February, 2016

now browsing by month

 

Creation Vs. Evolution & The Puny God

It’s been many years since I’ve given any serious thought to the concept of creation versus the so-called theory of evolution. But lately I have been thinking a lot about that and in particular have been thinking about the conflict that is in the Christian community regarding evolution and creation.

 

I’ve come to the conclusion, after much thought on this subject, that evolution is not a fact, it is not science, it isn’t even a good theory. My personal belief is that it is a fable.

 

Let me explain what I mean by a fable. The fable is a story that is told that is deliberately false or improbable. Its sole purpose is to define a moral concept or an understanding of life using animals as characters.

 

An illustration of a modern-day fable might be a television commercial. Madison Avenue designs TV commercials with a particular emphasis and a particular goal. The whole reason for concocting such a fable in a sixty second segment is to move you towards making a decision to buy a certain product or service. In that 60 seconds your senses are inundated with visual and auditory stimuli that are so orchestrated and designed to give you impressions, emotions and assumptions that will move you to buying the product or service that is being commercialized.

 

In the same way I believe evolution has been concocted as a fable to bring mankind, through the process of education, to believe in a certain mythical and improbable concept designed to eradicate from their consciousness the idea of supreme being who we are accountable to, known as God.

 

I don’t believe I’ve ever read anything written by Darwin. But I believe that if I were to examine his writings and his life there would be an underlying animosity towards the thought of the supreme being who we are accountable to known as God. I doubt very much that Darwin was in any sense a devout Christian.

 

And though Darwinism is self has been discounted by many scientists even scientists who are not believers or Christians, still it is the dominant religious theory of modern-day scientism.

 

When Christians go to arguing with modern-day secularists regarding the theory of evolution or the fable of evolution as I put it. I believe they start from the wrong place they often start from Scripture. The reason I say that is the wrong places is the secularist has no regard for Scripture and indeed from their perspective should not have any regard for it.

 

I do not intend to start with Scripture but I do intend to use logic, critical thinking and so-called common sense to argue that evolution is a fable and the concept of an all knowing, all-powerful, creative being called God is far more logical, probable and necessary than evolution could ever possibly be.

 

Let’s say you accept the so-called theory of evolution as a fact. Then you must admit that Homo sapiens are one of, if not the most highly developed beings on this planet. We, as humans, are highly developed especially when it comes to our intelligence. For instance we may not have the physical prowess of a silverback gorilla, but we can dominate him totally with our technology, because of our superior intellect.

 

So let us look at this highly developed species and consider the scenario of a woman giving birth to a baby. As this woman is giving birth to her child she’s in a very pristine and clean environment. But upon giving birth to the baby, she dies. How likely is it that this child is going to survive? There’s no mother to feed, nurture, or care for the child. How would it feed itself? How would it survive in a hostile environment? How long would it live?

 

It is a well known and an established scientific fact that the human species cannot live without water for more than three or four days. How is a baby born, with out a mother to care for it, without any other attendants to care for it, going to survive when it can’t feed itself or get water? There’s no food, no water, no shelter and no companionship. That last point is also important. It’s been well documented in the annals of psychology that a human left all alone for a protracted period of time has a tendency to become maladjusted and or go insane.

 

Now the story I have just given you is not a fable, it is a scenario that is more than likely going to happen based upon the birth of this hypothetical child and our present understanding of science and physiology.

 

Yet in the fable called evolution, we are expected to believe that a less developed and inferior entity other than Homo sapiens, could somehow be born, nurture itself, develop, mature and eventually replicate. This is preposterous.

 

Now let’s look at the problem of a six day creation. A very famous and well known Christian author and spokesperson has gone on record saying, “ any Christian who believes in a literal six-day creation is stupid.” well let’s look at that for a minute.

 

Since I know this man personally, I know he does believe that God created man. So I have this question. How did Adam appear upon planet Earth? Was he created a fully mature man, and adolescent, or a baby? From the little we do know as revealed in Scripture he was created a fully mature man. This is an assumption on my part based upon the narrative in the book of Genesis. Where you have God giving Adam the job of naming all animals on the planet and also attending to the garden of Eden at some point.

 

If God created Adam is a fully developed man in a very short period of time why is it that God could not create a universe in only six days? After all if Adam was to be have been given a physical exam it would be assumed he’d gone through the normal process of growth and matured until he was physically able to reproduce, except he probably didn’t have a belly button.

 

We’re told in the book of Genesis that God created man in his own image, in the image of God created he both man and woman. One of the essential characteristics of God as revealed in the opening verses of the book of Genesis is that he is a creator. Of all the creatures on God’s planet man is the most creative.

 

We have the ability to create not just things but an entire universe. Don’t jump to a conclusion and think that I’m getting into some kind of woo-woo New Age mysticism, I’m not. Stay with me now, let’s look at this concept of creativity.

 

I’m a big fan of Agatha Christie and I’ve read many of her novels. I particularly like her character, the Belgian detective, Hercule Poirot. Now when you look at the character of Poirot you find that he has certain odd characteristics and mannerisms. In the development of this character you get a sense of his history that he is a mature man, you don’t know when he was born you don’t know particularly who his father and mother were, but you do have a sense of him having lived for many decades. But this character was only developed in the mind of Ms Christie over a short period of time yet it represents a fully mature man who’s lived for many decades and has history.

 

If Agatha Christie can develop a character like Poirot in the post world war setting of Great Britain, a country with centuries of history, and do it in a relatively short period of time. Why is it hard to believe that an all-powerful, all-knowing, ever present God could not create the universe in six days or less. In fact my question would be why did He take six days?

By the way, George Lucas created the entire Star Wars Universe in a short period of time as did C.S. Lewis in his Space Trilogy.

As a child I often created an entire war zone of tanks, artillery, soldiers, and airplanes within minutes. What if one of the plastic soldiers were to suddenly be given consciousness and self awareness? Would it not be most likely that that soldier would assume it had taken years if not decades for the country he finds himself it to have been developed? Yet I did it in seconds and I’m not God, not even close.

 

I would say to this Christian statesman, who thinks that anyone who believes that God created the universe in six literal days is stupid, “you sir have a problem, in the words of the Incredible Hulk your God is a ‘puny god’.”

SEPARATION OF CHURCH AND STATE NOT SEPARATION OF GOD FROM STATE

This post is for all my American friends and family. It is especially pertinent for those who are tiered of the Liberal mantra of SEPARATION OF CHURCH AND STATE being used to silence all expression of Christian morality or thought in the public forum. This article is a must read for those who really want to understand. My belief is, an informed people are an empowered people.

SEPARATION OF CHURCH AND STATE

NOT SEPARATION OF GOD FROM STATE

by Fr. Bill McCarthy, MSA

The Founding Fathers

Our Founding Fathers set this great nation of ours upon the twin towers of religion and morality. Our first president, George Washington, said that anyone who would attack these twin towers could not possibly consider themselves to be a loyal American. Not only did they set us up as a nation under God, but a nation founded upon the Judaic-Christian principles summarized in the words, “The laws of nature and the laws of nature’s God,” words that we find in the Declaration of Independence.

Never Intended to Separate State from God or from Religion or from Prayer

The First Amendment never intended to separate Christian principles from government. yet today we so often heart the First Amendment couples with the phrase “separation of church and state.” The First Amendment simply states:

“Congress shall make no law respecting and establishment of religion or prohibiting the free exercise thereof.”

Obviously, the words “separation,” “church,” or “state” are not found in the First Amendment; furthermore, that phrase appears in no founding document.

While most recognize the phrase “separation of church and state,” few know its source; but it is important to understand the origins of that phrase. What is the history of the First Amendment?

The process of drafting the First Amendment made the intent of the Founders abundantly clear; for before they approved the final wording, the First Amendment went through nearly a dozen different iterations and extensive discussions.

Those discussions—recorded in the Congressional Records from June 7 through September 25 of 1789—make clear their intent for the First Amendment. By it, the Founders were saying: “We do not want in America what we had in Great Britain: we don’t want one denomination running the nation. We will not all be Catholics, or Anglicans, or any other single denomination. We do want God’s principles, but we don’t want one denomination running the nation.”

This intent was well understood, as evidenced by court rulings after the First Amendment. For example, a 1799 court declared:

“By our form of government, the Christian religion is the established religion; and all sects and denominations of Christians are placed on the same equal footing.”

Again, note the emphasis: “We do want Christian principles—we do want God’s principles—but we don’t want one denomination to run the nation.”

In 1801, the Danbury Baptist Association of Danbury, Connecticut, heard a rumor that the Congregationalist denomination was about to be made the national denomination. That rumor distressed the Danbury Baptists, as it should have. Consequently, the fired off a litter to President Thomas Jefferson voicing their concern. On January 1, 1802, Jefferson wrote the Danbury Baptists, assuring them that “the First Amendment has erected a wall of separation between church and state.”

His letter explained that they need not fear the establishment of a national denomination—and that while the wall of the First Amendment would protect the church from government control—there always would be open and free religious expression of all orthodox religious practices, for true religious expression of all orthodox religious practices, for true religious duties would never threaten the purpose of government. The government would interfere with a religious activity was a direct menace to the government or to the overall peace and good order of society. (Later Supreme Court identified potential “religious” activities in which the government might interfere: things like human sacrifice, bigamy or polygamy, the advocation of immorality or licentiousness, etc. If any of these activities were to occur in the name of “religion,” then the government would interfere, for these were activities which threaten public peace and safety; but with orthodox religious practices, the government would not interfere).

Today, all that is heard of Jefferson’s letter is the phrase, “a wall of separation between church and state,” without either the context, or the explanation given in the letter, or its application by earlier courts. The clear understanding of the First Amendment for a century-and-a-half was that it prohibited the establishment of a single national denomination. National policies and rulings in that century-and-a-half always reflected that interpretation.

For example, in 1853, a group petitioned Congress to separate Christian principles from government. They desired a so-called “separation of church and state” with chaplains being turned out of the congress, the military, etc. Their petition was referred to the House and the Senate Judiciary Committees, which investigated for almost a year to see if it would be possible to separate Christian principles from government.

Both the House and the Senate Judiciary Committees returned with their reports. The following are excerpts from the House report delivered on Mary 27, 1854 (the Senate report was very similar):

“Had the people [the Founding Fathers], during the Revolution, had a suspicion of any attempt to war against Christianity, that Revolution would have been strangled in its cradle. At the time of the adoption of the Constitution and the amendments, the universal sentiment was that Christianity should be encouraged, but not any one sect [denomination]…. In this age, there is no substitute for Christianity…. That was the religion of the founders of the republic, and they expected it to remain the religion of their descendants.”

Two months later, the Judiciary Committee made this strong declaration:

“The great, vital, and conservative element in our system [the thing that holds our system together] is the believe of our people in the pure doctrines and divine truths of the Gospel of Jesus Christ.”

The Committees explained that they would not separate these principles, for it was these principles and activities which had made us so successful—they had been our foundation, our basis.

During the 1870s, 1880s, and 1890s, yet another group which challenged specific Christian principles in government arrived before the Supreme Court. Jefferson’s letter had remained unused for years, for as time had progressed after its use in 1802—and after no national denomination had been established—his letter had fallen into obscurity. But now—75 years later—in the case Reynolds v. United States, the plaintiffs resurrected Jefferson’s letter, hope to use it to their advantage.

In that case, the Court printed an lengthy segment of Jefferson’s letter and then used his letter on “separation of church and state” to again prove that it was permissible to maintain Christian values, principles, and practices in official policy. For the next 15 years during that legal controversy, the Supreme Court utilized Jefferson’s letter to ensure that Christian principles remained a part of government.

Following this controversy, Jefferson’s letter again fell into disuse. It then remained silent for the next 70 years until 1947, when, in Everson v. Board of Education, the Court, for the first time, did not cite Jefferson’s entire letter, but selected only eight words from it. The Court now announced:

“The First Amendment has erected ‘a wall of separation between church and state.’ That wall must be kept high and impregnable.”

This was a new philosophy for the Court. Why would the Court take Jefferson’s letter completely out of context and cite only eight of its words? Dr. William James, the Father of modern Psychology—and a strong opponent of religious principles in government and education—perhaps explained the Court’s new strategy when he stated:

“There is nothing so absurd but if you repeat it often enough people will believe it.”

This statement precisely describes the tact utilized by the Court in the years following its 1947 announcement. The Court began regularly to speak of a “separation of church and state,” broadly explaining that, “This is what the Founders wanted—separation of church and state. This is their great intent.” The Court failed to quote the Founders; it just generically asserted that this is what the Founders wanted.

The courts continued on this track so steadily that, in 1958, in a case called Baer v. Kolmorgen, one of the judges was tired of hearing the phrase and wrote a dissent warning that if the court did not stop talking about the “separation of church and state,” people were going to start thinking it was part of the Constitution. That warning was in 1958!

Nevertheless, the Court continued to talk about separation until June 25th, 1962, when, in the case Engle v. Vitale, the Court delivered the first ever ruling which completely separated Christian principles from education.

Secular Humanism

With that case, a whole new trend was established and secular humanism became the religion of America. In 1992 the Supreme Court stated the unthinkable. “At the heart of liberty is the right to define one’s own concept of existence, of meaning, of the universe, and of the mystery of human life. In 1997, 40 prominent Catholic and Protestant scholars wrote a position paper entitled, “We Hold These Truths,” in which they stated, “This is the very antithesis of the ordered liberty affirmed by the Founders. Liberty in this debased sense is utterly disengaged from the concept of responsibility and community and is pitted against the ‘laws of nature and the laws of nature’s God. Such liberty degenerates into license and throws into question the very possibility of the rule of law itself.