Monday, July 31, 2006

The Collapsing Case for Darwinism

This looks like a book I'd like to read and add to my home library!


Why Darwinism -- like Marxism and Freudianism before it -- is headed for extinction

And how science is discovering that the complex mechanisms of life cannot be explained by unguided processes

The Politically Incorrect Guide to Darwinism and Intelligent Design
by Jonathan Wells
(Review from

In the 1925 Scopes trial, the American Civil Liberties Union sued to allow the teaching of Darwin's theory of evolution in public schools. Seventy-five years later, in Kitzmiller v. Dover, the ACLU sued to prevent the teaching of an alternative to Darwin's theory known as "Intelligent Design" -- and won. Why did the ACLU turn from defending the free-speech rights of Darwinists to silencing their opponents? In The Politically Incorrect Guide to Darwinism and Intelligent Design, Jonathan Wells, Ph.D., reveals that, for today's Darwinists, there may be no other choice: unable to fend off growing challenges from scientists, or to compete with rival theories better adapted to the latest evidence, Darwinism - like Marxism and Freudianism before it -- is simply unfit to survive.

Dr. Wells, a biologist and senior fellow at the esteemed Discovery Institute, begins by explaining the basic tenets of Darwinism, and the evidence both for and against it. He reveals, for instance, that the fossil record, which according to Darwin should be teeming with "transitional" fossils showing the development of one species to the next, so far hasn't produced a single incontestable example. On the other hand, certain well-documented aspects of the fossil record - such as the "Cambrian Explosion," in which innumerable new species suddenly appeared fully formed -- directly contradict Darwin's theory. Wells also shows how most of the other "evidence" for evolution -- including textbook "icons" such as Peppered Moths, Darwin's Finches, Haeckel's Embryos, and the Tree of Life -- has been exaggerated, distorted . . . and even faked.

Wells then turns to the theory of Intelligent Design (ID), the idea that some features of the natural world, such as the internal machinery of cells, are too "irreducibly complex" to have resulted from unguided natural processes alone. In clear-cut layman's language, he reveals the growing evidence for ID coming out of scientific specialties from microbiology to astrophysics. And he explains why, since ID is not based on the Bible or religious doctrines, and doesn't draw any conclusions about who (or what) is the cause of design in nature, it is not a form of Biblical creationism or natural theology.

But religion does play a role in the debate over Darwin -- though not the way evolutionists claim. Wells (who holds doctorates in biology and theology) shows how Darwin reasoned that evolution is true because divine Creation "must" be false -- a theological assumption oddly out of place in a scientific debate. In other words, Darwinists' materialistic, atheistic assumptions rule out any theories but their own, and account for their willingness to explain away the evidence -- or lack of it. (This hostility to religion may also explain the appeal of Darwinism, which from Darwin's day down to our own been used to justify radical changes in moral norms in areas such as eugenics, abortion, and -- in the case of Nazi Germany -- even racial extermination.) Finally, Wells details how Darwinists have succeeded in imposing a government-supported monopoly on the biological sciences in this country -- and how opponents of Darwinism are being driven from their careers by Darwinist heresy-hunters.

The collapsing case for Darwinism -- and the mounting case for Intelligent Design

* How, though Darwin is often credited with citing "overwhelming evidence" for his theory of natural selection, all he actually provided was "one or two imaginary illustrations" of how it might work

* Why many of Darwin's contemporaries regarded the same data he cited as evidence, not of common ancestry, but of common design

* One pro-Darwin science writer who candidly admits that the chain of fossil ancestry is "a completely human invention created after the fact"

* How, despite centuries of artificial breeding and decades of experiments, no one has ever observed one species turn into another ("speciation")

* Why most alleged instances of "observed" speciation are actually analyses of already existing species that show how speciation might occur -- but never that it has

* Darwin vs. Darwin: how he conceded that his theory was contradicted by known evidence (or lack thereof), though he hoped later findings would vindicate him - which still hasn't occurred after 150 years

* How Darwin's "strongest single class of facts" -- the early vertebrate embryos -- shows the opposite of what he thought it showed

* The Cambrian Explosion -- aka biology's "Big Bang": how it contradicts Darwin's branching "Tree of Life"

* Word games Darwinists play (example: exploiting the diverse meanings of "evolution" to distract critics)

* How science textbooks continue to feature "evidence" for Darwinism that has long since been proven fraudulent

* "Nothing in biology makes sense except in the light of evolution," one Darwinist claims. Then why were most major biological disciplines founded either before Darwin, or by scientists who rejected his theory?

* Why the clinical practice of medicine has no use for Darwinism, despite claims that it is impossible to practice medicine without applying its principles

* Evolutionary biologist: "Perhaps it would be easier, and in the long run more productive, to abandon the attempt to force the data . . . into the mold provided by Darwin"

* Modern microbiologist: "Throughout 150 years of the science of bacteriology, there is no evidence that one species of bacteria has changed into another"

* National Academy of Sciences member: "Darwin's theory ... serves no important role in guiding modern experimental biology. That branch of science simply makes no practical use of Darwin's theory"

* How Darwin's theory provided the pseudoscientific foundation for the Nazis' racial extermination policies

* How Haeckel's famous faked embryo drawings were widely used to promote abortion in late twentieth-century America by convincing people that human embryos were little more than fish

* How the most common definition of Intelligent Design in the news media is flatly incorrect

* How living cells -- which Darwin thought were mere blobs of protoplasm -- actually consist of countless molecular machines that have all the hallmarks of design

* How design can be inferred not only in living things but also in various features of the cosmos, such as gravity

* How the Earth itself seems uniquely designed not only for life, but also for scientific observation

* How Darwin changed the definition of "science" itself to mean providing materialistic explanations for everything

* How Darwinism is widely used in public education to discredit traditional Christianity and promote atheism

* How Darwinists have openly declared that they will destroy the careers of professors and students who criticize them or defend intelligent design -- and they're doing it

A Prophetic Prayer for Israel

This is powerful folks!

A Prayer for Israel (Psalm 83)

HT: A Christian Witness

Related posts:

David's Incredible Prophecy

Jerusalem Countdown

We Are Witnessing Biblical Prophecy

Update: I just heard an interview between the Israeli Ambassador to the U.N. and Bill O'Reilly. The question was asked about whether Israel would have bombed an area that ended up killing innocent women and children if they knew that they were there. The ambassador said (paraphrased here) that he wouldn't be surprised if Hezbollah physically kept these people there; knowing that an attack by Israeli fighter jets was imminent. The ambassador thinks this is likely because it would turn people against Israel for the civilian deaths and thus cause a backhanded victory for Hezbollah.

This makes sense to me. Advanced warning was given by Israel so that civilians in Lebanon could get out of harms way.

After all, the Islamofacists are known for sacrificing their own people via suicide/homicide bombings, so why not kill a few civilians to make Israel's military look bad?

The Islamofacist terrorists who flew planes into buildings on 9/11 had no regard for innocent men, women or children on that day. What would ever make Hezbollah not take advantage of the situation and allow some of Lebanon's innocent civilians to be sacrificed at the bloody hands of their fanatical cause??

You may ask, "where's the proof?" The proof can be seen in how the nations of Iran and Syria and the Palestinian Hamas sympathizers celebrated after 9/11 happened in the U.S. Israel (and the U.S.) always regret the loss of innocent civilian life in any warfare situation. That's the huge difference between us (and Israel) and them (Islamofacists). It is going to take a generation (or two) to end the hateful training camps of the Islamofacist terrorism recruiters.

God help us!

There used to be a saying that called such despicable fighting a "dirty type of warfare." There is no honor in the Islamofacist form of terrorism...only death!

Negotiation is not possible with such people. Their minds and cause are set in stone, and they will kill anyone to reach their objectives. I just wish that the liberal Democrats in our country could see this fight for what it really is.

The bottom line is that public opinion on this incident will not, afterall, prevent Israel from doing what it needs to do. As the ambassador also mentioned, wiping out Hezbollah, which has been a decades long stronghold at the border of Lebanon and Israel, will make Israel more safe with the added benefit of allowing Lebanon to be free from the grip of Hezbollah's terrorism while enabling their struggling democratic government to build, develop and become stronger for the sake of it's people.

What do you think about the ambassador's statement(s) on this topic?

Tough Minded About Heaven (Part 2)

(3.) We are to be tough-minded about our purpose.

2 Peter 3:14 (KJV) - Wherefore, beloved, seeing that ye look for such things, be diligent that ye may be found of him in peace, without spot, and blameless.

Two additional verses in 2 Peter contain the words, "be diligent."

2 Peter 1:5 (KJV) - And beside this, giving all diligence, add to your faith virtue; and to virtue knowledge;

2 Peter 1:10 (KJV) - Wherefore the rather, brethren, give diligence to make your calling and election sure: for if ye do these things, ye shall never fall:

Whenever something is repeatedly exhorted, it alerts us to sit up and pay attention to what is being said!

Is God calling you? Through the gifts which are severally given through the Holy Spirit, He makes our election and calling sure. Through the Holy Spirit's leading, we can match our lives for the thing through which we are called.

It is like God asks each and every one of us, 'I gave you a gift - what did you do with it?'

We all have our priorty lists. Don't put God at the bottom of that list!

Philippians 3:13-14 (KJV) -

13 I press toward the mark for the prize of the high calling of God in Christ Jesus.

14 Let us therefore, as many as be perfect, be thus minded: and if in any thing ye be otherwise minded, God shall reveal even this unto you.

Are you tough-minded in your purpose in life?

(4.) We are to be tough-minded about our profession.

2 Peter 3:17 (KJV) - Ye therefore, beloved, seeing ye know [these things] before, beware lest ye also, being led away with the error of the wicked, fall from your own stedfastness.

Being "stedfast" in the faith requires not just being a "surface Christian."

[Christine: Do you know God's Word? Are you stedfast in your belief? Or, would the increasing amount of the world's "isms," new religions, and the attitude that "there's no such thing as one believes that anymore..." be waiting in the wings of your mind to hijack you away from genuine faith?]

Are you tough-minded about belief?

(5.) We are to be tough-minded about our progress.

2 Peter 3 is the chapter to read regarding examining our progress while here on earth as well as our preparedness for our future eternal home. In 2 Peter 3:18, the last thing that Peter says:

2 Peter 3:18 (KJV) - But grow in grace, and [in] the knowledge of our Lord and Saviour Jesus Christ. To him [be] glory both now and for ever. Amen.

We are to grow in grace and in the knowledge of our Lord and Savior, Jesus Christ. How do we accomplish this? By reading and studying His Word. When we diligently do this, we won't get carried away by any cult or new-age religion.

We will never be able to master the Bible - even if we live to age 100! But we can continually grow in the grace and knowledge of Jesus!

Are you growing? Or, are you not growing? If not, then you are a perfect target for being caught up in wrong things!

[Christine: This is a fact. I have seen it hundreds of times. People who call themselves "Christian" yet they act no different than the pagan culture that surrounds us! Be forewarned!! If you are "friends with the world" (meaning, participating in the the sinful cultural habits of pagan people) then you are no friend of God! Jesus told us that, "no one can serve two masters, for he will either obey one and despise the other...!"]

We are to grow in Him all the way in glory!

How is your spiritual progress?

Just as we take great care of our physical being (eat well, exercise, breathe clean air, stay away from contaminents etc.) we must also be diligent to care for our spiritual being as well!

This spiritual growth comes through the will of God. We are to be sober, watchful and pray.

1 Peter 4:7 (KJV) - But the end of all things is at hand: be ye therefore sober, and watch unto prayer

Do you only pray when you want to? (Been there, done that!) If so, then you will never do it! Be tough-minded about your prayer life!

[Christine: I once felt guilty about not going into a quiet "prayer room" to pray. Then I discovered that prayer is just talking with God as you would a best friend! You can pray anywhere, anytime, silently, while doing chores etc. He's always listening... We can follow the model of The Lords Prayer by first praising His Name, agreeing for His Will to be done, thankful for what He provides us, repentance of and requesting forgiveness for sin, and deliverance from evil. We can make our requests known to God and remember to thank Him for answered prayer. Finally, we can recognize Him again, for who He is and recognize His Coming Kingdom, His Infinite Power and Glory forever.]

Growth comes through the will of God! It's God will for you to grow!

Philippians 1:6 (KJV) - Being confident of this very thing, that he which hath begun a good work in you will perform [it] until the day of Jesus Christ:

Revelation 22:7 applies to the whole Bible!

Revelation 22:7 (KJV) - Behold, I come quickly: blessed [is] he that keepeth the sayings of the prophecy of this book.

Hebrews 10:24-25 (KJV) -
23 Let us hold fast the profession of [our] faith without wavering; (for he [is] faithful that promised;)

24 And let us consider one another to provoke unto love and to good works:

25 Not forsaking the assembling of ourselves together, as the manner of some [is]; but exhorting [one another]: and so much the more, as ye see the day approaching.

What you believe about the future, determines how you live today.

Move away from this principle? You are in danger of drift!

Progress with the Lord and knowing His Word allows you the opportunity to receive rewards by bringing others with you. Not for your own glory...but FOR HIS GLORY!

There is a saying:

Aim at heaven - you get earth thrown in.
Aim at the earth - you get nothing.

Sunday, July 30, 2006

Tough Minded About Heaven

Dr. David Jeremiah's sermon this morning was, as usual, just awesome! He is currently doing a series regarding "everything you wanted to know about heaven." Of course, we can't know absolutely everything, but the Lord has provided much information through His written Word, the Bible.

Dr. Jeremiah's topic today was one not to be missed! Every Christian who visits this blog will be blessed by what he shared.



Here are the notes:

Tough Minded About Heaven
by Dr. David Jeremiah

As saved Christians do you think it is important how we spend our energies here? It has been said that those who are "heavenly minded are of no earthly good." But that catch phrase misses the point.

The New Testament shows us many verses of consistent truths; that what you think about heaven determines how you live today.

In a previous study, the renovation of the earth at the end of the age was shared.

2 Peter 3: 7-13 (NKJV)

7 But the heavens and the earth which are now preserved by the same word, are reserved for fire until the day of judgment and perdition of ungodly men.

8 But, beloved, do not forget this one thing, that with the Lord one day is as a thousand years, and a thousand years as one day. 9 The Lord is not slack concerning His promise, as some count slackness, but is longsuffering toward *us, not willing that any should perish but that all should come to repentance.

The Day of the Lord

10 But the day of the Lord will come as a thief in the night, in which the heavens will pass away with a great noise, and the elements will melt with fervent heat; both the earth and the works that are in it will be *burned up. 11 Therefore, since all these things will be dissolved, what manner of persons ought you to be in holy conduct and godliness, 12 looking for and hastening the coming of the day of God, because of which the heavens will be dissolved, being on fire, and the elements will melt with fervent heat? 13 Nevertheless we, according to His promise, look for new heavens and a new earth in which righteousness dwells.

Verse 11 asks us, "what manner of persons are you to be now!" How are we to live in light of what we know about the future? As Christian believers who are born again in Jesus Christ, we have gained new truth. We continue to gain upon that truth through study of God's Word. With this, comes new responsibility. We are to be different people because of what God has shown us! We need to discipline our minds to think differently!

Our culture, the media, and all the "things that are not of God" can lure us away from who we are meant to be in Christ Jesus. If we are not tough-minded, we could be led to drown in it all.

1Pe 1:13 (NKJV)
Wherefore gird up the loins of your mind, be sober, and hope to the end for the grace that is to be brought unto you at the revelation of Jesus Christ;

The term "girding up" described how the ancient Jews would take their long robes and stuff it into the girdle at the waist in order to run. It's like the saying, "rolling up your sleeves" to get busy working. We are to roll up the sleeves of our minds. We can't be sloppy or casual in our minds.

Do you think critically? Or do you just float along by, and according to the culture? The trap is that you could be overcome by it...

Being born again, studying God's word, prayer and attending church helps to change the way we think; for the better!

2 Peter 3 shares 5 things that demand our tough-mindedness. Knowing that there is a heaven and a hell makes us more diligent to share the Good News of the gospel of Christ with those who do not know Him!

(1.) We need to be tough-minded about our purity.

2 Peter 3:11 - [Seeing] then [that] all these things shall be dissolved, what manner [of persons] ought ye to be in [all] holy conversation and godliness, (KJV)

As Christ followers, we are to be set apart for service to God!

1 Peter 1:13-16 (NKJV)

Living Before God Our Father

13 Therefore gird up the loins of your mind, be sober, and rest your hope fully upon the grace that is to be brought to you at the revelation of Jesus Christ; 14 as obedient children, not conforming yourselves to the former lusts, as in your ignorance; 15 but as He who called you is holy, you also be holy in all your conduct, 16 because it is written, "Be holy, for I am holy."*

*1:16 Leviticus 11:44, 45, 19:2, 20:7

We are called to be tough-minded about godliness! This is the inward attitude towards God!

1 Timothy 4:7 - 9 (KJV)

1Ti 4:7 But refuse profane and old wives' fables, and exercise thyself [rather] unto godliness.

1Ti 4:8 For bodily exercise profiteth little: but godliness is profitable unto all things, having promise of the life that now is, and of that which is to come.

1Ti 4:9 This [is] a faithful saying and worthy of all acceptation.

We are to exercise ourselves toward godliness. This involves reading the Bible, prayer, attending church. We don't become more godly doing nothing!

Titus 2:12 - 15 (KJV)

12 Teaching us that, denying ungodliness and worldly lusts, we should live soberly, righteously, and godly, in this present world;

13 Looking for that blessed hope, and the glorious appearing of the great God and our Saviour Jesus Christ;

14 Who gave himself for us, that he might redeem us from all iniquity, and purify unto himself a peculiar people, zealous of good works.

15 These things speak, and exhort, and rebuke with all authority. Let no man despise thee.

Compare those verses to what the culture and media expose us to on a daily basis! We can be lulled into complacency. We can be lured through the guise of "tolerance." We can be desensitized to what is sinful and evil.

Sensitize yourself to this: the Holy Spirit associates godliness and holiness to the return of Christ!

How often does the bible discuss the return of Christ along with holiness and righteousness?

1 Corinthians 1:7-8 (KJV)

7 So that ye come behind in no gift; waiting for the coming of our Lord Jesus Christ:

8 Who shall also confirm you unto the end, [that ye may be] blameless in the day of our Lord Jesus Christ.

Colossians 3:4,5 (KJV)

4 When Christ, [who is] our life, shall appear, then shall ye also appear with him in glory.

5 Mortify therefore your members which are upon the earth; fornication, uncleanness, inordinate affection, evil concupiscence, and covetousness, which is idolatry:

[Added 7/31/06: I looked up the definition of the term "mortify" at and this is what it says:

1. To cause to experience shame, humiliation, or wounded pride; humiliate.
2. To discipline (one's body and physical appetites) by self-denial or self-inflicted privation.

This is why the gospel message is often ridiculed and rejected by reprobate man. They need to face the bad news about their sinful nature before the Good News of the gospel can be accepted.

It's not just about the "Sermon on the Mount" as many liberal theologians like to think and teach. It's about facing our sin and our inability to save our own souls from the penalty of eternal death. This requires recognizing the "bad news" first. We must have sorrow, remorse, confession and repentance of all sin before the Good News of the gospel of mercy and grace can be bestowed upon us!]

1 Thessalonians 3:11-13 (KJV)

11 Now God himself and our Father, and our Lord Jesus Christ, direct our way unto you.

12 And the Lord make you to increase and abound in love one toward another, and toward all [men], even as we [do] toward you:

13 To the end he may stablish your hearts unblameable in holiness before God, even our Father, at the coming of our Lord Jesus Christ with all his saints.

1 Thessalonians 5:23 (KJV) - And the very God of peace sanctify you wholly; and [I pray God] your whole spirit and soul and body be preserved blameless unto the coming of our Lord Jesus Christ.

1 John 2:28 (KJV) - And now, little children, abide in him; that, when he shall appear, we may have confidence, and not be ashamed before him at his coming.

1 John 3:2-3 (KJV)

2 Beloved, now are we the sons of God, and it doth not yet appear what we shall be: but we know that, when he shall appear, we shall be like him; for we shall see him as he is.

3 And every man that hath this hope in him purifieth himself, even as he is pure.

When we read about our future in heaven, it motivates us to live in a godly way here!

When your mind drifts from heaven, there can be a tendency to backslide into sin.

Analyze yourself. How much time do you invest in things that don't really matter?

Don't allow the world to pour us in it's mold!

[Note from Christine: That sentence really says a lot about what we are up against in this fallen world. We are either "molded (meaning, being formed) into the image of Christ," or, we could be poured in the world's "trap of sin mold." Or, even more descriptively, when we are not tough-minded about purity, the rot of actual mold can engulf us!]

(2.) We need to be tough-minded about Jesus' Second Coming.

Some people don't care about this; they see it as not important.

[Christine: I have run into Christians many times who have never read the book of Revelation! Apparently, their pastors do not see it as important!]

However, it is extremely important! About 1/4 of the Bible teaches about the future!

Christ is coming back! First, in the Rapture, then he returns with his saints.

There will be scoffers, the Bible warns us:

2 Peter 3:3-4 (KJV)

3 Knowing this first, that there shall come in the last days scoffers, walking after their own lusts,

4 And saying, Where is the promise of his coming? for since the fathers fell asleep, all things continue as [they were] from the beginning of the creation.

Haven't you noticed many skeptics scoffing at us and saying, "He's been gone over 2,000 years! If he hasn't returned yet, what makes you think he ever will!"

The Bible tells us that to God, 1,000 years is as 1 day and 1 day is as 1,000 years. He doesn't exist on our timetable.

The fulfilled prophecies in the New Testament from the predictions in the Old Testament (about 300) about Jesus Christ serve as proof that we can have confidence in Jesus' ultimate return! They were fulfilled exactly as predicted. The science of statistics shows how staggering an accomplishment this is for one man to fulfill!

Titus 2:10 (KJV) - Not purloining, but shewing all good fidelity; that they may adorn the doctrine of God our Saviour in all things.

Hebrews 9:28 (KJV) - So Christ was once offered to bear the sins of many; and unto them that look for him shall he appear the second time without sin unto salvation.

Peter 3:12 (KJV) - Looking for and hasting unto the coming of the day of God, wherein the heavens being on fire shall be dissolved, and the elements shall melt with fervent heat?

2 Timothy 4:8 (KJV) - Henceforth there is laid up for me a crown of righteousness, which the Lord, the righteous judge, shall give me at that day: and not to me only, but unto all them also that love his appearing.

Notice the verse says, "unto all them also that love his appearing." The term "Maranatha" means "the Lord comes." When we exhort that term, it means that we look forward, with joy and love, his marvelous appearing!

*******to be continued*******

[Next: Tough-minded about our purpose.]

Friday, July 28, 2006

Is "Nature" All There Is?

"Man is the result of a purposeless and natural process that did not have him in mind." - George Gaylord Simpson

The recent discussions here revealed to me that those who adhere to philosophical naturalism (a.k.a. materialism)* often have a hostile dislike for supernatural creation. Since the evolution believers generally have the "microphone of the public's attention" in their favor, most of the listeners hear the usual mantra that falsely draws an unmerited conclusion that says, "religious fundamentalists are attacking science again."

I have experienced this myself. Many times in fact. But the most notable (for me, personally) occurred back when Intelligent Design was basically an unknown challenge to Darwinism. In 1999, after attending a forum on ID, we were encouraged to write letters and/or opinion pieces to our local newspapers. We were told by the leaders at the forum to be prepared for rejection. I was pleased (and, quite frankly, surprised) to find that the first paper I submitted an article to actually published it!

A year later, I submitted my second article and that was also published. Of course, there was a flurry of letters to the editor with all the typical accusations flying against the argument from design. However, what I found quite curious was that many of the letters were simply the "attack the messenger" type that didn't have answers to the questions being addressed.

My third article was rejected by our local paper. By this time (2003) the controversy over ID had become much more noticeable due to several lawsuits brought up by individuals who were staunchly against even "teaching the controversy" idea. This time, my article was only accepted and published by The Christian Times (now called The Christian Examiner).

What had changed?

The subject had since become another hated challenger that was now considered a "politically incorrect" position in the debate. The ultimate message was, "don't mess with Darwinian exclusivity in the public schools."

Phillip E. Johnson wrote a book called Defeating Darwinism by Opening Minds. In this book he asks several pertinent questions, one of which often gets unanswered, ignored, or outrightly dismissed:

What should we do if empirical evidence and materialist philosophy are going in different directions?

Some challengers who frequent this blog might claim that the two are not going in different directions. But I see this as something that cannot forever be denied.

Johnson writes:

The biologists have to tell us candidly whether they are asking us to believe in materialism because of what they know from studying the facts of biology or whether they are so devoted to the philosophy that they are willing to disregard evidence that doesn't fit it.

If the materialist domination of the intellectual world is seriously called into question, it will be possible for the next generation of Christians to enter the universities as participants in the search for truth, not as outsiders who have no choice but to submit to materialist rules.

Without the staunch, biased, and "true by definition" rules sanctioned by Darwinistic materialism-only philosophy, Johnson states that students might have the exciting opportunity to ask the following questions:

Why should the life of the mind exclude the possibility that a mind is behind our existence?

Why should we assume that modern materialist philosophies are the wave of the future instead of a holdover from the nineteenth century?

If information is something fundamentally different from matter, what is the ultimate source of the information?

Will science be harmed if it gives up its ambition to explain everything, or has that ambition only harmed science by tempting scientists to resort to unsound methods?

If materialism is not an adequate starting point for rationality, what alternatives are there?


* [Naturalism and materialism mean essentially the same thing for present purposes, and so I use the terms interchangeably. Naturalism means that nature is all there is; materialism means that matter (i.e., the fundamental particles that make up both matter and energy) is all there is. Because evolutionary naturalists insist that nature is made up of those particles, there is no difference between naturalism and materialism.]

Tuesday, July 25, 2006

A Working Faith

A Working Faith

Show me your faith without your works, and I will show you my faith by my works. James 2:18b

Recommended Reading
James 2:14-18

Ask the average man or woman on the street what the prerequisite for a person to go to heaven is, and the response you are likely to receive is that he or she must "be a good person." This view might be termed the "merit system" of salvation. On a practical level, this belief is untenable because it is impossible to know in this life how many good works are sufficient to win paradise. But more importantly, the "merit system" of salvation is contrary to the clear teaching of Holy Scripture.

The Bible says that "all have sinned" (Romans 3:23), and that a man is justified - that is, has had his sins forgiven and has established a right relationship with God - by faith alone in Jesus Christ (Galatians 2:16) apart from good works.

But have good works no role to play in our salvation? Yes, they validate and make manifest to others that the faith we profess is indeed a saving faith in Jesus Christ. And because this kind of faith produces good works, those who view our actions will also see the light of Jesus and glorify God the Father (Matthew 5:16). So let your faith be revealed in your actions today.

We are justified by faith alone, but by a faith that is not alone.
John Calvin

Isaiah 41:1 - 43:28

Turning Point Online

Monday, July 24, 2006

Darwinian Shell Game

I have just completed reading chapter 9 Proof For How The Walkman Evolved Into the iPod By Random Mutation of Ann Coulter's new book, Godless: The Church of Liberalism. It's a great read because while she completely demolishes the so-called "evidence" of the neo-Darwinism faith-based theory of macro-evolution, at the same time she adds a lot of humor to the subject!

I don't think that the author would mind my sharing a bit from the beginning of the chapter, and then the end of the chapter here on my blog. She has much more to say in between, but this short glimpse may encourage people to buy her book except, of course, in the cases of Phronk, Ubersehen, GMpilot, Boo and Jody who would most likely cringe at the thought! ;-)

I can't wait to get into chapter 10, which is entitled The Scientific Method of Stoning and Burning because it speaks directly to the conversation going on in this post.

Chapter 10 begins with, "The single greatest victory of the Darwiniacs is in the realm of rhetoric, not science." Whew! Bet that chapter will make them blisteringly angry!

Anyway, back to chapter 9:

Ann points out that:

"Darwiniacs do not have a single observable example of one species evolving into another by the Darwinian mechanism of variation and selection. All they have is a story. It is a story that inspires fanatical devotion from the cult simply because their story excludes a creator. They have seized upon something that looks like progress from primitive life forms to more complex life forms and invented a story to explain how the various categories of animals orginated. But animal sequences do not prove that the Darwinian mechanism of natural selection caused the similarities. It is just as likely that the similarities are proof of intelligent design, creationiam, or the Giant Raccoon's Flatulence theory."

Some of the chapter covers what Jonathan Well's exposed as frauds in the Icons of Evolution book; and also includes some facinating faux pas from the likes of Scientific American and the New York Times (not a surprise!). There is much more as well, but for the purpose of sharing just a bit of what she wrote, I will skip over to the final two pages of chapter 9.

The only evidence for Darwin's theory of evolution is fake evidence, and every time Darwiniacs are caught hawking fake "proof," they complain that it's merely a "gap" in the theory. The Darwiniacs play a shell game with the evidence, but the evidence is never under any of the shells. The point isn't that schoolchildren should be "taught the controversy" - schoolchildren should be taught the truth.

This includes:

* the truth about the entire fossil record, which shows a very non-Darwinian progression, noticeably lacking the vast number of transitional species we ought to see
* the truth about the Cambrian explosion, in which virtually all the animal phyla suddenly appeared, with no Darwinian ancestors
* the truth about the Galapagos finch population changing not one bit since Darwin first observed the finches more than 170 years ago
* the truth about the peppered moth experiment
* the truth about Haeckel's embryos being a fraud perpetrated by a leading German eugenicist
* the truth about the Miller-Urey experiment being based on premises that are no longer accepted
* the truth about the nonexistence of computer simulations of the evolution of the eye

These aren't gaps in a scientific theory - there is no scientific theory. There is only a story about how a bear might have fallen into the ocean and become a whale. As Colin Patterson asked, What is any one true thing about evolution?

In the end, evolutionists' only argument is contempt. The cultists know that if people were allowed to hear the arguments against evolution for just sixty seconds, all would be lost. So they demonize the people making those arguments. You're just saying that because you believe in God! You probably believe in a flat Earth too! You sound like a Holocaust revisionist! That's all you ever get.

The evolutionists' self-advertisements paint a different picture. A New York Times review of a book on intelligent design summarized the situation this way: "As Michael Ruse points out, modern science's refusal to cry miracle when faced with explanatory difficulties has yielded 'fantastic dividends.' Letting divine causes fill in wherever naturalistic ones are hard to find is not only bad theology - it leaves you worshiping a 'God of the gaps' - but it is also a science-stopper." 11

Far from chastely refusing to acknowledge miracles, evolutionists are the primary source of them. These aren't chalk-covered scientists toiling away with their test tubes and Bunsen burners. They are rligious fanatics for whom evolution must be true and any evidence to the contrary - including, for example, the entire fossil record- is something that must be explained away with a fanciful excuse, like "our evidence didn't fossilize."

Meanwhile, and by stark contrast, ID scientists do not fill the "gaps" with God. They simply say intelligence is a force that exists in the universe and we can see its effects and what it does - in Behe's flagellum, in the Cambrian explosion, in Gould and Eldredge's "punctuated equilibrium."

Evolutionists keep modifying their theory to say, "Assume a miracle," and the intelligent design scientists say, "Hey, does anyone else notice that it's always the same miracle?" It's a miracle of design. Design in the universe may well be explained by something other than God, but we'll never know as long as everyone is required to pretend it's not there. To say intelligent design scientists are merely "filling in the gaps" with God is like saying Sir Isaac Newton "filled in the gaps" with the theory of gravity. He saw stuff dropping to the ground and tried to explain it. If only the Darwiniacs had been around, they could have told Newton, I don't see anything dropping! It's just an accident! Do you believe in God or something?

Nor are intelligent design scientists looking at things they can't explain: Quite the opposite. They are looking at things they can explain but which Darwin didn't even know about, like the internal mechanism of the cell, and saying, That wasn't created by natural selection - that required high-tech engineering. By contrast, the evolution cult members look at things they can't explain and say, We can't explain it, but the one thing we do know is that there is no intelligence in the universe. It must have been random chance, or it's not "science."

Let the conversation (or, perhaps more likely bickering) begin!

11 Jim Holt, "Supernatural Selection, " New York Times, April 14, 2002

Saturday, July 22, 2006

End of the Spear

Last night, I saw the movie, End of the Spear on DVD. Being that it is a Christian, independent film done by first time director, Jim Hanon, I wondered whether or not the film would rate in my own, personal, "classic to watch over and over again" category. Well, I wasn't disappointed. In fact, I found myself intensely moved by this film! If you haven't seen this awesome movie that is based on a remarkable true story, I highly recommend it! However, because of the violent content, you might need to judge whether or not your children under the age of 10 should view it (it is rated PG-13 for that reason).

The back of the DVD box says this:

Worlds collide and tragedy strikes as a missionary group journeys to the heart of the Amazon jungle in search of the Waodani, a tribe of fierce warriors completely isolated from civilization. When five of the missionaries are killed by tribesmen, their families are left husbandless and fatherless. Despite their tremendous loss, and as a testament to their faith, the families decide to remain in Ecuador and live among the Waodani as originally planned. But the effects of that first encounter have yet to subside: A young boy, determined to unlock the secret of his father's death, must learn to accept a tragedy he cannot remember in this powerful tale of sacrifice, courage and redemption!

That paragraph does not come anywhere near how moving this movie really is! I was brought to tears several times throughout the film. I don't want to be a "spoiler" for the sake of those who have not seen the movie yet, but if you want to read many more excellent viewer comments, go to End of the Spear, scroll down and click on check for other user comments.

This is one of those movies that I need to see again. It has also motivated me to read at least one of the 2 books based on this incident. "Through Gates of Splendor" and "Shadow of the Almighty" by Elisabeth Elliot also tell this story.

Even though I knew what was eventually going to happen to the missionaries, I was surprised by how it actually came about. The one thing that caught me was the fact that their deaths were built upon a lie.

The second thing that I noticed was that this primitive tribe practiced amorality (without a conscience because they obviously did not know about Bible-based morality), but they also showed signs of guilt when they broke the rules of the tribe (showing that a built-in conscience from God was evident, too). The third thing that I noticed about these indigenous people was that their own form of "human autonomy" starkly reveals that unrestrained man has a natural penchant for criminality and inhumanity. The history behind this warring tribe told us that they and their rival tribe were continually involved in killing each other. There was a fear that they may eventually kill each other off!

Knowing all of this about these people shows the astounding courage of the men who were willing to risk their lives to reach these people. They had no idea in which particular direction their contact would ultimately go. Would it lead to friendliness and the chance to share the gospel? Or, would they just be killed? As the story unfolds, we find out the answers to both questions.

One reviewer at the website link (above) said:

"This is an excellent true story of love, forgiveness and living one's life for Christ to the fullest. This movie defines what Jesus meant by "the greatest love is shown when people lay down their lives for their friends." It also shows how God can radically change our lives no matter what age we are and how settled we have become."

Another said:

"The best stories are true stories that end holding out a hope.

"He is no fool who gives what he cannot keep to gain what he cannot lose." Jim Elliot

Go see what Jim gave, and what he gained. It is incomprehensible."

Still another stated:

" I was stunned by the commitment of these missionary families. It may be difficult to believe in something as a calling, but I think that there's no better word to describe the motivation of these people to go deep in the amazone jungle to try to reach a tribe which is totally ruled by fear and vengeance. They strike me as ordinary people who give up their ordinary lives, because God had spoken to them in some way. The determination of those families is great, they don't give up even when it cost the lives of their beloved. It's hard to not see the hand of God supporting and comforting them, just to move on. The result is awesome, a total transformation. Where fear and vengeance ruled, now love is at reign."

I plan to share more of my own personal reactions to this film and the true story it reveals. And I plan to view it again with my family. One commenter summed it up quite well:

"Only with the power of our Creator can any of us truly forgive... This is the fruit of that forgiveness. Words can not express I suppose the nearest one is true and undying Love! The story brought to life by a man named Steve Saint, truly the son of a Saint, Nate Saint to be exact... it sounds like make believe but its all true. Nate and 4 other Brave men gave the ultimate sacrifice, they lived and died in a beautiful but deadly South American jungle over 50 years ago. Living out their convictions in a way most of us would never have the faith or brave hearts to do. Steve Saint and several other amazing people bring the drama to life. You will feel like you too are standing on that jungle river bank so many years ago. However this story is not over. The reality of that day is still being felt today and no doubt till Heaven returns. Awesome and Remarkable! See this, it will forever stay in your heart!"

If you have seen this movie, please share your thoughts and impressions about it! You can include "this comment may include spoilers" so that those who still want to see it without reading the "spoilers" can choose not to read the comment (I bet most peek anyway!)

Thursday, July 20, 2006

Chopra's Jesus is Liberalism's "Gospel"

Tonight, I ran across a post over at Matthew that reveals a quote made by Deepak Chopra regarding the ECUSA's recent decision. I decided to copy and paste the entire post, then add some comments to it:

Here’s a hypothetical situation. If I had my own radio/television show (maybe even a podcast), I just might devote an entire show each week to tracking the jibberish that comes out of Deepak Chopra’s mouth. Chopra has become an emblematic voice for 21st century American spirituality; he has an unmatched ability to speak ad nauseam without ever saying anything of actual substance.

Somehow this also translates into printed form. Take, for example, his article in Monday’s San Francisco Chronicle. Referring to the ECUSA’s recent decision, he writes:

[It] was an act of cowardice because it did not reflect the ideals of love in Christianity and was motivated by reactionaries in the Episcopal denomination. Countering a long tradition of laissez-faire tolerance, the reactionaries have gotten tough and threatened to form their own church if gays are promoted in the priesthood. The worldwide Anglicans are more intolerant, upholding that homosexuality is forbidden, unnatural, wrong or an outright sin, depending on who is doing the disapproving. You’d think that someone would stand up and ask a simple question: Who are we to condemn gays if Christ didn’t? In fact, who are we to condemn any sinner, since Christ didn’t? Christianity is about forgiveness, and for the past two decades, as fundamentalism swept through every Protestant denomination, moderates and liberals have been driven out, and were roundly condemned as they left. Along with them went tolerance and forgiveness, not to mention love.

Did Christ teach love or is that just a liberal bias? In the current climate, it’s hard to remember, but one thing is certain: Once a tight cabal of fundamentalists takes over any denomination, Christ’s teachings go out the window. The reversal of Christianity from a religion of love to a religion of hate is the greatest religious tragedy of our time.

Actually, Jesus has a lot to say that relates to judgment and wrath. And it’s not just a matter of homosexuality, but it strikes at the heart of the sin that infects and afflicts every son and daughter of Adam. And Jesus understood this - he came to “seek and to save the lost” (Luke 19:10). Unfortunately, Chopra’s Jesus is one that is far too common in the popular mind. He leaves the matter of our guilt untouched and simply tells us to be “better people.”

But this is not Jesus and this is no Christianity. Another religion, perhaps, but not Christianity. Chopra’s Jesus brings to mind the indictment issued by H. Richard Niebuhr against liberalism’s gospel in The Kingdom of God in America (1938): "A God without wrath brought men without sin into a Kingdom without judgment through the ministrations of a Christ without a Cross."


Chopra has made criticisms about Biblical Christianity (a.k.a. Fundamentalism to many of it's detractors) before. One of the best debates that I have ever seen on television last year was between Chopra and Christian apologist, Greg Koukl. They appeared together on on Lee Strobel's Faith Under Fire program.

In a past blogpost called Hostility Towards Christian Faith, I shared Greg's brilliant response to Chopra's obvious dislike and hostility towards the true Gospel and truth claims of Biblical Christianity:

A few months ago I watched Greg Koukl (a wonderful Christian apologist) and Deepak Chopra discuss the future of faith on Lee Strobel's Faith Under Fire. Dr. Chopra has written numerous books on New Age spirituality that have sold millions of copies.

Greg did a superb job of representing the gospel in content and character, modeling the qualities of an ambassador that he and the folks at Stand to Reason seek to instill in others. He repeatedly demonstrated the problems with religious relativism and exposed the fact that, contrary to his denial that he is dogmatic, Dr. Chopra adheres to a theological position of which he seeks to persuade others.

As a sign of respect for Jesus, Dr. Chopra said that his teaching in the Sermon on the Mount is among his favorites and that he carries a copy of it with him. However, he considers Jesus only one among a number of God's messengers. Not only is this a contradiction of the biblical witness to Jesus' uniqueness, it's also unintelligible given Dr. Chopra's own concept of the nature of God. You see, Dr. Chopra emphatically denies that God is a personal being.

The concept of messenger presupposes two activities, both of which can only be performed by persons. The first is that of sending or commissioning. A messenger is one who is sent by someone not something.

The second activity presupposed by the concept of messenger is communication. A messenger is one who conveys a what? That's right - a message. The task of a messenger is to convey some kind of communication from the one who sent him or her to the recipient.

If I were to tell you that my toaster wanted me to tell you something, you'd think that I was either joking or something was seriously wrong with me. That's because we know that toasters and other impersonal entities don't communicate. So, how Dr. Chopra explains the concept of an impersonal God having messengers, I don't know.
I don't think he can. And he didn't. Dr. Chopra's position was logically impossible and spiritually unsatisfying.

It truly was absolutely fabulous! Greg Koukl pointed out the fact that people can have differing beliefs regarding faith, but that it is logically impossible for them all to be true at the same time. His trust in Jesus Christ and God's Word stood in direct contrast to Deepak Chopra who admitted "embracing his uncertainty." Koukl's view demonstrates a steadfast and true faith where Chopra's view can only lead to theological oblivion.

This is truly an important point to remember and share when confronted by someone adhering to such New Age beliefs.

Several weeks ago, I heard a Christian evangelist's radio broadcast and the one thing about his discussion that stood out in my mind was the fact that there is a liberal Christian movement today that is geared towards making The Sermon on the Mount the "new gospel" of Christianity. The evangelist pointed out the danger of doing this because even though the Sermon on the Mount is important in living our lives as Christian believers, it isn't the Gospel message that Jesus told us to "go into all the world and preach, baptizing in the name of the Father, and of the Son, and of the Holy Spirit."

The message of the Cross of Christ involves the following: first, and foremost, the repentance of sins; then, forgiveness for those sins by faith in Christ and His shed blood at the cross. Only then, can reconciliation, mercy, grace, and ultimately salvation of the soul be bestowed upon the born again believer. In John 3:3, Jesus didn't say, 'you should be born again.' Jesus didn't say, 'I suggest that you be born again.' He said, "You MUST be born again."

The author at the Matthew Hall blogsite sums it up quite well:

Unfortunately, Chopra’s Jesus is one that is far too common in the popular mind. He leaves the matter of our guilt untouched and simply tells us to be “better people.”

But this is not Jesus and this is no Christianity. Another religion, perhaps, but not Christianity. Chopra’s Jesus brings to mind the indictment issued by H. Richard Niebuhr against liberalism’s gospel in The Kingdom of God in America (1938): "A God without wrath brought men without sin into a Kingdom without judgment through the ministrations of a Christ without a Cross."

For more about the reasons to avoid the heresy and apostasy of "Christ without a Cross," see this post that discusses Beware the Crossless Gospel.

Hat Tip: SmartChristian

Wednesday, July 19, 2006

Identify Yourself

Wednesday, July 19

Identify Yourself

Examine yourselves as to whether you are in the faith. Test yourselves. Do you not know yourselves, that Jesus Christ is in you? - unless indeed you are disqualified.
2 Corinthians 13:5

Recommended Reading
2 Corinthians 5:12-17

In Iraq, a current strategy of the anti-government insurgents is to dress as Iraqi soldiers or policemen in order to infiltrate high-security zones. The mere profession of authority - even possession of uniforms and badges - is no longer sufficient to establish identity.

Jesus warned about spiritual imposters - wolves dressed in sheep's clothing (Matthew 7:15). He was referring to the danger of judging spirituality based on external appearances. Christians need to take these words to heart and follow Paul's admonition to examine ourselves to see if we are indeed in the faith. The goal is not to create doubt but to create confidence! But confidence cannot be enjoyed without a thorough examination to see whether one has truly been born again. Has your life changed? Do you have an increasing sensitivity to sin? Is pleasing Christ daily your chief pursuit?

Don't be afraid to look closely at your spiritual life so that you may rest confidently in your eternal life.

We need to rediscover the almost lost discipline of self-examination; and then a reawakened sense of sin will beget a reawakened sense of wonder.
Andrew Murray

Isaiah 14:1 - 18:7

Turning Point Online

Monday, July 17, 2006

Debate? Or Talking Past Each Other?

Over at Dani's blogspot, I have been engaged in a conversation (yet again!) about Darwinism. As you will read, the point about the arguments is often missed by those who hold to such a theory as "fact". It isn't fact, and most of all, it isn't a very good theory either.

I want to stress that my objection to a particular portion of evolutionary theory (called Darwinism) does not include the obvious, observable minor changes that are often called "microevolution." It is the extrapolation of that evidence (for microevolution) that the scientific elites often use (illegitimately, IMO) to advance the idea of "macroevolution."

Definition of terms from

n. Evolution resulting from a succession of relatively small genetic variations that often cause the formation of new subspecies.

n : evolution on a large scale extending over geologic era and resulting in the formation of new taxonomic groups

I made a comment about a visit to a museum that had plaster representations of supposed ancestors via evolutionary theory. I said, "What a bunch of hooey." The man who was about to take a picture of the exhibit obviously agreed and decided not to take the picture. It was quite a moment (for me, at least) because I made a commitment to learn more about this theory of evolution.

From that point on, I have discovered so many frauds, fallacies, hoaxes, fake icons and extrapolations of evidence that not only makes macroevolution appear ridiculous, but even more importantly shows evidence that it is indeed impossible.

Next, in response to my post, a blogger named phronk stated,

"It better continue, if you still haven't discovered that creation is the ultimate in hooey."

[This is the gist of Creation vs. Evolution debates's called the who's guilty of more "hooey" argument. heh heh...j/k]

In my response to phronk, I quoted a Scripture passage that identifies people like phronk who would "worship the created rather than the Creator" and why this is so.

Paul was led along by the power of the Holy Spirit to record God's Word about people like you who would "worship the created rather than the Creator."

Romans 1:20-23

20 For since the creation of the world His invisible attributes are clearly seen, being understood by the things that are made, even His eternal power and Godhead, so that they are without excuse, 21 because, although they knew God, they did not glorify Him as God, nor were thankful, but became futile in their thoughts, and their foolish hearts were darkened. 22 Professing to be wise, they became fools, 23 and changed the glory of the incorruptible God into an image made like corruptible man--and birds and four-footed animals and creeping things.

Because phronk has fallen into having a religion of the unbeliever, and through having a reprobate mind he cannot see the errors of his ways. But God sees and knows them. For more about what a mind steeped in reprobation means, see my post called It's A Spiritual Battle, Not Just a Casual Debate.

I see many of the top cultural and moral arguments of today as evidence that there is a spiritual battle going on underneath it all. I believe that this is true regarding abortion, euthanasia, homosexual "rights," their relentless agenda being pushed on children and the effort to redefine marriage. Spiritual battles abound domestically in the face of sexual sin such as pornography, child molestation, human trafficking, prostitution, adultery, fornication, sex-predator teachers, the homosexual pederast priest scandal etc. Much of this stems from an improper view of why we were created and Who our Creator is. Therefore, when you read the above link, keep in mind all of these other sexual sins as well as the one being discussed.

Over the last 150 years, philosophical Darwinism has done tremendous harm to the hearts, minds, souls and spirits of children who have been indoctrinated into believing that "macroevolution is fact". The belief that we are "nothing but mammals" affects the intellect, wisdom, values, virtues, sexual proclivities and overall behavior of those who adhere to Darwinism's religious dogma. In my conversations and debates, I have found that proponents of macroevolution and proponents of Creation/Intelligent Design tend to talk past each other. Could the following conversation be considered evidence of my premise here? See if you might agree.



A blogger name ubersehen chimes in:

Ubersehen said...

"Is citing scripture supposed to prove anything, Christine?"

I respond:

Christinewjc said...

What's wrong ubersehen; need an explanation of what these Scripture verses reveal? I thought it was quite clear and directly answered phronk's claim.

Does it prove anything? Yes. For me it does.

Ubersehen said...

"Does it prove anything? Yes. For me it does.

Sure, but you weren't using it to prove anything to yourself, you were using it in response to Phronk's argument.

Phronk's Claim: Biblical creation is false.

Your Response: Biblical creation is not false because the bible says it isn't.

So no, the passages you quoted don't need clarifying, thank you. The issue is that you are trying to disprove criticism of the accuracy of your bible by citing your bible. That's circular reasoning and is a logical fallacy.

It would be as if I told you that eating cake was bad for you, and you responded "But it tastes delicious!" That response does not address the pertinent issue, but only states an irrelevant quality of the subject under examination.

So, your response to "Is citing scripture supposed to prove anything, Christine?", winds up being "Yes. For me it does."

And only for you.

My response:


If you read through the thread a little bit more carefully, you may discover something else at work here. Allow me to walk you through it.

I made a comment about a visit to a museum that had plaster representations of supposed ancestors via evolutionary theory. I said, "What a bunch of hooey." The man who was about to take a picture of the exhibit obviously agreed and decided not to take the picture. It was quite a moment (for me, at least) because I made a commitment to learn more about this theory of evolution. From that point on, I have discovered so many frauds, fallacies, hoaxes, fake icons and extrapolations of evidence that not only makes macroevolution appear ridiculous, but even more importantly shows evidence that it is indeed impossible.

Next, in response to my post, phronk states,

"It better continue, if you still haven't discovered that creation is the ultimate in hooey."

In my response to phronk, I quoted a Scripture passage that identifies people like phronk who would "worship the created rather than the Creator" and why this is so.Because phronk is a victim of a person with a reprobate mind, he cannot see the errors of his ways. But God sees and knows them. For more about what a mind steeped in reprobation means, see my post called It's A Spiritual Battle, Not Just a Casual Debate.

And the conversation continued (note: some of this is also in my introduction above):

From that point on, I have discovered so many frauds, fallcies, hoaxes, fake icons and extrapolations of evidence that not only makes macroevolution appear ridiculous, but even more importantly shows evidence that it is indeed impossible.

I'd be very interested to hear what frauds, fallacies, hoaxes, fake icons and extrapolations of evidence that you have found in your extensive research. Please share them with us.

In any case, why would you think that quoting scripture at Phronk would have any effect at all? It's a curious phenomenon I've noticed that those who believe in biblical inerrancy seem to feel that scripture is somehow convincing on its own merits to anyone that doesn't already agree. On the other hand, if you didn't think that it would have any effect on Phronk, quoting scripture thus is tantamount to gloating and isn't particularly respectable. And who is the person with a reprobate mind that has abused Phronk? Or is that just a grammatical error and you meant to say that Phronk is a victim possessing a reprobate mind?

I apologize for the grammatical error. What I meant was: "Because phronk has fallen victim to having a reprobate mind, he cannot see the errors of his ways."

You can see many debates that have occurred at my message board in the archives section.One of my favorites is Investigating the Icons of Evolution.

The next two links provide dozens of additional links on posts and conversations that I have been involved in over the past two years. This does not represent everything that I have done in my studies, but it includes many articles and the debates that have been generated by the people who post at my message board.

The Case For A Creator
Creation/Intelligent Design/Darwinism

I know of one person who had believed in evolution for many years of his life but eventually had his mind changed about it. It didn't happen through a science book or creation/evolution debate. It happened when he first believed in Christ as Savior and Lord, then began reading the Bible. If interested, you can read his story here.

No matter how many debates and conversations that I have with Darwinists I find such conversations often turn out fruitless. Why? Because they think higher of themselves and their science than they do of God. Science is their "Tower of Babel" and those that think of themselves as the "scientific elites" will probably always reject Creation Science and/or Intelligent Design Theory out of prejudice, pride, and extreme, unchanging bias.

What can little ole' me do to change the mind of a person like that? Probably nothing. But I do know that science is always attempting to catch up to God. So I'll take His Wisdom and Word above any man's word regarding the origin of life. I'll take belief in the eternal, infinite God of the universe above any man's finite words or knowledge any day...including scientific knowledge simply because, as I mentioned before, science is a discipline that is forever attempting to catch up to the God who created it in the first place!

Ubersehen quoting me: Science is their "Tower of Babel" and those that think of themselves as the "scientific elites" will probably always reject Creation Science and/or Intelligent Design Theory out of prejudice, pride, and extreme, unchanging bias.

This sounds a lot like that old dated accusation "Science is Religion." Not that you'll likely listen/believe, but science uses methodological naturalism to conduct its research. In other words, everything must be explained in natural terms. It does not claim that there is no god, it only attempts to explain all it can without resorting to a supernatural entity, or god, to fill in the gaps. It's curious, though, that you admonish the "scientific elites" for this perceived a priori rejection of Intelligent Design, and then go on to say:"I'll take His Wisdom and Word above any man's word regarding the origin of life. I'll take belief in the eternal,infinite God of the universe above any man's finite words or knowledge any day...including scientific knowledge".

This, by your own admission, reveals that you are completely unwilling to consider anything revealed by scientists already... your own a priori bias being firmly in place. As such, how can anyone take any claim you make as to having researched the inaccuracies of evolutionary theory seriously? You've already admitted that you wouldn't believe them, even if they were proven conclusively. Why even bother with the research? Any claim you make in regards to scientists possessing a fatal bias in their work is thoroughly discredited because of your own.

But also, what research? You've cited a pair of online discussions with other laymen/(women?) regarding your feeings on evolutionary theory, but that hardly qualifies as research. Is this what you meant when you said that you'd uncovered "frauds, fallcies, hoaxes, fake icons and extrapolations of evidence that not only makes macroevolution appear ridiculous, but even more importantly shows evidence that it is indeed impossible"? You determined all of these things from your blog?If not, what scientists did you talk to to gain this insight? What papers or critical research did you read? Which objective experts on evolutionary theory gave you insight into this revelation? Also, did you find any other realms of scientific research that were particularly flawed, or did you only focus on the elements of each field that dealt with evolutionary theory? Did you, for instance, uncover anything regarding particle/wave theory that you found to be biased by an a priori rejection of religion? Or regarding marine biology? After all, if the Christian god were taken into account, he might wrap up some of the difficulties found therein quite neatly. There are many different branches of research, of which evolution encompasses only a few. So, if you did not give equal weight to all scientific pursuits when determining that modern use of the scientific method was fraudulent, fallacious, etc, why did you give special attention to evolution?

Christinewjc said...

I'm sure that you didn't read every post at my board already, am I correct? As far a "scientific elites" is concerned, I'm sure that the poster named Frank at my board qualifies as one. He would probably be disappointed to read your opinion that he's only a "layperson."

I suppose that I could direct you to some of the most important posts and articles. But the question remains, would you read them? I have often found that debating with the other side only leads to insults. Plus, most claim that none of the work done by Creationists or IDeists has been "published in peer reviewed journals." The reason? Bias! One recently did get published but the evolutionists had such a hissy fit over it that they demanded it to be retracted.

Methodological naturalism isn't the only thing at play here. It's philosophical naturalism that prevents other viewpoints, scientific papers and evidence from being heard and written about in peer reviewed periodicals.Call it the "don't let God's foot in the door syndrome." Even when the Intelligent Designer is not specifically identified (hey! It could be an alien like Carl Sagan thought), the argument from design is rejected just because of the possibility that students could believe in the Creator God of the Bible. This is even when there is no mention of Genesis or the Bible in discussions of ID.Students in high schools and college are becoming more and more curious though. They are researching ID on the internet because their teachers and professors "won't allow it" in class. But their curiosity has led to thousands investigating the controversy. In fact, the Discovery Institute only asks that the controversy be taught at this point.

But no!

The scientific elites have their a priori view of naturalism which is their own form of secular religious faith.

Greg Koukl describes it well in Evolution - Philosophy not Science.

One question included in an article here asks,

"Why, I ask, should reasonable people be so afraid of an intuitively appealing suggestion that a scientific theory may need modifying? They reply that the suggestion itself is not "scientific," and thus has no place in a class on science. Let it be studied, if at all, in courses on religion."

The response?

"And let their response be included in courses on logic, as a stellar example of intellectual dishonesty."

I have discovered, over and over again through articles written by people much more intelligent than I that not all scientists and/or people walk lock-step in tune with the macroevolutionary extrapolation of the overall theory of evolution. It takes a lot of faith, faith in the Darwinian form of religion, to believe in such a theory and call it "fact".

We get the argument that science cannot include "religion" and be legitimate.

We also get the argument that science and philosophy "do not mix."

Why not?

The philosophy of Darwinism mixes in with science already.

What is it then? It's a particular type of philosophy that they don't want to mix in with science.'s built into the definition of science...isn't it?

Change the definition! activists want to change the definition of marriage don't they? That's ok to the liberal elitists isn't it? They embrace such a change as "progressive" and modern and savvy and "with the times" etc. But the definition of science? Don't mess with that! For it is their clarion call!

Here's a very interesting article that the average student of science would never get the opportunity to read due to his/her science teacher's philosophical prejudice. However, I think (personally) that it would make for a great discussion. The reasons why it would be rejected? Well, why don't you go ahead and list them after you read it?

Christinewjc said...

I just realized that I didn't answer this question:

"So, if you did not give equal weight to all scientific pursuits when determining that modern use of the scientific method was fraudulent, fallacious, etc, why did you give special attention to evolution?"

Because over the last 150 years, many of the "evidences" of evolution (macro) have been revealed as frauds. Hey! It's ok right? It doesn't matter that for 50 years students were taught and duped into believing that a hoax put forth as evidence was true, right? And people claim that evolution follows "the truth to where it leads?"


You are probably too young to remember Gilda Radner's news character on Saturday Night Live. But after a rant that was proven false she would just say, "never mind."

And what about intellectual honesty? I love this quote from Monkeys and Atheists. It clearly illustrates the lengths to which Darwinian religionists will go...

"Thomas Huxley ("Darwin's bulldog") is said to have come up with the most famous defense of the atheist belief that life was created by chance, not God. In a debate at Oxford, he is reported to have stated that if enough monkeys randomly pressed typewriter keys for a long enough time, sooner or later Psalm 23 would emerge.

Not all atheists use this argument, but it accurately represents the atheist belief that with enough time and enough solar systems, you'll get you, me and Bach's cello suites.

This belief has always struck me as implausible. The argument that infinitely complex intelligence came about by itself, unguided by any intelligence, can only be deemed convincing by those who have a vested interest (intellectual, emotional, psychological) in atheism.

I fully acknowledge the great challenge to theism – the rampant and seemingly random unfairness built into human life. But no intellectually honest atheist should deny the great challenge to atheism – the existence of design and intelligence. The belief that Bach's music randomly evolved from a paramecium should strike anyone as so fantastic as to be absurd, even more absurd than the belief that a monkey could monkey Shakespeare. The finite number of years in the universe's existence and the finite number of planets would not come close to producing a few sentences, let alone Psalm 23 or a Shakespeare play.

But a just reported English University experiment has convinced me that the number of monkeys and the amount of time are irrelevant. Psalm 23, let alone Hamlet, would never be written. Why? Because the monkeys probably wouldn't do any typing.

According to news reports, instructors at Plymouth University put six Sulawesi crested macaque monkeys in a room with a computer and keyboards for four weeks. Though one of the monkeys frequently typed the letter "s", the other monkeys ignored the keyboard, preferring to play with one another and with the ropes and toys placed there. When they did pay attention to the keyboard, one smashed it with a stone and the others repeatedly urinated and defecated on it.

The instructors hastened to note the study was not scientific, given the short duration of time and the small number of monkeys, but some of us find this "study" to be a hilarious vindication of our view of the "enough monkeys for enough time" argument for random creation."

Links of interest:
Discovery Institute article database

Intelligent Design the Future

Answers in Genesis

Ha! I love this one:

Inherit The Spin: Darwinists Answer “Ten Questions” with Evasions and Falsehoods

Want more?

Icons of Evolution
Happy reading! ;-)

Sunday, July 16, 2006

Removing the Mask: Jeroboam's Wife

Weekend, July 15 and 16

Removing the Mask: Jeroboam's Wife

Disguise yourself, that they may not recognize you as the wife of Jeroboam. 1 Kings 14:2

Recommended Reading 1 Kings 14:1-12

Israel's King Jeroboam was worried. He wanted a dynasty, and his son was sick. Despite his own hardened heart, Jeroboam knew that the Lord God had the answers of life and death; and he desperately wanted to consult a prophet of Jehovah. Evidently, however, he didn't want his subjects to know he'd been reduced to seeking help from God, so he told his wife to visit the prophet under a disguise.

The Lord's man was not fooled, however. "Come in, wife of Jeroboam," he boomed. "Why do you pretend to be another person?" The prophet then issued a message of judgment on her household for their evil ways.

How easy to practice secret sins, then attend church on Sunday without anyone suspecting. We can display a humble face and appear the injured victim when, in reality, we're trying to manipulate the opinions of others. We can act with innocence toward our spouse while flirting with a coworker at the office.

But the Lord sees.

That should truly be both a great comfort to us and a great stimulus for purity.

Lord, remind me that You know every thought, test every heart, know every motive, and love every soul!

Song of Solomon 3:1 - 8:14
Isaiah 1:1 - 4:6

Turning Point Online


Great article to read!

Famous Last Words

Saturday, July 15, 2006

Why So Many Sex-Predator Teachers?

Saturday, July 15, 2006
Kupelian explains upsurge
in sex-predator teachers

'Marketing of Evil' author guest on nationally broadcast 'Today's Issues'

Posted: July 15, 20061:00 a.m. Eastern

© 2000>© 2006

School teachers having sexual relations with their students – almost an epidemic in today's America, with cases and prosecutions being reported virtually daily in the press – will be discussed by WND Managing Editor David Kupelian, author of the bestselling book "The Marketing of Evil," on the national radio broadcast of the American Family Association Monday.

Kupelian wrote the cover story for the March edition of Whistleblower magazine, a piece that has since appeared on WND, titled "What's behind today's epidemic of teacher-student sex?"
Hosted by Tim Wildmon and Marvin Sanders, the program, "Today's Issues," airs weekdays and is broadcast on over 200 radio stations. Kupelian's interview is scheduled for 11:15 am Eastern (8:15 am Pacific).

Readers can find a station in their local area, or can listen to the broadcast online by clicking the "Listen Live!" button.

In addition, Kupelian's interview can also be heard online following the broadcast by accessing the "Today's Issues" archive page.

According to "The Marketing of Evil," Americans have come to tolerate, embrace and even champion many things that would have horrified their parents' generation – from easy divorce and unrestricted abortion-on-demand to extreme body piercing and teaching homosexuality to grade-schoolers. Does that mean today's Americans are inherently more morally confused and depraved than previous generations? Of course not, says Kupelian. But they have fallen victim to some of the most stunningly brilliant and compelling marketing campaigns in modern history.

"The Marketing of Evil" reveals how much of what Americans once almost universally abhorred has been packaged, perfumed, gift-wrapped and sold to them as though it had great value. Highly skilled marketers, playing on our deeply felt national values of fairness, generosity and tolerance, have persuaded us to embrace as enlightened and noble that which all previous generations since America’s founding regarded as grossly self-destructive – in a word, evil.

In this groundbreaking and meticulously researched book, Kupelian peels back the veil of marketing-induced deception to reveal exactly when, where, how, and especially why Americans bought into the lies that now threaten the future of the country.

Don Wildmon, founder of the American Family Association, had this to say about Kupelian's book: "Excellent! Simply excellent. If you want to solidify your Christian worldview – or just understand what the culture war is all about – you owe it yourself to read David Kupelian's 'The Marketing of Evil.'"

This is a WorldNetDaily printer-friendly version of the article. To view this item online, visit Kupelian explains upsurge in sex-predator teachers.

7/16/06 Update:

Each time I run across an article about a teacher sexual predator, I will post a link to the article. If any readers would like to do the same, please post in comment section (or send an email) and I will post it here.


Hillsboro teacher had sex with pupil.

Exchange student abuse on the rise nationwide.

Dani has provided two links to her second blog with dozens of articles about sex predator teachers:

Parents, It's Time to Get Informed!

The "Trained Professionals" At Their Best.

After reading them, everyone should wonder why any sane parent might continue to trust the public school system with their children!

Its A Matter Of Survival For Israel

As is the case in Lebanon today, civilians often suffer at the hands of their own Islamic militant leadership (a.k.a. terrorists - Pres. Bush purposely left that out for political reasons) that is bent on going to war. According to this article, Hezbollah has no restraint in announcing its glee that the violence is escalating to an open war. Doesn't sound to me as if these terrorist leaders (I know that there is disagreement about them being labeled "terrorists", but from what I've seen, they are) even care about the suffering of their people. They're bloodthirsty for "death to Israel" as is every nation mentioned in the prophecy*.

Even though Bush and Putin disagree about who is at fault for the escalation, there is no doubt that Israel was provoked by Islamic militants.

From 2nd article link:

Mr. Bush says Islamic militants started the fighting to disrupt what he says was progress by Israeli Prime Minister Ehud Olmert to pursue a two-state solution to the Israeli/Palestinian conflict.

"As the vision was progressing, certain terrorist elements began to act to stop the advance of democracy," he said. "The militant wing of Hamas made decisions to attack and to capture. Hezbollah has made decision to stop the advance of a two-state solution."

President Bush has continued to back Israel's right to defend itself against such attacks.

Here we find the real reasons why Hezbollah is steadfast in escalating the violence to all out war. They have been fuming over the advances for peace made through Israel's Gaza pullout (as well as a democracy forming in Iraq). But how has Israel been rewarded? More violence including suicide bombings! Kidnapped soldiers! Rockets sent into Israel!

I totally agreed with Benjamin Netanyahu when he appeared several times on the Fox News Channel insisting that the Gaza pullout was a big mistake. How correct he was! Israel can give forth all the concessions, appeasements, and "land for peace" deals it wants but it, unfortunately, will never be enough in the eyes of her enemies!

With Iran's crazy leader declaring that Israel should be "swept off the face of the map," we know that the Bush administration's dream (as well as the former Clinton one) of the Palestinians and Israelis being "two states living side by side peacefully" will never happen through the efforts of man. It will only happen when the Prince of Peace, Jesus Christ, returns to this earth. As you probably have surmised, as a Christian, I hold a Biblical worldview about Israel and her right to live in the land "as an inheritance from the Lord."

Politically speaking, I think that Israel has finally had enough of this terrorism crap. They have had to deal with it for so long, that I don't blame her leadership for defending the country no matter what it takes! This is not a matter of retaliation (this time, they have done so in the past)'s a matter of survival.

The article goes on to say:

President Putin says he and President Bush will take every necessary action to try and find common ground between the combatants to reach a conclusion that not only stops the fighting but also creates an enabling environment for Israel within secure borders.

The part in bold is difficult to accomplish when only one side agrees that Israel deserves to live in the land (if the truth be told about the militant Islamists mindset, that would preclude Israel's right to live in any land!) and have secure borders.

[*This post has been adapted from a comment originally posted in the David's Incredible Prophecy of Israel's Enemies Today thread]

Update: Along with Michelle Malkin, I STAND WITH ISRAEL!

Trackback URL:

Friday, July 14, 2006

Macroevolution as "Fact" Reeks of Hopelessness

Nothing brings out the ire of evolution believers more than a post about the negative social implications that such a belief as "macroevolution" brings into the hearts, minds, and souls of those who are erroneously led to believe that portion of the overall theory of evolution as fact.

I have often discussed the harm that "Darwinism as fact" has caused on the minds, hearts, souls and spirits of children in public schools for some time now. The arguments here, and at my message board have often been say the least.

Each side holds to their own camp and dogma. Need proof of the raging arguments? Just visit Dani's blogspot and read through the comments. The comment thread got so long that Dani posted "The Debate Continues" here!

I think that the article below tells us why Bible-believing Creation/Intelligent Design Theory Christians still need to fight against the "religion of Darwin."

Flannery shares this most important point:

The first implication of accepting evolution as fact is hopelessness.

Those who believe this shoddy theory (again, I am referring to the macroevolution extrapolation part of evolutionary theory, which, quite frankly is as dogmatic as any religion and requires faith without proof ) as fact are spreading hopelessness. The God of the Bible, Creation and Intelligent Design Theory at least give us hope. Hope now and in eternity. That's the one thing that Darwinism can never claim.

Atheistic Darwinism is soulless, spirit-denying, Godless, and rejects the reality of the Holy Spirit's indwelling in those who are born again in Christ. Darwinism spreads hopelessness because it unequivocally claims, "From the dust you have come, and to dust you shall return." End of story.

But Christians know better...


P.S. I hear that Ann Coulter's new book has a great section that refutes Darwinism. I'm only on the fifth chapter of Godless: The Church of Liberalism , but when I get to the Darwin section, I'll share some of it here! If you have read the Darwin chapters, please share what you read here!


Tom Flannery writes:

Saturday, July 1, 2006

Darwinism's bitter fruits

Posted: July 1, 2006
1:00 a.m. Eastern
By Tom Flannery
© 2006

What happens to a society when its children are taught they evolved from the slime of some prebiotic soup through random chemical reactions in a chaotic, completely unsupervised universe that emerged from a chance explosion?

After decades of indoctrination into Darwin's theory of evolution, this question is no longer an academic one. The fruits of this experiment are evident everywhere we look, from staggering increases in the homicide and suicide rates among young people to a total disdain for human life.

Evolution is not only junk science, it is a pernicious social doctrine which produces a bitter harvest in the hearts and minds of its adherents. When children are taught this theory as fact (as most are today), it affects their entire belief system and outlook on life. The implications are devastating for individuals as well as for society at large.

The first implication of accepting evolution as fact is hopelessness.

There's a scene in Woody Allen's "Annie Hall" in which Allen's character, comedian Alvin Singer, is recounting an episode from his childhood. In the flashback, little Alvy is refusing to return to school because he has learned in science class that the universe is expanding. He tells his mother this means the universe will one day explode and all life will cease to exist. His mother asks him what that has to do with the fact that he has stopped doing his homework, to which he replies: "What's the point?"

The scene is played strictly for laughs, but at the same time it makes a very insightful point. If it's true that we are living in a chaotic and completely unpredictable universe which will one day self-destruct, obliterating everyone and everything forever, then nothing we do or desire to accomplish has any meaning or purpose whatsoever. All we can hope is to live as long as we can and get as much as possible for ourselves out of life until we perish forever, along with everyone and everything else eventually.

Hard to get happy after that one.

Indeed, in the new introduction to the 30th-anniversary edition of his book "The Selfish Gene," evolutionist Richard Dawkins relates how that book's dismissal of any higher purpose in nature has had harrowing consequences in the lives of its readers. He mentions one person who went into "a series of bouts of depression" which lasted for more than a decade after reading it. Another young student was driven to tears by its assertion that life is "empty and purposeless."

Dawkins' response to such reactions is to basically shrug them off, asking if "any of us really tie our life's hopes to the ultimate fate of the cosmos" and answering, "of course we don't, not if we are sane."

Well, in fact, the two are inextricably linked. In a godless universe where nothing matters, or ever will, there is no place for hope or eternal love or lasting joy. We're all on a cruise ship heading toward the falls, and it's only a matter of time before we all go down together to an assured, irreversible and everlasting doom.

The best we can do, under those circumstances, is try to amuse ourselves as much as we can for the short amount of time we're here - which, tragically, is the conclusion that Woody Allen's death-obsessed character reaches at the end of another of his films, "Hannah and Her Sisters."

The second implication is the loss of truth, since truth must be based on a fixed standard that transcends time and popular opinion. Truth is something that never changes; it remains constant even when everything else is in flux.

Yet in a generation raised to accept evolution as fact, there is no room for truth nor any basis for absolute virtues or values. Truth cannot possibly exist in a world that came about as a result of chance explosions and chemical reactions, where everyone and everything arrived on the scene accidentally.

That's why modern society is doing everything it can to relegate the whole concept of truth to the dustbin of history. In our pluralistic, relativistic, multicultural, politically-correct age, holding to an authoritative standard of right and wrong is considered arcane.

Thus, whenever someone promotes family values, for instance, he is barraged by a chorus of angry voices demanding of him contemptuously: "Whose family?" In our society, everyone is supposed to make it up for themselves as they go along.

Finally, the loss of truth leads inevitably to the removal of all moral restraints. In a godless universe, we are accountable only to ourselves and the loftiest goal to which we can aspire is our own pleasure. As Dostoyevsky reasoned, everything is then permissible. There is no such thing as sin, no final judgment to worry about, no heaven or hell, and no life beyond this one. Jesus Christ, who claimed to be "the way, the truth and the life" (Jn. 14:6), was either a liar or a lunatic, and all religious endeavors are futile.

The first of the moral restraints to be disposed of is always the sanctity of human life. In a Darwinian world, natural selection is the ruling ethos and will always prevail, so the powerful must overwhelm and annihilate the powerless. We saw that clearly enough in the case of Terri Schiavo.

For as much fanfare as Darwin's book "The Origin of Species" has received over the past century and a half, precious little notice has been paid to its subtitle: "

The Preservation of Favored Races in the Struggle for Life." The idea of a superior race eliminating all "inferiors" on the basis of evolutionary dogma originated not with Hitler, but with Darwin. Not surprisingly, this was an idea also enthusiastically embraced by the racist and eugenicist Margaret Sanger, founder of Planned Parenthood.

Hitler was so enamored with Darwin's work that he considered dedicating his own book, "Mein Kampf," to him. His slaughter of six million Jews and millions of others in the death camps was a direct result of Darwin's influence on him.

The philosophy of Social Darwinism is also at the root of communism and apartheid, and it is still wreaking havoc worldwide. Nowhere is this seen more clearly than in the abortion holocaust, the taking of the most powerless and vulnerable lives of all by the blood-for-money abortion industry. Before evolution permeated our culture, it would have been virtually impossible to enact a law legalizing the mass extermination of unborn children in America. But in 1973, after decades of evolutionary proselytizing, the U.S. Supreme Court gave us the inhumane and unconstitutional Roe vs. Wade decision. Thirty-three years and well over 40 million dead babies later, there's still no end in sight to the carnage.

We've reached the point where partial-birth abortions continue unabated despite being opposed by a vast majority of Americans, and where Republicans in Congress had to struggle to pass a law banning the killing of live-born infants! Meanwhile, liberal politicians and media elites are pushing euthanasia and assisted suicide as the next steps down this slippery slope, hoping to rid society of more of those whom Hitler debased as the "useless eaters" (the elderly, disabled, etc.).

Call it the natural progression of natural selection.

Related special offer: "Tornado in A Junkyard: The Relentless Myth of Darwinism"

Tom Flannery writes a weekly political column called "The Good Fight" and a continuing religious column called "Why Believe the Bible?" for a hometown newspaper in Pennsylvania. His opinion pieces have appeared in publications such as Newsday, the Los Angeles Times, and Christian Networks Journal. He is a past recipient of the Eric Breindel Award for Outstanding Opinion Journalism from News Corp/The New York Post, in addition to winning six Amy Awards from the Amy Foundation.

To view this item online, visit Darwinism's bitter fruits