Creationism in Public Schools

I hold unapologetically to a six 24 hour day creation position. I am familiar with the arguments for other positions and find them unpersuasive. However I have no interest whatsoever in seeing secular public schools teaching the Genesis account in science classrooms, something proposed in my state and fortunately squashed. From the Indianapolis Star....

The bill approved by the state Senate would have permitted local school districts to teach creationism as long as the curriculum also incorporated origin-of-life theories from multiple religions, including Christianity, Judaism, Islam, Hinduism, Buddhism and Scientology.

The original bill proposed by Sen. Dennis Kruse, R-Auburn, simply called for allowing schools to teach creationism, but the Senate revised it to include references to multiple faiths.

House education committee Chairman Robert Behning, R-Indianapolis, said last week he believed the multiple faiths requirement made the proposal unworkable because it would be almost impossible to find teachers who would know about origin beliefs from so many religions.

That doesn't sound like a terribly good idea. Lumping in Genesis 1 with the crazy story L. Ron Hubbard made up, and have it all taught by whoever happens to be the teacher? I am pretty sure that is not the intent of the oirignal bill but it seems perfectly reasonable in a religiously pluralistic society. If we are going to teach creationism alongside evolution, it naturally follows that we open that up to all religious viewpoints. So when little Johnny and little Suzie are in science class, they would be presented with the creation account in Genesis right alongside the Scientology belief of human beings as eternal aliens called thetans. Maybe Tom Cruise can come in for a guest lecture?

I am glad that Indiana is not going down this path. If you want your kids to learn about creationism from a Christian viewpoint, don't send them to a public school.

Film Review: Alleged

We bought and finally got around to watching a movie last night that we have more than simply an entertainment interest in. The movie is Alleged and is a look at what is known as the Scopes Monkey Trial. This is the trial, back in 1925, in Tennessee that focused on the teaching of evolutionary theory in public schools. As Alleged shows, there is a lot more to the story than that! There are worldviews and motivations underlying this event that are rarely addressed, or at least addressed honestly and in a balanced way. Even the trial itself, famously portrayed in the movie Inherit The Wind, went quite differently in real life.

Alleged was co-written and produced by Fred Foote, a man I have met on several occasions and the brother of a great brother in Christ and friend of our family. As we watched last night it was fun to see a few people we know as extras throughout the film.

Unlike a lot of privately produced films in the family friendly genre, Alleged has some heavy hitters in the cast. Most notable on this list are Fred Thompson, Colm Meaney (who has been in quite a few films but is best known to me as Chief O’Brien from Star Trek:TNG and Deep Space Nine!) and Brian Dennehy, all major film stars and solid actors. Because of this, the acting and production quality of this film is substantially higher than other films like Facing the Giants that target the same audience. The film is also less overtly religious although clearly the film is not only very family friendly, it is also sympathetic to people of faith. As part of the special features, the DVD includes a series of discussion questions making this a great film to watch and discuss with a church gathering, especially in a small group study or a youth setting since they are often on the front lines of the debate over evolution and creation.

What was most interesting about this movie is that it looked at a crucial moment in American culture in a way that pushes through the cultural nostalgia of a principled defender of education and knowledge pitted against the hordes of uneducated religious fundamentalists. The reality is far more complex. For example, William Jennings Bryant was hardly a fire breathing fundamentalist, he didn’t even hold to a six 24 hour day creationism. The newspaper reporters of the day were not nearly as noble as made out to be. Most importantly, the driving forces behind this event on the “evolution side” held to some terribly abhorrent views of human beings, views that are repugnant but also a natural result of an evolutionary worldview.

Certainly Alleged is approaching this highly charged topic and event from a particular worldview but I didn’t find that it beat you over the head with it. This wasn’t a feature length film clamoring about six day creationism. What it seems to be setting out to do, and I think it accomplished, was to look more at the worldview of those on the defense team, defending Mr. Scopes from charges that may not have even been true, and doing so more to push a point rather than out of a sense of justice and fairness. Regardless this event from nearly 100 years ago is still a hot issue today in our culture, educational systems and the church. Alleged is a great way to look at a crucial topic while also being an entertaining film to watch with the entire family.

You can purchase Alleged at Amazon or any other major online retailer. You can also get the film right from the film webpage.

Just a short walk

Albert Mohler writes today on the importance of inerrancy, The Devil Is in the Details: Biblical Inerrancy and the Licona Controversy. Dr. Mohler is among the leading champions for inerrancy in the church. Given that questioning the validity and inerrancy of the Bible has become something of a badge of honor among some who are seeking to make their rejection of "fundamentalism" a sign of maturity, this is an important conversation. Of course when it comes to those passages that affirm their own personal preferences, they will die on those hills with the best of 'em.

As Dr. Mohler writes, the devil is in the details. Many people affirm the inerrancy of the Bible but many also inject qualifiers into that affirmation. Some don't seem to see a problem with that but I get concerned when we look at the Bible with out allegedly more advanced and wise modern eyes and declare certain sections to be less applicable today or completely irrelevant for modern believers. There are many, many Christians including some very "conservative" believers who want to affirm the hisotoricity of the resurrection but on the other hand reject the literal creation acount. That leads, I believe, to all sorts of mischief.

The argument often goes that "science", which of course is never wrong or politically motivated, proves that a literal treatment of the Creation account is impossible. So we just cast it aside so as not to offend the world. Of course those same scientists would just as firmly claim that dead men, in a grave for several days, don't get up and walk and talk. The same science that rejects the creation account rejects the resurrection but far too many of us have tried to have our cake and eat it to.

It is not very far. Just a little bit down the road. You can see one from the other. The question really is one of trust. Do we trust the "scientists"? Or do we trust the Bible?

A link you should check out if you are a homeschooling parent

I want to draw your attention to a review by Rachel Miller of a homeschooling curriculum posted at the blog of Wes White (the same place that posted the defense of the institutional church and why house churches need to grow up or become cults!): A Review of Peter Enns’ Bible Curriculum. This particular post is a review of a new homeschool curriculum put out by Peter Enns. If that name sounds familiar, it has been in the news, especially in homeschooling circles, quite a bit recently due to a huge blow-up over Answers in Genesis.

The Peter Enns/Susan Wise Bauer/Answers in Genesis thing came to a head a while ago when Answers in Genesis was “disinvited” from a couple of homeschooling conventions because Ken Hamm was critical of Peter Enns. I saw that a number of attendees at the conferences where AiG was disinvited wore badges quietly announcing their support for AiG. The reason this is an issue is that Peter Enns has published a homeschooling curriculum but he is also associated with a group called BioLogos that promotes evolution alongside the Bible. I know that not everyone is as twitchy about that as I am but I hold a firm line on the issue of literal creationism and as such I would be very hesitant to purchase any homeschooling materials that approached Genesis 1-11 in a non-literal or allegorical fashion.

The reason I reposted this….I have a sneaking suspicion that many of my fellow homeschoolers (and I would point this at myself as well) are not as discerning as we ought to be when it comes to the material we buy for our kids. Having the “homeschooling” imprimatur on a product conveys that it is something we can trust but that is not necessarily true. Just as not everything in a Christian book store is trustworthy (and depending on the store a lot of it certainly is not!), not everything that bears the label “homeschool” is something we should be actually using without question in educating our kids. Buying material from a reputable dealer that has carefully screened and vetted materials is a good first step but when you are at conferences or used books sales it requires a little more care be taken. Give the review a read and if you are a homeschooling parent keep in mind that not all homeschool materials are created (pun intended) equally.

Best of the week entry 5

Comes from Team Pyro and addresses the folks at BioLogos and their attempt to straddle the road by claiming to be faithful to Scripture while at the same time craving the acceptance of the unbelieving world. The wonderfully named post, Middle of the Road: R.I.P. Kermit, is biting and sarcastic but the point is very valid. The folks who deny the creation account in an ill-fated desire to bridge the alleged gap between science and Christianity don't seem to realize that there is not a middle position at all. The only compromise the unbelieving world will accept is total unbelief.

In short, I don't apologize for saying that the worldview BioLogos promotes is a challenge to—and by no means an affirmation of—the authentic, biblical, and historic Christian faith.

I'm certain that fact will become more and more obvious the more material BioLogos publishes. But for those still in doubt, here's a simple test: Apply their Genesis hermeneutic consistently to the bodily resurrection of Christ (or the deity of Christ, for that matter), and see what you come up with. Then ask how reasonable it is to accord the BioLogos worldview the right hand of Christian fellowship.

That is exactly right. I often disagree with the Pyro folks on certain issues but the hard truth is that if you apply the same "science first, Bible second" faulty standard to any of the miracles in the Bible that you do the Creation account you will find an emasculated Gospel that is nothing more than a quaint and irrelevant morality tale. If we want to explain away the Creation account we might as well chuck the flood, the Exodus, all of the miracles of the Old Testament, the virgin birth, all of the miracles of Christ and finally the Resurrection. If you get rid of all of that, what is the point? We don't need to be saved and we can't be saved by a Jesus who was just a regular guy.

Trying to make nice with the world is not our mission

This morning we have, courtesy of the USA Today opinion pages, another sad example of someone who professes to be a believer trying to make Christianity compatible with the religion of the world. The essay by Karl Giberson (who is a professor at Eastern Nazarene College), Atheists, it's time to play well with others is ostensibly supposed to be a chastisement of atheists for not being nice to Christians who have capitulated to evolution but ends up being a personal attack on Ken Ham and Answers in Genesis.

This is incredibly encouraging. A conservative evangelical seminary has just hired someone who has warned that Christians who deny scientific facts are in danger of becoming a "cult." This might suggest that Ken Ham and his Creation Museum in Petersburg, Ky., are becoming less relevant, as they speak for — and to — an increasingly smaller band of hyperconservative biblical literalists. Ham's followers, ironically, are exactly what Waltke warned us about — a cult, with their own separate science.

Actually, Answers in Genesis is pretty widely accepted among a wide swath of evangelicalism. Far from a secretive cult, they are quite out in the open about what they believe and their beliefs run to the mainstream of evangelical thought. They are something of a one-trick pony but the organization is hardly cultic and the suggestion that they are is venomous and juvenile. The danger in the church is not people denying “scientific facts”, it is teachers in the church who claim that “science” trumps Scripture and then cry foul when haters of God are not willing to play nicely in the sandbox. Christianity is not just one worldview among myriad other competing worldviews in the sandbox of ideas. Christianity is the truth of God revealed to man. There is no sandbox. You either have that truth or you don’t and where you come down has eternal consequences.

This essay by Karl Giberson just demonstrates the foolhardiness of trying to find acceptance among the world. The world is not interested in compromise and consensus because it hates the One who has declared Himself through creation, through His Word and in the person of the Son. This is not an issue of evolution vs. creation, this is an issue of those who hate God and those who love Him. I can sort of understand why some believers are so desperate to be liked and approved by the world. It can be hard to be ridiculed and an outcast but the truth of the matter is that it comes with the territory of being a follower of Christ. God did not give us an expectation that the world would like what we have to say nor that it would embrace us as messengers. Just the opposite, the world is going to hate us and revile us because it hates the One we declare. Why would someone who is a professor at Eastern Nazarene College want to make the message of the Bible more palatable to appease unbelievers? I for one would rather face the ridicule of the world and persecution even to the point of death than to surrender to the world.

Mammals that evolved from single-cell organisms don’t need a Savior because they would not be substantively any different from a cow or a monkey. Human beings, created in the image of God as humans, need a Savior. If man was not created as man, then there was no garden. There wasn’t a Fall and there is no need for salvation. If you want to chuck the Garden and the Fall, you might as well toss the cross and the empty tomb.

The scientist has no clothes

There was a very insightful editorial today highlighting the real driver behind “climate change”, a motivation that is green in color and looks suspiciously like dollar bills. The scandal over the leaked correspondence from University of East Anglia's Climate Research Unit has thrown mud all over the reputation of the entire “climate change” industry.

What we learn from what is now referred to as ClimateGate is that “science” is not nearly as scientific as we have been led to believe. The problems with the “science” behind global warming, or as it is now called climate change (a conveniently ambiguous term that is inherently true since the climate is constantly changing, no matter how slightly) have been exposed and what we find is that the evidence has been altered or eliminated, data discarded, dissent squelched and enormous sums of money received. There is a huge cottage industry for climate change that absorbs billions in funding and they are willing to bend the truth or flat our lie to protect the goose that laid the golden egg.

This whole kerfuffle has repercussions that resonate far beyond just climate change. Christians who hold to the literal account of creation in Genesis are constantly mocked and ridiculed for our backwards beliefs. After all, scientific consensus has determined that Darwinian evolution is the only possible explanation for the origin of life. All real scientists agree and people who are not “scientists” just need to recognize that they are not as smart as us and should just shut up and believe as they are told. As ClimateGate has shown us, the self-proclaimed arbiters of truth in the name of science are not as omniscient as they claim.

As the curtain on “climate change” is thrown back and the wizard exposed as a powerless little man with a booming voice, I hope that claims of “scientific consensus” are given a second look. As many creationists have documented, the consensus around evolution is pretty shaky and proof of this is apparent in the shrieks of outrage at any dissenting view. The louder and more vitriolic the protest, the more suspicious I become. I hope that Christians who have been cowed by the sneers of “scientists” into denying the Genesis account will realize that the priests of the religion “science” turn out to know far less than we have been led to believe. When it comes down to believing what the “scientific community” says or believing what the Word of God says, I will trust the One who made all things rather than those willing to lie to keep their coffers full.

Help me out here

Calvin College's webpage says they are: Distinctively Christian, Academically Excellent, Always Reforming.

If a college touts itself as a "Christian college" but teaches Darwinian evolutionary theory as fact, what exactly makes them a "Christian college"? From Answers in Genesis...

Send Students to Calvin College to Be Indoctrinated in Evolution

Seeking the accolades of the world at the expense of the Word

USA Today featured an editorial today by Karl Giberson and Darrel Falk, both university professors and co-presidents of the BioLogos Foundation. The editorial, We believe in evolution — and God tries to make the case that belief in evolution and Christian faith are compatible.

Quite frankly it is not a compelling argument. It is the same “this is indisputable” string of reasoning we always get from evolutionists. The more someone throws out “indisputable”, “overwhelming” and words like that, the more I question the foundations of their argument. Even where they make what must have seemed like sound arguments, it doesn’t prove a thing. For example:

The discovery of DNA now provides an irrefutable digital record of the relatedness of all living things.

Which in and of itself is not an argument for evolution. In fact, given the creation record it strikes me that it is more a defense of creationism, that all life is interconnected because it was all created by the same Creator God, not over the course of “billions” of years but in a moment.

The tragedy is that these people think they can take what the Bible teaches, that man was created by God in His own image and distort that by taking their dogma from science. The same science that says that man must be the product of evolution also rejects the idea of a man being crucified and rising from the dead. The high priests of evolution are every bit as dogmatic about their religion as a fundie preacher. The editorial does little other than throw out blanket assertions and try to paint people that are presumably fellow believers in as bad a light as possible for their woefully ignorant beliefs.

Mr. Giberson and Mr. Falk are trying to juggle to irreconcilable world views. One is a world where life was created by chance, a series of random events that fortuitously (or not if you see humans as a threat to the environment) resulted in human beings. The other is a world where God is Creator, not Evolver, and He did just as He said He did, He spoke the universe into existence and His crowning creation was man. Those worldviews are irreconcilable. Either God created the universe as He has recorded in the Word or He didn’t. If you distrust the Bible from the first page, what sort of treatment does the rest of it get? It comes down, as it so often does in a wide range of issues, to authority. Mr. Giberson and Mr. Falk view the opinions of “scientists” and their own limited understanding of the universe as more authoritative than the Word of God. As for me and my family, we will continue to teach that God is capable of and willing to create all of Creation in an instant by the sheer force of His will. Trying to make God fit into a box of our own understanding is always a fool’s errand and borders on idolatry. I have no doubt that Mr Giberson and Mr. Falk believe in evolution and God. I just question who this God is that they believe in .

Atheists acting badly

It seems like some of our atheistic fellow citizens took it upon themselves to visit the Creation Museum in Northern Kentucky. Apparently some 285 self-described atheists came to the Creation Museum and unfortunately a small minority of them caused a ruckus, were disruptive, were mocking the exhibits and events and generally being rude. This is not much of a surprise because it was apparently their goal to cause a ruckus. Read the article above regarding the disruption the group from the "Secular Student Alliance" caused. A number of times members of this group had to be asked to not disrupt other visitors and one person was escorted off the property after being repeatedly warned. Keep in mind that the Creation Museum is private property. Read this account of some of the chicanery going on:

Other incidents (but which were probably not disruptive for our guests, except for those driving into the property at the time) … The prof and a few dozen of his followers walked off the grounds and held a rally in front of the museum entrance. There, a ram’s horn was blown (I suppose this was borrowing from Joshua 6 when a ram’s horn was blown, signally that the walls of Jericho were to come tumbling down. I guess it was their “statement” that the SSA had “conquered” the museum, but I did not hear what was said). Also, our security staff indicated that a mock communion service was held out front where crackers with cheese were served.

Apparently, this sort of stuff is what passes for intelligent discourse. It is pretty telling that a "professor" was leading this circus for students. I wonder who has the more honest and open position, the Creation Museum which tries to explain it's position in a polite and intelligent way or a circus atmosphere of mocking something like the Lord's Supper? I will let the discerning reader make their own decision here. You can also read the accounts of this trip and the planning beforehand and see just exactly what sort of deep thinking, open-minded people you are dealing with on the Secular Student Alliance webpage.

Contrast this with the outrage shown by many people on the Left that citizens are expressing themselves at town hall meetings.

There is of course a big difference between tax paying citizens expressing themselves at a public forum that is supposed to be a forum for citizens to express themselves to their elected officials and people disrupting families that spent their own money to visit a private museum. Many families travel great distances, at great expense to voluntarily come to the Creation Museum and enjoy themselves. It is a sign of the general coarseness and rudeness of our society that these atheists saw fit to try to disrupt through overt actions and mockery what was intended to be a family experience.

You can also read about the incident at ABC News here.

The myth of value neutral education

Check out this video by Ken Ham of Answers in Genesis. I don't agree with everything he says, especially the "Christian America" talk, but I think he makes great points about the poison many kids are being fed daily in public schools. We let our kids get fed childish version of Biblical history dressed up as cutesy "Bible stories" and at the same time tell them they are getting educated in the public schools. We cannot say on the one hand say that the historical accounts in the Bible are mere "Bible stories" that are presented like fairy tales and on the other tell kids that they get "educated" in schools where the Biblical truth is denied without reaping the consequences.

Also check out Do You Know What Your Children Are Being Taught in School? as an additional resource.

Knuckle dragging Christians breeding like rabbits

I loved the line from Braveheart when the King of England declares: The problem with Scotland is that there are too many Scots! Edward Longshanks, the King of England, decides that Scotland has just too many Scots. His solution: Breed them out!

I thought of that line from the movie when I read an article in the Associated Press about a visit to the Creation Museum by a group of hostile scientists. This quote from one "scientist", Christine Janis of Brown University (pictured with a koala in her faculty photo), was hilarious and insulting at the same time (emphasis added):

Christine Janis, a professor of ecology and evolutionary biology at Brown University, said most of the arguments addressed at the museum she's heard countless times before. What she found most troubling was the crowd.

More than 750,000 people have visited in two years, and Janis is concerned the Creation Museum's version of human history is the only one they're getting.

"They're out-breeding us, that's for sure," Janis said.

Irony alert! Notice that she is concerned that people are only getting one version of human history. Ummm, that is exactly what happens in public schools and in colleges, people only get one version of human history. Students are fed evolutionary theory as the one and only acceptable theory. You get as balanced a view of human history from the Creation Museum as you do in a secular classroom. The difference is that one is given the patina of "science" and the other dismissed as "religion". What Ms. Janis is really peeved about is that the version they get at the Creation Museum is not her version. How dare people show up at a museum that doesn't meet her approval! Why, don't these people know that in the world of scientific exploration and inquiry there is room for only one horribly flawed theory? Alternate theories must be mocked and squashed, after all the last thing that science needs is a free exchange of ideas. The dogma of evolution is settled fact and you even so much as question it to your peril. Scientists are the open-minded and inquisitive ones, so shut up and believe what we tell you!

Apparently Ms. Janis is concerned that all us ignert young earth types are breeding uncontrollably which is simply not a good thing for "scientists". I guess we are so dumb because we don't mindlessly accept evolutionary dogma that we must not know where babies come from. If you think her glib comment smacks of condescension, you are correct! It is the same sort of mindset that you see from people that refer to parents of large families as "breeders". Her comment was probably intended to be tongue-in-cheek, but it also gives you a glimpse of the way that academics view the rest of the country. These sorts of people are the ones who indoctrinate kids in their classrooms and people like Ms. Janis are precisely why I think it is unwise in the extreme to ship our kids off to secular schools and hope for the best.

To an extent she is right that conservative Christian families tend to have more children than less conservative Christians and atheists. Homeschool families on average have something like double the average family size. So if you depend on people to fund your research and pay for your sabbaticals, you have to be worried about the shrinking population of kids in general and the growing proportion of kids that are raised in Christian homes. Always follow the money! At the rate we are going, perhaps someday people like Ms. Janis who think we are descended from monkeys will be extinct.

(For more on this, check out the blog post here from Answers in Genesis)

Darwinism, creationism and Muslim nations

I was reading a random article on an advocate for Islamic creationism (don’t ask) and came across this little gem from a Turkish biology professor, Aykut Kence:

Prof. Kence has worked with like-minded scholars on a series of conferences and other events marking Darwin's birth 200 years ago and the publication, in 1859, of "On the Origin of Species." He last week joined a chorus of secular outrage over a decision by the official journal of Turkey's state scientific-research council to pull a planned cover story on Darwin.

"If people can't accept Darwin, they can't accept science. They can't think," says Prof. Kence. (emphasis added)

That screeching sound you hear should be your mind slamming on the brakes. If you can’t accept Darwin, you can’t accept science and therefore you can’t think? So the only way, according to the good professor, to be accepted as a “thinker” is to unquestioningly accept Darwin’s theory? See, that doesn’t sound like something that would qualify you as a “thinker”. In fact it sounds like just the opposite. Yet again we see that the acolytes of Darwinian fundamentalism are as dogmatic as any other fundamentalists. The difference is that people who base their fundamentalism in faith, not in the goddess “science”, admit they are fundamentalists. More from Professor Kence:

A recent survey found that only a quarter of students entering Turkish universities accept Darwin's theory of evolution and that the proportion is much the same when they graduate. The findings, says Prof. Kence, are "very depressing."

I just found that really funny. We told these people that Darwinian evolution was the only thing they could believe and when they left the university, they still weren’t buying it! Maybe when people get a college education and further develop their critical thinking skills, they realize that the Darwinian theory of evolution is just a theory and one that has a lot of holes in it and that it is based on a lot of presuppositions without direct evidence. I think it is disingenuous to get mad when people apply critical thinking to something and don’t agree with you. Universities and other organs of higher education should be at their core about education and thinking, not about dogma. I would daresay that the average seminary encourages greater open discussion on many topics than the closed minded schools of learning that pride themselves on being open-minded.

I also didn’t realize that creationism versus evolution was an issue in Islam but it makes sense. The article points out that creationism as dogma is a fairly new issue in Muslim countries, a “Christian import”. Hopefully as recognition of God’s creation of the universe by decree spreads in Muslim nations, it will provide an opportunity to proclaim the Gospel alongside. The God who created is also the God who judges and He is also the God who saves.

More stuff from the New York Times

This time the subject is Darwinian dogma in the Texas public school curriculum. It kills me how the apostles of evolution speak so confidently of how accepted and airtight Darwinian evolution is, yet when it is suggested that a public school textbook designed for practical education of a variety of students of various backgrounds actually look at various theories on the origin of life, they flip out. How dare anyone not blindly accept a given theory! Don’t you people know that every scientific advancement has been made by asserting one “scientific” fact to be true and excluding the discussion or even consideration of any other ideas! Exploring various theories and ideas in science, bah! From the article:

In Texas, a Line in the Curriculum Revives Evolution Debate

AUSTIN, Tex. — The latest round in a long-running battle over how evolution should be taught in Texas schools began in earnest Wednesday as the State Board of Education heard impassioned testimony from scientists and social conservatives on revising the science curriculum.

The debate here has far-reaching consequences; Texas is one of the nation’s biggest buyers of textbooks, and publishers are reluctant to produce different versions of the same material.

Many biologists and teachers said they feared that the board would force textbook publishers to include what skeptics see as weaknesses in Darwin’s theory to sow doubt about science and support the Biblical version of creation.

“These weaknesses that they bring forward are decades old, and they have been refuted many, many times over,” Kevin Fisher, a past president of the Science Teachers Association of Texas, said after testifying. “It’s an attempt to bring false weaknesses into the classroom in an attempt to get students to reject evolution.”

In the past, the conservatives on the education board have lacked the votes to change textbooks. This year, both sides say, the final vote, in March, is likely to be close.

But several biologists who appeared in the hearing room said the objections raised by Mr. Meyer and some board members were baseless. The majority of evidence collected over the last 150 years supports Darwin, and few dissenting opinions have survived a review by scientists.

What is really being dealt with here is whether or not a textbook can include opposing viewpoints on a controversial and far from universally accepted theory on the origins of life. I would think that a real academic who was convinced that the questions surrounding Darwinian evolution would want the chance to interact with and show conclusively that evolution is the only possible explanation for the origins of life. Especially when you consider how many people, a huge percentage of Americans, believe in some variation of the creation narrative or at least the existence of an intelligent designer who was behind it all. Instead they refuse to even consider opposing viewpoints, which really makes it look like they are afraid of the debate and are hiding behind their own dogma. Huh, and I though religious folks were the closed-minded ones…

More from the article…

“Every single thing they are representing as a weakness is a misrepresentation of science,” said David M. Hillis, a professor of biology at the University of Texas. “These are science skeptics. These are people with religious and political agendas.”

Whew, it is good to know that there is not an agenda among the academics and scientists!

Of course we also see the most grotesque of scare tactics, the notion that somehow having a textbook that seeks to ask question and explore knowledge will drive employers away…

Business leaders, meanwhile, said Texas would have trouble attracting highly educated workers and their families if the state’s science programs were seen as a laughingstock among biologists.

“The political games we are playing right now are going to burn us all,” said Eric Hennenhoefer, who owns Obsidian Software.

“Yeah we were going to build a $250 million dollar steel plant in your state, but then we looked at you high school science curriculum and pulled the plug.” I couldn’t find much about Obsidian Software other than it was founded in 1997 by three engineers. I looked into Obsidian’s hometown of Austin, Texas and it doesn’t even list them as one of Austin’s biggest employers, much less Texas. So I am not sure what qualifies Mr. Hennenhoefer as a “business leader”.

Really, in the grand scheme of things do employers really look at high school textbooks when deciding whether or not to relocate their business to a state? Even if they did, would the mere suggestion that perhaps the case for Darwinism is not as airtight as the dogma of the evolutionist priesthood makes it out to be serve as a signal for poor preparation and academic achievement? Those sorts of arguments are unserious and shrill, but all too often unchallenged. Give a company enough tax breaks and other incentives and they will move to your state. You can have the image of Charles Darwin branded on every high school student's forehead and if your business climate stinks, no one is moving there.

I don’t really have a dog in this fight. The public schools are free to do whatever they want. After all, no rational person sends their kid to a secularist government school and expects them to learn anything other than a secularist worldview that runs contrary to Christianity and the Bible. The only reasons I bring this up for comment are to remind parents that you cannot think that your kids in public schools are getting an education that is God-honoring and indeed what they are getting denies Christ and His Word, and also that your kids really aren’t getting much of an education at all when you look at how narrowly they define what knowledge is or is not approved and how much political and dogmatic agendas play into what your kids are learning. Text books, curriculum, teacher training, education programs at colleges, teachers unions all have an agenda and not much of it is supportive of the Christian worldview. There is a definite and intentional agenda defined by a secular worldview that drives what kids are learning in public schools and parents who choose to send their kids off to those schools need to get their collective heads out of the sand and realize not only what your kids are not getting (i.e. a Christian worldview education) but also what they are getting (i.e. an education that has as its core a denial of the basic truths of Christianity). There is no such thing as a value neutral educational choice, where and how your kids are educated may be one the most important decisions that a Christian parent makes. You and your kids will have to deal with the aftermath of that decision, one way or the other.

Expelled: No Intelligence Allowed

Just watched Expelled: No Intelligence Allowed by Ben Stein last night. Magnificent! Go out and rent or buy it today! A few quick notes...

What it isn’t, what it is and what people can learn from this film.

What it is not. It is not a defense of or an advocacy for creationism. As a young earth, literal six-day creationist I didn’t hear much that supported my view directly. Conceptually yes, but specifically not. The biggest issue is whether or not intelligent design is a viable theory and if so why it is forbidden to speak of in the academy. If you want a defense of Biblical creationism, try Answers in Genesis. Defending creationism is not accomplished in this film, nor should you be disappointed by that because it is not the goal.

What it does set out to do, and accomplished, is to expose the lunacy of the “science” community, a community that is dogmatic about it’s articles of faith as any religion has ever been. The bastions of learning and expression, i.e. the universities, have in reality turned into cathedrals of intolerance. What is ironic is just how firmly these people hold to their creed of Darwinism when in fact they are unable to prove many of the most basic questions (i.e. how did life begin?)

What you can and should take from the film. The biggest issue is the absolute moral bankruptcy of the humanist, evolutionary view. Some may see Ben Stein’s link between Darwinism, Planned Parenthood and Nazi Germany as being heavy handed, but it really is the logical end result of that worldview. At the very minimum Darwinism reduces human beings into economic units: what can you produce and what do you consume. At it's worst it sees human as having no intrinsic value, and killing the inconvenient, the lame, the less intelligent, the old, the unproductive is not only permissible, it is ethically required.

See this film, and realize that the intellectual elites are neither intellectual nor elite. We have nothing to fear from these people, because they have nothing intelligent to say. It may sound high minded, but it is bankrupt and false.

Anyone?

Anyone?

Bueller?

Ben Stein has a new movie coming up, unlike really anything he has done before. The movie is called Expelled: No Intelligence Allowed and in it Stein exposes the sheer irrationality of the Darwinian dogma that insists that life happened randomly, that the facts are settled and no one who questions those facts

A great video has been circulating around the Internet, with R.C. Sproul interviewing Ben Stein, in all of his deadpan glory. The conversation is supremely intelligent and should set to rest the notion that we are all, as Stein says, "knuckle-dragging creationists".



Sproul and Stein ask the questions and raise the spectre that no one likes to deal with in academia or philosophy: if we are a random event, coming from nothingness and destined for nothingness, why bother getting up in the morning? Why not steal a car? Why not gas six million Jews? Who cares, it is all meaningless anyway. Creationism is not just a possible explanation, it really is the only logical explanation. Matter cannot spring into being from nothing. So there was supposedly a Big Bang. What came before that? Where did that matter come from?

I am looking forward to seeing this movie and seeing the predictable, frothing at the mouth, reaction of "academics" and "intellectuals" when it comes out. The movie opens in theaters this week (April 18th). Not up north in Michigan where we live now, but it is opening in theaters downstate where we will be living as of this weekend so I plan on attending for sure, perhaps with some friends we have made in the area. Check out the video, then check out the movie and then check out the reaction of evolutionist when their theories are shown to be logically untenable. Good times all around!

(In fine R.C. Sproul fashion, he barely lets Ben Stein speak! He may not quite the concept of how to interview someone else...it normally involves letting them answer your questions)

Speaking of overwrought...

US doomed if creationist president elected: scientists

Oh no, what will we do if someone who believes the same way that tens of millions of Americans do (and Western civilization as a whole for centuries) gets elected president!? It will "doom" the U.S.!

How can we ignore the advice of the high priest of secularism? Since they are "scientists", those of us who are in the ignorant masses are duty bound to kiss their rings and accept what they say without question. The arrogance of the academy is grotesque to say the least...

"The logic that convinces us that evolution is a fact is the same logic we use to say smoking is hazardous to your health or we have serious energy policy issues because of global warming," University of Michigan professor Gilbert Omenn told reporters at the launch of a book on evolution by the National Academy of Sciences (NAS).

"I would worry that a president who didn't believe in the evolution arguments wouldn't believe in those other arguments either. This is a way of leading our country to ruin," added Omenn, who was part of a panel of experts at the launch of "Science, Evolution and Creationism."

Yet another example of American believers being told to keep their mouths shut and keep their faith confined to the shadows and maybe Sunday, as long as they don't really believe what they are saying. We are to accept without question what "scientists" tell us, which is precisely what they accuse us of doing. Again I say, does anyone else see the irony in that?

Great Answer from Huckabee on Evolution versus Creationism



I suspect that Governor Huckabee believes as I do in a literal six-days, but it is a political debate and his answer is eloquent and humble.

The New Inquisition

I came across just a great editorial in the Cincinnati Enquirer today.

The author, Clyde E. Stauffer, has a PhD in biochemistry and makes a ton of sense in a short letter. He starts off strong and goes from there:

In the 16th century a large, powerful institution saw itself as threatened by heretics - people who didn't agree with all its dogmas - so it began to identify and punish those dissidents. Five hundred years later a similar effort is under way.

In the 16th century it was the Roman Catholic church; today it is Big Science. The only real difference is that today heretics are simply deprived of their livelihood; burning at the stake is no longer in vogue.

Dr. Stauffer makes the point that in today's world, self-annointed "scientists" have declared certain truths to be dogma, and above questioning. It has become heresy to even so much as question the dogmas of the secular establishment: global warming, evolution, the Big Bang theory. Dr. Stauffer gives a few examples of scientists who have been run out of the academy because they dared question the establishment. Far too much of what passes as science these days is merely political correctness dressed up with scientific terms.

As a doctoral student I was taught that good science sought reliable facts about the world around us, and hypotheses followed wherever those facts lead. Sadly, that no longer seems to be the case. Instead, selected facts have led to politicized conclusions, and countervailing facts are no longer tolerated. This is not good science.

This letter is worth reading, especially by those high priests of secularism who have no real answers but revile those who do.

The Creation Museum is open!

The Cincinnati Enquirer reports some 4,000+ visitors went through the Creation Museum on opening day, Monday May 28th. That means that four thousand people saw God's truth presented in a fashion to rival secular museums, and presented God's truth in a way that they may never have seen it displayed before. The demonstrators on hand were, well, less than imposing:

Beyond the gates, several dozen protesters staged a "Rally for Reason," arguing that the museum's central tenets conflict with scientific dating techniques.

So much for this huge outpouring of anger. Evolutionart theory: several dozen, God's truth several thousand. I guess it is easier to sign a letter rather than have to face someone who is armed and ready to show that evolution is NOT a closed issue.

People came from all over:

The museum opened at 10 a.m. with about 500 people in line and with license plates from 31 states and two Canadian provinces in the parking lot of about 600 spaces.

How great is that! I loved the contrast here, let's see who sounds like the person engaging in reasoned, thoughtful and open debate:

"The guests were very happy with the museum experience," (spokesman Mark ) Looy said. "Of course, we had some naysayers come through and engage us in conversation, and that's fine - we want them.

"We want skeptics and non-Christians to come here - we encourage that," Looy said...

"It's really impressive - and it really gives the impression that they're talking about science at some point," said critic Lawrence Krauss, professor of physics and astronomy and director of the Center for Education and Research in Cosmology and Astrophysics at Cleveland's Case Western Reserve University.

On a scale of 1 to 5, with 5 being best, "I'd give it a 4 for technology, 5 for propaganda," Krauss said. As for content, "I'd give it a negative 5."

I would give it a negative five on a scale of one to five? This guy is a scientist? Maybe he can call Ken Ham a doodiehead, that would be an equally devastating critique. I can't wait to plan a trip to Northern Kentucky with my kids!