revision.

Also, on page 19 the author of the essay under review here states “There are indeed some groups of animals, including rabbits and bats, that appear suddenly in the fossil record, but given the incompleteness of that record this is hardly evidence for creation.”

So when the creationist uses the fossil record to disprove the evolutionary theory then the record is incomplete and not valid enough to use as evidence to support creationist arguments. But when the evolutionist uses the fossil record in defense of their theory then the fossil record is valid enough and contains enough information to prove their theory.

The supposed fossil record is being used by evolutionists to deceive people. They are not honest about their core piece of evidence.

#7. The evolutionary argument is that these imperfections and inefficiencies make sense only if one assumes that evolution has occurred! (pg. 9)

No, this is not true. In the evolutionary theory there is no source for any imperfection or inefficiency. In Genesis 3 there is. In the evolution theory there is no source for illness, corruption, or even death. Darwin constructed no source for these human events. Where did these aspects of life come from, where did they enter the life cycle and why would they enter the life cycle? There is no reason for these things to exist in the evolutionary theory.

Because they do exist, evolutionists have to find some explanation for them but they have no clue about their source or purpose for existing. There is also no reason in the evolutionary theory for predators either. The evolutionary theory can’t explain why some animals hunt and eat others.

If they claim natural selection imposed these aspects of life then that makes natural selection a far worse barbarian than people claim God to be when they rebel against his punishments against sinful people in the OT. Why would evolutionist give glory to and accept such a horrible process when they reject a just God who punishes his creation?

#8. Neo-Darwinian evolution passes with flying colors the test of a scientific theory as an explanatory framework for wide-ranging evidence. (pg, 11)

Not really. It doesn’t present one answer and leaves nothing but gaps and questions. All the evolutionary theory does is say that evolution and natural selection did it. The explanations provided by evolutionists are wanting and sans real details and proof. Too often the evolutionist invoke miracles when they cannot explain an event they declared took place.

#9. IDers admit to micro-evolution, involving natural selection within a kind and even to speciation, within a kind. (pg. 19)

Don’t do this. This is compromising with a false theory to appease those who think that natural genetic operation and animal breeding is natural selection. It isn’t. When we breed animals and plants all we are doing is seeing the creativity of God who designed the genes to react in certain ways when combined with other genetic material.

We see the innumerable options available to us when we work with genes. There is no natural selection involved at all. Our results are just one of a billion options already programmed into the genetic material by God.

There is no such thing as natural selection but there is such a thing as God genetic design which is open to a myriad of options when combined with other genetic material.

#10. We do not know if the earth is young or old…ID proponents take no official position on this point…The scientific evidence supporting an ancient earth is substantial and comes from several independent methods of dating. It is not doubted by any serious scientist. (pg. 20)

The insult at the end aside, this is just not so. The supposed ‘independent dating methods’ are not really independent. They were designed by unbelievers, the data is interpreted by unbelievers and so on. There is nothing independent about those dating methods. Of course secular scientists will not doubt the results for the results tell them what they want to hear.

Truthfully we do not know exactly when God created the heavens and the earth and no dating method can even begin to hope that they could date backwards. One of my archaeology professors said that we have about 10,000 years’ worth of archaeology evidence and if this is true, that would put life on this planet right within the framework of C14 dating whose half-life is 5,730 years approx. There are many dates produced by C14 that have been ‘recalibrated’ in order to fit the evolutionist viewpoint so they cannot say that the dating methods are independent. They are worked on by evolutionists who produce dates in favor of evolutionary thought.

#11. Here are the things that evolution can explain but intelligent design cannot: the fossil record, biogeography the existence of vestigial organs… Intelligent design invokes supernatural processes whose details are never spelled out and thus not subject to scientific investigation (pg. 22)

Actually evolution cannot explain those things especially vestigial organs. They have no clue what their purpose was or how they worked. They can guess and throw a bunch of data at the problem but in the long run they can’t do it.

The Bible doesn’t try to explain it because those details are not important to life. They are only important to evolutionists. ID may invoke supernatural processes but the true believer simply tells the truth—the origins of the world was a one-time supernatural act never to be repeated again and it was not done scientifically or naturally.

Science doesn’t need to explain anything about origins as it has already been explained by the Bible. If the secularist doesn’t accept that explanation then that is their problem and they should not have the right to invade the science classroom with their lies about origins.

2 Things

#1. A-ha Moment #16 or That’s Your Interpretation

Although I couldn’t have articulated it at the time, early on in my journey I discerned a tension between the Bible and what I can now refer to as my call to ministry

Many people use the word ‘call’ to explain their desire for and entry into ministry and others question what ‘the call’ really is. This is a debate best left for some other time but one thing is for sure if you feel God impressing upon you to go  into full-time ministry or any type of service for him, he is not leading yo to disobey or change his words.

God’s call does not include the inclusion of, participation in or support of sin. Yes women do get called for specific service for God and I am not going to argue against that fact. The woman sensing this call must make sure they are not being led to do things that contradict God’s word or sends them to positions they are not to occupy.

God is consistent with his word

I had a very clear sense from a young age that women could only do three things in ministry

In this day and age it is high time for godly men to instruct women correctly in order to keep them from disobeying & sinning against God .  Though we do not open up those positions God has reserved for men, women have a vital place in God’s service and in training women we should not be condescending or pull any punches.

Women are intelligent, smart and capable of serving God in many capacities. The one thing they need to learn is not every position is theirs for the taking. In representing god, women have to do it as correctly as the men do for their actions will hinder the cause of Christ if they do it wrong.

So my biggest “aha” moment about the Bible was when the light bulb came on and illuminated the space between presuppositions about the Bible and the Bible itself.

When I realized that my church tradition might be wrong about its highly restrictive views on women in ministry, it opened up that space between the Bible and my community of faith for exploration and for critique.

The problem with a lot of people who choose to alter scriptures to fit their desires is that they often confuse church tradition and truth. There are church traditions and they are not all biblical truths but that existence doesn’t disqualify all traditions practiced by the church.

If it did we would have no truth to be our foundation and guiding force. Church traditions also include biblical truths which are to be fooled in every era and in every congregation. Just because the truth may stop us from accomplishing certain personal objectives or we may not like them is not enough reason to lump them in with changeable,  non-biblical church traditions.

If we toss out the truth, then all we are doing is opening the door for false teaching and allow that destructive force to lead us the wrong way. Calling the truth ‘church traditions’ is just a sneaky tactic to catch unwary people off guard and force personal views into the church.

Instead of calling God or the Bible wrong, she called ‘church tradition’ wrong which provides her a safe pathway to questioning God and his instructions for his followers. I will agree that the ‘highly restrictive views on women in ministry’ may include personal limitations but again, that doesn’t mean all the restrictions are wrong.

I’ve come to understand that the problem with the claim “we just follow what the Bible says” is not so much about holding a set of shared convictions. It has more to do with the ignorance about that space between the Bible and us.

Here it is. The ‘that’s your interpretation’ mentality. What better way to undermine the truth and bring confusion into the church than to disregard what biblical authors wrote and import your own ideas.

She continues with this train of thought

When we simplistically think that our views are equal to what “the Bible says,” we limit our capacity to critique ourselves and our churches—we ignore the opportunity for self-reflection.

and basically says no one has the truth.Or that no one can read and understand the Bible because their views reflect what God has taught yet disagrees with her desires. She is wrong as, ‘the Bible says…’ causes us to critique ourselves, the church ad do self-reflection. We do have to make sure we are on the right path and the Bible guides us to that route.

To say it doesn’t just takes away our map and leaves us lost in the desert.  What ‘the Bible says..’ actually does is stop false teaching from entering the church and stops people from disobeying God. Though we have to make sure we do not include personal bias when using scripture to direct other believers or the church.

We also have to be sure we got the right application for the passages of scripture when we use them. But when it comes to women in ministry, there is no confusion concerning what the Bible says. There are no alternative readings to those passages.

Simple appeals to ‘what the Bible says’ are always the sign of (no doubt unconscious) subservience to an interpretive tradition, not liberation from it

She quotes a Trevor Hart here to support her point but the quote doesn’t work because it assumes people are slaves to human thought instead of obeying the words of God. it also makes the truth a matter of interpretation instead of actual teaching from the Holy Spirit. Those words demean the work of the Holy Spirit and make him incapable of leading humans to the truth.

In other words, she and that Hart fellow ae not working with the Holy spirit but disagree with him on what is truth.

It was through prying apart the Bible from my own tradition’s “what-the-Bible-says”  assumptions that gave me the courage to go to seminary, with all my questions in tow. And it was at seminary that the worlds of the biblical authors were opened up to me.

I learned in specific ways that the first-century world was quite different from my own and so careful thinking and self-reflection was needed to bridge the Bible’s messages between these contexts.

This is the ‘that was the culture of that time’ argument and she was not prepared to deal with it correctly. Many years ago I encountered the same argument in the Bible college I attended and never felt that was the right argument to make. It wasn’t till a few years later that I learned that that argument places culture above God and the Bible making it the supreme authority over both.

It also made culture infallible and God and scripture fallible. God doesn’t change so if he said 2000 years ago that certain church positions were for men only then those words apply today. God is not going to be inconsistent and change his instructions because secular culture demands it.

If secular culture is then able to influence and change God’s word, then we do not have God’s word. Secular culture is casting light upon God’s word not the other way around. Culture has become our guide and God is not.

And this is my passion still: to help my students read the Bible on its own terms, in line with the world in which the text was written, so that they can think carefully about what it means to recontextualize its messages today.

In other words, she is teaching students to misread God’s word, ignore the truth and disobey God.

#2. The Traditional View Of Hell

More and more Christians are beginning to reject the traditional view of hell which states the unjust will experience “eternal, conscious torment”

This is going to be interesting as he has 5 points telling everyone why some people are rejecting biblical teaching and opting for a different view of punishment for sinners.

1. Something in our spirit tells us that torturing people is morally wrong

So now a little voice inside of us tells us that God is morally wrong and humans are morally superior to him? I do not recall seeing that teaching anywhere in scripture. he is confused as well as being sent to hell is not a form of torture but is the punishment God has clearly warned us about if we reject his way of salvation.

During the historically recent debates over whether or not it’s okay to torture people, it has only been the most sick and twisted minds among us who have defended torture as being anything less than morally reprehensible

So is he calling God ‘sick and twisted’? It looks like it to me. The owner of that website is confused between the definitions of torture and punishment. torture is an act done to obtain information or get a certain response, much like what is done to spies and what the Spanish inquisition did to the Jews.

It is not punishment for crimes committed. Punishment is an act to correct or a payment for behavior. People being sent to hell are not sent there for God to get information from them or to get them to repent, they blew that chance when they were alive.

God is punishing them for their failure to repent from their sins.

2. The concept of eternal, conscious torment runs contrary to the whole testimony in scripture.

This is just flat-out wrong. It is part of the testimony of scripture informing people of the consequences if they refuse to repent and obey God. People cannot make informed choices if they do not have all the information  and God ensures that all people are told all the information.

God is just letting them know their options. The author of that article just doesn’t understand scripture at all.

Part of the reason why a growing number of us are rejecting the traditional view of hell, is that we’ve actually re-read the scriptures without our prefabricated evangelical filter

Notice he puts the blame on a human division of faith in order to disagree with biblical teaching. His words indicate that he is afraid of hell and want to be taken out of existence instead of enduring the torment. He doesn’t want to do the time for his spiritual crimes.

3. The final judge of each individual is Jesus, and torturing people seems contradictory to his character.

According to Romans, that is not correct,

on the day when, according to my gospel, God will judge the secrets of men through Christ Jesus (2:11 NASB)

No according to Revelation,

For this reason in one day her plagues will come, pestilence and mourning and famine, and she will be burned up with fire; for the Lord God who judges her is strong. (18:8 NASB)

or to the many passages of scripture describing God as our Judge.

However, the idea that the end result of rejecting God’s love will be a slow-roasting eternal torture session with Jesus at the controls, is almost asinine. This is not the Jesus we find in the New Testament. The Jesus we find in the New Testament is loving and just– but not dementedly cruel

Yet Jesus harshly punished those who defiled his father’s house and cursed a fig tree because it did not have fruit so he could eat. he also treated the Pharisees and other religious leaders quite harshly. I do not think this guy is reading the same Bible as the rest of us.

For a person who claims to be a Christian, he certainly insults God a lot. He also misreads jesus and his actions. Jesus did not come to judge but to save the lost; he also did not come to punish but provide a way to salvation.

He could not punish and judge until the people knew they had an escape from their sins and until they had actually rejected that escape route. You do not judge & punish someone until after they committed a crime. it would be wrong to do so and if jesus did that he would have sinned and disqualified himself from being our saviour.

4. Jesus would become a hypocrite, demanding that we nonviolently love our enemies while he does the complete opposite.

That author throws his own personal views into the life of Jesus and his teaching. Loving our enemies doesn’t mean we do not judge and punish them for their wrongdoings. What would happen to morality and the rule of law if we didn’t judge and punish those who broke the rules? People would stop caring about obeying and soon anarchy would arise.

Also, our enemies may not break any laws in their opposition to us. So he is confused about the passages of scripture he uses to support his point of view.

Jesus never over-turned the words ‘spare the rod and spoil the child’ edict. Turning the other cheek doesn’t mean we ignore rulebreakers and do not punish them for disobeying.

If Jesus commands that we love our enemies, refuse to use violence, and that we actually do good to those who hate us yet– eternally tortures his own enemies– he’s guilty of hypocrisy

No he is not because Jesus never said we could not punish those who break the rules. What that author is saying then is that God is not allowed to punish those who break his rules and if he does then he has sinned.

So if both God and Jesus sin in their judgment and punishment of sinners then where does that leave everyone? That author in order to escape responsibility for his sins would ruin eternity for everyone. Why should the obedient be punished by being deprived of their reward?

His way is not just or fair.

5. We simply can’t get past the idea that we are more gracious and merciful than Jesus himself.

I will bet that he and those he speaks of would not be as gracious as Jesus if their wives and  daughters were raped or their husbands and sons murdered or sodomized. I would guarantee that the majority of them would be judging and punishing far more harshly , unjustly and unfairly than they accuse jesus of being.

How are they more gracious and merciful than Jesus when they would allow unrepentant sin into paradise?

I have been wronged by a lot of people in my life, but I have absolutely zero desire to torture anyone

Having ‘zero desire to torture anyone’ is helped when you do not have the authority or power to torture anyone for their supposed crimes again him. His generalization doesn’t help his point as we do not know what he means by the word ‘wronged’ or what violations it includes.

The other problem here is, it wasn’t his rules that were broken when he was wronged. God’s rules were broken and he has the power and authority to punish those violators as he sees fit. God also has the right to do so as, again, it was his rules that were broken.

 I could never make the call to sentence one to torture or “pull the switch” to commence torture, because seeing people suffer is something that disrupts my spirit. I want no part in the causation of suffering, but instead want to be an agent who helps to relieve suffering.

He doesn’t have to make the call because we were not taught by Jesus to be judge, jury and executioner. We were taught to live by both Jesus’ and God’s rules and instructions for our lives. At no time did Jesus or God give up their duties as judge, jury and executioner to us. We are not perfect thus we are not to usurp those roles and take them upon ourselves.

That author confuses these issues of teaching, Jesus did not come here to teach us how to do his and his father’s duties but how to live to please them and be fishers of men, etc.

Also, that author does not understand that punishment does relieve suffering.  He is short-sighted and sees only what he wants to see. The punishment of evildoers can end suffering if the offender is brought to repentance by the punishment. The common people will not suffer at the hands of the rehabilitated offender.

The suffering of the victim(s) will cease because the offender was punished for his crimes and sent away temporarily. That author only views punishment as suffering not as justice or relief of suffering for the victims. Are we to let offenders freely attack innocent people because punishment will bring them suffering?

His logic doesn’t make sense. He also doesn’t understand God’s ways. He is using sinful, fallible thinking to stand in judgment of a holy, infallible God whose thinking he does not comprehend.

If I were to sit on the judgement seat (something I never will), there’s just no possible way I could ever sentence people to eternal torture– especially for things like being born into an Amazonian tribe who never heard the message of Jesus. If I were judge, I would always lean on the option of radical mercy

But judgment and punishment are not up to him. What is up to him is to repent of his sins and obey God, living his life as God wants. He is not to stand in judgment or question God’s judgment. He should be asking God why and seeking to understand so he doesn’t lose his faith.

The why is– God hates sin and does not want it in his presence. Also, few people chose to avoid punishment thus God has few options as he already laid out what was going to take place when time on earth ended.

That author forgets that the Bible says God wants all men to be save so he is not the bloodthirsty monster that author makes him out to be. Does that author think that God sits up there hoping people will reject him so he can get a thrill out of sending his own creation to eternal torment?

If so, then that author has misread and misunderstood God.

Hell is real. It is a punishment for unrepentant sin, it is not a torture to satisfy some blood lust by a demonic super being. That author makes God out to be the devil and that is not smart.

Your Inner Fish- 2

I have lots of time this week so I fill it with writing. I hope I am not boring you or being overexposed. This edition of the Your Inner Fish series will cover 2 chapters in order to highlight important details which help us understand how evolutionists anchor their theory and get to the ‘evidence’ they claim supports their alternative to the biblical record.

#1. Even the simplest motion involves a complex interplay among many parts packed in a small space. (pg. 25)

If we didn’t have the Bible telling us what God is going to do, or explaining that people love darkness rather than light, it would be hard to understand how intelligent people would actually accept an idea that claims complex structures and movements came about randomly.

Even on the microscopic level complexity and order are seen and attested to by unbelievers, yet they refuse to acknowledge God’s handiwork, preferring to credit a non-existent process.

#2.owen’s genius  was not that he focused on what made the various skeleton’s different. What he found…were exceptional similarities among creatures as different as frogs and people.All creatures with limbs whether those limbs are wings, flippers  or hands have a common design. (pg. 39)

Darwin took these similarities and declared that all life forms had a common ancestor but what he and the subsequent evolutionists miss is the reason why there are similarities. Those common features were not the result of a common ancestor who was uncreative and could not think of anything else to give its descendants but were the result of a common designer who knew exactly what purpose those animals served and what they had to do.

The evolutionist expects to see every creature with its own unique design before they will admit that there was a designer and not a  common ancestor but that desire is unrealistic for it does not take into account the terrain the animal must traverse on a daily basis, its life support functions, its feeding needs and so on.

Similar functions and environment require similar skeletal structures even though the exterior body looks different. Flexibility in the limbs due to bone structure is needed in most animals and all humans because survival also demands it. The ground and stones and other natural materials are not soft as a pillow and flexibility is needed to protect the bones.

Similarity is not evidence of a common ancestor but a common designer with foresight.

#3. it looked like a normal fish, with fins and scales, but behind its throat were large vascular sacs: lungs…  Some fish, then, had structures like those in a limb. (pg. 33)

I could get into a long drawn out explanation defining the difference between amphibians and fish but there is only one real point to make here. There is no law, no restriction no limitations in history, the Bible or anywhere that says fish cannot have bone structures like mammals or lungs like land animals.

Where does God limit these features to land animals or amphibians alone? It is the assumption of the evolutionist that claims the only answer is common ancestry but there is nothing real or physical to indicate such descent.

All these features tell us is that God gave some fish different skeletal structures from the others and some fish got lucky to have lungs.  The presence of these differences in fish do not indicate transition or transitional species. Transition is read into the specimens.

#4. One big difference is the position of our hips…This change in position came about by changes to the hip joint, pelvis and upper leg… (pg. 43)

Yet the author and all evolutionists cannot demonstrate how this change took place, when it took place and if it actually did take place. They are simply using assumption to explain the differences between life forms while trying to maintain the validity of their theory.

The evolutionist claims that all life forms are related thus they need an explanation for the difference regardless of how absurd the explanation becomes and how little supporting evidence they can produce. Stating a change took place doesn’t make it so. The evolutionist gas to demonstrate beyond a shadow of a doubt how and when this change took place then replicate the actual change.

Anyone can say a change took place. it takes real work, real proof and real examples to prove the statement. The evolutionist cannot do that.

#5. Experiments are great because we can actually manipulate something to see the results. (pg. 45)

The key words are in bold. Once you have manipulated something you have then removed the random nature behind the supposed development of life. The results are not originating from the actual claim made y evolutionist but have become a directed result due to an outside intelligent force intervening in the process.

For evolution to work and be proven true, the evolutionist has to start at square one, set up the original conditions then step back and let their supposed theory do its job. Anything else only contradicts their own theory and proves that an outside intelligent being is needed to develop or create life.

The supposed process of evolution did not start with fully developed life forms, then manipulated genetical material to alter the species into a very creative and complex design. Evolution, the claim goes, started from square one and then added information to its specimen which then developed into the complex and beautiful varieties of life forms we see today.

The problem for evolutionists, no information adding mechanism or event has ever been found, seen or duplicated. Without this mechanism evolution fails.

#6. Inside this paddle are millions of cells which ultimately give rise to the skeleton, nerves and muscles that we will have for the rest of our lives. (pg. 48)

I do not want to get into a long boring discussion on the workings of DNA or other genetical material yet we do need to discuss genetics for a bit. The author of that book points to similar genes which do the same work in almost all animals. He uses this information as evidence for a common ancestor.

But he ignores one important fact–development of skeletons, bodies, etc. all require the same basic process. It doesn’t matter the life form. There has to be a mechanism that provides the instructions giving the different genes their individual roles in this process. Why have 5 or 10 different mechanisms when 1 will do?

The evolutionist wants to see complete differences and are stymied when God chose 1 simple way of dealing with the same function.

#7 . …we need to look at embryos and sometimes interfere with their development to assess what happens when things go wrong. (pg. 48)

In other words, all they are doing is finding out how a gene or protein works. Their interference cannot determine common descent, only what takes place when corruption enters the working area and throws a monkey wrench into the smooth operation of the genes.

The results may produce mutations but those mutations do not indicate a different path for development. They only indicate that something corrupted the normal working instructions and altered that specific life form’s body.

What is missing from all of these experiments are the differences in life forms. The data from these known aspects would upset the evolutionists’ thinking and theory. They are trying to explain how similarities are evidence for common descent while ignoring the how the information producing the differences contradicts their theory.

We can explain similarities by acknowledging the similar environment, the similar needs for food and water, and so on but none of those explanations point in the direction of a common ancestor. They point to a common designer who designed one to two environments for all life forms to exist in.

Without the similarities, life would not exist as we know it in this environment. the differences in life forms put an end to common descent.

Evolutionists like to ignore the difficulties which hinder their theory from being a reality. in other words, they cheat. They need to ignore facts and evidence in order to construct their theory.

This is why they stick to very broad generalities like ‘evolution is change’. They cannot fill in the details nor can the produce the actual changes, or replicate them for all to see. Change isn’t evolution, it is a convenient tool to use to confuse people.

Intelligent Thought-1

I have extra time today so i thought I would comment upon the book Intelligent Thought: science versus the Intelligent Design Movement, edited by John Brockman.  But first allow me to say that in no way do I support the intelligent design movement and I am not going to defend them here.

I have found that the intelligent design movement incorporates too many false ideas into its theories and it is not a viable option for believers. We already have the creation passages of the Bible to use and we do not need to make creation ‘scientific’ to allow it to enter into the science classroom.

In fact, the study of origins does not belong in the science classroom at all for it was never a scientific event. The idea that it was is a made up story by those who rejected the truth and wanted some natural explanation instead.

The second thing I would like to say, before I address some comments from the book, is that I have come to hate the writings of evolutionists. I read their books a lot in order to get the real story behind their theories and every book is basically the same.

The evolutionist author cannot refrain from (1)insulting those who disagree with them; (2) be superior to anyone else, especially those who believe the Bible over science; (3) being biased, unobjective, dishonest, hypocritical and so on. Their one-sided writing is very clear and they make no attempts to be open-minded about their analysis of the opposing side.

The comments addressed here will come from the introduction only. In the almost 5 pages there is already too much information to refute adequately but here goes.

#1. Science is the big news. Science is the big story. science is public culture. (pg. ix)

This is very arrogant and like the ancient secular scientists of old who thought the sun and other planets revolved around the earth, Brockman thinks life revolves around science. It doesn’t of course but you will have a hard time convincing any scientist of that fact.

That quote sets the tone for the reader telling him or her that nothing matters except science. Sad for the scientist but there are more important hings in life than their field of study. To knock that chip off their shoulder, science did not create life, education, love, the universe or invent food, liquids or other important items for life today.

Science is merely a very limited tool used by secular people to bully the rest of the world into submission and to force their unbelief upon the unwary and vulnerable. Some supporters of science will point to all the advancement science has made over the years; yet they won’t tell you that they did it using God-given intelligence, God-given natural resources and God-given curiosity among other items we use to investigate life.

Secular science wants to be its own god and master bowing to no one and owing nothing to anyone. Scientists are not the top dog and they could not accomplish what they have without God’s initial gifts to them and other supernatural aid.

#2. Moreover, the intelligent design movement imperils American global dominance in science and in so doing presents the gravest of threats to the American economy. (pg.x)

I forgot the evolutionist use of fear when defending their ideology. The reality is, if you remove any mention of evolution from anything economic, scientific and so on, nothing will happen at all.

Americans and other western students of science will not miss a step in their work nor stop finding solutions to problems. They will just stop crediting evolution for God’s work. Fear is a great bullying tactic and it is a great weapon for terrorists so if everything relies upon evolution why do secular scientists have to resort to those tactics that everyone hates and tries to eliminate from life?

#3. The book is a thoughtful response to the bizarre claims made by the ID movement’s advocates, whose only interest in science appears to be to replace it with beliefs consistent  with those of the Middle Ages (pg. x)

The usual insult and the manipulative use of key adjectives. The evolutionist is the ‘thoughtful’ one while the non-evolutionist is ‘bizarre’. Nope, no objectivity there nor is there any honesty as the evolutionist wants to relegate possible truth and the truth to Middle Age superstition.

Yet wasn’t it the secular scientists of the Middle Ages who thought up and practiced the idea of turning iron into gold? The truth just didn’t appear when modern science came into existence so it really isn’t an insult to believers to have their beliefs equated with the truth that has appeared throughout the ages of history.

The modern secular scientist is only insulting their own kind who used secular science to try to make themselves rich. Of course, the above quote just exemplifies the arrogance already noted that comes with secular science.

The disdain secular scientists have for anyone who dares disagree with the evolutionist is astounding. It seems that the secular scientists thinks that only they can find the answers to the world’s problems and every one else is just a blithering idiot. Unfortunately for the secular scientist who does think this way, science has failed to solve any problem or need plaguing the world for the past 2,000 years.

It seems that secular science has failed in its self-appointed quest as world hunger thrives, world poverty is not going away and world peace is just a fantasy. Secular science should not be so arrogant as it cannot even solve a simple mystery like human origins.

#4. School districts across the country …have been besieged by demands to teach the debate, to present the controversy when, in actuality, there is no debate no controversy. (pg. x)

Actually there is, it is just that evolutionists are deceived into thinking their isn’t and they live in a state of denial. They simply do not want opposition for their false theory so they will falsify the reality in order to gain a monopoly in areas they do not belong.

Evolutionists point to a suppose body of evidence and claim they have won the debate because they claim their theory is true BUT the Bible tells us, that the person blowing their own horn is wrong. For evolutionists to win the debate they would have to produce the actual original conditions that spawned life, the actual mechanism that brought life to this planet, the actual intervention or point of contact with life by their process mechanism called evolution, then step back and let it all do the same work all over again randomly and without aid from scientists in any way, shape or form.

At that point they have won the debate and put the controversy to rest BUT they cannot do that, thus the debate continues.

#5. Educated Americans are dumbstruck by the attempt of the state of Kansas to officially redefine science to include the supernatural.(pg. x)

Insult number 2. It seems that only evolutionists are educated which would be news to me and all educated anti-evolutionists. Brockman seems to not have read the Overton decision which states in part that ‘science is whatever the majority of scientists make it to be’ (paraphrased from The Battle of Beginnings by Dr. Del Ratzsch).

If all the people of the state of Kansas decides that science includes the supernatural then that is science for the people of the state of Kansas. Science has already been redefined by the secularist as they ejected the supernatural from their field a long time ago even though God was a part of science for thousands of years prior to that occasion.

What science is turns out to be very subjective then and depends upon the majority for its identity.

#6. ID is not science (pg.xi)

If ID is not science then neither can evolution. Evolutionists rely upon miracles, leaps of faith, invoke supernatural processes and unexplained phenomenon to make their theory work. The supernatural processes are the actual mechanisms of the process of evolution and natural selection. No one has ever seen these items, felt them or seen their interaction with life yet they are credited with developing life as we know it.

Also, evolution ignores its own  ground rules in order to make their theory seem plausible. We cannot observe or replicate one evolutionary claimed historical transition yet evolution is still considered science. The three rules that Judge Jones III (pgs. x & xi) layout to disqualify ID from science can be used to disqualify evolution.

To say that opposing ideology must include naturalist mechanisms and ideas in its opposition to the naturalist ideology is shooting the opposition in the foot and saying that the naturalist is right by default. Why have opposition at all when the opponents cannot honestly present their case and evidence to show the naturalist viewpoint is wrong?

In other words, if we have to say evolution did it to show that evolution didn’t do it then why have a debate at all? All we are doing is using the same argument to argue against itself. That is not even close to making something scientific but it is ensuring that the false teaching is not opposed.

The 2nd point in Judge Jones III’s decision– irreducible complexity is not an argument– is removing any evidence to contradict the evolutionary theory. That is like telling the defense council that they cannot defend their client unless they follow the prosecutions line of thinking and presentation of the evidence.

It also tells us that the judge and Brockman have not read Matt Ridley’s book called Genome, which tells us that any subtraction or addition to the exact number of chromosomes a life form has means instant death for the life form (mentioned from memory, he is not the only person to say this fact).

For the evolutionist to win their objectives, they need to tilt the playing field, ignore and omit vital information that keeps their theory from being true and make sure no one else can play.

#7. …it is abundantly clear that the Board’s ID Policy violates the establishment clause…(pg. xi)

The evolutionist will always misrepresent the constitution and the establishment clause to ensure they get their monopoly on the science classroom. Allowing for creation, ID or even creation science to be taught in the science classroom is not violating the constitution or the establishment clause. The government is not establishing a religion but allowing its students to be educated thoroughly and there is a big difference between the two.

The evolutionist is violating the free speech clause of the constitution by barring the teacher from expressing alternative views of origins, contrary to the theory of evolution in the science classroom.

If evolution were true, they would not have to fight anyone and they would not be afraid of opposing views point being included in the science classroom. But since evolution is neither true nor scientific then they are afraid and they do fight.

#8. Given that all of science and reason is on the side of evolution… (pg. xii)

Insult #3. That is just another misrepresentation by evolutionists. Actually all science and reason are not on the side of evolution but the evolutionist won’t admit to it. Even if they were that act would not change the truth. The truth doesn’t need either science or reason to be on its side to be true.

The truth is the truth no matter if no one sides with it. Majority rule doesn’t determine what the truth is. The evolutionist deceives themselves by thinking that they have science on their side or for that matter reason. They just have unbelief on their side and that is it.

#9. What are the dishonest tactics employed in promoting the ID movement and how should these tactics be met?

This is actually funny for it is the pot calling the kettle black. The most dishonest people in the world is probably the evolutionist (though I am sure some would disagree with me and list bankers, politicians and others ahead of the evolutionist).

You cannot get an honest argument out of an evolutionist even if you paid for one. At least I have never had one in the years of discussing evolution and creation with them. The evolutionist states that evolution is a fact but there is one slight problem for them–as stated earlier, they cannot produce the evidence they need to show they are correct.

Even if they come up with the original environment conditions that spawned life, they cannot verify that evidence to show that they got it right. They have nothing from the original conditions to compare their claim.

In fact, they do not even know what the original environment was so they cannot even guess. The only way to prove their claim is for them to leave the claimed original conditions somewhere and see if it spawns the form they claim started it all.

Any modern evolutionary experiment has to be compared with the actual actions of the process credited for developing life yet the evolutionist can’t do that for they do not know what the supposed actual actions were.

They can assume, conjecture, theorize, speculate and leap to conclusions but they do not have actual results of the supposed work by either the process of evolution or natural selection. This absence renders everything they say moot and unscientific.

The final blow to the evolutionist is–they have no hope or chance of discovering the actual work of their supposed process. For them the transitional work is long gone never to be repeated again which then makes their theory unscientific.

Intelligent thought would be smart and wise enough to side with God and not with the evolutionist.