Where Did I Come From?

I have been praying for revival for several years. Revivals have come in different places across America over the years, but during this past year, the need for many churches to be revived by a move of the Holy Spirit has become increasingly important. I believe conviction of sins and repentance by church members is a key before awakenings can come to large numbers of the unsaved.

There is a growing awareness in my spirit that America’s tolerance of Darwinian evolution in schools and in our culture is one of the sins of which churches need to repent. Why do we tolerate our children being taught that humans evolved from a one-celled organism that spontaneously arose from just the right chemicals and conditions in a warm pond when both the Bible and nature tell us otherwise? Is God not being robbed of the glory due Him for creating all living things and humans made in His image, as well as for everything that exists? The National Academy of Sciences, the National Science Teachers Association, and practically every university science department is in agreement that science can only be explained by natural processes. Anything taught or published that suggests a connection to something supernatural is automatically eliminated from the field of science (and Truth according to secular reasoning). Superstitious beliefs certainly have no place in science, but great harm has come to children who are taught that unguided natural processes explain where they come from.

There is a key question that every person on earth will eventually seek to answer, because it is one of the foundations on which one’s basic beliefs about life are built. This very important question is Where did I come from? It is no accident that the answer is found in the first verse of the Bible, “In the beginning, God created the heavens and the earth.”  Nor was it superfluous that Matthew and Luke recorded the ancestors of Joseph and Mary, the earthly parents of Jesus, even though Joseph was not the biological father of Jesus. Matthew’s account goes back to David and Abraham. Luke’s account goes back to Adam.

 In fact, the first and second chapters of Genesis teach that Adam and Eve were the original ancestors of all people on earth. They were planned, designed and created by God. Created fully mature, they were able to speak and understand a language, somewhat like a computer can be programmed to understand and respond to commands. But, distinctly different from computers, the first humans were able to think, reason, make decisions of their own free will, and enjoy a relationship with their Creator.    

Throughout history, many explanations for where we came from have been proposed. The Trinity of God the Father, God the Son, and God the Holy Spirit is clearly declared in the Bible as the Creator of everything. False gods and goddesses, personified heavenly bodies, deified men and women, demons, and even respected scientists have claimed answers to this important question. During the period of history known as the Enlightenment, human reasoning often provided answers that were elevated above God’s wisdom.

During this time, Deism became a widely popular philosophy, finding a way not to be accountable to God, but unable to ignore that He created the heavens, the earth, all living things, and humans. Deism taught that God created a perfect universe and gave humans such an intelligent mind that human reasoning should be able to find the answers for all problems.  Therefore, there was no further need for Him to intervene in what He had made. This left no need for the salvation provided by Jesus. It also meant that petitions for God’s intervention to problems were not needed. In 1859 when Charles Darwin proposed that all life evolved by means of natural processes, many Deist made an easy switch to agnosticism or outright atheism.

Darwin was born as the Enlightenment was well underway, and he had a huge influence on how to answer where did I come from? He was a brilliant scientist and made some important observations. He made a five-year trip around the world on a ship as the ship’s naturalist. During this time, he spent several weeks on the Galapagos Islands. He observed that there seemed to be several different varieties, or even species, of finch birds on the islands. He rationally proposed that at some time in the past, a few pioneer finch birds had somehow landed on the islands, and the present population of finch birds were all descendants of those original few ancestors. He proposed that their different characteristics evolved over time from a process he described as natural selection. The birds who were best able to survive in their environments passed their favorable traits on to their offspring, and those least able to survive generally did not pass their traits on to offspring. In other words, the fittest birds survived. He surmised that the same pattern had occurred in iguanas and tortoises, which seem to have evolved in the same way as the finch birds.   

Other scientists noted many groups of plants and animals also appeared to have common ancestor parents. For example, all varieties of cats may have evolved from the original God-created parents partly by means of natural selection to produce lions, tigers, panthers, leopards, house cats and other felines. Lions and tigers do not ordinarily mate in the wild, but in captivity there have been several cases of lions and tigers producing liger and tigon kittens. The ability of animals to mate and produce live offspring is a strong indication they had a common ancestor at one time. Dogs and wolves and dogs and coyotes are also able to mate and have live offspring, indicating they had common ancestor parents at one time.

Darwin carefully studied his observations and concluded that finch birds, iguanas, and tortoises, as well as other groups of plants and animals descended from common ancestors. Furthermore, he believed natural selection played a role in the evolutionary process. So far these are examples of microevolution, which is legitimate science.

But then Darwin took a giant leap of faith and proposed something very different, known as macroevolution. He started with strong, likely assumptions, such as all finch birds had common ancestor parents and many other groups of living things showed similar evidence of evolution over time. He knew that all living things were made of cells and contained many of the same chemicals. Then he extrapolated his observations and proposed that instead of many common ancestors, there was only one. His theory (actually a hypothesis) was that ALL living things and once living things—plants, animals, microbes, and humans—evolved from a single one-celled common ancestor that formed by natural processes when just the right chemicals and conditions came together to spontaneously become a living organism. Over millions of years, new organisms would gradually evolve from the original common ancestor by means of natural selection and other natural processes.

This proposal is a problem for Christians. Additional posts will discuss this topic.

The Real Civil War: God’s Truth vs Secular Humanism

For the past few years prominent American universities have seen large numbers of angry student protesting conservative speakers. Why are they motivated to do this? Legitimate groups from the University invited the speakers and no one was being coerced to attend the events. Nevertheless, the aim of the protestors was to make sure no one on campus heard a conservative viewpoint.

These protests, ranging from shout outs to full-blown riots, occurred on such campuses as UC Berkley, Middlebury College, Claremont McKenna College, the University of Chicago, the University of Washington, and U.C. Davis. Some of the most intelligent young people in the nation attend these great universities. Continue reading The Real Civil War: God’s Truth vs Secular Humanism

Unexpected Results From A Poll About Teaching Science

False news has been a reoccurring topic in today’s culture for some time. A near relative to false news is ignored news. News worthy stories can be selectively ignored by the media or they can be twisted until the meaning is altered. There are two areas that are reported in these two categories more than their share of the time. These are Darwinian evolution and climate change.

 

There is a general assumption among the media that Darwinian evolution and climate change are now established facts and should be taught in classes as the only accurate scientific explanations for origins and climate. The fact is, there have been a number of news -worthy stories about these topics that have been ignored or given an altering twist.

 

Stories that oppose traditional positions about evolution and climate change are routinely passed over as religiously based, illegal in public schools, material that is flawed and biased, or not worthy of mainstream reputable news. When they are given time in news media, the articles often contain misrepresented information. This article is being written to challenge the false news and ignored news that is prevalent in articles that do not agree with mainstream science.

Continue reading Unexpected Results From A Poll About Teaching Science

Is Evolution a Fact?

Background: A number of well-qualified, respected scientists and scientific organizations claim that evolution is a fact. Other qualified, respected scientists and scientific organizations disagree. Different opinions are also held by individual citizens, school boards, and even courts. To make things even more complicated, there is more than one definition for evolution. It can refer to minor changes in living things over time, or it can refer to Darwin’s idea that major changes in living things gradually occurred over millions of years. Continue reading Is Evolution a Fact?

Exposing Weaknesses of Darwinism

The apostle Paul saw a vision of the end times in which he saw evil spirits that looked like frogs coming from the mouth of the dragon, the mouth of the beast, and the mouth of the false prophet. (Rev. 16:13) Frogs, known for their the repetitive croaking, may be a symbolic picture of a technique that is often used to convince people that something is true even when there is little or no evidence for it. “Millions and millions of years” is one of the repetitive phases we have all heard that emphasizes the supposed age of the universe, the earth, and ancestral living organisms.

Many books, movies, documentaries, and teachers declare with one voice that the earth is billions of years old and that dinosaurs lived on the earth millions of years ago. Young children, who are invariably fascinated by dinosaurs, are routinely told this as a fact. Continue reading Exposing Weaknesses of Darwinism

Admissible and Inadmissible Evidence Part III

Admissible and Inadmissible Evidence in the National Science Standards is continued below as Part III. The condensed version of this article is published in the April 2015 edition of the AFA Journal.  http://bit.ly/1Fb7tO1

Public school students are in a position where everyone is taught Darwin’s proposal that all living things, including humans, originated from a common single-celled ancestor. Regardless of whether or not a disclaimer is added that God may have guided the process, Darwinian evolution is taught in public schools without scientific challenges and as the only scientifically accepted possibility for our origins. Attempts to include scientific creationism or intelligent design have been struck down by courts as state-sponsored religious ideas.

The case of COPE vs. Kansas Board of Education has yet to be decided. Parents are suing the Board because the state-approved science curriculum teaches an exclusively atheistic explanation for origins. Continue reading Admissible and Inadmissible Evidence Part III

What Are the Right Questions to Ask Darwinists?

blog.question pic

Rationalism is an attempt to justify that something is true when evidence and conclusions are hard to pin down. It often leads to the practice of starting from the position that a certain explanation is true and then looking for evidence to show that it is true.

When On the Origin of Species was published, it soon became obvious that the kind of evidence that supported Darwinian evolution was not going to have the same level of certainty as that provided by the empirical methods of operational sciences.  Evidence for Darwin’s version of how life originated was vague and general. It was difficult to find solid evidence by standard empirical methods, so rationalism and justification became necessary methods used by evolutionists. Continue reading What Are the Right Questions to Ask Darwinists?

Where Are Next Generation Science Standards Taking Us?

The new Next Generation Science Standards (NGSS) were released in April of 2013. They are not requirements, but they will have a major influence on textbooks and state curricula for years to come.

One of the goals was to help students have a deeper understanding of a few basic core ideas rather than focus on a lot of unconnected ideas. Another goal was to teach the core ideas at increasingly advanced levels from K-12 and to integrate them with scientific and engineering practices and with concepts from the different disciplines.

These were reasonable goals, except that the core ideas in both life science and earth & space tilted heavily toward naturalistic evolution and the effects of human activities on the environment.   Continue reading Where Are Next Generation Science Standards Taking Us?

Billl Nye vs Creationism: A Video Gone Viral

Bill Nye vs Creationism: A Video Gone Viral

Bill Nye is a terrific teacher. He can take a difficult concept in science and make it clear as crystal to students. What gives him even more of an edge as a teacher is that he makes learning fun and interesting. It’s no wonder that the TV show “Bill Nye The Science Guy” became a very popular show with many fans.

However, Bill has recently found himself in the middle of a raging controversy as the result of his inappropriate warnings to parents about creationism on a video-gone-viral. The YouTube video, “Creationism Is Not Appropriate for Children,” was posted by the online forum Big Think in August.1  It has already counted almost 5 million viewers and logged thousands of comments.

Continue reading Billl Nye vs Creationism: A Video Gone Viral

NOMA or Not NOMA?

At first glance, the philosophy of NOMA (nonoverlapping magisteria) appears to be the perfect solution to conflicts between evolutionary science and religion. In reality, it is a subtle and deceitful lie.

The phrase was coined by Steven Jay Gould, a prominent paleontologist from Harvard. In 1984, Gould met at the Vatican with a group of scientists from around the world to discuss the issue of nuclear winter. It was sponsored by the Pontifical Academy of Sciences and included several French and Italian Jesuit priests who were also professional scientists. During the meeting there were several conversations about the conflict between scientific creationism and evolution. Gould reassured his fellow scientists that there is no conflict between science and religion. After all, Pope Pius XII had permitted limited teachings about evolution. The Pope had also suggested that there were different magisteria (teaching areas) occupied by the Church and by science.

Continue reading NOMA or Not NOMA?