What is the 2nd Law of Thermodynamics?

While the theist is surrounded by evidence to support his belief system, the atheist must constantly and consistently appeal to “unknown” circumstances or unsubstantiated scientific claims in order to wallow happily in his muddy worldview. One such example, is the 2nd law of thermodynamics or what is more appropriately called the law of increasing entropy.

Simply put, the 2nd law states that: “In any closed system, the entropy of the system will either remain constant or increase.”

In other words, in a closed system like the universe, the natural world will decrease in complexity rather than increase in complexity. We see this all the time and consistently, the 2nd law is one of the most strongly verified laws of nature (along with the 1st law). It is a law that is never broken- things break down. Take a look at abandoned cars- they decay, rust, corrode, and fall apart as the wind and the rain take their toll. Or look at our roofs as they bask constantly in the sunlight- they fade away and gather debris which eventually requires a good cleaning or a replacement. Even our own natural bodies are constantly dying away. The body must constantly produce new cells to replace the old and dying cells that cause us to age and the new cells are less complex and less vibrant than the ones they replace. How can this be if (as we are taught in the education system) that life is constantly “evolving” in some Darwinian sense to more complexity? After all Big Bang Cosmology and Darwinian evolution stand firm that everything came from nothing (note: today’s cosmology is slowly accepting M-theory which supports an infinite or eternal universe of sorts.) and that the most complex life came from a simple non-living chemical. It would appear that the basic scientific law of thermodynamics abrasively contradicts the theory of evolution.

What do evolutionists think?

The evolutionist must appeal to some unknown mechanism in order to continue with their belief in atheism. These explanations however are not refutations nor should they be considered as such. Perhaps the most common explanation is the “added energy” fallacy as made popular by Richard Dawkins (a mediocre scientist at best). His argument asserts that while the universe is a closed system (meaning that no energy is being added to the universe), our earth is an open system as it receives energy from the sun. Therefore, the 2nd law of thermodynamics would not apply. In this case, Dawkins (and many atheists especially of the type who comment on Youtube videos) asserts (without evidence by the way) that by simply adding energy to a part of the system, the 2nd law-while applying to the whole- would have a reverse effect on the part. If that’s true then life on earth would be increasing in complexity rather then decreasing (which is what evolution claims). The argument uses the example of plants and sunlight. As plants receive energy from the sun, they increase in complexity.

Here is the problem with this position. It has no basis in reality. Naturally, life on earth in NOT increasing in complexity despite the massive amounts of energy we receive from sunlight. Plants do not generate complexity in a vacuum. Rather, a highly complicated process called photosynthesis is taking place on a chemical level to convert that energy into a useable form. Similar to solar panels without the technology inside, a plant without chlorophyll and the photosynthesis process would simply dry up and die. Solar panels are just simple materials without the complex technology built into them. Without the technology, the glass would decay, crack, and the pieces would whither just like the abandoned car.

So we see that adding energy does nothing without a machine to convert that energy. Think of it this way, the US added a whole lot of energy to Germany in WWII and was the result more complexity or less complexity? Did the US leave Germany more orderly or less orderly? The answer seems obvious- unless you’re an atheist.

Professor Andy Macintosh puts it this way:

“The principle of energy loss for useful work still applies in an open system, since there is no benefit unless there is a machine to use the energy added. Boeing 777s cannot be made in a car factory by adding loads of sunlight or electricity unless the machinery is available to use that energy to build Boeing 777s. Similarly the human brain cannot be formed from simpler machines just by adding energy if there is no machinery available to do this. Spontaneously forming of such machinery will not happen.”

While the atheist will appeal to unknown natural factors, unsubstantiated scientific claims, and usually resort to name calling and elitism, they have no factual basis on which to build their case. They simply preach to their converted who cheer and shout in complete oblivion to their own ignorance. Christians do this too. As believers we must always be ready to answer their objections. In some cases, this might be as simple as asking them to clarify their position so you can do your research. You will find that while there are some challenges worth advanced study time, the opposition the 2nd law is not taken seriously in real science. It’s only the atheist who holds to his faith. We as Christians may be certain that this painting-though marred and vandalized by sin and sinners- will always bear the signature of it’s painter.

Some additional resources:

http://www.answersingenesis.org/articles/2007/02/12/just-add-energy

http://www.evolutionnews.org/2011/06/the_first_law_of_darwin_lobbyi044561.html

Advertisements

Is Rick Warren a false teacher?

theApologetic on Facebook
Rick Warren is the head pastor at the Orange County based mega-church Saddleback Church where the average weekly attendance is around 20,000. Warren has also authored a number of christian books including the Purpose Driven Life and many others in the Purpose Driven series. His ministries extend around the world and Warren has been invited to speak at a number of events to represent the American Church including Ted.com and the inauguration of the secular President Barack Hussein Obama. With such an extensive outreach to the global community and in such public view of the media, Rick Warren has a special obligation to properly represent the orthodox Gospel and not another Gospel. What is Rick Warren teaching? Is it biblically accurate? This blog will examine those questions.

  • Rick Warren has lied about his position on same-sex marriage and on national television undermined his entire congregation as well as the Messianic teaching on marriage. 

Before the passing of California Proposition 8 which confirmed the definition of marriage as between one man and one woman (Prop 8 had nothing to do with banning anything), Rick Warren issued a statement:

“Now let me say this really clearly: we support Proposition 8 — and if you believe what the Bible says about marriage, you need to support Proposition 8. I never support a candidate, but on moral issues I come out very clear…”  

Then, in a vicious backpedal on the nationally televised Larry King Show, Rick Warren distanced himself from his statement saying:

“During the whole Proposition 8 thing, I never once went to a meeting, never once issued a statement, never — never once even gave an endorsement in the two years Prop. 8 was going…”

There is obviously a huge contradiction here and immediately we should be examining Warren’s credibility but many faiths like Islam and Mormonism actually condone lying if it’s done to further the faith. Let’s compare this with what is written in the prophetic texts of orthodox Judaism and Messianic Judaism (aka: christianity). After all, Rick Warren teaches “christianity” in a huge church and delivers the message of Christianity to a large number of followers. If a christian is indeed one who follows Christ (Messiah) as written about in the orthodox texts, we must examine a christian teacher against accepted christian texts. For example, in Colossians, Paul writes about the behavior of one who follows the Messiah (Yeshua) in the following way:

“Do not lie to each other, since you have taken off your old self with its practices and have put on the new self, which is being renewed in knowledge in the image of its Creator.” Col 3:9-10

This is consistent with what is taught in the Old Covenant as well:

“Do not spread false reports. Do not help a wicked man by being a malicious witness.” Ex 23:1

“Do not testify against your neighbor without cause, or use your lips to deceive.” Prov 24:28

So initially in judging Rick Warren we see that in lying or turn-coating against his own teachings and statements, he is also betraying the Gospel of which he claims to be a teacher. Regardless of what your personal views are on the topic of gay-relationships and lifestyles, Warren clearly lied about his position on the matter and he has been called to task by the christian community and the gay community alike. Christians decry his deliberate misleading from christian scripture while gays take note that christian conservative pastors cannot be trusted.

Furthermore, homosexuality is not supported by the Gospel of Jesus and this is well known throughout most of the country. While the person trapped in homosexuality is to be loved and respected and ministered to (provided there is a repentant heart), there are small pockets of homosexual activists that seek to explain away segments of scripture such as Sodom and Gomorah and Romans 1:27. However, the very existence of these arguments validate the disagreement between the traditional view of biblical marriage and the very new and post-modern view on homosexual relationships (this blog will not cover the “gay” issue in depth). For example, if there was no perceived contradiction between homosexual relationships and the Bible, why would there be a need for arguments to re-explain Sodom and Gomorah and Romans 1? So in terms of what christians believe and Rick Warren’s teaching that as a christian teacher he does not disagree with it, again we are left with a huge gap between scripture and Warren.

  • Rick Warren denies teaching the doctrine of ruach hakodesh (the Holy Spirit) and the role Yeshua plays in the life of the believer. 

Instead, Rick favors a new gospel created by his ministers and published in his book- The Purpose Driven Life. On page 212 of Warrens new bible The Purpose Driven Life (joke), he writes:

“Let me be clear: If you’re losing the battle against a persistent bad habit, an addiction, or a temptation, and you’re stuck in a repeating cycle of good intention-failure-guilt, you will not get better on your own! You need the help of other people.”

To a humanist this may sound exciting- even truish. Secularists from Karl Marx to Michelle Obama all lay claim to the power of socialism for healing our bad habits and ridding society of its ills (it’s therefore surprising that socialism has been the major destructive force of the 20th century, but I’ll cover that in another blog). However, Rick Warren is not teaching humanism per se nor is he supposedly a preacher of socialism. Instead Rick Warren is a bible teacher and one would assume his teachings come from the bible. Unfortunately, the bible does not on any occasion lend support to the doctrine of “other people” but that freedom from an addictive sin is found in the Messiah.

Jesus replied, “I tell you the truth, everyone who sins is a slave to sin. Now a slave has no permanent place in the family, but a son belongs to it forever. So if the Son sets you free, you will be free indeed.” John 8:34-36

“…because through Christ Jesus the law of the Spirit of life set me free from the law of sin and death”. Rom 8:2

Here we see how Yeshua (Jesus) and Paul teach that only God  can set a person free from sin in contrast to Warren who teaches that “other people” can set a person free from sin. To the contrary, the bible teaches that we battle 3 enemies: the world, the flesh, and the devil. In this regard, Warren actually offers a false witness in teaching that our enemy (ie: the world) is actually who can help us!

Warrens book The Purpose Driven Life is severely riddled with false teachings and humanistic feel-goodery based not on biblical teaching but instead on bumper-sticker mentality. While covering all of his book would be hard to do, I’ve listed links below that will demonstrate the work done on exposing Rick Warren and his humanism.



View the video here.

 View the search engine results here. 

  • Rick Warren spoke heretically at the widely received and much viewed TED convention. 

In an unprecedented opportunity to reach a pagan audience, Rick Warren spoke at TED about what makes God happy. In continuing a humanistic philosophy of works and feeling good, Warren misled hundreds of people (and thousands who have viewed the film) on what the bible teaches. Instead, Rick delivered a message that had wreaked of mass appeal. For those unfamiliar with TED (technology, education, design), it is a conference of speakers attended by some of the worlds most influential thinkers and doers. A largely atheistic bunch, TED Talks usually center around the latest scientific advancements, philosophy, and music. Speakers have included Bill Gates, Richard Dawkins, and Julia Sweeney (ok, so maybe not the most influential thinkers but they are certainly God-haters). In his talk, Rick said the following:

“Did you know that God smiles when you be you. Some people have the misguided idea that God only gets excited when you’re doing “spiritual things” like going to church or helping the poor or confessing or doing something like that.

The bottom line is that God gets pleasure watching you be you. Why? He made you. And when you do what you were made to do He says ‘That’s my boy!’, ‘That’s my girl!’

You’re using the talent and ability that I gave you… So my advice to you is look at what is in your hand, your identity, your influence, your income, and say its not about me, its about making the world a better place.”

According to this message, God is happy when I use my God-given ability to speak and influence to lure a young child into my car. God is happy when I use my gentle nature to molest a small girl or when I use the steady hands he gave me to torture and skin a stray cat. Additionally, God is happy when I use my body as a sex toy for money. After all, he gave me a body that is attractive to others. These facetious examples of heresy go on and on but culminate into his last line about making “the world a better place.” This is humanism at it’s core. Im reminded that Adolf Hitler believer he was making the world a better place as did Margaret Sanger.  As followers of Yeshua, we are too escape the world for

“from within, out of men’s hearts, come evil thoughts, sexual immorality, theft, murder, adultery, greed, malice, deceit, lewdness, envy, slander, arrogance and folly.” Mark 7:21-22

And John reminds us

“Do not love the world or anything in the world. If anyone loves the world, the love of the Father is not in him.” 1 John 2:15

Now a skeptic might say that based on the above scriptures, christians are separatists and they would be correct. As a follower of The Way, redeemed from my debauchery and sin by the grace of God through the sacrifice of Yeshua, I want nothing to do with the world. If being in a “better place” means living according to American capitalism, Russian socialism, Western liberalism, and post-modern philosophy then- no thanks! Should you come across a christian who disagrees, I would invite them for tea after the rapture (i guarantee they’ll be able to accept the invite). But I digress.

Perhaps more damning than his heresy of being in the world, Rick Warren purports to know what makes God happy. Thankfully, we have prophetic texts which have been tested against skepticism that actually show us what makes God happy. For example, in Hebrews 6 we read:

“And without faith it is impossible to please God, because anyone who comes to him must believe that he exists and that he rewards those who earnestly seek him.”

And again in John 3:18:

“Whoever believes in him is not condemned, but whoever does not believe stands condemned already because he has not believed in the name of God’s one and only Son.”

Here we see that is impossible to please God without faith and that faith must be placed in the Messiah Yeshua- the only son of the living God. Rick, however, failed to mention this message for a group of intellectuals and instead chose to fill their minds with non-sense. Easily refutable non-sense too! Warren’s message not only reflects on Yeshua poorly but reflects the church body poorly. In Ricks position, orthodox christianity looks splintered, broken, and inconsistent which it is not. Orthodox Christianity (aka: Messianic Judaism) is just fine. It’s all the other types of heretical “christianity” that are a mess 🙂

  • Lastly, Rick Warren has embraced the ChrISLAM movement- a syncretist movement designed by enemies of the Cross to further the idea that we “all worship the same god.” 

Perhaps the most concerning of the Warren Heresies is his conviction to serve the false god Allah. On more than one occasion Warren referred to Allah as the God he serves even signing a statement from Yale University claiming to “seek peace” with Islam by accepting that at the core, Islam and Christianity worship the same God. You can view the statement here:  VIEW STATEMENT


This statement is foundational to the movement to unite 
Christianity and Islam together in a move called syncretism and referred to popularly (at this writing) as Chrislam (an obviously non-creative word that represents the blending of the two faiths.)  Rick Warren not only signed the statement but in addressing the nation in prayer for the inauguration of President Obama, Warren addressed the Messiah as Isa- the name given to Yeshua by the Moslems who believe he was a liar, a heretic, and a prophet (huh?) and not the son of God. Here, Warren has not only abandoned Adonai but also his Messiah Yeshua. Furthermore, in a speech to a Moslem community, Rick said:

“Before we “shake your hand” in responding to your letter, we ask forgiveness of the All-Merciful One and of the Muslim community around the world.”

Here, Warren refers to God as the “all-Merciful One” which is not a biblical name for God but a Qu’rannic name thereby establishing in writing his allegiance to a false God. In the report, he is featured shaking hands with Cat Stevens- a well known beatnik who converted to Islam after almost a decade of drug use (which has always been linked to the occult and sorcery). But Rick Warren is no stranger to lending a hand to the occult and to the mystics. In another event reported by a fellow blogger, Rick Warren has been known to support the unbiblical path of Hindu meditation- known in biblical times as sorcery.
You can view that story here: Rick Warren and the Occult
In comparing Warrens actions to those instructed in the bible, I am reminded of the verses that instruct Joshua to stay away from the Amorites. Im reminded of Paul’s instruction to separate from sinners (aka: idolators or those who worship false gods like Allah or Vishnu). But Im also reminded of the example of David as he writes in Psalms 31:6:
“I hate those who cling to worthless idols; I trust in the LORD.”
And also in Deuteronomy 12:30
“and after they have been destroyed before you, be careful not to be ensnared by inquiring about their gods, saying, “How do these nations serve their gods? We will do the same.”
In the first case, the bible instructs us to trust in Adonai rather than in Allah or the other gods of pagan idolatry. In Deuteronomy we are explicitly instructed to look in Gods word for examples of how to serve God rather than looking to ungodly sources. Rick Warren is in no way adhering to any kind of biblical principle by adhering to this movement of Chrislam.
  • Here’s the bottom line:

This blog has taken a substantial amount of time to compile and write. I’ve done my best to find the best sources of information and provide links to videos and articles but it is not possible to compile all the criticism that Rick has received from the “christian” or Messianic community. In his defense, Rick has said nothing. Rather, he continues to ride further and further into this dark area of apostasy without any concern for the souls and minds of his congregation. Rather his congregates remain trusting and largely shallow (a comment I qualify based on my experience with many Saddleback attendees- though not all. If you are currently attending Rick’s church I urge you to leave now. For help in finding a biblical church please write to me personally. I’m in Oceanside, Ca- not far from Orange County. I’d be happy to help you look for a biblical church and am familiar with many in the area).

Rick Warren is no more a solid Christian teacher than any Hindu or Muslim teacher. The only difference is that we don’t expect a Hindu or Muslim scholar to teach the bible. We expect those who call themselves christian to preach the bible. When a pastor like Warren brands himself in the name of Yeshua and preaches a false gospel, it’s time to leave.

But not until after sounding the alarm.

Why Christians are not taken seriously…


theApologetic on Facebook

I Don’t Believe In Organized Religion


theApologetic on Facebook
The American culture is full of idioms- pithy sayings that are supposed to reflect some sort of philosophy or worldview. Often we hear people say these things in response to conversation topics or plastered to the back of their car on bumper stickers. While some of these sayings may have a rhythmic sound or rhyming words, some are couplets, some appear at first to interject what appears to be open-minded philosophy, and some are just simple statements regarding some political stance. Most of these sayings, however, are ridiculous and when examined for their intellectual fortitude, they are often found wanting. One particular saying spreads like wildfire in the culture but dies the same death as all the others once examined. You may have heard someone said it before:

“I don’t believe in organized religion”

What this statement typically intends to communicate is someone’s belief in the spiritual but dislike for the traditional gathering of like-minded peoples in a systematic fashion. Images of Catholic mass fill the mind, with its sitting and standing and incantations in Latin. Or the Mormon service of shirts and ties and speakers void of doctrine but centered on subjective experience. Even the mega-church image with its stadiums of people with outstretched hands, laser lights shows, and would-be rock bands fit into this category for some people. Those who make this statement are trying to convince their audience that it’s not the God-based belief system or the moral nature of religious teaching, but the organized way in which people gather together to share what is common to them. (Granted, all three of the aforementioned church systems worship a very different god but we will get to that later) Where this statement or mindset fails is in it’s inconsistency with the lives of people. As we shall see, it’s not the organized fashion of the worship service, it’s the worship period. What I mean is, people don’t have a problem with organization, what people have a problem with is elevating and honoring a perfect Creator. For in this brand of worship, the person must admit their own depravity, imperfection, and inadequacies in contradiction to a culture that worships people, sexuality, and materialism. The religious nature is not the problem- it’s the nature of the religion. People have no problem worshiping themselves or their things- after all, the term worship comes from the root of where we get our word “worthy” and refers to “that which is worthy of our time and attention.” We spend all sorts of “organized” time on our bodies, our make-up, our sports teams, and our stuff, but when it comes time to honor the Creator of the universe, all of a sudden we have a problem with organization. Here are some things to consider when someone who offers this non-sensical, bumper sticker mentality in conversation or online.

Is that to say that you have a preference for dis-organized religion?

So you must also reject grocery stores, government, law & order, education, families, money and economics, right? What I mean is, culture and society are by their very nature- organized. Even animals- birds, bears, and bees- organize themselves into families, flocks, and flower-finders in order to more effectively navigate a world of trouble in the constant threat of survival. Take education for example, most of us our thrilled to live in a country where from a young age we can be taught the knowledge of the world (we will not be going into the education agenda in this blog- sorry). We sit in classrooms with organized rows of chairs, in rooms organized with whiteboards and computer screens, we follow organized schedules, until we graduate with a sense of how to organize our futures. Granted, education is not perfect- it’s made by man. While we can make changes and improvements no one advocates abolishment. No one says I don’t “believe” in organized education. 

What about economics? Do you also not believe in an “organized economy?” After all, our money system is finely tuned in a global system of equivalents, exchange rates, paper and coin, precious metals, investments, income, taxes, profit and loss. Yet we would not want to give up our money would we? Granted, our economic system is not perfect- it’s made by man. While we can suggest different systems of capitalism, socialism, and even communism, no one is honestly suggesting anarchy and chaos. No ones says I don’t believe in an organized society.

So it’s not the organized nature of religion, it’s the nature of the religion itself.

So you must be a huge fan of Jesus, right? See, Around 2,000 years ago, a man names Jesus claimed to be the authentic son of the Creator God and he spend most of his time rebuking the religious leaders of his time. In those days, the “organized” religion of the area was a form of Judaism that heavily emphasized a legalistic philosophy. Contrary to what most people “know” about religion, the pure form of the faith was buried by men called Pharisees who preferred that people follow their own rules and laws rather than live by the philosophy that God gave them. They forced people to live a certain way and Jesus came to “clarify” the teachings of the Torah. He came to “set the captives free” from the bondage placed upon them by religious men. On one occasion, Jesus- a poor carpenter- stood up to these powerful and rich men and in public called them hypocrites because they required the people to live by rules that they themselves would not adhere to (Matt 23:13). Sound familiar? On the contrary,  Jesus taught that salvation (or heaven, if you will) is granted only to those who placed their trust in him and rejected the teachings of men (including popes and prophets).  He taught that those who trusted in him and what he taught would willingly obey the precept to love God and they to love their fellow man.

This made the Pharisees mad because it undermined their powerful positions. They came to hate Jesus so intensely because of his teaching against religion that they organized themselves to kill him. They not only sought his death, they sought to have him crucified on the cross- a death so gruesome and so torturous that even the most notorious Roman was, by virtue of his Roman citizenship, excused from it’s punishment. It was a death so painful that the cross (or its root, “cruc”) became the word by which we define a pain that leads to unconsciousness- the word excruciating. 

Sadly, churches today still have their pharisees. They still have their religious leaders who plague their attendees with rules and traditions outside of what Jesus taught. Some churches still require Papal authority, Cardinals, Gurus, Prophets, Bishops, Stake Presidents, and Sages and sadly none of these men have the authority to act on Gods behalf. They exist in every church and in every country. Every body of believers will have their men who are either too conservative, too liberal, to rigid, too loose, too loud, too quiet, and so forth. There will always be people who don’t think you measure up to their flawed definition of what a believer should be.  The issue then is not “organized religion.” It’s about discovering who God is and coming to a personal relationship with him through the person of Jesus. See, God is too big and too perfect for us to relate to. God is like a burning flame and we are a dried up leaf. In coming to know him we would burn up. Jesus came to act as our mediator, to liberate us from the false teachings of men who desire power over the people. Jesus was the ultimate rebel and we can come to know him just like we come to know an author of a book we’ve read. We’ve never met the author but we feel like we’ve come to know them. We do the same with actors, with oppressed peoples from tv commercials and local activism, with politicians, and the like.

The church is not a building, its a body of people who have come to worship Jesus instead of their cars, their sports teams, their girlfriends, or the latest scientific journal, or out-spoken cosmologist. The questions then is not whether or not you prefer organized religion, it’s which organized religion are you attending- a church that honors God through Jesus Christ or a church that honors something else- a prophet, a scientist, a model, an activist, a Guru, or some other false god. We all choose to follow someone. Who is it?

I’m reminded of what Joshua wrote in 24:15

But if serving the LORD seems undesirable to you, then choose for yourselves this day whom you will serve, whether the gods your forefathers served beyond the River, or the gods of the Amorites, in whose land you are living. But as for me and my household, we will serve the LORD.”


Who is “they”?

theApologetic on Facebook

We are constantly bombarded in our culture with terms like “scientific evidence” and “top doctors agree” and”scholars testify” and other such appeals to some unknown authority. From toothpaste, to literary analysis, to archaeology, to batteries, and psycho-pharmacology (aka: anti-depressants) and so on, we are asked to put down our simple minds in exchange for what the experts believe. The questions is, who are these experts?

A quick analysis of the professional and academic landscape will reveal that there are two types of people- those who believe in God and the much larger field of those who don’t. Those who believe in God readily accept the existence of the immaterial world- things like love, hope, beauty, and evil. These things are immaterial- you cannot weigh love or hold beauty in your hand. You can of course hold a flower in your hand but the material aspect is the flower- not the beauty. The beauty is a metaphysical concept that you’ve thrust onto the flower. These attributes are transcendent- love is love here and love is love 1 billion miles away at the farthest star and love 100 years ago is still love. These attributes cannot exist in a reductionist, material world where only nature (or, that which can be measured) exists. Those who believe in God, therefore have access to a world that those who don’t believe in God do not. The kicker is, those who don’t believe in God would be scarce to admit that they don’t believe in love, hope, beauty, and evil and therefore find themselves in a precarious situation- they must either admit to their inconsistent worldview or try to explain away the immaterial as material. In this way, atheists and secular humanists live as if they do believe in God but profess with their mouth that they don’t. This is exactly what the Bible tells us we can expect:

For the wrath of God is revealed from heaven against all ungodliness and unrighteousness of men who suppress the truth in unrighteousness. (emphasis added) Romans 1:18

What Paul is writing here (and in subsequent verses) is that Gods existence is plainly seen in the design of nature and in the existence of the immaterial; things like justice, and love. However, those who hate God suppress this truth in order to accomplish their own goals.

Take the genius Richard Dawkins.  In one breath Richard Dawkins will say:

“It is absolutely safe to say that if you meet somebody who claims not to believe in evolution, that person is ignorant, stupid or insane (or wicked, but I’d rather not consider that).” (New York Times, 1989)

And in the next breath say something like:

“In a universe of blind physical forces and genetic replication, some people are going to get hurt, other people are going to get lucky, and you won’t find any rhyme or reason in it, nor any justice. The universe we observe has precisely the properties we should expect if there is at bottom, no design, no purpose, no evil and no good, nothing but blind pitiless indifference.” (The Blind Watchmaker, p. 133)

Here we have the leader of the Western secular humanism movement declaring with one voice that some people are evil (or wicked as he says) and in the next breath saying that there is no such thing as evil. These are direct and total contradictions to each other and since contradictions cannot exist in nature, he is either wrong, blind, ignorant, or all of the above. Furthermore, Dawkins is very dedicated to an agenda. He lives his life supporting causes he finds to be good and decrying causes he finds to be bad. Why would one do this if one believes that good and bad are things that don’t exist?

Here’s the point- secular thinkers must find a natural or material cause behind the ailments of the world. They must find a “gene” for evil or a virus for “justice.” Often, these things are explained away by some magical process that no one has ever seen- a process called Darwinian evolution where things just happen because the alternative- that there is a Creator- is too much to bear. Take another Dick. Richard C. Lewontin wrote in a review of Carl Sagans book:

“We take the side of science in spite of the patent absurdity of some of its constructs, in spite of its failure to fulfill many of its extravagant promises of health and life, in spite of the tolerance of the scientific community for unsubstantiated just-so stories, because we have a prior commitment, a commitment to materialism…we cannot let a divine foot in the door.” (emphasis added).

Dawkins agreed. In a letter to design theorist Phillip Johnson, Dawkins wrote:

“Our philosophical commitment to naturalism and reductionism is true…”

Here we see that top scientists and humanists agree- they have decided on the answer before they’ve even researched the question and therefore when they begin to research whatever pursuit they may fancy, they will always be closed off to the transcendent and immaterial world while living in it at the same time. Lewontin goes so far as to say that he takes the side of naturalism in spite of it’s failures. Here we see an atheists committed to failure rather than simply consider the Creator. These are our scientists (not all but some and certainly a vocal bunch). They view the world through a lens that eliminates a large portion of reality and prescribe us pills, recommend vaccines, educate our kids, and run our school systems.

This is why we must look at facts and figures skeptically. We must remember that psychiatry (for example) and psychology (another example) are fields that are largely atheistic. The men who have led the way in paving these fields- Freud, Vygotsky, Gardener, Erickson, Dewey- are all atheists. They do not believe in a soul and therefore reduce the problems and ills of man to their limited worldview. If a problem “must” be material, so too must the solution be. While these men are now and have been in the past willing to addict patients to drugs and alcohol (Freud single-handedly can be blamed for the modern cocaine epidemic) because asking them to pray is far to far fetched. The trend continues today as people we know across the country are addicted to pysco-tropic drugs that aren’t curing anything.

We must be more diligent in our approach to culture. We must ask “who” these doctors are who all agree. We must ask “why” do doctors all agree- should they not disagree at some point? We must remember that the ungodly will walk in contradiction and ungodliness in order to pursue an agenda of ungodliness. They will try to eliminate sin with words like “biological” and “chemical imbalance.” After all, if you’re “born that way” you can’t really be responsible can you?  You don’t need Jesus- you need a pill. Trust us- we’re the doctors.

Remember, Christian. A few hundred years ago everyone bought the line sold to them- top scientists agree- the sun revolves around the earth.

Religion vs. Science or Religion vs. Religion?

While its true that Creation scientist Duane Gish makes the claim that Creation is not science he- in the same sentence- says the same of evolution. His reasoning is that both belief systems appeal to a non-provable, non-repeatable, non-testable function.  While the evolutionists claim to be grounded in science, it must be noted that their theories have never been repeated, never been tested and have never been proven.  While we cannot repeat the Big Bang, neither can we repeat Creation.  In this manner, both evolutionism and Creation are religious in nature while both use scientific data to support their positions.  The difference is the religion; Theism (or the belief in an active, loving, personal God) or materialism (also called: naturalism or the belief that “nature is all there is”) This presuppositional approach is necessary of science in that evidence cannot “lead” anyone anywhere. It is only our interpretations of evidence that can lead- and the evolutionists know it!

Devout Evolutionist Richard C Lewontin in a review of Carl Sagan’s book agrees, “We take the side of science in spite of the patent absurdity of some of its constructs, in spite of its failure to fulfill many of its extravagant promises of health and life, in spite of the tolerance of the scientific community for unsubstantiated just-so stories, because we have a prior commitment, a commitment to materialism.”

Richard Dawkins further agrees when in an email letter to Phillip Johnson he wrote, “Our philosophical commitment to materialism and reductionism is true...” (He then goes on to “espouse” that Creation offers “no solution” to the origins debate- a circular argument)

In his response Johnson asserts that when you “separate the philosophy from the science, the proud tower (of evolution) collapses.”

We see that evolutionists in a variety of fields agree with the postulate that evolutionary origination is religious in nature- based not on empirical evidence (as they seem to claim over and over again) but on philosophical commitments (aka- faith). Physicist and Information scientist Hubert Yokey writes, “the belief that life on earth arose spontaneously from nonliving matter is simply an article of faith in strict reductionism and is based solely on ideology”

Evolutionist and co-discoverer of DNA, Francis Crick sadly offers, “Every time I write a paper on the origin on life I swear I will never write another one, because there is too much speculation running after too few facts.”

Evolutionist, mathematician and astronomer, Chandra Wickramasinghe agrees when he observes, “The emergence of life from a primordial soup on the Earth is merely an article of faith that scientists are finding difficult to shed. There is no experimental evidence to support this at the present time…”

Evolutionist and microbiologist,  Michael Denton also agrees “The complexity of the simplest known type of cell is so great that it is impossible to accept that such an object could have been thrown together suddenly by some kind of freakish, vastly improbable event. Such an occurrence would be indistinguishable from a miracle.

So when the leaders of the movement admit to being religiously motivated but a follower (ie: an evolutionist) claims to be irreligious then we see an inconsistency in their worldview- like jamming the wrong piece into the puzzle. We know that truth is not inconsistent so they must be incorrect. Indeed the evolutionary worldview lacks empirical evidence and as stated above requires a pre-commitment (a priori) to materialism. Otherwise stated, its conclusions are loaded into its assumptions. The matter then is not whether it’s religion against science (and I could go into this a bit further at another time) but a matter of reasonable faith (one with evidences) versus unreasonable faith (one without IE: Atheism, Mormonism).

I’m just glad I’m on the right team.