Latest Entries »

Truth marches on for those who love it, no matter what its opponents do…

File:Calliphora sp Portrait.jpg (Image by JJ Harrison)

I was listening to an interview with Dr. Stephen Meyer, who was talking about the fact that many secular scientists are now quietly-and some not so quietly-questioning Darwin’s theory of evolution, and looking for an alternative one which actually fits the evidence. Meanwhile hundreds of millions of people are still taught and assured that Neo-Darwinism, in an age when nothing is absolutely true, is gospel.

Meyer, illustrating the growth of the Intelligent Design movement, or ID, told the story of a former adherent to Darwinism, who had been rather famous in his own right as an evolutionist. Gunter Bechly was the curator of the natural history museum in Stuttgart-equivalent to London’s natural history museum. He was a world- renowned insect paleontologist.

In 2009 Gunter was curating a special exhibition in celebration of Darwin’s 200th birthday and the 150th anniversary of Darwin’s “Origin of the Species”. He had one exhibit in which many books of ID proponents were on one side of a scale, opposite Darwin’s work. “Origin” was outweighing all the design proponents’ works put together, as a mockery of their views and research.

However, one of Gunter’s colleagues suggested that he perhaps ought to know more about the books and authors he was mocking, so he proceeded to read some of them in conscientious preparation for anyone who may question him about them. Gunter’s mockery turned to amazement as he read and realized that the authors had been totally misrepresented by scientists and reviewers wishing to do away with them, and to bury their unwanted notions. Gunter, over time, made contact with ID proponents, and finally announced that he had adopted their understanding of origins and rejected Darwinian evolution. Later he became a Christian, although not all ID proponents are Christians.

As a result of Gunter’s rebellion against the establishment, he lost his position as curator at the museum, and more recently, Wikipedia deleted his page. He received abuse and ridicule for his decision. Gunter is now pursuing his own research within the ID movement. There are others of his standing who are having second thoughts about their views of origins and life, says Meyer, though quietly, for fear of losing grants, tenure, degrees, jobs, and acceptance by the establishment.

 

Advertisements

Just once in a while, if you’re looking for it, you’ll find a glaring example of double-speak in evolution. You may, if you’re lucky, even catch an earth-shattering admission…

12308130-close-up-of-sparrow-face

Ben Stein’s movie “Expelled” is several years old now, and I’ve reviewed it before, but I would still highly recommend it to anyone who’s really seeking some truth. In Expelled Stein exposes some of the strong arm tactics being employed to shut out of science, education and the media anyone who may believe in a Creator or Intelligent Design.

As a brief but amusing review, I want to draw your attention to the most striking part of the movie. Towards the end Stein interviewed the great Richard Dawkins, and gave us all a fabulous glimpse into the mind of one of the world’s leading evolutionists. Dawkins began by reading from his book “The God Delusion”, and proceeded to call the Judeo-Christian God (not Allah, of course) all the names you wouldn’t dare call Adolph Hitler, Ghengis Khan, Jo Stalin, Pol Pott or any other tyrant you can think of.

Then Stein asks Prof. Dawkins (for all of us to see and hear) how the process of the origin of life started. Dawkins replied:

“Nobody knows how it started…we know the sort of event that must have happened for the origin of life”.

Stein: “What was that?”

Prof. Dawkins: “It was the… origin of the first self-replicating molecule.”

Dawkins had just made a gigantic leap from nothing to the first self-replicating molecule, an interesting omission on its own. The conversation continued…

Stein: “Right. And how did that happen?”

Prof. Dawkins: “I’ve told you, we don’t know”

Stein: “So you have no idea how it started?”

Dawkins: “No, no, nor has anybody.”

I’m sure that since the movie Prof Dawkins has determined to be more prepared for pesky God-believers with tricky questions. Anyway, he went on to suggest that some remote and highly evolved civilization out there in space may have “designed a form of life which they then seeded onto perhaps this planet”.

My point is that a man who doggedly fights Creationism and Intelligent Design, and who says that the evidence for evolution on earth is “totally overwhelming”, and who has helped millions of people become convinced that evolution is conclusively proven, was offering his speculation (and not evidence) that life on earth may have been “designed” and “seeded” from somewhere else in the universe. He was also admitting that apart from this neither he, nor anyone else, knows how life began.

If it had indeed been “proven” that life evolved from soup, as hundreds of millions of people have been led to believe, then Prof. Dawkins and all his militant atheist colleagues would be trumpeting the results and demonstrating how it’s done.

A very relevant read on my blog would be the post “Photosynthesis: Fact and Fiction” (see the link below).

https://nickyfisher.com/2018/01/05/photosynthesis-fact-and-fiction/

When I attended school, in the days when classical works were still considered to be a vital part of good education, Aldous Huxley’s “Brave New World” was required reading, as was Orwell’s “Nineteen Eighty Four“. Looking back, I’m not so sure now that the intention of everyone involved in writing the school syllabi was to warn us of the evils of totalitarianism, as we thought at the time…

Written in 1931, Brave New World is still remarkably relevant today, though not often read. It imagines a future in which a world state governs all the affairs of humanity, to the extent that it produces humans without any need for a womb or a family. From “conception” the state places people within prescribed and fixed classes, rather like castes, each with its own level of intelligence and ability. The state then conditions the minds of its offspring to accept their positions in life happily, and to conform without complaint to everything the world state has instituted.

The reason the book is still relevant in many ways is that it expresses some of the goals and dreams of many socialist-minded people over the last couple of centuries, up to the present time. In fact, you could probably find most of its suggestions within Marx’s “Manifesto”. Don’t fool yourself into thinking that all socialists want everyone to be equal and on the same level: those in the forefront of the movement want to be more equal than the rest of us.

Huxley, the brother of a famous evolutionist, was opposed to religion and the nuclear family (Marx’s Christian “bourgeoisie family”) and rather partial to the concept of eugenics. In Brave New World he was not warning us all of future evils, as most people, including myself, were led to believe. His imagined society was not intended to be dystopian: he was surreptitiously encouraging our consideration of its benefits. He was pushing it into our faces, much as Hollywood does today.

Growing numbers of people today, particularly in the feminist movement and among extremist liberals, have similar dreams and desires for the transformation of our world. Those desires include eugenics; total government power over a compliant and suitably re-educated populace; amorality; the end of the traditional family; the complete preoccupation with entertainment; a news media entirely in the pocket of the politically-correct establishment; totally revised or forgotten history; the end of the Church; radically controlled reproduction; the despising and vilification of anyone who does not comply; the homogenization and simplification of thought; the use of euphemisms and ambiguity for all institutions and agencies (like the current DOJ); total control over all education from birth; the moral corruption of children; a world government, and the loss of all national identity and culture.

Perhaps the only big difference between Huxley’s future utopian society and the real movement towards such a world today is that Huxley’s society worked.

You stub your toe on a table leg. You passionately address the table, and perhaps even the gods who you may not believe in, with certain derogatory words and accusations which your mother would never have approved of…

You wonder why the gods allowed your throbbing toe to make contact with such a solid object at all. Couldn’t they have moved the table aside one second before contact?

Why does the Biblical God allow us to suffer? Isn’t he a God of love? Why, if He’s omnipresent and omnipotent, isn’t he one step ahead of us, preventing all the terrible things which happen in our world every day? There are a number of answers to this, which none of us like. We can’t know them all, but we can know some of them…

First of all, God created a physical universe for physical beings to live in, and a physical universe must have natural laws to govern it. Why would God create a physical universe, and then negate its natural laws? If you drop a concrete slab, you can be sure that gravity will rapidly draw it with some considerable force and momentum towards your toe, already bruised and throbbing after its connection with the table leg.

We don’t know whether Adam and Eve, before the Fall, were susceptible to concrete slabs dropping on their toes. We do know, however, that once they began to rebel, they were susceptible to anything including death:

“For in the day that you eat thereof, you shall surely die.”

220px-Lucas_Cranach_the_Elder-Adam_and_Eve_1533

Something happened when Adam disobeyed God, and he began to die, just as God had warned him he would. It took him a long time to die, but die he did, as a direct consequence of his disobedience. His disobedience, and later our own, led to our downfall also. It doesn’t take us so long to die as it took him, because he was still a fresh and extremely healthy creation. We Christians-those of us who believe the Bible-talk about the Fall of man and of nature, at which time humans and all of creation became subject to adverse events and circumstances. When Cain struck down Abel, God didn’t stop him…God let Cain do it. Why did he? Why didn’t God say, “Hey Abel! Look out-your brother has a knife!” Why didn’t he make whatever weapon Cain used turn to dust before it could do the dirty deed?

Since the Fall God has intentionally allowed us to face consequences: consequences of our own actions and of others’ actions; consequences of natural laws such as gravity, and consequences of the fall of nature, so that our bodies degrade and become ill. There can only be one alternative to perfect health forever, and that’s illness, decline and death. God refuses to allow fallen man-in rebellion and disobedience-to live forever, or to live without natural consequences.

thumbnailCAAOCEQD

Free will is an amazing gift to us from God, as a vital part of His creation. God wants man to have his own mind and spirit, and to choose to love Him and each other, rather than creating him with robotic compliance. However, free will comes at a price. It’s the driving force behind all the hatred, unrest, unhappiness and evil we see playing out in our world. If God had turned Cain’s weapon to dust before it killed Abel, Cain would no longer have free will. If God froze our tongue moments before we made our feelings clear to someone, in the process hurting them, we would no longer have free will.

In suffering we learn and grow. If there were no consequences to our actions and our words, we would not learn to control them. We would not mature. We would remain like children in our character.

Perhaps the hardest lesson for us all to learn is that it’s God’s will that we suffer, in this world. He-not the devil- instituted the Curse. The Curse is one of those natural laws that God created. It affects all of creation. He’s able to negate those laws when he sees fit (in what we call a “miracle”) but for the most part, it’s His will that we endure suffering. How we respond to that suffering and those challenges is of great interest to God. It’s how God, and everyone else, finds out what we’re really made of. Even Jesus Christ was sent into the wilderness, by the Holy Spirit of God, to be tempted. In the Bible the words “tempt” and “test” are interchangeable.

Ary_Scheffer_-_The_Temptation_of_Christ_(1854)

To that end, God even allows that rebellious spirit-Satan-to test us. You only need to read the story of Job to see that. Satan is able to afflict us physically and to sorely test us mentally and spiritually-if he receives permission from God to do so. While Satan probably doesn’t afflict all of us directly (he has his own minions) his hateful exploits have devastating affects on our world. But the most important message of Job’s story is that God-and Satan-were vitally interested in how Job would react to his suffering. What was he really like inside? What were his real motives for acting as he did, and for claiming to care about his creator? Did he really love God? Would he maintain his humility before God? Had he really only been following the Lord because life had been rich and trouble-free, or was it because he saw the Lord as his Master, for better or for worse? In marriage our love for our spouse is put to the test and seen for what it really is when we have problems and disagreements, not when all is going well.

God knows that human nature is contrary to His, and that even if He made sure that everything went smoothly for us, we would not feel the need to seek Him. In fact, in many or most cases we humans will only seek God, and humble ourselves to him, when we are suffering or struggling in some way. Somehow, God knows that we grow spiritually under adverse conditions.

Our universe is temporary, and this physical, limited world we live in is a proving ground for all of us. In time, we will be judged for our responses and actions. The most relevant fact that we need to respond positively to is that God has provided his own Son as a sacrifice, so that we can know Him. If we accept God’s gift of his Son, we can escape the limitations of our mortal, temporary bodies in the future, when he will restore all of nature to a state of perfection.

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

Hey bloggers… have you heard of the LVCAB award? No? Well then, who’s heard of a “misere ouvert“?

download (6)

Misere Ouvert is a rule in some card games which gives you a chance to win, even if you happen to have been dealt the worst hand possible. By intentionally losing every trick, you win. You need conviction, tenacity, sharp thinking, and a bad hand to take advantage of the rule.

I sometimes like to apply the misere ouvert principle to my life in creative ways. For example, by achieving the lowest view count in all of Blogdom, I may actually win the “Lowest View Count In All Blogdom” award, or the LVCAB. This award is affectionately known in my house, or rather, in my head, as the “LOV-CAB”.

Is there such an award? As far as I know, there isn’t. But I think it’s a good idea…

%d bloggers like this: