In part 1 of this series, I pointed out that God will not allow liars into heaven (Rev 21.8), and then pointed out some of the lies that will keep you from heaven. Some wanted to make a distinction between those actively lying by trying to deceive, and those duped by the lies. But those who read closely understood that objection was answered implicitly with the analogy of poison: It doesn’t matter if you drink poison because someone lied to you and told you it was a harmless soft drink; Or because you’ve deceived yourself and are now convinced that the poison – say arsenic – is not really poison at all, and it won’t harm you, in fact it’s good for you so you consume lots of it. (Think “did God really say…” Gen 3.1) – regardless of what causes you to drink the poison whether you’re actively deceiving (yourself) or are merely deceived and believe the lie, if you drink it, you will die. Continue Reading
Scientific American recently pondered, Is Lawrence Krauss a Physicist, or Just a Bad Philosopher? A very good question indeed considering the fact that the entire premise of Krauss’ recent book “A Universe from Nothing” apart from being (bad) philosophy masquerading as science is based on the logical fallacy known as “Equivocation.” Equivocation is when you use one word to mean two different things. This typically results in false and misleading conclusions – though sometimes the results are ironic and amusing as in Cher’s song “Dark Lady.” In Cher’s song the fortune teller tells the singer “The man you love is secretly true to someone else who is very close to you.” Normally when you hear the phrase “very close to you” you think of an emotional connection. But by the end of the song, you realize the dark lady was referring to herself, and the “very close” part was physically close – as the two ladies were when the dark lady gave the fortune. The dark lady intentionally misled through the use of an equivocation. Krauss does the same thing – intentionally mislead through an equivocation. Continue Reading
We come now to some particularly egregious errors in our series to unmask the faulty logic and science behind defenses given for the theory of (neo) Darwinian evolution. Stated simply, Neo-Darwinism says that all life on earth derived via natural selection acting on random mutations in a population, with no purpose, design or intelligence used anywhere. As this series points out, there are many, many reasons why this is impossible. Yet Darwinists try to come up with reasons why (according to them) it’s not only possible, but actually happened.
In this round up of memes, some of the defenses employed are so far off the mark, I wonder if the author of these mistakes is merely feigning ignorance, or if he is really ignorant of the glaring mistakes he is making. I’ll leave that to your judgment. Since I’ve subtitled this articles “Codes and Complexity”, let’s start with a meme that demonstrates a gross misunderstanding of the code that’s involved with DNA.
In the book of Daniel, we find one of the less frequently referenced titles of God. It’s just before the turn of the sixth century B.C. King Nebuchadnezzar who will soon to besiege and capture Jerusalem, has already captured the leading families in the southern kingdom of Judah and carried away anyone with potential to Babylon. After the death of his father Nabopolassar, Nebuchadnezzar has decided to clean house of fake wisemen and astrologers. His method of discerning who’s fake? He’s had a disturbing dream and has decided that unless his “magicians, enchanters, sorcerers and astrologers” (Dan 2.2) can both tell him the dream and explain it, their fate is sealed. The king had firmly decided he would “…have you cut into pieces and your houses turned into piles of rubble.” (Dan 2.5) if they could not both reveal the dream and interpret it.
It is in this context that the prophet Daniel, then a young man who had been carried off to Babylon with the other promising young future leaders, made known a rarely referenced, but often experienced (though not necessarily recognized) work of God: that God is the “revealer of mysteries.” (Dan 2.29 NIV; KJV uses “secrets.”) God proceeds to reveal to Daniel both Nebuchadnezzar’s dream and the meaning, thus saving his life along with his friends and the other wise men.
God revealed truth that Nebuchadnezzar knew to be true. He dare not deny it. And to his credit he didn’t. The Moral Argument likewise reveals truth that all who are confronted by it know to be true. But unlike Nebuchadnezzar, those unwilling to acknowledge the existence of God are not as forthcoming. They will recognize the truth, but will refuse to verbally acknowledge it. Instead, they try to hide the obvious by suggesting a number of common but ineffective excuses as to why the Moral Argument doesn’t prove God exists, or impose moral obligations. The excuses are ineffective because just as God is the revealer of mysteries, the Moral argument is the revealer of hypocrites and it exposes those who deny it. Continue Reading
With Disney’s increasing support of the gay agenda (“Gay Days” at it’s theme parks, increasing exposure of gay scenes in its films aimed at kids) and now with a “gay moment” overshadowing Disney’s new live action version of its classic “Beauty and the Beauty” it has some wondering out loud, “Is it Time to Kiss Disney Goodbye.”  Sadly, I have to say “yes” as I note in this tweet. And to further note my opposition to Disney’s move toward encouraging the gay agenda, I encouraged others to boycott Disney’s new Beauty and the Beast film: Continue Reading
Just as Aslan, a symbol of Christ, had the final word over death; likewise the Lord Jesus will have the final word on Marriage.
On June 26, 2015, five justices of the supreme court took it upon themselves to overturn legally enacted state constitutional amendments against same sex marriage that had been enacted in 30 states, to redefine the meaning of marriage that has been understood as between a single man and a single woman for multiple millennia by the majority of religious adherents and thereby disregard the religious beliefs of 2/3 of the world, so that the less than 4% of Americans who identify as gay can legally fulfill their sinful desires. That is to say nothing of the trampling underfoot of the clear teaching of scripture, and the disregard for the maintenance of a modicum of morality (having already lost most of it to the sexual revelation) preferring instead to push us over the slippery slope toward polygamy, and a host of other evils.
As one might expect, supporters of the gay-rights movement erupted in all sorts of displays of joy and approval. A new hashtag was born to link like minds: #lovewins. For those not on twitter, you can see a sample of the rejoicing here. I couldn’t help but be reminded of the scene from the 2005 production of CS Lewis’ The Chronicles of Narnia, The Lion, The Witch and the Wardrobe. Aslan has surrendered himself to the witch. The witch gloats in her apparent victory:
Behold, the great lion.
Wait, let him first be shaved.
Bring him to me.
You know Aslan, I’m a little disappointed in you.
Did you honestly think by all this that you could save the human traitor?
You are giving me your life and saving no one. Ha!
So much for love.
(To the crowd) Tonight – the deep magic will be appeased. (Crowd is increasingly roused)
But tomorrow we will take Narnia forever! (round of cheering)
In that knowledge – despair and die! (thrusts a knife into Aslan)
The great cat is dead! (Cheers)
General, prepare you troops for battle. (General celebration continues)
(To herself) However short it may be.
As usual, Lewis’ allegories are uncannily accurate. Though I see at least eight parallels, so as not to be tedious, let me point out just three:
With the teaching of evolution rampant, there should be no surprise that teens have taken the lawless message of survival of the fittest to heart.
It’s happened again. This time in South Carolina. In a house of God. A youth barely out of his teens has slaughtered multiple people in a mass shooting. The particulars: a lone white gunman kills 9 black people engaged in Bible study and prayer in one of the nation’s oldest African American churches in South Carolina after he had watched the prayer meeting that was underway. In his report following the incident, Fox news commentator Bill O’Reilly notes the shooter was “apparently a long time racist, wearing anti-black patches on his clothing. Those who know him say he often made inappropriate statements about African Americans.1” The gunmen reportedly said “he had to kill” the innocent black attenders.
This type of mass shooting by a youth is merely one incident in a now familiar series, with incidents recurring ever more frequently. From the 1999 Columbine High School shooting in Colorado, where 15 where killed by two students; to the 2014 Corpus Christi Catholic College incident in Leeds, West Yorkshire, England where a 61 year old teacher was stabbed and killed by her student.2 These incidents are beginning to show a distinct and disturbing pattern: the perpetrators are highly influenced by the poisonous doctrine of evolution.
Evolution’s Evil Eggs
What evolutionary doctrine could possibly drive students to commit mass murder you may wonder? While the entire evolutionary worldview is problematic, the following two evolutionary lies combine to help form a mindset that sees no problem – moral or otherwise – with murdering whomever they see fit (or unfit as the case may be.)
Evolutionary lie number 1: There’s no such thing as evil
As I noted in a previous post on the problem of evil, evolution teaches that there is no such thing as objective morality, right or wrong, and in particular no such thing as evil. This is not a veiled, hidden teaching, but rather one that is acknowledged and embraced. Consider the following:
The Fall of Lucifer
Antonio María Esquivel y Suárez de Urbina, 1840
|Paradoxically, the problem of evil is proof that God exists.|
On Friday, December 14th, 2012 a gunman who shall remain unnamed so as to deny him any further fame, entered the Sandy Hook Elementary School in Newton Connecticut, and shot and killed 20 students and 6 adults. Before driving to the school for the rampage he had killed his mother, and when finally confronted, he killed himself bringing the death toll to 28. In a news conference that same day, Gov. Dannel Malloy summed it up succinctly: “Evil visited this community today”.
This article is being written, as it turns out, on the 20th anniversary1 of the Oklahoma City Bombing on the Alfred P. Murrah Federal Building which killed 168 people and caused 680 nonfatal injuries. Additionally it caused an estimated $652 million in damages.
These are but a couple of drops in a sea of evil that in one way or another touches the lives of every single human being that lives and has ever lived. This curse upon humanity is paradoxically an affirmation of the truth of God for Christians, while for those unwilling to believe, it becomes a reason (in their mind) why they shouldn’t believe God exists. Why is it that people can look at the same evidence and come to diametrically opposed conclusions? How can consideration of a single issue – in this case the existence of evil – result in such radically different reactions and beliefs from people? One might ask the same questions of a phenomenon at the other extreme of the moral continuum – miracles.
Why do miracles cause some to believe, while others only see in them only something to either scoff at or be angry at; or to make accusations that people are being “misled”? In both cases (reactions to the problem of evil and the reaction to miracles) the root cause is the same: an unwillingness to acknowledge God as Lord who will bring all created things under his control and under his judgment.
The mere thought of God as Lord manifests itself for many as statements of unbelief. As particles in the atmosphere are the core around which moisture coalesces to form rain drops or snow, likewise miracles and the problem of evil are items around which unbelief can coalesce and be visibly expressed.
For those living in disobedience the prospect of a God who will judge all is a scary one. And their unwillingness to face this truth is not because of their ignorance of God – no God has made his existence plain to all (Rom 1.19). No, it’s not ignorance of God that’s the problem, it’s an unwillingness to be subject to God that causes them to express views inconsistent with their worldview, and thus speak as a hypocrite or express irrational view (or both) as we’ll see. Continue Reading