Going to the Dogs: Where Are We Headed if We Ignore the Conflict?

If you look up the phrase “Going to the Dogs” at http://www.phrases.org.uk/meanings you will find this interesting entry:

Of course, what originally went to the dogs was … anything decayed and worthless that wasn’t fit for humans, particularly food. This usage was well enough established by the late 18th century for it to have become a metaphorical expression. For example, The London Review of Literature, 1775, included a play called Germanicus, A Tragedy:
“Sirrah, they are prostitutes, and are civil to delude and destroy you; they are painted Jezabels, and they who hearken to ‘em, like Jezebel of old will go to the dogs; if you dare to look at ‘em, you will be tainted, and if you speak to ‘em you are undone.”
Interesting that the phrase has a biblical origin. Jezebel literally went to the dogs for her sins, including an Establishment of Religion in the 400 prophets of Baal she fed at King Ahab’s expense in the days of Elijah the prophet. The question is, are we going to end up on the Elijah side of the Establishment of Religion argument, or on the Ahab/Jezebel side?

There Are Wolves in Sheep’s Clothing — But Fear Not, Little Flock!

We attended a service where we discussed getting rid of much of the Bible Study material people use today, and focusing on the Bible itself. Our daughter attended a Sunday school where she was very disappointed by the lesson.

“A lot of what he said was loosely based on Scriptures (few biblical references) but when I brought up, ‘but Scriptures say,’ he would respond [with] something along the lines of, ‘Well, that’s true but that doesn’t apply to what I’m talking about,’ and kept putting down my translation, saying its too confusing. He keeps challenging us to go out [to evangelize] but … ” She went on to say that he implied that requiring people to do things that seem necessary for Christian growth is legalism.

Sadly, this is the majority position of those who claim to be believers. They teach the “little flock” in churches, and reaching large numbers has for these preachers and teachers taken the place of faithfulness to the Word of God. It doesn’t matter if the church is small, large, traditional or liberal. The trend seems to be universal across the country. “Doing whatever is necessary” to reach people is more important than holding fast to the truth you are supposed to be reaching them with.

The “wolves in sheep’s clothing” mentioned in the title are the people who want to pick and chose what to believe and what to teach about what the Bible says. They are also the people who study commentaries, spiritual self-help books, and other so-called Christian growth works to the point where they hardly study the Bible itself, or teach it in the churches, anymore.

The speaker we listened to this morning chose 1 Thessalonians 5, concerning the coming of the Lord, as his text. He had a very clear position on it. Yet, in the last few days I (Michael) have had several discussions on Facebook. What does the Bible teach about the future? What is the second death? Who is the antichrist? What does the return of the Lord mean? We have also discussed the more immediate concern of who, according to principles based in Scripture, to vote for to be president.

Many people pointed out that the Scriptures mean what they say, and to take them at face value. The complaints against that position boiled down to, “I don’t want to believe that.” It’s an issue of the will, not the understanding of the words.

Allegorical interpretations of the Scripture go back to Philo and Origen.

Nothing we study should take the place of the Bible. No authority should take the place of the Scriptures; not a pastor, not a priest, not any traditions. We should not love a family member above God’s truth. Nothing should detract from glorifying God. We should not let anyone tell us parts of the Bible should be ignored. We don’t get to pick and chose what is authoritative.

When do you stop judging the Bible and let the Bible judge you?

Was Thomas Paine the Founding Father of Secular Humanism in America?

This is an excerpt from Chapter Five of Antidisestablishmentarianism.

Benjamin Franklin might have remained his friend, yet he said concerning the publication of works like The Age of Reason,

“I have read your manuscript with some attention. By the argument it contains against a particular Providence, though you allow a general Providence, you strike at the foundation of all religion. For without the belief of a Providence that takes cognizance of, guards, and guides, and may favor particular persons, there is no motive to worship a Deity, to fear his displeasure, or to pray for his protection. I will not enter into any discussion of your principles though you seem to desire it. At present I shall only give you my opinion that … the consequence of printing this piece will be a great deal of odium [hate] drawn upon yourself, mischief to you, and no benefit to others. He that spits into the wind, spits in his own face. But were you to succeed, do you imagine any good would be done by it? … Think how great a portion of mankind consists of weak and ignorant men and women and of inexperienced, inconsiderate youth of both sexes who have need of the motives of religion to restrain them from vice, to support their virtue. … I would advise you, therefore, not to attempt unchaining the tiger, but to burn this piece before it is seen by any other person. … If men are so wicked with religion, what would they be if without it? I intend this letter itself as a proof of my friendship.”

Thomas Paine was a bitter, caustic critic of Christianity and organized religion of any kind. He clearly saw the corruption of the Established Religion but he rejected truth and the Scriptures as coming from God himself. He saw the Bible as concocted by the organized church. He denounced many state constitutions for claiming to be tolerant but being tolerant only of Christianity, and attacked the authority of Scriptures repeatedly. Although his ideas have existed for centuries, Thomas Paine was the founding father to whom Secular Humanists look back to justify most of their beliefs and ideas. Secularists today loudly echo Thomas Paine’s views on Christianity.

“No falsehood is so fatal as that which is made an article of faith.”

“Of all the tyrannies that afflict mankind, tyranny in religion is the worst. Every other species of tyranny is limited to the world we live in, but this attempts a stride beyond the grave and seeks to pursue us into eternity.”

“What is it the New Testament teaches us? To believe that the Almighty committed debauchery with a woman engaged to be married; and the belief of this debauchery is called faith.”

“The Bible: a history of wickedness that has served to corrupt and brutalize mankind.”

“The Christian system of religion is an outrage on common sense.”

“It has been the scheme of the Christian church, and of all the other invented systems of religion, to hold man in ignorance of the Creator, as it is of government to hold him in ignorance of his rights. The systems of the one are as false as those of the other, and are calculated for mutual support.”
“Priests and conjurors are of the same trade.”

“Jesus Christ, … at once both God and man, and also the Son of God, celestially begotten, on purpose to be sacrificed, because they say that Eve in her longing … had eaten an apple.”

“The Church was resolved to have a New Testament, and as, after the lapse of more than three hundred years, no handwriting could be proved or disproved, the Church, which like former impostors had then gotten possession of the State, had everything its own way. It invented creeds… and out of the loads of rubbish that were presented it voted four to be Gospels, and others to be Epistles, as we now find them arranged.”

“Whenever we read the obscene stories, the voluptuous debaucheries, the cruel and torturous executions, the unrelenting vindictiveness, with which more than half the Bible is filled, it would be more consistent that we called it the word of a demon that the Word of God. It is a history of wickedness that has served to corrupt and brutalize mankind; and for my own part, I sincerely detest it, as I detest everything that is cruel.”

“As to the Christian system of faith, it appears to me as a species of atheism — a sort of religious denial of God. It professed to believe in man rather than in God. It is as near to atheism as twilight to darkness. It introduces between man and his Maker an opaque body, which it calls a Redeemer, as the moon introduces her opaque self between the earth and the sun, and it produces by this means a religious or irreligious eclipse of the light. It has put the whole orbit of reason into shade.”

“The most detestable wickedness, the most horrid cruelties, and the greatest miseries that have afflicted the human race have had their origin in this thing called revelation, or revealed religion.”

“Yet this is the trash that the Church imposes upon the world as the Word of God; this is the collection of lies and contradictions called the Holy Bible! this is the rubbish called Revealed Religion!”

“The continually progressive change to which the meaning of words is subject, the want of a universal language which renders translation necessary, the errors to which translations are again subject, the mistakes of copyists and printers, together with the possibility of willful alteration, are of themselves evidences that the human language, whether in speech or in print, cannot be the vehicle of the Word of God. The Word of God exists in something else.”

“The fable of Christ and his twelve apostles, which is a parody on the Sun and the twelve signs of the Zodiac, copied from the ancient religions of the Eastern world, is the least hurtful part.”

Review of Prince of Persia the Movie

This is a review of the recent movie Prince of Persia starring Jake Gyllenhaal, not the video game series. WARNING! There are spoilers, since this is an older movie, but if you want to watch the movie first, go ahead. Then come back and read this. In the light of our current political situation and the country’s economic troubles, I think the desert dwellers’ philosophy is especially worth remembering.

1. Prayer and holy things are treated with respect and there are serious consequences for mistreating them. Even though it’s a religion with false elements, both the princess and the king are shown to be strong and respected leaders because they pray and honor what they believe is holy.

2. Dastan could have been portrayed as a drunk or a womanizer when he was absent from the call to the conference about the proposed attack. But he was instead testing his fighting skills and winning his men’s respect and love by spending time with them and even letting them clean his clock.

3. The princess could have been sold into sexual slavery. Despite the skimpy outfit, she merely became a waitress.

4. The desert dwellers could have been running a bloody arena. Instead they held ostrich races. And by the way, they said they didn’t pay taxes because they didn’t believe they should support a government which wanted to steal all they had and kill them. Simple, sound political wisdom in my book.

5. Time travel worked, for once, and was limited in scope and importance. The evil uncle wanted the dagger for a single purpose Dastan was able to discern. Dastan used the dagger for good reasons, and respected the limitations and dangers once he understood them. He was also willing to risk death and even failure to make things come right, relying on his brother’s character to do the right thing as well.

6. Family love, honor and trust where essential elements of the story. Dastan would never be king, but he never sought his own advancement. He was horrified to think his uncle would throw away a home, a family and love for selfish ambition.

7. A black man, a minor character, was given a role of extraordinary importance and showed incredibly noble character without making a point of being a black man. I dare anyone to dismiss him as a “magic negro.” He trained and prepared, developing unsurpassed skill and performed a vital service no one else could do.

8. Dastan went right back to the point where he still had to make a choice about doing what was right. The city had fallen, yes, but the important choices were still to be made, the real wrong still to be righted and prevented. And he didn’t even hesitate.

9. The princess had to stop lying and tell the complete truth before she could get the help she needed. 10. The uncle is a Satan figure. He realizes the mistake he made by saving his brother’s life in the past. The devil realizes he a mistake by the death of Christ. Both want to go back and change the past to
increase their power.

On the downside,

1. People still have to “trust their feelings” to make fundamental decisions and “search their hearts” instead of the Scriptures.

2. The flood history is indeed butchered again. Especially because Noah wasn’t chosen for his purity but because of God’s grace, and because the “salvation” for the people in the movie was conditional upon future behavior or somebody innocent would have to pay.

3. “Gun control” rules in the sacred city because there are no weapons forges. Peace depends on taking away people’s right to bear arms.

4. The princess confuses sarcasm and feminism with spunk and leadership and tries to lie to get her way.

5. Lots of reasoned deception and “peasant cunning” prevailing over straightforward honesty.

6. “I believe we make our own destiny.” No, we don’t, and frankly the movie proves the opposite point, since Dastan is rewarded for obedience and hard work, loyalty, perseverance and courage in the responses of everyone he interacted with, not for his rebellion against the way things were going.

Guest Post by Dana Pratola for her new Release — Descended — Jett

DESCENDED ~ Jett

 

BLURB:

He has no wings or halo, but he’s an honest-to-goodness hero. …And his lineage is quite impressive.

When a reclusive businessman takes an interest in Haven’s artwork, she knows it’s an answer to prayer. But Jett Cestone is an enigma with a disconcerting connection to the young women in his employ. He’s by far the most unusual man she’s ever met.
Haven is the most interesting woman to ever cross Jett’s path. But she’s too naïve and pure to learn what goes on in his home. Too bad he wants her more than he’s wanted anyone or anything in his life.

 

 

EXCERPT:

 

Haven was still thinking of Jett two hours later as she applied her makeup in an upstairs bathroom. Unlike the one in her room, this one had a large mirror that swung out from the wall.

“Why do you wear that stuff on your face?”

Haven’s hand jerked, dragging a stripe of eyeliner across her temple. She ground her teeth.

“I apologize.”

“I could have poked my eye out! And you aren’t supposed to look in the bathroom when I’m in here.” She wiped away the smudge with a corner of tissue.

“These are not your quarters, and the door is open,” Jett answered. “So, why do you paint yourself up like that?”

“It’s a mask.” She threw the answer out flippantly, but knew it was the truth.

“What are you hiding?”

She shrugged. “I guess the real me, same as you.”

“You don’t hide the real you.” Annoyance tinged his voice. “You’re the most open person I’ve ever met.”

Haven set down the pencil and shifted her feet. “I’m sorry. I shouldn’t have said that.” He didn’t answer and she sighed. “I guess I wear it out of habit. Growing up, girls are told they need to be thinner, prettier, sexier. It sticks with you. The world isn’t a very encouraging place. I just want the outside to be more appealing.”

“You couldn’t be more appealing.”

She hesitated, blinking while her skin heated. “Thank you.”

Jett cleared his throat, evidently as surprised by the compliment as she. “So where are you going, if you don’t mind my asking?”

“A movie, then dinner. You know, traditional.”

“This is a date, then?” Bewilderment and a definite touch of hostility colored his voice now.

The guilt was back, the same niggling self-reproach she encountered every time she thought of Chris and Jett in the same timeframe. “Yes.”

“And is this the young man you were with the night Paris went missing? The charming Christopher Andrew Pembroke?”

Haven turned to see him, which of course she couldn’t. “Don’t you respect anyone’s privacy?”

“I’m concerned.”

“You’re nosy. You could only have found that out by poking your nose in where it doesn’t belong. He isn’t an employee. And how did you know his full name? I didn’t even know it.”

“There is much you don’t know. Shall I enlighten you?”

“Don’t you dare!” She jabbed a finger in the air. “And I mean it!” She took a deep breath, gripping the front of the vanity with both hands. “Is there going to be a problem if he wants to come in when he brings me home?”

“Problem?”

“Yes. You said I could have people here. Are you are going to behave yourself and keep out of my business?”

“What you do with your date is your affair. I won’t intrude.”

She smacked a hand on the counter. No matter what he said, she could tell his teeth were clenched. “You aren’t my guardian or my husband. You have no right to try to make me feel guilty for seeing a nice guy. I’m not going to sleep with him—and if I were,” she added quickly, “it would be none of your business. You and I are friends.”

“Is that what we are, Haven? Friends?” His words rang with a peculiar strain.

She swallowed. “Sure.”

“Very well. But if you think you can feel free to express to me your desire for another man, I hate to disappoint you. Our friendship will never extend that far.”

Emotions were escalating, his and hers, and she seemed unable to help it. “Great, just great.” She should shut up, but she shouted instead, arms flailing. “A friendship with conditions. Great. Tell you what? Why don’t you take your friendship and—”

“Ah, ah, ah. Don’t say something you’ll regret.” His voice held a clear warning.

Haven stopped and dropped her hands in surrender. “You’re right. So with that in mind…” She swung the bathroom door closed with a satisfying bang.

 

BIO:

Jesus Christ is my Lord and Savior. He is merciful and gracious and loves me beyond all human reason. He’s blessed me with a wonderful husband and three dynamic kids, and we all live in a shoe in New Jersey. (Just seeing who’s paying attention, lol)

God gave me a passion to write Christian Romance. Not the kind with a woman buttoned to the neck and a man daring no more than to hold her hand, but the contemporary kind. These books don’t contain explicit sex scenes, but my characters have real desires, struggles and choices to make.  A lot of the time they make the wrong ones.  No subject is prohibited but good always triumphs.

 

Sales link:

http://www.amazon.com/DESCENDED-~-Jett-ebook/dp/B008W2NPUA/ref=sr_1_1?ie=UTF8&qid=1344700612&sr=8-1&keywords=descended+dana+pratola

Pride and Prejudice and Scientific Honesty

A number of more modern scientists strive to maintain the integrity of their profession in the face of much dishonesty on the part of committed Secular Humanists. University of California Professor of Psychology Stanley Sue believed that it was essential to avoid the common secularist redefining of the word “theory” into “fact,” as Richard Dawkins frequently does when speaking of Evolution. Sue instead demanded that the bias so evident in secularist dogma be avoided.
“Scientific skepticism is considered good. … Under this principle, one must question, doubt, or suspend judgment until sufficient information is available. Skeptics demand that evidence and proof be offered before conclusions can be drawn. […] One must thoughtfully gather evidence and be persuaded by the evidence rather than by prejudice, bias, or uncritical thinking.”
Richard Feynman, 20th century physicist, apparently had no use for skewed data and the common practice of simply burying contradictions to theories being researched. He cautioned scientists to be thoroughly honest in their work by including supporting and contrary evidence and anything discovered along the way that might advance knowledge.
“If you’re doing an experiment, you should report everything that you think might make it invalid — not only what you think is right about it; … You must do the best you can — if you know anything at all wrong, or possibly wrong — to explain it. … Those things it fits are not just the things that gave you the idea for the theory; …The idea is to try to give all of the information to help others to judge the value of your contribution; not just the information that leads to judgment in one particular direction or another.”
When scientists ignore this commitment to honesty, they fall into the same trap that Isaac Asimov did. Claiming to speak as a scientist, he rightly invoked the word “inspired” to express his baseless but religiously held beliefs. “We can make inspired guesses, but we don’t know for certain what physical and chemical properties of the planet’s crust, its ocean, and its atmosphere made it so conducive to such a sudden appearance of life…” Although he appears to be humbly admitting science’s limitations, Asimov is in fact dishonestly claiming that when a scientist guesses, it is like ordinary people stating facts. Notice that instead of allowing for the possibility of a creative act by God, he assures us that all that happened was a “sudden appearance” of life made possible by natural conditions.
In the novel Pride and Prejudice, an unscrupulous man plays on social prejudices to advance his own position just as many secularists advance their “scientific” theories. He pretends humility while providing supposed evidence for theories people already hold. Jane Austin said, “Nothing is more deceitful … than the appearance of humility. It is often only carelessness of opinion, and sometimes an indirect boast.” Those who misuse science frequently advance the “scientist’s” own reputation without presenting sound science or true knowledge. “Carelessness of opinion” is almost a watchword for those who feel free to advance any belief and call it science, and frequently they receive applause when they should be greeted with healthy skepticism.
Today the observations and measurements of the physical world must support the established religion of Secular Humanism. “Carelessness of opinion” expressed by their celebrity pseudo-scientists along with their “inspired guesses” must be given as much weight as facts. Its adherents of course, deny this. They loudly denounce the corruption of the Church-State union and insist they are pure of such entanglements.
John W. Draper, 19th century American physician and photochemist, claimed that “Science has never sought to ally herself with civil power. She has never subjected anyone to mental torment, physical torment, least of all death, for the purpose of promoting her ideas.” While asserting that theists are invariably corrupt and violent, he deflects attention from the hand-in-glove relationship of secularists with the courts resulting in the bombarding of schools and government institutions with lawsuits demanding removal of any hint of religious mention in the name of “separation of church and state.”

The Prime Directive

In 1971 the world was introduced to the Tasaday, a group living in the rainforests of Mindanau in the Philippines. At the time the small group was presented as a stone-age tribe, subsisting nearly naked in caves in a hunter-gatherer style and possessing a unique language. Subsequent studies have caused some to doubt whether these people were “real,” or a hoax manufactured for political purposes by the Marcos government. Clearly they were widely publicized in a day when people were looking for unspoiled, peaceful people living in harmony with nature against the backdrop of war in Vietnam. Some believe their reality was falsely discredited when political conditions turned against Marcos and it became “necessary” to claim that everything Marcos touched was corrupt.

This tribe may have been real or a hoax. Some even believe the truth lay somewhere in between, that  they were in fact “corrupted” by their contact with the outside world and their pristine culture “spoiled” by metal tools and tee shirts. What matters is that an important philosophy came out of the incident, something akin to the TV series Star Trek’s “Prime Directive,” the order not to interfere with a developing culture or species. When the BBC denounced the Tasaday as a hoax, at the close of the
article was included this statement.

“The Tasaday Hoax led many anthropologists to reconsider how they deal with indigenous tribes. It is a situation full of dilemmas. Anthropologists are often faced with situations where members of the tribe they are studying die on a regular basis from easily curable diseases. But administering medicine may be the first step toward the loss of a culture. Many tribes actually express desire to become more technological. Anthropologists usually pressure them not to do so. One Brazilian indigenous tribal chief,
after hearing such a recommendation, is quoted saying, ‘Do they think we like not having any clothes? It may be the way of our ancestors, but the bugs bother us…’ Should tribes like these be exposed to the modern world? There are no easy answers.”

It seems as if “civilized” man has not changed much from Darwin’s day. He prefers to stand back and stare in awe at primitive man, whether to be horrified or to be mesmerized, rather than realize primitive man is just man, not a link with a simpler species or a better culture. People used to think the Australian Aborigines or African blacks were a link in the evolutionary chain and used this to justify outrageous bigotry. Now they just believe “primitive” is better. Perhaps it is better, if these “savages” know enough to want to learn about medicines to help them live and to wear clothes to protect them. How is it civilized to deny lifesaving technology and basic comfort for the sake of preserving what the people themselves don’t like and don’t want to preserve? And even more reprehensible, this philosophy justifies denying people the right to hear of Christ and the Scriptures.

Our civilized modern culture has grasped this lesson very clearly and seeks to impart it to those of us who might not yet have understood it. One episode of Star Trek the Next Generation shows the “correct” handling of such a situation. Scientists had a technological “duck blind” enabling them to study a “Proto-Vulcan” race without being seen. The “cloaking” device failed and in such a way that a native man not only saw the scientists but also was critically injured. The Enterprise crew saved his life and
tried to erase his memories of the incidents to avoid “contamination.” The memory wipe failed and he conceived from his fragmented recollections that a god called “The Picard” (The captain of the Next Generation Enterprise is named Picard) had brought him back from the dead and needed to be worshiped. He led some of his people into a fanatical, violent cult based on this belief.

The catch was that these people had already “evolved” beyond belief in gods, according to the people studying them. The point of the episode was that this belief in a god had to be disproved, because it was based on a misunderstanding of the “fact” that miracles were only the acts of ordinary mortal beings with greater skills and technology. Once this was made clear to the Proto-Vulcans they were able to go back to their atheism with the warm glow of knowing that they could become just like the people they
had been foolish enough to mistake for gods.

The message is unmistakable. The woman who leads the tribe has already stated all the steps in the process of her people’s “evolution” from primitive to civilized, cave dwelling to hut-dwelling, pagan to atheist. She is the one chosen as “advanced” enough to understand the message and she gets it right away. We get it too. Man evolves from primitive to advanced and part of being advanced is giving up the “need” for gods which must be fictitious anyway. Anyone who believes in gods is a wild-eyed,
fanatic who has to shoot somebody with a bow and arrow before he can be straightened out.

Christianity, Science and True Knowledge

Not all knowledge is true science. Paul wrote to Timothy in I Timothy 6:20 that he should be on guard against and stay away from those who used “oppositions of science falsely so called. ” This is one of the more interesting references in the Bible to false science. He was telling Timothy to stay away from people who opposed the Word of God with false knowledge. Our lives are brief and we should not waste time studying things which are not true. Since true religion is the foundation or basis of true science, true religion is where our studies should begin if we are to understand true science. The fear of the Lord is the beginning of wisdom (Psalm 111:10). The fear of the Lord is the beginning of knowledge: but fools despise wisdom and instruction. (Proverbs 1:7) The fear of the Lord is the beginning of wisdom: and knowledge of the holy is understanding (Proverbs 9:10).

The following is a basic overview of Christian doctrines. It is not what anyone claims that the Bible says, but what it actually says. These are the foundations of true science. Without these foundations, a person is not studying, teaching or practicing science. He is a believer in a false religion, studying, teaching and practicing mythology.

Cosmology

The material universe had a beginning. God spoke it into existence. God used His Son and His Spirit to make the universe.

In the beginning was the Word, and the Word was with God, and the Word was God. The same was in the beginning with God. All things were made by him; and without him was not any thing made that was made (John 1:1-3).

God, who at sundry times and in divers manners spake in time past unto the fathers by the prophets, Hath in these last days spoken unto us by his Son, whom he hath appointed heir of all things, by whom also he made the worlds; Who being the brightness of his glory, and the express image of his person, and upholding all things by the word of his power (Hebrews 1:1-3).

Through faith we understand that the worlds were framed by the word of God, so that things which are seen were not made of things which do appear (Hebrews 11:3).

In the beginning God created the heaven and the earth (Genesis 1:1).

God is eternal.

Before the mountains were brought forth, or ever thou hadst formed the earth and the world, even from everlasting to everlasting, thou art God (Psalm 90:2).

Lord, thou hast been our dwellingplace in all generations. Before the mountains were brought forth, or ever thou hadst formed the earth and the world, even from everlasting to everlasting, thou art God (Psalm 93:2).

God is holy.

For I am the LORD that bringeth you up out of the land of Egypt, to be your God: ye shall therefore be holy, for I am holy (Leviticus 11:45).

But as he which hath called you is holy, so be ye holy in all manner of conversation; Because it is written, Be ye holy; for I am holy (I Peter 1:15, 16).

God created the material universe very good. That is, without sin (holy) and good for man.

And God saw every thing that he had made, and, behold, it was very good. And the evening and the morning were the sixth day (Genesis 1:31).

God created the material universe out of nothing.

Thus saith the LORD, thy redeemer, and he that formed thee from the womb, I am the LORD that maketh all things; that stretcheth forth the heavens alone; that spreadeth abroad the earth by myself (Isaiah 44:24).

The portion of Jacob is not like them: for he is the former of all things; and Israel is the rod of his inheritance: The LORD of hosts [armies] is his name (Jeremiah 10:16)

The portion of Jacob is not like them: for he is the former of all things; and Israel is the rod of his inheritance: The LORD of hosts is his name (Jeremiah 51:19)

All things were made by him; and without him was not any thing made that was made (John 1:3).

God that made the world and all things therein, seeing that he is Lord of heaven and earth, dwelleth not in temples made with hands; Neither is worshipped with men’s hands, as though he needed any thing, seeing he giveth to all life, and breath, and all things (Acts 17:24,25).

Through faith we understand that the worlds were framed by the word of God, so that things which are seen were not made of things which do appear (Hebrews 11:3).

Anthropology (The Study of Man)

And God said, Let us make man in our image, after our likeness: and let them have dominion over the fish of the sea, and over the fowl of the air, and over the cattle, and over all the earth, and over every creeping thing that creepeth upon the earth. So God created man in his own image, in the image of God created he him; male and female created he them (Genesis 1:26-27).

Man was created by a direct act of God.

And the LORD God formed man of the dust of the ground, and breathed into his nostrils the breath of life; and man became a living soul (Genesis 2:7).

Then the LORD God said, “It is not good for the man to be alone; I will make him a helper suitable for him ” (Genesis 2:18, NASB, NIV).

And the LORD God caused a deep sleep to fall upon Adam, and he slept: and he took one of his ribs, and closed up the flesh instead thereof; And the rib, which the LORD God had taken from man, made he a woman, and brought her unto the man (Genesis 2:21, 22).

Man was created without sin.

And God saw every thing that he had made, and, behold, it was very good. And the evening and the morning were the sixth day (Genesis 1:31).

And they were both naked, the man and his wife, and were not ashamed (Genesis2:25).

By one man sin entered into the world, and death by sin; and so death passed upon all men, for that all have sinned (Romans 5:12).

Sin entered the universe through Adam’s choice.

And the LORD God took the man, and put him into the garden of Eden to dress it and to keep it. And the LORD God commanded the man, saying, Of every tree of the garden thou mayest freely eat: But of the tree of the knowledge of good and evil, thou shalt not eat of it: for in the day that thou eatest thereof thou shalt surely die (Genesis 2:15-17).

And they heard the voice of the LORD God walking in the garden in the cool of the day: and Adam and his wife hid themselves from the presence of the LORD God amongst the trees of the garden. And the LORD God called unto Adam, and said unto him, Where art thou? And he said, I heard thy voice in the garden, and I was afraid, because I was naked; and I hid myself. And he said, Who told thee that thou wast naked? Hast thou eaten of the tree, whereof I commanded thee that thou shouldest not eat? And the man said, The woman whom thou gavest to be with me, she gave me of the tree, and I did eat. And the LORD God said unto the woman, What is this that thou hast done? And the woman said, The serpent beguiled me, and I did eat. And the LORD God said unto the serpent, Because thou hast done this, thou art cursed above all cattle, and above every beast of the field; upon thy belly shalt thou go, and dust shalt thou eat all the days of thy life: And I will put enmity between thee and the woman, and between thy seed and her seed; it shall bruise thy head, and thou shalt bruise his heel. Unto the woman he said, I will greatly multiply thy sorrow and thy conception; in sorrow thou shalt bring forth children; and thy desire shall be to thy husband, and he shall rule over thee. And unto Adam he said, Because thou hast hearkened unto the voice of thy wife, and hast eaten of the tree, of which I commanded thee, saying, Thou shalt not eat of it: cursed is the ground for thy sake; in sorrow shalt thou eat of it all the days of thy life; Thorns also and thistles shall it bring forth to thee; and thou shalt eat the herb of the field; In the sweat of thy face shalt thou eat bread, till thou return unto the ground; for out of it wast thou taken: for dust thou art, and unto dust shalt thou return. And Adam called his wife’s name Eve; because she was the mother of all living. Unto Adam also and to his wife did the LORD God make coats of skins, and clothed them (Genesis 3:8-21).

The result of Adam’s sin is death.

By one man sin entered into the world, and death by sin; and so death passed upon all men, for that all have sinned (Romans 5:12).

The curse of sin is on the entire material universe.

For we know that the whole creation groaneth and travaileth in pain together until now (Romans 8:22).

Because we are born sinners, we are powerless to heal the curse of sin.

For all have sinned, and come short of the glory of God (Romans 3:23).

We have before proved both Jews and Gentiles, that they are all under sin; As it is written, There is none righteous, no, not one: There is none that understandeth, there is none that seeketh after God. They are all gone out of the way, they are together become unprofitable; there is none that doeth good, no, not one. Their throat is an open sepulchre; with their tongues they have used deceit; the poison of asps is under their lips: Whose mouth is full of cursing and bitterness: Their feet are swift to shed blood: Destruction and misery are in their ways: And the way of peace have they not known: There is no fear of God before their eye (Romans 3:9-18).

Christology (The Study of Jesus Christ)

Jesus was born of a virgin according to the prophets.

Now all this was done, that it might be fulfilled which was spoken of the Lord by the prophet, saying, Behold, a virgin shall be with child, and shall bring forth a son, and they shall call his name Emmanuel, which being interpreted is, God with us (Matthew 1:22,23).

Jesus the Messiah was born without sin.

For he hath made him to be sin for us, who knew no sin; that we might be made the righteousness of God in him (2 Corinthians 5:21).

Jesus the Messiah led a sinless life.

Seeing then that we have a great high priest, that is passed into the heavens, Jesus the Son of God, let us hold fast our profession. For we have not an high priest which cannot be touched with the feeling of our infirmities; but was in all points tempted like as we are, yet without sin (Hebrews 4:14,15)

God provided atonement for the sin of all mankind through the death, burial and resurrection of Jesus Christ.

For since by man came death, by man came also the resurrection from the dead. For as in Adam all die, even so in Christ shall all be made alive (I Corinthians 15:21,22)

Time

The existence of the material universe is both finite and brief. The geneologies in Genesis are consistent and clearly teach that the earth was created shortly before 4,000 BC. The year 2010 in a modern western calendar corresponds to the Jewish calendar year 5770, counted from Creation. Jesus Christ will return and the material world will be destroyed as a judgment for sin.

Heaven and earth shall pass away, but my words shall not pass away. Matthew (24:35).

But the day of the Lord will come as a thief in the night; in the which the heavens shall pass away with a great noise, and the elements shall melt with fervent heat, the earth also and the works that are therein shall be burned up (2 Peter 3:10).

And I saw a great white throne, and him that sat on it, from whose face the earth and the heaven fled away; and there was found no place for them (Revelation 20:11).

And I saw a new heaven and a new earth: for the first heaven and the first earth were passed away; and there was no more sea (Revelation 21:1).

Any who do not believe these simple, obvious doctrines willingly bring judgment on themselves. Like those on the Titanic who refused to board the lifeboats, they will not understand reality until it is too late. As Peter said, they “willingly are ignorant. “

Knowing this first, that there shall come in the last days scoffers, walking after their own lusts, 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. For this they willingly are ignorant of, that by the word of God the heavens were of old, and the earth standing out of the water and in the water: Whereby the world that then was, being overflowed with water, perished: But the heavens and the earth, which are now, by the same word are kept in store, reserved unto fire against the day of judgment and perdition of ungodly men (2 Peter 3:3-7).

Unlike the record of Jesus the Messiah, the idea that the universe had an Intelligent Designer has three forms of testimony outside the Scriptures. The first two are scientific. First is the fact that no basic law of physics contradicts anything in the Bible. The second testimony is the millions of observed scientific phenomena. The last form of testimony consists of other ancient records.

True science is not technology. Technology is the application of scientific principles to fabricate material objects. No known aspect or instance of technology contradicts any doctrine in the Bible.

True science is the belief (accepting as true after examining the facts, a legal term) that the material world was created in a point of time, that the material world will end, that each and every person has a purpose and will be judged for the decisions he makes in this life. True science acknowledges the limitations of material measurements and analysis. True science acknowledges that science is finite and that the most important human questions cannot be answered by science. True science acknowledges that the ancient world of 5,000 years ago was totally and completely different than the world we know today. The present is not the key to the past. True science acknowledges that the ancient world underwent at least one worldwide global catastrophe within the last 5000 years.

True science acknowledges that the surface of the earth that we see today was produced catastrophically. True science acknowledges that each historic document from the beginning of time was written for a purpose at the time it was written. Though technology evolves, such as the evolution of the airplane, there has never been any evolutionary development of civilization. True science acknowledges that the only legitimate use of the word evolution is technological, driven by human intelligence, such the evolution of the automobile, the printing industry or organized sports. True science acknowledges the scientific fact that there has never been any scientific evidence for any form of biological evolution.

The Scientific Method According to Ben Franklin: George Whitefield’s Preaching and the Exodus

“He [Whitefield] … preach’d one evening from the top of the Court-house steps, which are in the middle of Market-street, … I had the curiosity to learn how far he could be heard, … I found his voice distinct till I came near Front-street… Imagining then a semi-circle, … fill’d with auditors, to each of whom I allow’d two square feet, I computed that he might well be heard by more than thirty thousand. This reconcil’d me to the newspaper accounts of his having preach’d to twenty-five thousand people … and to the antient histories of generals haranguing whole armies, of which I had sometimes doubted.”

Benjamin Franklin’s observations of George Whitfield’s preaching were the scientific measurements of a single observer. Though a single observer, even a careful one like Benjamin Franklin, might be more prone to error than a large number of observers, Franklin’s measurements were still scientific. Franklin used a step-by-step process of investigation. He physically walked off the distance to determine the range of Whitfield’s voice. Next he compared his observation with previous witnesses of Whitfield’s audiences and range. Finally he adds similar established historic accounts of commanders addressing troops (adding that he previously doubted their truth).

In the following paragraph the Bible presents step-by step scientific proofs of the accuracy of the historical event of the Exodus. Three hundred years after the event Jephthah confirms its occurrence (Judges 11:26). At the time of the beginning of Solomon’s temple construction the official historical record of the event (I Kings 6:1) confirms that 480 years have passed. If someone falsely claims that the Biblical record of the Exodus is not scientific, that is an issue of his unbelief, not an issue of science.
In the book of Judges, part of Jephthah’s speech to the Ammonites includes an approximate date for the Exodus. …”Israel dwelt in Heshbon and her towns, and in Aroer and her towns, and in all the cities that be along by the coasts of Arnon, three hundred years? why therefore did ye not recover them within that time?” (Judges 11:26, KJV) By the time of Solomon, the date of the Exodus was the foundational date for the kingdom. And it came to pass in the four hundred and eightieth year after the children of Israel were come out of the land of Egypt, in the fourth year of Solomon’s reign over Israel, in the month Zif, which is the second month, that he began to build the house of the LORD. (I Kings 6:1, KJV)
Though the comparison of modern calendars with ancient calendars is very difficult and it is easy to be a few years off, I Kings 6:1 gives a precise date to the Exodus. Anyone who understands that Solomon began to build the house of the LORD in 966 BC of our Gregorian calendar knows that the Exodus took place in 1446 BC according to our Gregorian calendar. If you are interested in understanding these discrepancies, please see the Section Two Appendix on Calendars. Anyone who uses a slightly different date, such as 1444 BC or 1447 BC is not disagreeing about the date of the Exodus. He is simply disagreeing about the proper method of scientifically reconciling ancient calendars to our modern Gregorian calendar. Clearly this documentation of the Exodus is scientific history, actual events recorded and verified by scientific methods.

Nature Red in Tooth and Claw

The quote “Nature red in tooth and claw” comes from Alfred, Lord Tennyson’s very long series of poems “In Memoriam A.H.H,” completed in 1849. Many evolutionists quote this phrase in support of their ideas of natural selection. When he began to write this poem, Tennyson questioned God’s love and sovereignty over nature because of the death of a beloved friend. Parts of the poem comment on the pre-Darwinian writers who were beginning to promote man’s reason and to shove God out of the Life Sciences. Tennyson might not be the best person to quote on the subject of crowding God out of Science, however, and here’s why, from the appendix of our e-Book Antidisestablishmentarianism. The phrase “Nature red in tooth and claw” comes from In Memoriam, A.H.H., a long group of poems written over many years by Alfred, Lord Tennyson completed in 1849. In it Tennyson struggled with his grief over Arthur Henry Hallam, a dear friend who was engaged to Tennyson’s sister but died at age 22. The section containing the often-quoted phrase appears below. The complete work is many pages in length and can be viewed in various literature textbooks or online.

 

LVI
So careful of the type? but no.
From scarped cliff and quarried stone
She cries, `A thousand types are gone:
I care for nothing, all shall go.

Thou makest thine appeal to me:
I bring to life, I bring to death:
The spirit does but mean the breath:
I know no more.And he, shall he,

Man, her last work, who seem’d so fair,
Such splendid purpose in his eyes,
Who roll’d the psalm to wintry skies,
Who built him fanes of fruitless prayer,

Who trusted God was love indeed
And love Creation’s final law;
Tho Nature, red in tooth and claw
With ravine, shriek’d against his creed;

Who loved, who suffer’d countless ills,
Who battled for the True, the Just,
Be blown about the desert dust,
Or seal’d within the iron hills?

No more? A monster then, a dream,
A discord. Dragons of the prime,
That tare each other in their slime,
Were mellow music match’d with him.

O life as futile, then, as frail!
O for thy voice to soothe and bless!
What hope of answer, or redress?
Behind the veil, behind the veil.

For knowledge is of things we see;
And yet we trust it comes from thee,
A beam in darkness:
let it grow.

Let knowledge grow from more to more,
But more of reverence in us dwell;
That mind and soul, according well,
May make one music as before, But vaster.

We are fools and slight;
We mock thee when we do not fear:
But help thy foolish ones to bear;
Help thy vain worlds to bear thy light.

Forgive what seem’d my sin in me;
What seem’d my worth since I began;
For merit lives from man to man,
And not from man, O Lord, to thee.

Forgive my grief for one removed,
Thy creature, whom I found so fair.
I trust he lives in thee, and there
I find him worthier to be loved.

Forgive these wild and wandering cries,
Confusions of a wasted youth;
Forgive them where they fail in truth,
And in thy wisdom make me wise.

 

These poems chronicle Tennyson’s struggle to understand how death fit in with the God of life. In them he also tried to deal with philosophical questions in areas including the newly-named science of Biology. Darwin had not yet made a name for himself, but other writers were beginning to put together theories of evolution. These were based on ideas like inheritance of acquired characteristics, spontaneous generation, and vital fluids flowing through living things that forced them to undergo evolutionary changes. All of these ideas were disturbing to thinking men like Tennyson, trying to embrace Rationalism and rely on man’s reason to solve life’s great questions. They also wondered how the so-called “discoveries” of randomness and chance could co-exist with the orderly Creator and loving Sustainer of the Bible. The theories listed above have all since been discredited but more have sprung up to replace them. Tennyson’s final conclusion in the same set of poems, finished in 1849, includes the section above. It is usually placed first in the published versions but was probably written last. The emphasis is added to show what Tennyson thought of his earlier doubts about how “Natural Law” fit in with a loving creator God. The text comes from http://www.online-literature.com/tennyson/718/).

So, Who Is She?

Some time ago I was told the best way to handle people who call themselves Atheists is to simply ask, “so who is she?” He means that Atheists are Atheists because they want to commit fornication with someone. I have learned that that the desire is not always for a woman, it isn’t even always for sex. But it is always a desire for something God condemns as sin. The comeback is always some form of “who are you to condemn (judge, tell Me how to live) Me. You are just a hypocrite.” Evidence has never worked with any atheist I have talked to. Their minds are made up.

All humans are sinners. It is easy to point to our sins. But believers accept the payment of the blood of Jesus Christ for our sins. Because we are blood washed and redeemed, we face the Judgment seat of Christ. This is like a judge in the Olympics. It is rewards or lack of rewards for our activities in this life.

For we must all appear before the judgment seat of Christ, so that each one may be recompensed for his deeds in the body, according to what he has done, whether good or bad.

Unbelievers do not accept the fact of judgment. They face the Great White Throne Judgment. They will be judged on two things, what they did with the information God gave them concerning His Son, Jesus Christ and how they lived their lives. As the judgment seat of Christ is rewards or lack of rewards for believers, so the Great White Throne Judgment is degree of punishment for unbelievers.

Revelation 20:11-15  Then I saw a great white throne and Him who sat upon it, from whose presence earth and heaven fled away, and no place was found for them. And I saw the dead, the great and the small, standing before the throne, and books were opened; and another book was opened, which is the book of life; and the dead were judged from the things which were written in the books, according to their deeds. And the sea gave up the dead which were in it, and death and Hades gave up the dead which were in them; and they were judged, every one of them according to their deeds. Then death and Hades were thrown into the lake of fire. This is the second death, the lake of fire. And if anyone’s name was not found written in the book of life, he was thrown into the lake of fire.

A Slave of God Guest Post by Sophie Dawson

I am a slave of God. We shy away from the concept, and understandably so, given the history of slavery here is the US. I am one, however, and proud to declare it. As a believer in Christ, I have been paid for by Jesus’ death as payment for my wrong doing. Thus, He owns me and I am His slave. Paul, Timothy and James, the brother of Christ, all claimed it.

Phil 1:1 “Paul and Timothy, slaves of Christ Jesus: To all the saints in Christ Jesus who are in Philippi, including the overseers and deacons.”

James 1:1 “James, a slave of God and of the Lord Jesus Christ: To the 12 tribes in the Dispersion. Greetings.”

We, as Gentiles who trust in Christ as our Savior, become Israelites through adoption by God. It is not that we take anything from Jews who have accepted Jesus as savior or have replaced Israel as God’s chosen nation. Israel will never be abandoned by God.

Joshua 1:5 “No one will be able to stand up against you as long as you live. As I was with Moses, so I will be with you; I will never leave you nor forsake you.”

Rather we have become part of His chosen people.

Hos. 2:23 “I will say to Not My People: You are My people, and he will say: You are My God.

We have become His chosen people and so are His slaves. God, Himself, declared that we, as Israelites are His slaves.

Lev. 25:42 “They are not to be sold as slaves,  because they are My slaves I brought out of the land of Egypt.”

Lev. 25:55 “For the Israelites are My slaves. They are My slaves I brought out of the land of Egypt; I am the Lord your God.”

In other translations the word ‘servant’ is used.  Looking at the Hebrew Strong’s number 5650 and NIV G/K 6269, the translation includes “bond-servant” and “slave”. This indicates ownership by God Himself.

This brings a truth of God’s consistency in both the Old and New Testaments.  In Leviticus God states that His chosen people are His slaves.  He claims perpetual ownership of His people. In the New Testament, in Philippians and James, Paul claims bondage to God through Christ for himself and Timothy as does James in his greeting.

Now, through Christ, I am in perpetual slavery to God.  I have been “bought at a price.” (1 Cor. 6:20)

I thank God that He loves me enough to purchase me forever.  Are you glad to be a slave of God?

All verses are from the Holman Christian Standard Bible.

http://www.sophie-dawson.com/little-bits-blog.html

Page with links to buy my book. http://www.sophie-dawson.com/purchase-books.html

Twitter@sophiedawson76

facebook https://www.facebook.com/Sophiedawsonnovels?ref=hl

Sophie Dawson has been making up stories in her head ever since she was a child. She lives with her husband on the family farm in Illinois. Two grown sons, a daughter-in-law and granddaughter round out her immediate family.

Sophie does all kinds of needlework and was a professional machine quilter in the past. She loves to travel, read, garden, snuggle with her cat and now write.

In her books, Sophie shares the wisdom God has taught her in stories of faithful living. Her hope is to demonstrate how acting and reacting the way the Bible teaches can bring a positive impact on her readers.

When a Man Suffers

http://www.amazon.com/The-Barons-Ring-ebook/dp/B0040V4EYI

All of my books deal with men who have gone through some sort of devastating event that leaves a permanent mark. I want to explain how and why I put my male characters through severe trials.

Our daughter has said, “You know you really put you men through a lot, don’t you?” I look at physical suffering as a metaphor for and a necessary part of spiritual refining. Silver and gold aren’t worth much unless they go through the furnace. The Scriptures talk a lot about putting men through very tough times. Jacob wrestled with the angel and got a permanent limp. Job was covered from head to foot with boils. Naaman got leprosy.

The Bible tells us that the refinement process is physical and spiritual. My characters go through suffering whether they’ve done anything to “deserve” it or not. Some people object to violence in Christian books. Fight child sexual slavery and you are likely to get hurt. Spy for Texas against Mexico, and, as one of my characters puts it, “there can be serious consequences.” Take on political and religious conflict and someone might try to take you out of the equation. Confront a boy with hard evidence that his hero’s “holy quest” might be a scam for personal gain and you will pay a price.

Even in my children’s and YA adventure series, Benny and the Bank Robber, there is a man who is mauled by a cougar. He was attacked trying to save someone else. Later he was stared at and avoided because of his scars. Yet he found a way to prove that God can “make all things new,” blending the character’s past with his present to make a future with marriage and godly service possible through God’s grace.

In the YA Medieval Suspense Hope and the Knight of the Black Lion, I needed a character who seems superhuman, but at the same time has unexplained bouts of weakness. There was so much depending on him, but he and others needed to depend on God. At one time he was arrogant, depending on his own abilities, but something other characters don’t know about happened to him. Now he operates with humility and reliance on a Power that never falters. This helps us understand where the “super power” comes from.

The  Adult Romantic Suspense novel Chasing the Texas Wind describes a character, rumored to be a wounded war hero, who calls a promotion merely becoming “head clerk over a larger office of clerks.” He appears to drink and cannot even dance at his own wedding. What is he desperately trying to hide from his sham wife? She married him for a show of respectability and to have a veteran to show off at her fundraisers for wounded soldiers but keeps trying to like him, to get to know him. Is he just struggling with his own pride or are his secrets not his to share? Does he actually have more than one secret from the woman he grows to worship?

In The Baron’s Ring, a prince has to prepare himself to save his kingdom from ruin at the hands of his drunken, idolatrous brother. Can he do that by common labor, barter and befriending poverty-stricken villagers in a foreign land? Can merely being a teacher expose him to occult influences that seem to rob him of all his future hopes? This is the story of how a man finds strength overcome what seems a hopeless obstacle. It actually positions him to go back to the life he left with strength and maturity no one could foresee except for the God Who oversaw it all.

Some books make people suffer for no reason. These are governed by determinism, the belief that life has no purpose. Arbitrary forces brutalize or leave characters alone. These stories might teach lessons like the poem by William Ernest Henley, “Invictus,” producing an arrogant man whose “head is bloody, but unbowed.” But that is human pride and personal glory in a world that ends with the grave.

Sometimes man can act with self-sacrifice and humility on his own. To truly explain why people suffer, they need to know that this life is not the end. Nobody is really satisfied with the random chance theory. Confirmed atheists still demand to know why bad things happen to good people and they actually blame God. Even if it only makes us better humans and better servants of other humans, refinement cannot be a random, arbitrary process. Its real purpose is to fit us for heaven and to earn God’s “Well done, good and faithful servant.”

 

Science, Falsely So Called

“Academic politics is the most vicious and bitter form of politics because the stakes are so low.”

“Sayre’s Law” — this version found in the December 20, 1973 Wall Street Journal.

“The stakes are so low” seems off, but all of us who ever taught at the college level are intimately acquainted with the bitterness and viciousness of academic politics. It goes along with Lord Acton’s well known “power corrupts, and absolute power corrupts absolutely.”

We are also aware of the corruptions of large organizations, especially governments. Modern science is the biggest of big businesses. It depends on grants from government, big business and massive endowments. Over 90 percent of Big Science is either military or academic. So over 90% of science is controlled by either academic politics or government politics.

Ben Stein’s documentary Expelled:No Intelligence Allowed (available at http://www.discovery.org/expelled/ and http://www.amazon.com/) examines several scientists whose careers were ruined just because they believed in and supported Intelligent Design. Not Christianity, not Islam, not creation and not opposition to evolution, these scientists simply presented Intelligent Design as a scientific alternative. What is today known as Intelligent Design is very similar to the Deism of Thomas Jefferson and Benjamin Franklin’s early years.

Today, the Discovery Institute (http://www.discovery.org/) is the most well known of those who publish papers including Intelligent Design. Wikipedia describes it a manner that is more like an attack than an objective evaluation. “Intelligent design (ID) is a form of creationism promulgated by the Discovery Institute. The Institute defines it as the proposition that ‘certain features of the universe and of living things are best explained by an intelligent cause, not an undirected process such as natural selection.’”

“ID seeks to redefine science in a fundamental way that would invoke supernatural explanations, an approach its proponents describe as theistic realism or theistic science.”

“The scientific community rejects the extension of science to include supernatural explanations in favor of continued acceptance of methodological naturalism, and has rejected both irreducible complexity and specified complexity for a wide range of conceptual and factual flaws. The vast majority of the scientific community labels intelligent design as pseudoscience and identifies it as a religious, rather than scientific, viewpoint.” (http://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/Intelligent_design)

This type of hatred and bias is what passes for objectivity in the “scientific community.” While using this hatred to accuse others, what is the moral condition of this same “scientific community?”

“Gauging the amount of misconduct in science is very difficult, but last year were 381 journal retraction notices-up from 22 in 2001.-according to the Thomson Reuters database Web of Knowledge. Indeed, 2011 was dubbed the ‘year of the retraction’ by the blog Retraction Watch. Last year also saw 13 misconduct rulings by the US Office of Research Integrity (ORI) in Rockville, Maryland, which oversees misconduct investigations and publishes the findings on its website. Some reports suggest cases of misconduct may be more prevalent than previously suspected.” May 2, 2012 (http://www.nature.com/naturejobs/science/articles/10.1038/nj7396-137a)

The point is that facts are facts, regardless of who uses his authority to pronounce otherwise. “The amount of scientific ‘cheating’ has far outpaced the expansion of science itself.” http://science.slashdot.org/story/12/04/20/220201/studies-suggest-massive-increase-in-scientific-fraud I do not know if these articles are valid, but they are certainly believable.

Why? Because scientific articles I know about are attacked on a regular basis for unscientific methods and a lack of facts. The only method for dating the age of the earth as millions of years old is radiometric dating; keeping to just one variable, I am simply writing about the age of the earth only.

While this is an old and familiar topic to many people, many others probably have never heard of this. So to those who think this is old, see if you can catch any mistakes. I’m old and I do make mistakes. In 1974 Los Alamos National Laboratory extracted cores from a borehole nearly 3 miles deep in Fenton Hill, NM. In the bore samples was biotite, black mica containing microscopic crystal zircons; (ZrSiO₄) zirconium silicate. Using radiometric dating, the samples measured the U->Pb (Uranium to Lead) decay and determined the zircons to be 1,500 million years old plus or minus 20 million years. The decay process left microscopic radiohalos behind.

“The zircons also would be expected to contain helium, which comes from the alpha particles (nuclei of helium atoms) emitted by many of the nuclear decays. This prompted Robert Gentry at Oak Ridge National Laboratory to ask the Los Alamos team to send him core samples from various depths in GT-2 (as well as samples from deeper boreholes nearby). Gentry and his team extracted zircons from the samples, hand-picked crystals between 50 and 75 microns long, and measured the total amounts of helium in them. From the amounts of radiogenic lead in the zircons, they estimated how much helium the nuclear decay should have deposited in the crystals. They found that “an almost phenomenal amount of He has been retained” in the zircons, despite them being small, hot, and allegedly old.”

Though the phrase “an almost phenomenal amount” of helium could have any one of a number of explanations, there are two important overall points in this quote. First, this testing was done by a team at Oak Ridge National Laboratory in Oak Ridge, TN headed by Robert Gentry, not the Creationist RATE group. The results were published in 1982. Second, the helium is a byproduct of radioactive decay. Since helium is both created and leaves zircons (diffuses) at a known rate, depending on pressure and temperature, it should be just as reliable as the radiometric U²³⁵ -> Pb method for dating. Helium Diffusion calculations are more complicated, so there is greater opportunity for human error.

In 2000 the RATE team performed their own experiments on these samples as well as samples from Beartooth Gneiss near Yellowstone, WY. They also included in their report helium diffusion rates performed on Zircons at the Fish Canyon Tuff in Nevada by Reiners (report published in 2002). There were multiple tests over several years.

RATE also used blind third parties, that is, samples were tested and results published by individuals and groups who did not know about the connection to RATE. This is the standard for Peer review, to help keep prejudice and bias out of the published results. Kenneth A.Farley of the California Institute of Technology (Division of Geological and Planetary Sciences measured the diffusion coefficients of the zircon and biotite from Jemez Granodiorite in New Mexico.

The RATE team also used a Russian report using samples from the Ural mountains, the Magomedov report.

The original published results, with documentation, are available for free.

Helium Diffusion Rates Support Accelerated Nuclear Decay http://www.icr.org/i/pdf/research/Helium_ICC_7-22-03.pdf.

An additional import point brought out in this paper is the total amount of helium in the atmosphere. Though these studies were done in the 1950, the studies are still valid. When helium diffuses out of rock, it goes into the atmosphere. One of the first, and very important discoveries of high altitude unmanned rockets was that the earth’s atmosphere was retaining helium. Up to that time it was assumed that helium light enough to escape into space. According the creationist model, the atmosphere only has .04% of the helium it should have if the earth were billions of years old. Uniformitarians still assume the helium has passed into space. With no way of replicating or testing, these are simply very complex theories of the he said/she said variety. The only science in this is actual measurement of current levels of helium in the atmosphere.

My article is about the published critics of this work.

The first is titled RATE’s Ratty Result: Helium In Zircons. It is subtitled Numerous Fallacies Based on Bad Assumptions and Questionable Data. http://www.talkorigins.org/faqs/helium/zircons.html Without even reading the article, we know that this is a biased journalism piece, not a scientific article.

It opens with a list of people who oppose the RATE paper. As mind-boggling as this seems to me, this is more like the magicians of Pharaoh’s court opposing Moses than science. Truth has never been decided by a majority vote. The entire American form of government is designed to shield the innocent from a mob mentality.

After mentioning many people opposed to the “young earth position” the author of the article, Dr. Kevin R. Henke, then makes some serious charges. “Loechelt (2008c) is a detailed report that argues that Dr. Humphreys’ claims and his underlying assumptions are oversimplistic, inconsistent and erroneous, and that Dr. Humphreys’ helium diffusion data are actually consistent with a date of about 1.5 billion years for the Fenton Hill zircons. Although Humphreys (2008b) and Humphreys (2010) briefly mention Loechelt (2008a; 2008b; 2008c), Dr. Humphreys provides no detailed responses to Dr. Loechelt’s models and his numerous criticisms.”

After claiming “Dr. Humphreys largely recycles the materials in Humphreys (2008b),” Dr. Henke then goes on to make a number of authoritative claims without scientific evidence to back up those claims.

“The old Earth multi-domain model from Loechelt (2008c) better explains helium diffusion in the Fenton Hill zircons than Dr Humphreys’ young Earth RATE model,” writes Dr. Henke. I have three serious questions at this point. 1) Why are the other samples ignored? (Beartooth Gneiss near Yellowstone, WY, Fish Canyon Tuff in Nevada, Jemez, NM) By ignoring these samples, he is implying that the RATE group used a single sample. 2) Though Dr. Humphreys led the zircon project, it was a peer reviewed team effort. Oak Ridge National Laboratories did the original study. Dr Henke is making personal attacks on Dr. Humphreys, not making a scientific evaluation. 3) A jump in the results from 6000 years to hundred of millions of years is difficult or impossible without serious scientific fraud. So under the oft quoted maxim, “extraordinary claims require extraordinary proof,” Dr. Henke has put himself in a very difficult position.

Dr. Henke writes, “Throughout his documents, Dr. Humphreys claims that the Fenton Hill zircons contain too much helium to be 1.5 billion years old. In response, Loechelt (2008c; 2009a) states that his multi-domain models indicate that Dr. Humphreys’ helium diffusion measurements are consistent with the zircons being about 1.5 billion years old.”

“Why shouldn’t they [the RATE team] acknowledge that subsurface minerals (including zircons) could be substantially contaminated with extraneous helium?” If all samples all over the earth are “contaminated with extraneous helium,” then a catastrophic event occurred all over the earth. This level of a catastrophe would invalidate all dating methods.

Most of the arguments Dr. Henke makes could allow for alternate reading of the data up to allow for the earth to be slightly more than half a million years old. Since half a million years is still not enough time for uniformitarianism, and a tiny fraction of 1.5 billion, I will only address issues that allow for a 1.5 billion year interpretation of the same data.

“Even statements in Humphreys (2000) contradict the desperate efforts of the CreationWiki author(s) to conjure up a line with a 15 kcal/mol slope and salvage Dr. Humphreys’ manipulation.”
” DR. HUMPHREYS FUDGES SOVIET HELIUM DIFFUSION DATA TO SUPPORT HIS AGENDA
Dr. Humphreys’ Manipulation of the Magomedov (1970) Data
Without his log base-10 manipulation of Magomedov’s graph, Dr. Humphreys’ methodology provides ridiculous “creation” dates of only a few decades for Magomedov’s zircons.

This is not science. These are baseless personal attacks. Dr. Henke claims that the RATE team manipulated the evidence to arrive at the conclusion they wanted. Based on these statements, I think that any reasonable person would say that is exactly what Dr. Henke is doing. Dr. Henke is making baseless charges because the data the RATE team provides does not give the results he wants.

Dr. Humphreys explains in some detail that the 1970 Magomedov data shows lead (Pb) retention, not helium retention, in zircons. Helium retention is only a side issue. The Mogomedov data must be evaluated very carefully to extract helium retention from the report.

Dr. Humphreys openly admits making a number of errors in the early tests, since there was no literature of anyone doing the exact same type of procedure. Since creationists believe that God could have created the earth any way he wanted to, there is no need to manipulate or falsify data. The tests results could be off by a factor of thousands of a percent, yet the final conclusion would be the same.

The one theme throughout Dr. Henke’s paper is that the RATE team did sloppy research, falsified data and had a preconceived agenda which drove their results. I say these are the driving sins of Dr. Henke’s article as well.

The only evidence in Dr. Henke offered in his entire paper for a 1.5 billion year date for helium retention is an article by Gary H. Loechelt dated March 18, 2009 and titled  “A Response to the RATE Team Regarding Helium Diffusion in Zircon.” Unlike the rant of poor journalism by Dr. Henke, this is a legitimate scientific paper.

Dr Gary H. Loechelt is a 1995 graduate of Arizona State University, where I attended classes and my wife worked in the Carl Hayden library. Though I do not know who he is and we never met, it is possible that somewhere along the line we were in class together.

This is most of the abstract, “I had previously challenged the scientific merits of RATE’s helium diffusion study, to which Dr. Russell Humphreys, a leading member of the RATE team, responded with his own criticisms. This paper responds to Humphreys’ comments. Three topics are discussed: my old-earth helium diffusion model, RATE’s young-earth helium diffusion model, and a test between the two models. Regarding my old-earth model, computational evidence is presented supporting my interpretation of the diffusion kinetics, contrary to Humphreys’ unsubstantiated claims. Regarding RATE’s young-earth model, a case is made that the apparently good agreement between their model and experimental data is the result of adjusting model parameters to fit preliminary data. Finally, regarding a test between the two models, evidence is presented which shows that the initial heating ramp of a diffusion experiment better supports my old-earth model.”

Dr Loechelt originally wrote on September 11, 2008, “Two fundamental flaws are usually seen in these arguments.  [For a young earth] First, they fail to demonstrate in the common case that experimental uncertainties result in errors of sufficient magnitude to completely invalidate the dating methods in question.  Second, and perhaps more importantly, no credible alternative is given which can adequately explain the well-documented patterns in isotopic ratios which are repeatedly observed in terrestrial, lunar, and meteoric samples (Dalrymple, 1991).”

Dr. Loechelt is correct that all experiments have experimental uncertainties of sufficient magnitude as to invalidate the experiment. The data needs to be examined very carefully. He is, however, in error in saying that just because he does not like the conclusion (the earth is young) therefore the data is invalid.

His is second point, “no credible alternative,” is based on the religious belief in uniformitarianism. Without a worldwide catastrophe, there is no credible alternative. However, a worldwide catastrophe is a very credible alternative.

With the phrase “Perceiving this weakness in the young-earth position” Dr. Loechelt leaves the realm of science and enters religion and politics. Like Dr.Henke, Dr. Loechelt establishes a religious bias in his introduction. While accusing ICR and RATE of manipulation of data to achieve desired results (the earth is young according to the Bible), Dr. Loechelt believes the earth to be old because “mainstream science ha[s] known since the early 20th century, ” His trust is in the bulk of his colleagues worldwide, “mainstream science.”

The RATE team exists because many people worldwide do recognize his next statement to be scientifically valid. “Nuclear decay [i]s the best and perhaps the only viable explanation for the isotopic patterns observed in rocks and minerals today, as well as other related phenomena, such as radiohalos and fission tracks.”

The next statement of Dr. Loechelt’s introduction is simply not true. ” Conceding the occurrence of billions of years’ worth of nuclear decay created a major dilemma for people believing in a 6000-year-old earth.  Since questioning a young-earth position was unthinkable (DeYoung, 2005, p. 174), the only remaining alternative was to postulate that nuclear decay rates were accelerated by many orders of magnitude in the recent past.  The goal of the RATE project was to find scientific evidence to this end.”

So the foundation of Dr. Loechelt’s scientific paper are several religious beliefs. He believes that the earth is not 6,000 years old. While I do not know Dr. Loechelt, others who share that belief manipulate evidence to prove their point. The written goal of the RATE project is “review the assumptions and procedures used in estimating the ages of rock strata.” http://www.icr.org/research/rate/  It is actually the opposite of Dr. Loechelt’s statement.

Attributing something to your opponents which they do not believe is both a logical fallacy and dishonest. Nuclear decay has never been any kind of dilemma, major or minor, for understanding geology. It has been, however, a major tenet  of the secular humanist religion.

This antiscientific prejudice which invalidates Dr. Loechelt’s entire paper is shown by the following statement “Most of the cases documented by the RATE team proved to be weak tests for their hypothesis because the other clocks were not independent (i.e.they were also based upon nuclear phenomena) and showed very little difference in time (i.e. 10-20% instead of 5-6 orders of magnitude).

Let me reword this; “Because we KNOW that the RATE project conclusions are in error by a magnitude of 5-6, anything the RATE project uses as support but only shows an error rate of 10-20%, we know that to be in error also.”

Though there are many technically accurate details included in Dr Loechelt’s paper, it is an exercise in the very fallacy he accuses the RATE team of: believing in a conclusion so strongly that they falsify the evidence to support it. His multi-domain model achieved the results he wanted; therefore it is the correct model. He did not run tests of his own; he simply criticized the work of others.

Those of us who understand the earth to be young do not need the evidence of the RATE project. God could create the earth any way he wanted to. Also, the worldwide catastrophes since the original creation altered the geologic data. There is no accurate record of the past in a mythical geologic column. It is secular humanists who desperately need some type of scientific evidence to shore up their religion.

Godwin’s Law

“‘As an online discussion grows longer, the probability of a comparison involving Nazis or Hitler approaches 1.’ In other words, Godwin observed that, given enough time, in any online discussion-regardless of topic or scope-someone inevitably makes a comparison to Hitler and the Nazis.” Wikipedia

I have not bothered to check this out. It is not that important. But assuming that Godwin’s Law is indeed valid, there are three reasons for invoking Hitler or Nazi analogies.

First, someone loses control, gets angry and insults someone else. Usually there is no good reason anyone else can see for this insult. Just mentioning Godwin’s law might deter this kind of reaction from an angry person. Everyone except the person hurling the insult understands this to be wrong.

Second, someone claims that there is no right or wrong. This should be rare, but sadly it is all too common. Hitler or the Nazi party is invoked because Hitler and the Nazi party are universally understood to be evil. It does not matter that Mao Tse Tung, Joseph Stalin and others were far more evil. It is the concept of evil which is universally understood to be embodied in Hitler and the Nazi party. This is the sad reality when people abandon any kind of moral standards. These are the people who angrily shout; “Who are you to tell me what to do!” Personally, I know of no other way to deal with these kind of people except invoke Hitler and the Nazi party. If anyone has a better idea, I am open to suggestions.

Third is the Nazi propaganda technique of the Big Lie described by Adolph Hitler in Mein Kamp. That is, people will not fall for a simple lie. They can see through it too easily. Tell a big lie and keep repeating it. This concept of the Big Lie is the primary propaganda tool of progressives (the left) in this country. It is used because it is effective. It is also difficult to overcome. Once again, the only way I know of to deal with The Big Lie is to point out that what someone is saying is not true. Mentioning that this is a Nazi propaganda tool is usually not very effective, but it might work with some people.

Anyone who has a better idea about two and three, we welcome your comments.

 

 

Rightly Dividing the Word of Truth

Shakespeare put these words in Mercutio’s mouth after he was stabbed in a swordfight: “No, ’tis not so deep as a well, nor so wide as a church-door; but ’tis enough, ’twill serve: ask for me to-morrow, and you shall find me a grave man.” (Romeo and Juliet, Act 3, Scene 1.) Though Mercutio could still talk, like Adam and Eve, he knew that his wound was fatal. Though Romeo did not grasp the significance of this statement at first, Mercutio knew that he would be in the grave tomorrow.

High School English students have no problem understanding what Mercutio meant. That is, if the High School English student can grasp Shakespeare at all. Yet I am told several times a day “You are not interpreting the Bible correctly.”

The Bible is a book of literature. It does not need to be interpreted. At least, it should not be interpreted in the sense that it does not mean what it says. They come back with, “So you believe the earth is flat when it says ‘the four corners of the earth’?” The four corners of the earth is a literary device. As Mercutio used the double meaning of the word grave (serious and death) in Romeo and Juliet, so the Bible is filled with figures of speech.

Just like Shakespeare or any other literature, the Bible is written to be understood. Since our culture is far removed from Hebrew, Greek, Roman and even Egyptian, Babylonian and Persian cultures, some things are difficult for us to understand. Why did a wedding last seven days? Why did Boaz’s close relative take off his shoe as a marriage pledge? Why would a new wife give her husband a thousand pieces of silver?

The answers to these, and any other questions we might have about the Bible, are to be found in the Bible itself, not in fanciful personal opinions some glorify by calling “interpretations.” For instance, when the vision of Jesus Christ in Revelation 1 is mentions a sword coming out of the mouth of Jesus Christ, we already know that the sword of the Spirit is the Word of God and that God brought all things into existence by the Word.

“When the plain sense of Scripture makes common sense, seek no other sense; therefore, take every word at its primary, ordinary, usual, literal meaning unless the facts of the immediate context, studied in the light of related passages and axiomatic and fundamental truths indicate clearly otherwise.” The Golden Rule of Scripture Interpretation by David L. Cooper.

Why do the same people who insist on “interpreting” the Bible to mean something else besides what it says have no problem understanding other literature?

What Is “Progressive Creation” ?

Refuse foolish and ignorant speculations, knowing that they produce quarrels. The Lord’s bond-servant must not be quarrelsome, but be kind to all, able to teach, patient when wronged, with gentleness correcting those who are in opposition, if perhaps God may grant them repentance leading to the knowledge of the truth, and they may come to their senses and escape from the snare of the devil, having been held captive by him to do his will. 2 Timothy 2:20-26 NASB.

I freely admit that I am not as gentle as I should be. I have no desire to be quarrelsome, but it is important to preach the gospel. It is frequently said that talking about origins does not preach the gospel.

Jesus said, “Do not think that I will accuse you before the Father; the one who accuses you is Moses, in whom you have set your hope. For if you believed Moses, you would believe Me for he wrote about Me. But if you do not believe his writings, how will you believe My words?”

When Moses writes clearly and plainly and we reject the words of Moses, we are rejecting Jesus. Jesus does not present a gospel where we can pick and chose which parts we like and we which parts we can ignore or reject. I believe with all my understanding that is exactly what Progressive Creation does.

I have never met any of the men who claim to be progressive creationists. They might be kind, gentle and much less quarrelsome than I am. They might be more eloquent, more handsome, smell better and exude charisma. But, as I read their writings and listen to their audio, I see and hear what Paul warned the Galatians about: “another gospel.”

We need to carefully examine what they claim and compare it to both science and the Word of God. With great sorrow I admit that there is no possible way of being both honest and brief. To be as brief as possible, I will link to other sites and articles.

First, truth does not depend on the number of people who accept it. Factual, actual, accurate truth might be rejected by the entire human race, but it is still true.

Second, we must define our terms so we are not talking apples and oranges. In our Preface to Antidisestablishmentarianism, http://elkjerkyforthesoul.wordpress.com/2011/09/05/introduction-to-antidisestablishmentarianism/, we give some simple, basic definitions.

“Science is the study of the world around us, the use of the experimental method and the improvement of our lives through the application of technology.”

“A true open mind is founded in belief, faith and trust. The historic meaning of believe is to perceive or understand with the mind and then make an informed decision. The most basic use of the word believe which the average American would understand is that of a juror in court. Which witness do you believe? Which piece of evidence is believable? A synonym would be the word credible. When we believe something or someone and then act on that belief, that is faith. The active part of belief is faith. The passive part of belief is trust. Suppose your brother says that he will drive you to the doctor. If you believe him, then you understand what he says and you make a decision to get ready. If you get in the vehicle with him, that is faith. You act on your belief. When you sit in the vehicle as he drives, that is trust, a passive reliance on what you have proven true. You trust in his driving skills. You trust in the vehicle. You trust the roads, etc. Everything we do is a combination of belief, faith or trust. By restoring their historic definitions, belief, faith and trust re-emerge as the clear language of true experimental science. These terms were deliberately segregated from science to deceive people into believing Secular Humanism.”

Next is “Progressive Creationism.” Two speakers who publicly espouse this position are Bernard Ramm and Hugh Ross. Bernard Ramm defined progressive creationism as “creation was revealed [pictorially] in six days, not performed in six days,” with God intervening periodically to create new “root-species” which then “radiated” out. This allowed geological formations such as coal to form naturally, so that they “might appear a natural product and not an artificial insertion in Nature,” prior to the creation of mankind. (The Creationists: The Evolution of Scientific Creationism by Ronald L. Numbers 1993 p. 186). This is also called the day-age theory. They accept the geologic column and death before Adam.

This is a statement from the Reasons to Believe website founded by Hugh Ross, under their “About” section:

“We believe the Bible (the 66 books of the Old and New Testaments) is the Word of God, written. As a ‘God-breathed’ revelation, it is thus verbally inspired and completely without error (historically, scientifically, morally, and spiritually) in its original writings.”

http://www.reasons.org/about/our-mission

Ross accepts the billions of years age of the Earth, the Geologic strata as representing eras, and everything evolution proposes except for the changes from one species to another.

“The Day-Age construct preserves the general sequence of events as portrayed in the text and is not merely a response to Charles Darwin and evolutionary science. From ancient times there was recognition among Bible scholars that the word “day” could mean an extended period of time.”

http://www.reasons.org/articles/four-views-of-the-biblical-creation-account

Ross’s argument for the “Day-Age” theory of creation assumes that Moses did not mean “day” when he wrote day, or “evening and morning” when he wrote that phrase. He says he believes in the inerrancy of Scripture but redefines clear, straightforward words and phrases in the text, thereby proving that he cannot, in fact, accept the plain words of Scripture and rejects Moses as authoritative.

The Reasons to Believe website includes a chart laying out the billions of years before the creation of man. It explains the need for this vast stretch of time not because evolution needed time to occur, but because God created the Earth in a toxic and uninhabitable form and had to allow natural processes to arrive at a breathable atmosphere and geologic balance before man could live there.

http://www.reasons.org/files/articles/creation_timeline_chart_color_201107.pdf

“For nearly two billion years, Earth’s atmosphere contained no oxygen. The reasons for Earth’s lack of atmospheric oxygen are (1) oxygen reacts very rapidly with gases thought to comprise Earth’s early atmosphere; and (2) nothing operating on the early Earth produced oxygen in significant quantities. Around 2.7 billion years ago, photosynthetic organisms (those that use sunlight to produce energy and release oxygen in the process) appeared in abundance. Yet even with this potent source of oxygen, the geologic record shows no evidence for oxygen in the atmosphere for the next few hundred million years. As it turns out, geological activity below Earth’s surface likely served as a big hole, draining the oxygen from the atmosphere.

http://www.reasons.org/articles/an-atmosphere-without-oxygen

“Our testable creation model says God created dinosaurs to roam the Earth roughly 230 million years ago, and many different types of these creatures dominated the landscape. Their time on Earth ended when a 6 mile-wide asteroid impacted Earth 65 million years ago.”

http://www.reasons.org/rtb-101/dino

Hugh Ross also said, elsewhere on the same site, “Starting about 2 to 4 million years ago, God began creating man-like mammals or “hominids.” These creatures stood on two feet, had large brains, and used tools, Some even buried their dead and painted on cave walls. “However, they were different from us. They did not worship god or establish religious practices. In time, all these man-like creatures went extinct. Then, about 10 to 25 thousand years ago, God replaced them with Adam and Eve.”

http://www.reasons.org/rtb-101/hominids

Here are the differences between “Progressive Creation and Theistic Evolution from the website TheisticEvolution.org. Theistic Evolution believes that there is “a deeper meaning within the Genesis text.” “Progressive Creation” claims to believe the Genesis text. Theistic Evolution “dissect[s] the Bible in an effort to uncover the original text.”

“Progressive Creationists ‘do not literally interpret Genesis’ six days of creation as lasting for 144 hours; rather, they view the six days as metaphorically standing in for the ages required for life to develop.’”

Theistic Evolutionists “believe in God but do not think Scripture can shed light on geology or cosmology. In their view, God created the universe, but natural processes created the stars, planets and life on earth.” http://www.ehow.com/facts_5862882_progressive-creationism-vs_-theistic-evolution.html

There are many, many websites contrasting Progressive Creationists and Theistic Evolutionists in more detail, but these are the basic points.

While there are many scientific problems with these positions, both positions are impossible with a young earth. The following link is a brief overview of the scientific evidence for a young earth. http://elkjerkyforthesoul.wordpress.com/2011/09/30/chapter-fourteen-from-antidisestablishmentarianism-what-does-the-scientific-evidence-prove/

These are not evolutionary issues, but hard science, astronomy, chemistry and physics.

The major issue with the Biblical text is simply one of belief. The information in the Bible is straightforward. It teaches 24-hour days. The genealogies are presented as history. Moses wrote these as legal documents. There is no reason to reject these as literal history.

The first three chapters of Genesis are also alluded to in creation stories throughout the world. The Conflict of the Ages Part One uses the Bible as a framework for ancient documents throughout the world. This is a combination of science and ancient literature to support a normal reading the Biblical text.

http://www.amazon.com/The-Conflict-Ages-Part-ebook/dp/B007ETAAV4

The most serious flaw with both “Progressive Creationism” and Theistic Evolution is that once you reject the plain reading of the Biblical text, what is your authority? Every few years evolutionists make major revisions to their time scheme. Theistic Evolution seems to make more sense to me than “Progressive Creationism.” Theistic Evolution claims up front that the Bible is mythical.

One final warning. Even though Hugh Ross does not attach any philosophical meaning to the term “progressive,” it is important to note the danger of using this term. The concept of “Progressivism” originated around the time of the French Revolution. It has come to be associated with many kinds of revolution and the overthrow of conservative, freedom-based society in favor of socialism or communism.

http://elkjerkyforthesoul.wordpress.com/2011/09/22/right-and-left/