G-R-A-V-I-T-Y

/in , , /by

If you’ve never heard “Gravity” by James Brown, you need to check it out. That is some sanctified funk, right there!

So, here’s my thought: Darwin’s theory of evolution is based on the idea that the species that are in existence today originated from a single life form. He says as much in his book “Origin of Species:”

…all the organic beings which have ever lived on this Earth may be descended from some primordial form.

Now, before we go any further, let’s clarify a couple of things about the subject we’re about to engage: First off, those who subscribe to Darwin and his Theory of Evolution can be grouped into two distinct categories:

• the first group is purely scientific in that they don’t associate anything spiritual or metaphysical with this debate. They’re simply attempting to decipher what it is that constitutes the most plausible explanation for the origin of the cosmos and life as we know it. They’re not personally invested in any one theory to the point where if they’re confronted with evidence that elevates one theory over the other, they don’t perceive it as an intellectual assault or a personal affront. Rather, they’re just considering the different viewpoints that exist as though they were perusing the various food items at the local Farmer’s Market.

• the other group has a far greater stake in the discussion in that they recognize its philosophical essence. Should man be nothing more than the byproduct of random chemical and genetic interactions, then he is at liberty to define every aspect of his existence. There are no Absolutes, morality is relative and the quality of one’s life is defined based on whatever criteria best matches their personal preferences. Should the concept of a personal Creator be introduced into the mix, then you have accountability as well as a standard to consider.

Convinced that a supernatural explanation for the origin of life inevitably includes an uncomfortably limiting and intrusive dynamic, the disciples of Darwin resolve to refuse any notion of a god resulting in the boundaries of sound scientific reasoning sometimes being stretched and the rules governing a respectful, academic discussion occasionally being suspended.

But it’s needful to recognize that Evolution is not a sound scientific theory. However volatile a topic it may be for some, the ramifications are too significant to gloss over as inconsequential. The manner in which the curtain closes on this issue determines an individual’s philosophical disposition towards God – whether He is or isn’t. That being the case, let’s take a look at Darwin and consider three of the main shortcomings of Darwinian thought as well as the defense the advocates of Darwinism present as a rebuttal.

An Anglican Naturalist…

Charles Darwin lived from 1809-1882. The son of a medical doctor, Darwin started his formal education with an aim towards following in his father’s footsteps, but his interest in botany and natural history became so intense that his studies began to suffer. His father responded by sending him to Christ’s College in England where it was determined that he would become an Anglican priest. Darwin did well and graduated in 1831. Not long after, however, Darwin joined some friends aboard the HMS Beagle. The ship’s mission was to chart the coastline of South America. Darwin was to go on this two year voyage as an amateur naturalist and collect specimens and make observations.

The two year voyage became a five year enterprise. During this time, Darwin excelled. His copious notes and detailed observations were sent home and circulated among those who could appreciate his work. By the time the Beagle returned home, Darwin was already a popular figure within the British Naturalist community and any thoughts of pursuing the ministry were sidelined by, not only his passion for science, but also his ever increasing skepticism when it came to the accuracy of Scripture.

At Every Turn

Darwin’s experiences aboard the Beagle culminated in a theory he elaborated on in his book “Origin of Species.” Published in 1859, it caused a sensation both within scientific and theological circles. It challenged the accepted notion that the world was a created entity. And while much of his theory was conjecture, it became the primary intellectual foundation upon which atheists built their platform.

While Darwin refrained from elaborating on the theological implications of his ideas, there was no denying that if you extended his line of reasoning to its inevitable conclusion, the result was a “god-less” universe. This is why the Theory of Evolution inspires such passionate debate. At the end of the day, you have an amateur Naturalist with a degree in theology who proposes a credible sounding theory about the origin of life based on his extensive observations of the natural world. By itself, it’s not that significant. But because of the philosophical and theological machinations it put in motion, it’s a zealously guarded cornerstone in the mind of the individual who is decidedly secular and a heretical school of thought to the believer.

For the individual resolved to highlight the flaws in Darwin’s reasoning, they have before them a task that’s not as easy as it might appear. While there are flaws in his reasoning, his verbiage is compelling and his ideas resonate on the surface as sensible. And Darwin was thorough in his notes and observations. Even when he seemed on the threshold of conceding some scientific shortcomings, he was careful to provide for himself a theoretical escape that allowed him to keep his hypotheses intact. For example, in a letter to his friend Dr. Asa Gray in 1857 he says:

It is extremely kind of you to say that my letters have not bored you very much, and it is almost incredible to me, for I am quite conscious that my speculations run quite beyond the bounds of true science.2

Those who might jump on a comment such as this in order to “catch” Darwin doubting the authenticity of his theories will be quickly countered by the champions of Darwinian thought by saying he was referring to a specific idea that he had yet to solidify with sound scientific research – that it wasn’t directed to his theory as a whole.3

In another instance, Darwin referenced the complexity of the human eye as being so intricate, that to speculate it had evolved from a chaotic scenario into the precise instrument that is today was “absurd…”

To suppose that the eye with all its inimitable contrivances for adjusting the focus to different distances, for admitting different amounts of light, and for the correction of spherical and chromatic aberration, could have been formed by natural selection, seems, I freely confess, absurd in the highest degree.4

That would seem to be a dealbreaker right there. But then his advocates go on to point out that while Darwin may have appeared to be bordering on conceding an intellectual flaw, he was merely articulating a preface to his proposed resolution to said quandary:

Reason tells me, that if numerous gradations from a simple and imperfect eye to one complex and perfect can be shown to exist, each grade being useful to its possessor, as is certainly the case; if further, the eye ever varies and the variations be inherited, as is likewise certainly the case and if such variations should be useful to any animal under changing conditions of life, then the difficulty of believing that a perfect and complex eye could be formed by natural selection, though insuperable by our imagination, should not be considered as subversive of the theory.5

In other words, if you can perceive different types of eyes that represent varying theoretical stages of development and complexity, you have enough in the way of evidence to subscribe to the notion that the eye could have, in fact, evolved from the same primordial soup that all of life originated from.

At virtually every turn you will find Darwin has included a protective clause that prevents his theories from being dismantled. The absence of a fossil record to prove the existence of intermediary life forms is explained away as a result of an “imperfect geological record.”

At one point, he says, “If it could be demonstrated that any complex organ existed, which could not possibly have been formed by numerous, successive, slight modifications, my theory would absolutely break down.6 But then he goes on to say that the early stages of said organs are simply not available to examine. In other words, although the evidence doesn’t exist today, his theory is sound enough to assume that it did exist at one point.

This is the nature of the Darwin debate. The objective evidence that can be studied and used to conclusively validate Darwin’s theory of evolution is very limited, yet his conclusions are zealously guarded with either a theoretical look to the future or a quick assertion that any opponent of Darwin is basing their objections on an incomplete analysis of his observations.

Over 150 Years Later…

We are now over 150 years removed from Darwin’s first edition of “On the Origin of Species” and it’s not so much that the same questions remain as much as it’s a situation where the same flaws persist and are even more glaring then they were in 1859. You would be hard pressed to find a scientist that would balk at the claim that any one species has not underwent some changes over the course of earth’s history. But you do, however, encounter a very sharp division, both in academic circles as well as in the lay community, when you propose the idea that all of life is related, even to the point where human beings can supposedly embrace apes as their predecessors and can look to a fruit fly as a distant cousin.

That is the core of Darwin’s theory – that is the foundation upon which Natural Selection is built. It’s not whether or not there have been changes within a particular species, but that every species is related having evolved from one common life form:

Analogy would lead me one step further, namely, to the belief that all animals and plants have descended from some one prototype. But analogy may be a deceitful guide. Nevertheless all living things have much in common, in their chemical composition, their germinal vesicles, their cellular structure, and their laws of growth and reproduction. We see this even in so trifling a circumstance as that the same poison often similarly affects plants and animals; or that the poison secreted by the gall-fly produces monstrous growths on the wild rose or oak-tree. Therefore I should infer from analogy that probably all the organic beings which have ever lived on this earth have descended from some one primordial form, into which life was first breathed…7

But if you theory is to have any merit, it has to be consistent with, not only the evidence that currently exists, it also has to conform to the way in which the laws of Nature effect the data you submit. If you’re having to re-tool the rules that govern the natural world in order for your theory to resonate as credible – if you have to contradict the testimony voiced by the artifacts we currently have – you don’t have a scientific theory, rather, you have a cultural myth.

When Christopher Columbus asserted that the world was round, he was basing his hypothesis on anomalies that could be seen and measured. His proposed voyage was not founded on theories that contradicted the physical givens that could be observed, nor was it dependent upon outrageous claims that could not be validated. Columbus is revered today, not because he went against the grain of true science, but because he had the courage to champion it.

When Christopher Columbus asserted that the world was round, he was basing his hypothesis on anomalies that could be seen and measured. His proposed voyage was not founded on theories that contradicted the physical givens that could be observed, nor was it dependent upon outrageous claims that could not be validated.

Columbus is revered today, not because he went against the grain of true science, but because he had the courage to champion it. Advocates of Darwin like to position themselves as enlightened thinkers and jokingly refer to those who subscribe to Intelligent Design as IDiots. While there are some very educated and articulate Darwinians that can flood the debate with all sorts of biological and chemical minutiae, they are incapable of providing a plausible response to at least three fundamental questions. And the responses they do give, once the imaginary numbers and theoretical values are revealed, do little to convince the unbiased onlooker that theirs is the club consisting of the more intellectually advanced.

Let’s take a look at those three questions.

Those Three Questions

What is Your Starting Point?

In Mathematics a “set” is a group of values. A “Null Set,” or an “Empty Set” has no members. It doesn’t even have the value of zero within it, which makes it a little difficult to envision, but the bottom line is that with the “Null Set,” for lack of a better way of putting it, you have complete nothingness.

However the advocates of Darwin want to insist that the universe and all of life originated from a random collection of raw materials that, by pure chance, combined and interacted in a way that resulted in a single cell organism, they leave out one very important question that deserves an answer…

Where did the raw materials come from?

If your evolutionary theory is going to be perceived as having any substance, you can’t assume the pre-existence of the materials you’re going to need in order to construct a more complex life form. Furthermore, the laws that govern the way in which your raw materials combine and interact with one another do not exist if you start with the cosmological equivalent to the “null set.” If you start with absolutely nothing, not only do you not have the raw materials called for in your theoretical recipe, you’re also lacking the ordered manner in which they relate to one another.

Physics, gravity, biology, chemistry – none of these dynamics or their associative properties exist when your starting point is devoid of any kind of system or force that would dictate how that matter would behave. So, regardless of how you attempt to theorize how things may have begun, unless you can first explain the origin of your rudimentary matter as well as the existence of the natural laws that produce the changes you propose, your theory has no worth in that it’s founded on dynamics you can’t account for.

The defense that is made by the proponents of Darwinism is captured in an article that appeared in Discover magazine featuring MIT physicist Alan Guth:

Quantum Theory…holds that a vacuum…is subject to quantum uncertainties. This means that things can materials out of the vacuum, although they tend to vanish back into it quickly…Theoretically, anything – a dog, a house, a planet – can pop into existence by means of this quantum quirk, which physicists call a vacuum fluctuation. Probability, however, dictates that pairs of subatomic particles…are by far the most likely creations and that they will last extremely briefly…The spontaneous, persistent creation of something even as large as a molecule is profoundly unlikely. Nevertheless, in 1973 an assistant professor at Columbia Univeristy named Edward Tryon suggested that the entire universe might have come into existence this way…The whole universe may be, to use [MIT physicist Alan] Guth’s phrase, ” a free lunch.8

At first glance, this looks like a possible explanation as to how the universe could’ve literally “popped” into existence as a result of purely random forces. But there are flaws in this argument on two fronts.

First of all, the subatomic particles referenced in the article are theoretical entities and it’s not even clear that they actually exist.

Secondly, and even more importantly, a quantum vacuum is not “absolute nothingness.” It’s actually a sea of fluctuating energy – “…an arena of violent activity that has a rich physical structure and can be described by physical laws.”9

So, you still have this huge gap in the Darwinian model in that you have no starting point and can therefore not theorize that matter, let alone a life form, can be initiated without first being able to convincingly explain the origin of your raw materials as well as the laws that dictate the manner in which they relate to one another.

How Do You Account for the Difference Between the Mind and the Brain?

Darwin attempts to explain the origin of a human being as nothing more than a series of physical mutations that, over time, resulted in not just the evolved physique / figure of a person, but also all of the intangibles that make that person who they are; their personality, their will – their conscious self.

To fully appreciate what’s being discussed here, pause for a moment and consider what the human experience would look like if it were defined in nothing other than materialistic terms. First off, you would have no free will. If a human being was nothing other than just a conglomeration of “stuff” – his flesh and nothing more – than the manner in which he or she would interact with their surroundings would be entirely predictable. Just like you can observe a cloud on a windy day – the way that it moves and dissipates according to the gusts of air that blow it about – it has no say in the direction it goes, it simply responds to the forces that influence it.

But morality is more than just a matter of engaging in social mathematics. Just like the mind is more than the brain, not everything about morality can be quantified and if you extend Darwin’s line of reasoning to its inevitable conclusion, you have scenarios such as Hitler’s approach to the Jewish race being accepted as a reasonable response to a desire to see the German people flourish and a supposedly inevitable progression of a more advanced human being overwhelming his weaker counterpart.

The human mind is more than just the physical and chemical output of the brain. A computer synthesizes information and outputs an accurate result based on that data, and that is what you have in the context of a human being when you limit his capacity to what a Darwinian model proposes.

But when a person is presented with a situation, it’s more than just a suite of problem solving faculties that is brought to bear. The manner in which that situation is addressed is effected by that person’s feelings, their personality and their will. Whereas digital intelligence is limited to whatever lies within the scope of purely objective information, a human being doesn’t just process data. Everything that makes that person unique not only influences their response, but attaches a quality of “right” or “wrong” to that decision which often exceeds the scope of that which is nondiscriminatory as well.

A computer does not know compassion, a hard drive doesn’t experience joy, and a CPU isn’t conscious of itself. These are intangible entities that cannot be quantified and yet they are very much a part of the human experience.

Some scientists maintain that consciousness and the subjective elements of the mind came into being once the human brain reached a certain level of complexity. The problem with that, however, is that they’re declaring that matter has within it the capacity to become both material and non-material. At that point, they’ve redefined the essential constitution of matter and while panpsychism is not a new theory, it borders on the absurd given the lack of evidence to support it.

As an aside, the concept of morality is also among those things that Darwin proposes as something that has evolved based on a process where the common good becomes the standard for defining the difference between wrong versus right. The moral sense, Darwin claimed, “first developed, in order that those animals which would profit by living in society, should be induced to live together.”10 He goes on in his book “Descent of Man” to say that, “No tribe could hold together if murder, robbery, treachery... were common; consequently such crimes within the limits of the same tribe ‘are branded with everlasting infamy’; but excite no such sentiment beyond these limits.”11

In other words, everything we regard as a society to be fundamentally right and / or good is the result of simply having identified what is best for the community at large.

But morality is more than just a matter of engaging in social mathematics. Not everything about morality can be quantified, and, again, if you extend Darwin’s line of reasoning to its inevitable conclusion, you have scenarios such as Hitler’s approach to the Jewish race being accepted as a reasonable response to a desire to see the German people flourish and a supposedly inevitable progression of a more advanced human being overwhelming his weaker counterpart.

Vernon Lyman Kellogg was an accomplished biologist and Professor of Entomology at Stanford University. He served as Director of Hoover’s Humanitarian American Commission for Relief in Belgium from 1915-1916 during the height of World War I. Kellogg had the opportunity to frequently dine with members of the German Supreme Command as well as some of the more celebrated intellectuals within the German academic community. He published a book entitled “Headquarters Nights,” which was an account of his conversations with these individuals. His shock and disbelief are well documented as he heard and processed the “scientific” basis for the German resolve to conquer and dominate.

At one point, he expounds on his encounter with Professor von Flussen, a biologist whose academic credentials he admired, but with a worldview he found repulsive. About Flussen, he says:

Professor von Flussen is Neo-Darwinian, as are most German biologists and natural philosophers. The creed of the Allmacht of a natural selection based on violent and fatal competitive struggle is the gospel of the German intellectuals; all else is illusion and anathema.12

Kellogg goes on to say:

The danger from Germany is, I have said, that the Germans believe what they say. And they act on this belief. Professor von Flussen says that this war is necessary as a test of the German position and claim. If Germany is beaten, it will prove that she has moved along the wrong evolutionary line, and should be beaten. If she wins, it will prove that she is on the right way, and that the rest of the world, at least that part which we and the Allies represent, is on the wrong way and should, for the sake of the right evolution of the human race, be stopped and put on the right way — or else be destroyed as unfit.13

What’s interesting is that the wheels of Darwinian thought that Kellogg was observing during the time of World War I  had been spinning at a lethal tempo for some time prior to 1915. In 1903 the Herero tribe in South West Africa staged an uprising against their German taskmasters who had set up a colony in that area. The Herero disposition was understandable given the cruel and inhumane way in which the Germans treated them based on their feeling of racial superiority.

In response, the German government deployed General Lothar von Trotha along with 14,000 troops to not only defeat the Herero tribe, but to exterminate them completely. Von Trotha was ruthless, but what made his actions even more heinous is the Darwinian doctrine he used to justify his actions.

In a local newspaper article, General von Trotha expressed how much of his thinking had been influenced by Darwin by saying, “At the outset, we cannot do without the natives. But they finally have to melt away. Where the climate allows the white man to work, philanthropic views cannot banish Darwin’s law ‘Survival of the Fittest.'”14

And Von Trotha was not some isolated case of non-sensical extremism. He was in the company of a great many people who had bought into the Darwin doctrine of racial supremacy which was an extension of moral evolution. Bear in mind that the original title of Darwin’s book “On the Origin of Species” was “On the Origin of Species by Means of Natural Selection, or the Preservation of Favoured Races in the Struggle for Life.” Add to that the bestselling commentaries on Darwin’s work such as the one authored by Friedrich Hellwald, a member of Germany’s “Society for Racial Hygiene,” and you have a very compelling and a very popular mantra.

In his 1875 bestseller, “The History of Culture in its Natural Evolution,” Hellwald said:

Science has no “natural right.” In nature, only one right reigns, which is no right, the right of the stronger, violence. But violence is the highest source of law…properly speaking the right of the stronger has also been valid at all times in human history…[science has proven] that just as in as in nature the struggle for existence is the moving principle of evolution and perfection, in that the weak are worn away and must make room for the strong, so also in world history the destruction of weaker nations through the stronger is a postulate of progress.15

Some will attempt to defend the notion that Darwin’s perspective on morality as being a flawed interpretation of his phrase “survival of the fittest.” While the phrase was not coined by Darwin himself, he did use it in his fifth edition of “Origin of Species” and deployed it as a way to illustrate the way a species either improves or dies according to its vitality and ability to adapt.

This preservation of favourable individual differences and variations,and the destruction of those which are injurious, I have called Natural Selection, or the Survival of the Fittest. 16

At this point, Darwin isn’t referencing anything that could be construed as an obvious justification for genocide. But later, he contrasts the way Natural Selection processes and filters those species that are authentically superior to the way in which man tends to administrate and care for livestock.

He seldom exercises each selected character in some peculiar and fitting manner; he feeds a long and a short-beaked pigeon on the same food; he does not exercise a long-backed or long-legged quadruped in any peculiar manner; he exposes sheep with long and short wool to the same climate; does not allow the most vigorous males to struggle for the females; he does not rigidly destroy all inferior animals, but protects during each varying season, as far as lies in his power, all his productions.17

Make a mental note of his comment “…he does not rigidly destroy all inferior animals.” There’s an implication, here, that says man’s approach to living things is sometimes contradictory to the way in which Nature would weed out inferior members of a species. Now look at this comment made towards the beginning of Chapter Four:

No country can be named in which all the native inhabitants are now so perfectly adapted to each other and to the physical conditions under which they live, that none of them could be still better adapted or improved; for in all countries, the natives have been so far conquered by naturalised productions that they have allowed some foreigners to take firm possession of the land. And as foreigners have thus in every country beaten some of the natives, we may safely conclude that the natives might have been modified with advantage, so as to have better resisted the intruders. 18

In other words, the natives that have been forcibly removed or subjugated by European nations were already destined for destruction by the laws of Nature simply because they were not as well “modified” as their foreign conquerors. Now look at Darwin’s comment that he makes in his book “Descent of Man”:

At some future period, not very distant as measured by centuries, the civilised races of man will almost certainly exterminate, and replace, the savage races throughout the world. At the same time the anthropomorphous apes, as Professor Schaaffhausen has remarked, will no doubt be exterminated. The break between man and his nearest allies will then be wider, for it will intervene between man in a more civilised state, as we may hope, even than the Caucasian, and some ape as low as a baboon, instead of as now between the negro or Australian and the gorilla.19

What’s significant about this comment is that Darwin defines the Australian and African natives as being inferior to the Caucasian. This isn’t taken out of context, nor is it some outrageous interpretation of a Darwinian statement. From Darwin’s scientific perspective, he sees certain races as inferior to others.

Finally, consider this statement, again coming from Darwin’s “Descent of Man”:

The surgeon may harden himself whilst performing an operation, for he knows that he is acting for the good of his patient; but if we were intentionally to neglect the weak and helpless, it could only be for a contingent benefit, with a certain and great present evil. Hence we must bear without complaining the undoubtedly bad effects of the weak surviving and propagating their kind; but there appears to be at least one check in steady action, namely the weaker and inferior members of society not marrying so freely as the sound; and this check might be indefinitely increased, though this is more to be hoped for than expected, by the weak in body or mind refraining from marriage.20

The essence of what Darwin is saying here is that human sympathies, in the context of benevolence and medical care, can sometimes run contrary to the positive and inevitable direction of Natural Selection. And while we can’t, in good conscience,  refrain from extending aid to the sick and inferior, we can at least hope that they will refrain from marrying and propagating their kind.

Did Darwin ever explicitly endorse or commend genocide? No. But while he may not have started the fire, he most certainly provided the match and the fuel by establishing a “scientific” basis for racial supremacy as well as a quasi-clinical sounding justification for expediting the demise of the weak and infirm based on the predetermined elimination that would occur at the hands of Natural Selection.

Just as it is an exercise in futility to suggest that the human mind is nothing more than a data processor comprised of flesh, it is just as futile to try and distill morality down to a mere formula. There is an intangible nobility that characterizes true morality that is neither defined nor experienced by engaging in a cold analysis of purely objective criteria. Darwin’s approach to morals begins and ends with a calculation as opposed to an aspiration and for that reason, not only does his theory fail, but it can, and often does, lead to a moral disaster.

How Come the Cell Comes in a Box Marked “No Assembly Required?”

In 1859, Darwin did not have access to the molecular world like we do today. It was assumed that as we were able to view more and more the cellular landscape, the less complex the data would become. In fact, it’s the exact opposite.

A typical cell requires ten million atoms to construct. In his book, “The Way of the Cell,” Franklin M. Harold describes the cell as a high tech enterprise, complete with…

…artificial languages and their decoding systems, memory banks for information storage and retrieval, elegant control systems regulating the automated assembly o parts and components, error fail-safe and proof -reading devices utilized for quality control, assembly processes involving the principle of prefabrication and modular construction…[and] a capacity not equaled in any of our own most advance machines, for it would be capable of replicating its entire structure within a matter of hours.21

Pause for a moment and ponder the biological pecking order of what we’re talking about. While an atom can be broken down into its nucleus and the electrons that orbit around it, the atom is considered the smallest and most basic building block of life and matter. When atoms combine, the result is a molecule. For example, when two Hydrogen atoms combine with one Oxygen atom, the result is a molecule of water.

A cell is an ordered system of molecules that runs via a horrendously complicated collection of micromachines that must have the right shape and operate at the right strength and in the right manner. The thing that makes the cell so problematic to Darwin’s theory of evolution is that there’s no possible way in which its detailed functionality can begin at a point that’s any less intricate. In other words, in order for a cell to function, it has to have all of its parts, there is no “less evolved” option available.

Michael J. Behe, PhD is Professor of Biochemistry at Lehigh University. He illustrates the above anomaly using a mousetrap. He shows how each of the parts of a typical mousetrap – the wooden platform, the spring, the metal bar that does the mouse in – all of these parts are arranged in a very specific way in order for the trap to function. Remove any of those parts, and you no longer have a working mousetrap. You may have a great paperweight, perhaps, but you don’t have a working mousetrap.

The same is true with a cell. Remove any of the components of a cell and you don’t have a less efficient cell, nor do you have a partial cell. What you have is a non-functioning cell. And what’s true for the cell as a whole is also true for the components that comprise the cell itself.

A great example is the flagellum (pronounced flah-GEL-uhm) The flagellum is a picture of astounding efficiency. Discovered in 1973, it’s much like a propeller in that it propels the bacterial cell through its environment. Its approximately 2 microns long. A micron is 1/20,000 of an inch. Most of its length is represented by the actual propeller. The other element of the flagellum is the motor which is pictured to the right. While the flagellum is a couple of microns long, the actual motor is about 1/100,000th of an inch. Its size is significant given the fact that it spins at 10,000 revolutions per minute and can stop spinning within a quarter turn and instantly begin spinning in the opposite direction. Harvard Biophysicist Howard Berg called it “the most efficient motor in the universe.”

Dr. Behe coined the phrase “irreducible complexity” in his book “Darwin’s Black Box” to describe the scenarios referenced above, as far as the existence of functionality that cannot be arrived at gradually. In other words, you either have a working flagellum with all of its intricacies or you don’t. There’s no such thing as a “flagellum lite.”

According to Darwin, this is a deal breaker based on his comment that if any complex organ existed which could not possibly have been formed by numerous, successive, slight modifications, his theory would completely break down. The cell and the flagellum are examples of those kinds of “complex organs.”

Dr. Kenneth Miller is a Professor of Biology at Brown University. He disagrees with Behe and defends his argument by saying:

Stated directly, the TTSS does its dirty work using a handful of proteins from the base of the flagellum. From the evolutionary point of view, this relationship is hardly surprising. In fact, it’s to be expected that the opportunism of evolutionary processes would mix and match proteins to produce new and novel functions. According to the doctrine of irreducible complexity, however, this should not be possible. If the flagellum is indeed irreducibly complex, then removing just one part, let alone 10 or 15, should render what remains “by definition nonfunctional.” Yet the TTSS is indeed fully-functional, even though it is missing most of the parts of the flagellum. The TTSS may be bad news for us, but for the bacteria that possess it, it is a truly valuable biochemical machine.22

TTSS (Type III Secretion System) is like a biological syringe in that it senses, probes and injects its toxins into its target cell. You can see by looking at the diagram to the right that the TTSS has certain similarities to the flagellum. Indeed, when you look at its composition and overall shape, it looks like a precursor to the flagellum and that’s what the proponents of Darwin submit as a rebuttal to the claim that the flagellum represents an case of irreducible complexity.

There are two problems with Miller’s argument however in that while you have a “truly valuable biochemical machine,” you don’t have a flagellum, you have a completely different apparatus. It’s like removing the spring from a mousetrap and celebrating the fact that you now have a fully functioning paperweight. You still have an outrageously improbable scenario before you as far as that mousetrap being able to perform according to the way it was designed apart from a starting point where there’s “no assembly required.”

In addition, Miller’s assertion overlooks the findings that have been recently published which states that the TTSS is not a precursor to the flagellum, rather the flagellum is a precursor to the TTSS. This is completely contrary to the theme of evolution which positions the more complex organism at the tail end of an ever improving process. In this instance, the flagellum comes before the TTSS, not the other way around which disqualifies it from being a part of the flagellum’s supposed evolutionary process.

Conclusion

There is a strong disdain among some proponents of evolutionary theory for those who would attempt to substantiate Intelligent Design on the basis of science. In their mind, anyone who references life as a supernaturally initiated enterprise is an irresponsible steward of scientific methodology in the way they substitute “faith” for true “analysis.”

Yet, it is profoundly obvious that while the evolutionist regards himself as rational and firmly rooted in empirical scholarship, in actuality his foundation is comprised almost entirely of fictitious conjecture and outlandish forecasts. With the wave of an academic looking hand, complex functionality simply emerges and whatever is needed in order to remain consistent with the givens that characterize the material world is simply excluded from the debate and replaced with irrational predictions that their claims will one day be validated.

Darwin put that strategy on the map when admitting how the then fossil record failed to authenticate his theory. Today, the fossil record is far more advanced and while some will be very quick to state that we have numerous examples of transitional life forms, the fact is we don’t have fossils as much as we have fossil fragments.

“Java Man” – an icon that is very familiar, given the way that it has been published and touted as “proof” of our common heritage with monkeys – consists of a partial skull, three teeth and a femur. It was later determined that the femur didn’t belong with the skull cap and today there is a now a huge amount of skepticism, even among evolutionists, that doubt Java Man is credible evidence that man evolved from apes.23

In 2001, another skull was found in Africa. Sahelanthropus proved to be problematic however, in that it seemed more human like despite the fact that it was seven million years old as opposed to other fossils that were five million years old. If Darwinian thought is accurate, there should be a progression, not a regression as far as how a species evolves.

So, in addition to the creative imagination that had to be deployed in order to associate a human being with the lone skull of an oversized monkey, the fact that it was more evolved than its younger counterparts further weakened Darwinian theory.

Henry Gee, the chief science writer for Nature magazine in 1999 summed it up well when he said:

New fossil discoveries are fitted into this preexisting story. We call these new discoveries “missing links,” as if the chain of ancestry and descent were a real object for our contemplation, and not what it really is: a completely human invention created after the fact, shaped to accord with human prejudices…Each fossil represents an isolated point, with no knowable connection to any other given fossil, and all float around in an overwhelming sea of gaps. 24

And while the archaeopteryx (pronounced ar-key-OPT-er-ix) unearthed in 1859 is a fully formed skeleton and initially heralded as a transitional life form that bridged the gap between birds and reptiles, it has since been determined that is an extinct species of bird based on its bone structure, breeding system, lungs and the distribution of their weight and muscles.25 In addition, the archaeopteryx is another case of an older yet more evolved life form than the younger fossils its typically associated with. Again, the gospel of Darwin is revealed as less than conclusive.

But regardless of how some want to debate the details of evolution, the bottom line is that evolution is founded on the pre-existence of certain materials and the laws of Nature which govern them. Regardless of how dogmatic the champions of Darwin may be, their arguments will always be tainted by an imposing insufficiency in that their starting point requires an entity that is both uncaused and possesses the capability to institute the manner in which the natural world operates. In other words, their theory is ultimately predicated on something eternal and supernatural.

In a recent court case, a Pennsylvania school system was handed a ruling from a judge that said the discussion of evolution in the classroom was not to include any mention of Intelligent Design on the basis that evolution is “science” and Intelligent Design is “religious.” Yet, when you look at the inexplicable force that is exquisitely ordered and continuously advancing the quality and intricacy of life, as well as the initialization of the cosmos requiring a dynamic not limited to time or space, evolution is revealed as a theory that is inadmissible without first addressing that which authored the parameters in which evolution could conceivably operate –  and that is a “religious” conversation.

The bottom line is that evolutionists are not engaging in a noble effort to find a truth that has yet to be discovered as much as they’re refusing to embrace the Truth that’s already been revealed. Romans 1:20 says:

For since the creation of the world God’s invisible qualities—his eternal power and divine nature—have been clearly seen, being understood from what has been made, so that people are without excuse. (Rom 1:20)

Whether you’re a believer or a disciple of Darwin, your paradigm is based on your response to the above verse. It is a “religious” issue and the fact of the matter is when you remove God from the equation, the result is scientific confusion, moral disaster and, ultimately, spiritual death.

G-R-A-V-I-T-Y.

That’s how you spell perhaps the most succinct and effective rebuttal to the doctrine of evolution. Explain the origin of the universe and not just the origin of species, account for the materials and laws that govern Darwin’s processes, name the uncaused and unlimited entity that initiated gravity and everything else his theories are founded on, and perhaps then we can discuss not only the One Who spoke into being the universe you study, but more importantly the God Who offers you the life you desire.

1. “On the Origin of Species,” wikipedia, http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/On_the_Origin_of_Species, accessed February 7, 2015
2. “Darwin Correspondence Project”, http://www.darwinproject.ac.uk/letter/entry-2109, accessed February 7, 2015
3. “Darwin Correspondence Project”, http://www.darwinproject.ac.uk/six-things-darwin-never-said, accessed February 7, 2015
4. “What Did Charles Darwin Say About the Human Eye?”, Christian Apologetics and Research Ministry, https://carm.org/charles-darwin-on-the-human-eye
5. Ibid
6. “On the Origin of Species”, Charles Darwin, Penguin Classics, London, England, 2009, p173
7. “Darwin Online”, http://darwin-online.org.uk/Variorum/1859/1859-484-c-1860.html, accessed February 9, 2015
8. Brad Lemley, “Guth’s Grand Guess,” Discover (April 2002)
9. Dr. William Lane Craig quoted by Lee Strobel in his book “The Case for a Creator”, Zondervan, Grand Rapids, MI, 2004, p101
10. “Page:Descent of Man 1875.djvu/121”, “Wikisource”, https://en.m.wikisource.org/wiki/Page:Descent_of_Man_1875.djvu/121, accessed July 20, 2025
11. “Page:Descent of Man 1875.djvu/133”, “Wikisource”, https://en.wikisource.org/wiki/Page:Descent_of_Man_1875.djvu/133, accessed July 20, 2025
12.”Archive.org”, “Full text of “Headquarters Nights; A Record of Conversations and Experiences at the Headquarters of the German Army in France and Belgium”, http://archive.org/stream/headquartersnigh00kell/headquartersnigh00kell_djvu.txt, accessed February 27, 2015
13. Ibid
14. “Forgotten Genocides: Oblivion, Denial, and Memory”, edited by Rene Lemarchand, University of Pennsylvania Press, Philadelphia, PA, 2011, p65
15. “Merchants of Despair: Radical Environmentalists, Criminal Pseudo-Scientists and the Fatal Cult of Anti-Humanism”, Robert Zubrin, Encounter Books, New York, NY, 2012, p47 (https://books.google.com/books?id=KOUgwdA3BWgC&pg=PA47&lpg=PA47&dq=just+as+in+nature+the+struggle+for+existence+is+the+moving+principle&source=bl&
ots=yDlJRSvRTC&sig=l6NbArTKEp962lNknqqBPvEObs4&hl=en&sa=X&ei=4djxVL6yEdDjsATvgYGABQ&ved=0CB8Q6AEwAA#v=onepage&
q=just%20as%20in%20nature%20the%20struggle%20for%20existence%20is%20the%20moving%20principle&f=false)
16. “On the Origin of Species – Sixth Edition”, Charles Darwin, https://www.andrew.cmu.edu/user/jksadegh/A%20Good%20Atheist%20Secularist%20Skeptical%20
Book%20Collection/Charles%20Darwin%20-%20The%20Origin%20of%20Species%20-%206th%20Edition.pdf, accessed March 4, 2015
17. Ibid
18. Ibid.
19. “Descent of Man” https://www.andrew.cmu.edu/user/jksadegh/A%20Good%20Atheist%20Secularist%20Skeptical%20Book%20Collection/(e-book)Darwin%20-%20THE%20DESCENT%20OF%20MAN%20(1).pdf, accessed March 3, 2015
20. Ibid
21. Franklin M. Harold, The way of the Cell (Oxford: Oxford University Press, 2001) 329
22. “The Flagellum Unspun”, http://www.millerandlevine.com/km/evol/design2/article.html, accessed March 10, 2015
23. “The Case for a Creator”, Lee Strobel, Zondervan, Grand Rapids, MI, 2004, p62
24. “In Search of Deep Time”, Henry Gee, Simon and Schuster, New York, NY, 1999, p5
25. “The Case for a Creator”, Lee Strobel, Zondervan, Grand Rapids, MI, 2004, p57

The Good Works of Tim Tebow

/in , , /by

Can someone who’s not saved be “nice?” Can they do things that could be categorized as “good works?” Sure. At least from a human standpoint. But there’s more to a good work than the action itself. Take a look: Isaiah 64:6 says:

All of us have become like one who is unclean, and all our righteous acts are like filthy rags. (Is 64:6)

Human beings evaluate actions as they resonate according to our limited powers of perception. God, however, sees the heart. An unregenerate heart cannot produce anything that is processed as “holy” or “good” by God. We are spiritual corpses and even on our very best day, we are light years removed from what is acceptable to a Perfect and Holy King. But as born again believers, our identity is defined according to the Perfection He awards us and now our “actions” are welcomed as “works.” Here’s where it gets good… Tim Tebow scores a touchdown. When he does that, is it nothing more than an addition to the scoreboard, or is it more than that? John 15:16 says:

You did not choose me, but I chose you and appointed you so that you might go and bear fruit – fruit that will last – and so that whatever you ask in my name the Father will give you. (Jn 15:16)

Because Tim makes a point of referencing his Heavenly Father as the Source of his talent and success, those touchdowns endure beyond the context of the game. Reason being is that the focus of those who are taking the time to notice Tim is now on his God and not just his throwing arm.

That’s the difference between an “action” and a “good work.” The “action” is simply the output of a human resource that is, by default, limited and flawed. The “work” may be the same kind of action from a human standpoint, but because it’s done with eye towards glorifying one’s Heavenly Father and is empowered by the Strength coming from God, it now resonates through all eternity as a good work and as fruit that will last!

Approach your day from a perspective that intentionally perceives the Divine elements that transform your actions into “works” and let that shape your outlook. It’s a different kind of day when you’re aware of your activity as being more meaningful than simply getting something done.

Go get ’em!

SCiPP (pronounced “Skip!”)

/in , , , /by

SCiPP

It’s difficult not to notice a common thread amongst all of the criticisms leveled at President Trump. Regardless of the subject matter, it seems to come down to one thing that’s far more profound than mere Politics.

It’s the extent to which you’re willing to acknowledge a bottom line that exists independently of the way an individual thinks or feels.

There are two ways in which a person is going to process themselves and the world around them.

They’ll see things either in the context of Standards and Consequences or…

Preferences and Power.

Think of it as “SCiPP” (pronounced as “Skip”).

This simple acrostic captures the tension that exists in our society today, regardless of the topic or the parties involved.

On one hand, you have a standard that functions either as a boundary or a benchmark. It can be a situation where if you cross that line, you’re responsible for your actions and you have to suffer the consequences. Or, it can be a standard of excellence that if you meet or exceed that standard, you’re able to enjoy the benefits.

Standards and Consequences.

On the other hand…

You have a perspective that’s determined to dismiss any concept of having to answer to something other than what you might prefer in that moment. And because you can’t logically defend what you believe and why you believe it without sounding either selfish or foolish, you instead work to secure the power necessary to ensure your preferences  are prioritized above any standard that might otherwise apply.

Preferences and Power.

Again, it doesn’t matter what you’re talking about.

You’re either looking at what’s real or the way you feel.

Standards and Consequences. Preferences and Power.

SCiPP.

Whatever the Topic May Be

Whether the topic is Illegal Immigration, Transgenderism, Abortion, Voter Fraud, the Separation of Church and State, or Militant Islam, the schools of thought that argue back and forth will inevitably fall into one of those two camps.

Standards and Consequences Preferences and Power
Illegal Immigration
National sovereignty is acknowledged and due process is applied accordingly both to those who have no criminal record as well as those who are engaged in criminal activity and / or are categorized as international terrorists. Border security is ignored and any criminal activity that would qualify an illegal immigrant for immediate deportment is overlooked.
Does the Attorney General have the legal authority to deport illegal immigrants engaged in criminal activity?
Transgender
You can’t change the way the human species is designed just because you’re not happy with who you are. I can change who and what I am by changing my pronouns.
Question: Can a person change their gender by changing their pronouns?
Racism
I can’t shoot myself in the foot and then blame all my pain on the person or the principle that told me not to pull the trigger to begin with. As long as I can successfully position myself as a victim, I don’t have to answer any questions or take responsibility for my actions.
Question: Do you base the way a person is evaluated on their color or their conduct?
Abortion
If you have an abortion, your baby doesn’t get a chance to live. It’s not a baby until I decide it is.
Question: If you have an abortion, does your baby get the opportunity to live?
Voter Fraud
Fraud is defined according to the lack of integrity in the way votes are cast. Fraud is defined according to whether or not I win the election.
Question: Is voter fraud defined according to the person being elected or the votes being cast?
Separation of Church and State
The separation of church and state was designed to limit government’s influence on Christianity, not the other way around. I don’t have to pay attention to anything I’m not comfortable with.
Question: What is our national motto?
Militant Islam
You can’t take what doesn’t belong to you. Whether it’s a life or a piece of property, I can take whatever I want.
Question: What’s the difference between a thief and religious zealot if they’re both taking what doesn’t belong to them?

 

In order to have a double standard, you have to have a standard to begin with. This is why it can be so exasperating to talk with someone whose disposition is based on Preferences and Power. There are no standards, only situations.

All the boundaries otherwise established by logic, common sense, the rule of law, and historical truths are now subordinated to the idea that there are no realities apart from what the individual is willing to acknowledge. Evidence to the contrary is dismissed as either unreliable or irrelevant and truth isn’t an objective reality, as much as it’s a matter of opinion.

Facts Don’t Matter

Confronted with this scenario, you can’t hope to successfully champion what’s true simply by enumerating a list of facts.

The only facts they’re willing to acknowledge are those that can be manipulated to reinforce their bias, and their “fact checkers” evaluate what’s being said using only the criteria that translates to their desired conclusion. Nothing is “true,” in the context of being an absolute. There’s only what an individual is willing to acknowledge according to their personal preferences.

Everyone’s capable of ignoring what’s true in favor of what’s preferred. It’s human nature to protect yourself from either getting hurt or even corrected. No one wants to admit they’re wrong. But there’s a difference between someone who’s not convinced and the person who simply wants to be in control.

You can see that distinction in the way a person responds to something that’s being said. The person who wants to be in control can’t defend their perspective without being revealed as both selfish and nonsensical. So, instead of attempting to refute the substance of what’s being said, they assault the character of the one who’s speaking. By casting those they can’t refute as being ignorant villains, they are now perceived as sophisticated victims, and you can’t criticize someone who’s in pain.

This is the signature tactic of the person who sees themselves as their own bottom line. I can’t get you to agree with me, so I get you to feel sorry for me by insisting that the only people who criticize me are either stupid or sinister, and this is how they obtain the power necessary to force society to adopt their insanity all in the name of being “sensitive.”

But you can reveal the flawed nature of their approach by asking the right questions.

Bottom Lines…

33 as it is written, “Behold, I am laying in Zion a stone of stumbling, and a rock of offense; and whoever believes in him will not be put to shame.” (Rom 9:33)

Bottom lines – absolute truth – isn’t welcome in the bind of the person who sees themselves as the gauge by which all things are measured. This is why there’s so much animosity in our culture today when it comes to anything that implies a Standard that exists independently of the way a person wants to process themselves and the world around them.

The Right Questions

When you ask a question, you control the conversation. A question requires an answer and a weak response is impossible to conceal. While it may not change the mind of the person you’re talking to, those who are listening are impacted and for that reason you want to always be ready to defend what’s True, not only with the data that reinforces the substance of your platform, but with the questions that can’t be answered apart from acknowledging a reality greater than the manufactured world you prefer.

Every one of the perspectives listed in the “Standards and Consequences” column in the chart above can be stated as a question. That’s what you see documented in the row beneath each issue. By asking the right question, it can be a game changer in the way it compels an answer that must recognize an empirical standard in order for it to make any sense.

Conclusion: These Are Spiritual Contests

Divisions (1 Cor 1:10) and Darkness (2 Cor 4:4) are spiritual contests (Eph 6:12) that aren’t won by reason alone. Wisdom is available (Jas 1:5), but it has to be chosen and it is not an option to the person who refuses to consider anything other than what they want to see.

You can’t convince someone of the truth if they’re philosophically invested in a lie. You’re not challenging their logic as much as you’re challenging their authority to define what’s right according to what they prefer.

But you can nevertheless be effective in the way you champion what’s true by first of all recognizing the way people define truth.

Standards and Consequences vs Preferences and Power.

By identifying their mindset, you can be better prepared to ask the right questions and not just present all the relevant evidence.

 

In God We Trust

/in , /by

“In God We Trust.”

Some people have a real hard time with that.

More often than not, they’re the same people who want to cancel July 4th this year.

Thing is, if you line up the Declaration of Independence, the recent elimination of Iran’s Nuclear capability, and Alligator Alcatraz, the one common thread that you see is the reality of a Standard.

Iran cannot have a nuclear weapon, illegal immigrants engaged in criminal activity are to be immediately deported, and our rights are guaranteed by God and not the disposition of a court.

Anything or anyone who promotes the idea of a Standard that exists independently of the way a person thinks or feels is not welcome in mind of someone who wants to see themselves as their own bottom line. Religious sounding mottos and historical documents are fine right up until the point where it threatens a person’s resolve to eliminate the reality of Principles in favor of Preferences.

But that’s not the paradigm we’re based on and Freedom doesn’t mean you get to use your “rights” as weapons you use to get your way as much as you value them as gifts God gives you to guard your way.

In God We Trust.

Happy 4th of July!

Division

/in , , /by

People who complain about Division fall into one of two categories.

  • Those who focus on the presence of tension.
  • Those who focus on the absence of truth.

People who lament the presence of tension don’t want to be evaluated, they just want to be accommodated. By pretending to be in pain, they don’t have to prove that they’re right because you can’t criticize or correct someone who’s in pain without being labeled cruel and intolerant. So, instead of focusing on what’s causing the division, as far as determining who’s right and who’s wrong, the truth is discarded in favor of simply insisting that we all just need to get along and silencing those who dare to assert the reality of a bottom line.

The Bible says…

17 In the following directives I have no praise for you, for your meetings do more harm than good. 18 In the first place, I hear that when you come together as a church, there are divisions among you, and to some extent I believe it. 19 No doubt there have to be differences among you to show which of you have God’s approval. (1 Cor 11:17-19)

You don’t resolve a dispute by pretending it doesn’t exist. Nor do you solve a moral dilemma by suggesting that there are no principles only preferences.

You don’t use legal sounding verbiage to validate a lie. Rather, you use the power of truth to enforce the law.

But those who are a law unto themselves will insist that there are no standards, only situations. They need a toxic and nonsensical environment in order to maintain the idea that they are accountable to no one other than themselves. In order to distract attention from the moral and practical ruin that inevitably occurs, they position themselves as victims of an oppressive society and they call it…

…division.

What is Truth?

/in , , , , , /by

Truth, according to the dictionary, is “that which is in accordance with fact or reality.” But if the world you live in is a manufactured reality where you are the gauge by which all things are measured than all the boundaries that are otherwise established by logic, the rule of law, and even common sense are completely abolished and the only thing that remains is what best promotes the idea that no one can tell you what to do.

Bear in mind, the question isn’t whether or not you have a choice, as much as it’s whether or not you have the authority to redefine the difference between right and wrong. Your “right to be happy” is now the clause you use to justify stripping the concept of Truth of all its original meaning and power and reducing it to nothing more than a word you use to certify yourself as your own absolute.

Listen to the way a Liberal attempts to defend the way they think.

You can’t force your beliefs on me

If there is no fixed point of reference, then the Truth is nothing more than what you want to believe. You can’t point out the flaws in a Liberal’s argument because, in the absence of a standard that exists independently of a way you want to think or behave, there is nothing to correct.

You have no evidence

However irrefutable your proof may be, it can be dismissed simply by declaring it to be either unreliable or irrelevant. Not because of its lacking in substance, but because of the way a Liberal has empowered themselves with the ability to acknowledge only what they want to see.

White Supremacist / Nazi / Right Wing Extremism / Fascist

When a Liberal is confronted with a platform that threatens to reveal both the philosophical and practical dead ends represented by the way they think, they attack the character of the one who is speaking in order to distract from the substance of what’s being said.

Constitutional Crisis / Rule of Law

The law is only as good as the truth and a court is only as good as the law. If the Truth has been drained of all of its meaning and objectivity, than a crime doesn’t have to be committed, it can simply be spoken into existence. And what is illegal can be exonerated simply by changing the way in which it’s evaluated.

You can’t change the way a Liberal thinks in the context of a debate, because there is a philosophical investment represented by the way they process themselves and the world around them. That investment is not something you overcome with an argument. That’s not to suggest you shouldn’t be prepared to defend what you believe, but you want to be aware of the territory that you’re in because there’s more to this than statistics and subject matter experts.

You can always find someone to tell you what you want to hear and a Liberal can rightfully accuse you of being no different than those you would criticize if you come across as someone whose principles are nothing more than personal preferences.

The key is to focus on the authentic definition of Truth.

“…that which is in accordance with fact or reality.”

The Greek word for Truth as it’s used in Scripture is alethia (uh-LEH-thee-uh) which means “…cannot be hidden.”

The Truth can’t be hidden. Regardless of how it either resonates with your preferences or irritates your sensibilities, the Truth simply “is.”

You ask those questions that can only be answered in a way that acknowledges the Truth.

  • If you have an abortion, does your baby get a chance to live?
  • Do you have the right to give away other people’s money?
  • Can you enter the US legally without going through Customs?

That’s the way Christ did it in the New Testament and it’s an effective way of circumventing all the tactics that are otherwise deployed for the sake of keeping the conversation focused on what’s what’s preferred as opposed to what’s True.

It’s not what you think, it’s not how you feel, and it’s not necessarily what you heard.

What’s the Truth?

And before you try to answer that question, how to you define Truth?

Start there and then you’ll have a better idea of who you’re talking to and what’s going to make an impact.

Garcia

/in , /by

You’ve got to ask the right questions in order to arrive at the right conclusions.

1) Is Kilmar Albrego Garcia an illegal immigrant?

If the answer to that question is, “Yes,” then he is subject to deportation. He admitted to being here illegally as is documented on the Homeland Security report dated April 16, 2025.

2) Is he entitled to a hearing or can he be deported immediately?

Illegal immigrants are allowed a hearing, unless their conduct is criminal and / or they represent a threat to national security, which is just one of the “classes of deportable aliens” documented in 8 USC 1227. At that point, the Attorney General can deport them immediately.

3) Is he a member of MS-13, a Mexican gang that has been labeled a terrorist organization by the current administration?

MS-13 was declared a terrorist organization in February, 2025. Kilmar Armando Abrego Garcia was validated as a member of MS-13 in October of 2019, according to a Department of Homeland Security Report.

In addition, when Garcia was arrested, he was apprehended alongside two other MS-13 gang members. Two other judges have confirmed him being affiliated with MS-13, Intelligence reports that he was involved in human trafficking and, at one point, his wife petitioned that a restraining order be filed against him.

All of this qualifies Garcia as a criminal and is subject to be deported immediately. The only “due process” that he qualifies for is immediate deportation according to the authority vested in the Attorney General.

4) Is this a Constitutional Crisis?

President Trump’s Executive Order isn’t a “Constitutional Crisis,” as much as it’s a restoration of the legal guardrails designed to promote national security and define the rights and responsibilities of both citizens and non-citizens.

These laws have been in place for decades. United States Code 1325 identifies the penalties for attempting to enter the United States illegally and was established in 1925. The authority of the Attorney General to immediately remove illegal immigrants was defined in 1952.

5) Is President Trump Ignoring the Supreme Court?
A) Things Have Changed Since 2019

The Supreme Court decision stated that Garcia was wrongfully deported because of a 2019 court order that prevented him from being sent back to El Salvador.

This is a part of that ruling…

The United States Government arrested Kilmar Armando Abrego Garcia in Maryland and flew him to a “terrorism confinement center” in El Salvador, where he has been detained for 26 days and counting. To this day, the Government has cited no basis in law for Abrego Garcia’s warrantless arrest, his removal to El Salvador, or his confinement in a Salvadoran prison. Nor could it. The Government remains bound by an Immigration Judge’s 2019 order expressly prohibiting Abrego Garcia’s removal to El Salvador because he faced a “clear probability of future persecution” there and “demonstrated that [El Salvador’s] authorities were and would be unable or unwilling to protect him.” The Government has not challenged the validity of that order. KRISTI NOEM, SECRETARY, DEPARTMENT OF HOMELAND SECURITY, ET AL. v. KILMAR ARMANDO ABREGO GARCIA, ET AL. [Apr 10, 2025])

Two things stand out immediately.

I) Garcia Isn’t Just an Illegal Immigrant, He’s an International Terrorist

First, the government has evidence that Garcia is a part of MS-13 and to say that his arrest is “warrantless” and there is no basis in law for Garcia being deported represents an insane disregard for the obvious.

The press continually uses the word “alleged,” as though the evidence that identifies Garcia as a member of MS-13 is somehow speculative. His tattoos are readily recognized by those who are familiar with Mexican gang culture as indicators of his being a member of MS-13. It’s not the kind of thing that you dismiss by saying, “…they are interpreted that way” or the photo showing Garcia’s hand was Photoshopped.

Beyond that, however, you have the report detailing Garcia being arrested in March of 2019:

On 03/28/2019 at approximately 1427 hours, Detective ______ with the Hyattsville City Police observed four individuals loitering in the parking lot of the Home Depot located at 3301 East West Highway in Hyattsville, MD 20782. As Det. ______ approached the individuals, two of the individuals reached into their waistbands and discarded several unknown items under a parked vehicle. All four individuals were stopped by Hyattsville officers. Det. _____ immediately recognized Chrishyan HERNANDEZ-ROMERO aka “Bimbo” as a member of the MS-13 Sailors Clique. Two small plastic bottles containing marijuana was located on scene. All four individuals were transported back to District I for interviews.

Member of the Prince George’s County Gang Unit MS-13 Intelligence Squad have encountered Chrishyan HERNANDEZ-ROMERO on multiple occasions. He has an extensive criminal history for multiple assault, concealing dangerous weapons, burglary , and many other criminal offenses. He has also been found guilty of gang participation in the Circuit Court for Prince George’s County in December of 2018. Offices know HERNANDEZ-ROMERO to be an active MS-13 gang member with the Sailor’s Clique with the rank of “Observacion” and moniker of “Bimbo.”

Officers also interviewed Jose Guillerno DOMINGUEZ. During the interview officers observed tattoos of skulls covering their eyes, ears, and mouth. Officers know these kind of tattoos are indicative of the Hispanic gang culture. The tattoos are meant to represent “ver, oir y callar” or “see no evil, hear no evil, and say no evil.” He also had a tattoo of a devil on his left leg which officers know only higher ranking MS-13 gang members are allowed to get a tattoo with the horns. This represents power with MS-13. Officers made contact with a past proven and reliable source of information, who advised Jose Guillerno DOMINGUEZ is an active MS-13 gang member with the Sailor’s Clique the rank of “Chequeo” with the moniker “Manico.”

Officers then interviewed Kilmar Armando ABREGO-GARCIA. During the interview, officers observed he was wearing a Chicago Bulls had and a hoodie with rolls of money covering the eyes, ears, and mouth of the presidents on the separate denominations. Officers know such clothing to be indicative of Hispanic gang culture. The meaning of the clothing is to represent “ver, oir y callar” or “see no evil, hear no evil, and say no evil.” Wearing the Chicago Bulls hat represents that they are a member in good standing with the MS-13. Officers contacted a past proven and reliable source of information, who advised Kilmar Armando ABREGO-GARCIA is an active member of MS-13 with the Western clique. The confidential source further advised that he is the rank of “Chequeo” with the moniker of “Chele.”

Officers interviewed Jason Josue RAMIREZ-HERRA. During the interview officers were unable to determine his gang afflilation. Officers know MS-13 gang members are only allowed to hang around other members or prospects for the gang. Officers will continue to monitor Jason Josue RAMIREZ-HERRA for further gang activity. He was sent on his way without further incident.

This report doesn’t mention Garcia’s tattoos. It goes beyond any tats and instead references an informant who identifies Garcia, not just as a member of MS-13, but someone who has an official rank within its membership.

Secondly, the 2019 court order doesn’t say that Garcia shouldn’t be deported. He was to be removed from the US based on his being a member of MS-13 and a flight risk. Rather, it simply says that he shouldn’t be deported to El Salvador.

DECLARATION OF ROBERT L. CERNA

On October 10, 2019, an IJ ordered Abrego-Garcia’s removal from the United States but granted withholding of removal to El Salvador pursuant to 8 U.S.C. § 1231(b)(3)(A). This grant of protection prohibited his removal to El Salvador.

8.During the course of his proceedings, Abrego-Garcia remained in ICE custody because the Immigration Judge (IJ) with the Executive Office for Immigration Review denied Abrego-Garcia bond at a hearing on April 24, 2019, citing danger to the community because “the evidence show[ed] that he is a verified member of [Mara Salvatrucha] (‘MS-13’)]” and therefore posed a danger to the community. The IJ also determined that he was a flight risk. Abrego-Garcia appealed, and the Board of Immigration Appeals upheld this bond decision in an opinion issued on December 19, 2019, citing the danger Abrego-Garcia posed to the community.

9.On October 10, 2019, an IJ ordered Abrego-Garcia’s removal from the United States but granted withholding of removal to El Salvador pursuant to 8 U.S.C. § 1231(b)(3)(A). This grant of protection prohibited his removal to El Salvador. (United States District Court for the District of Maryland)

The news has repeatedly referred to as an “administrative error” on the part of the Trump administration. The “error” comes from the sworn testimony of Robert Cerna, the ICE Field Officer responsible for Garcia’s deportation.

Cerna overlooking the restraint that would’ve prevented Garcia’s deportation to El Salvador in 2019 doesn’t apply in the same way in 2025. Since then, Garcia has been defined as an MS-13 gang member, not just according to his tattoos and his ballcap, but also by two judges. This supersedes the court order issued in 2019, as is explained by Tom Holman:

“I don’t accept the term ‘error’ in Abrego Garcia,” Homan said. “There was an oversight, there was a withholding order. But the facts surrounding the withholding order had changed. He is now a terrorist, and the gang he was fearing, from being removed from El Salvador, no longer exists.”1

Conclusion

Enforcing immigration law was neither the goal nor the priority of the Biden administration. However illegal immigration translates to a host of problems ranging from economic instability to national security risks, the Democrat party sees them as as voters that can conceivably change the political demographics of the country and help sustain the strength of the Liberal element within the US. Hence, the verbiage used by some in Congress to describe illegal immigrants as “asylum seekers” and others in the media referring to them as “undocumented immigrants.” By positioning illegals as victims and the Democrat party as those who are “trying to help,” the security, sanctity, and the solvency of the country are compromised in the name of a false compassion that is nothing more than a dirty quest for power.

Here’s the bottom line:

  • Kilmar Abrego Garcia isn’t just an illegal immigrant, he’s an international terrorist.
  • Because he’s an international terrorist, the only due process that he’s entitled to is an expedited deportation
  • The Supreme Court is basing its position on an Immigration Law that says the Attorney General can’t deport an alien to their original country if by doing so it would put that alien’s life or freedom in jeopardy because of their race, religion, nationality, membership in a particular social group, or a political opinion (USC 1231 (b) (3)(a)).
    But since then, Garcia has been identified as a member of a terrorist organization and no longer qualifies for that provision and he is therefore deportable (see USC 1227 Deportable aliens (a)(4)(B)).
  • Those who say the evidence that identify him as a member of MS-13 is “thin” or “unsubstantiated,” are overlooking a substantial amount of circumstantial evidence as well as having been positively identified by a reliable informant.

To quote DHS Assistant Secretary Tricia Mclaughlin…

“I think this illegal alien is exactly where he belongs—home in El Salvador. He was in our country illegally, he is from El Salvador, was born in El Salvador, and, oh, the media forgot to mention: He is a MS-13 gang member. The media would love for you to believe that this is a media darling, that he is just a Maryland father. Osama Bin Laden was also a father, and yet, he was not a good guy, and they actually are both terrorists. He should be in this El Salvador prison, a prison for terrorists, and I hope he will remain there.”

1.”Trump “border czar” Tom Homan says Kilmar Abrego Garcia’s deportation to El Salvador wasn’t a mistake”, CBS News, By Adam Thompson, Updated on: April 29, 2025, https://www.cbsnews.com/baltimore/news/border-czar-tom-homan-abrego-garcia-maryland-el-salvador-trump/, accessed May 17, 2025

Slavery in the Bible

/in /by

While you find the word, “slavery” in the Bible, in no way shape or form do you find an endorsement for the kind of slavery that existed in the United States in the 17th and 18th centuries.

Not even close.

Easton’s Bible Dictionary sums it up real well by saying that “Slavery as it existed under the Mosaic law has no modern parallel.” And the slavery that’s referred to in the New Testament is a Roman institution that contradicts the way the gospel defines all of humanity as being equal in the sight of God and therefore eliminates all cultural categories that would otherwise be used to justify the enslavement of a particular people group.”

Still, while Scripture doesn’t give  slavery a Divine stamp of approval, it is nevertheless present as a form of servitude that can appear harsh at times and in that way generates some questions which deserve some answers.

Here’s what we’re going to look at:

  • The Old Testament defines kidnapping as a capital offense. That directive alone is enough to destroy any notion of a Biblical endorsement of the slave trade as it existed in modern history.
  • The word “slavery” in the Old Testament is used to describe one of three types of servitude, none of which entail the kind of inhumane dynamics that characterized the 18th and 19th century slave trade. It was:
    • a temporary arrangement established for the sake of working off a debt that couldn’t otherwise be paid
    • a work release program assigned to an apprehended thief which compelled him to work off the dollar amount of whatever had been stolen
    • an alternative to war where the enemies of Israel agreed to live among the Hebrews as workers that were to be treated with kindness and respect
  • In the New Testament, slavery was a Roman Institution that crumbled beneath the weight of the gospel in that all men are created equal under God. And while that Truth would be used to dismantle the machinations of the slave trade by future generations, it was also deployed as a way to redefine the relationship between master and slave in a manner that was both immediate and transformational

Here we go…

I) Slavery in the Old Testament

First of all, in Exodus 21:16, you read how kidnapping was considered a capital offense:

He who kidnaps a man and sells him, or if he is found in his hand, shall surely be put to death. (Exodus 21:16)

That verse alone is enough to condemn anyone to death who owned a slave in the United States during the time leading up to the Civil War and the Emancipation Proclamation. So, again, anyone who wants to even imply that Scripture condones the kind of slavery that existed in our country during the 17th and 18th centuries is absolutely wrong in that it was based on kidnapping. As far as the other kinds of slavery that are represented in the Old Testament, you have three basic categories:

#1) To make restitution for whatever it was that you stole

There were no penitentiaries in the ancient world. If you stole something, you were to make restitution by working off the dollar value of whatever it is that you stole. You see this in Exodus 22:3:

A thief must make full restitution. If he is unable, he is to be sold because of his theft. (Ex 22:3)

So, that’s not “slavery” per se as much as it’s a work release program.

#2) To pay off financial obligations that you couldn’t afford to pay off otherwise
…In Revelation 18:13 the word “slaves” is the rendering of a Greek word meaning “bodies.” The Hebrew and Greek words for slave are usually rendered simply “servant,” “bondman,” or “bondservant.” Slavery as it existed under the Mosaic law has no modern parallel. That law did not originate but only regulated the already existing custom of slavery ( Exodus 21:20 Exodus 21:21 Exodus 21:26 Exodus 21:27 ; Leviticus 25:44-46 ; Joshua 9:6-27 ). The gospel in its spirit and genius is hostile to slavery in every form, which under its influence is gradually disappearing from among men.

The second appearance of “slavery” as it’s found in the Old Testament refers to that situation where you found yourself in debt and could not afford to pay it off. Since there was no such thing as a status of “bankruptcy” in the ancient world,  you simply made yourself and / or members of your family available as servants (see 2 Kings 4:1-7  for examples of children being put to work to pay off debt).

Bear in mind that this was voluntary, temporary and was to be conducted in manner that honored the worker’s dignity:

39 “‘If any of your fellow Israelites become poor and sell themselves to you, do not make them work as slaves. 40 They are to be treated as hired workers or temporary residents among you; they are to work for you until the Year of Jubilee. 41 Then they and their children are to be released, and they will go back to their own clans and to the property of their ancestors. 4243 Do not rule over them ruthlessly, but fear your God. (Lev 25:39-43 [see also Ex 21:2])

So, according to this verse, should you choose to hire yourself and / or your family to the person you were indebted to, you / they were in the employ of that person only until:

  • the debt was paid off either through your labor or income you were able to earn through other means (Lev 25:49) or…
  • a period of six years had passed or…
  • the Year of Jubilee which happened every 50 years (see Ex 21:2)
The only exception to that rule is if you got married to someone that was also working for your employer. Because she is also serving out an obligation, if your term was up before hers you couldn’t simply cancel her debt and justify it by saying that you wanted to leave with your new family. Rather, you had the option of choosing to remain in the employ of your boss for the rest of your life or the Year of Jubilee when all Hebrew slaves were set free and all property was returned to the original owner (see Lev 25:8-55). Then again, you could simply wait until her debt was satisfied and then move on from there.

The bottom line is that this kind of servanthood was designed to be temporary, dignified and voluntary and engaged as an alternative to bankruptcy. It was not permanent nor was it founded on the color of one’s skin and built around the idea that a human being was nothing more than a piece of property.

#3) An alternative to combat and judgment

Apart from that situation where a thief is to offer restitution for his crime through an extended period of physical labor that matched the value of what had been stolen (Ex 22:3-4) or working off a debt that you couldn’t pay otherwise, the only other reference to slavery in the Old Testament is in Leviticus 25:44-46:

44 Your male and female slaves are to be from the nations around you; you may purchase male and female slaves. 45 You may also purchase them from the foreigners staying with you, or from their families living among you—those born in your land. These may become your property. 46 You may leave them to your sons after you to inherit as property; you can make them slaves for life. But concerning your brothers, the Israelites, you must not rule over one another harshly.

While it may see that this is a Divine Endorsement of Slavery, there’s more to this than what meets the eye and it goes back to the book of Genesis.

     A) A Man by the Name of Canaan

All of the peoples in the world, both past and present, hail from one of the three sons of Noah: Ham, Shem and Japheth. Of these three, Ham distinguished himself as being especially heinous in the immediate aftermath of the Flood.

To fully appreciate the vile nature of Ham, you have to remember that this situation with his father is happening not too long after the Flood. Ham had waited for seven days with his family on board the ark before it even began to rain (Gen 7:10). He saw the entire planet covered in water (Gen 7:19) while he and he family remained on board for more than a year (Gen 7:11; 8:13). And he was there to see the very first rainbow in recorded history (Gen 9:12-13). He had seen God’s Power and Mercy firsthand. For him to be as rebellious as he was required a truly lethal deficiency in character – a trait that was apparently passed on to his son, Canaan.

In Genesis 9:20-25, you read:

20 Noah, a man of the soil, was the first to plant a vineyard. 21 He drank some of the wine, became drunk, and uncovered himself inside his tent. 22 Ham, the father of Canaan, saw his father naked and told his two brothers outside. 23 Then Shem and Japheth took a cloak and placed it over both their shoulders, and walking backward, they covered their father’s nakedness. Their faces were turned away, and they did not see their father naked.

24 When Noah awoke from his drinking and learned what his youngest son had done to him, 25 he said:

Canaan will be cursed. He will be the lowest of slaves to his brothers.

Not only did Ham seemingly take some pleasure in mocking his father’s indecency and indiscretion, but there’s reason to believe, according to verse 24, that Ham actually did something to Noah. Whatever the case may be, Noah saw something in Ham that was also present in Canaan, Ham’s son – something that would surface in the form of a character trait that would result in idolatry and all the consequences that go along with it. In this instance, one of the consequences would be a lifetime of servitude.

     B) Anything that Breathed…

Fast forward to the book of Joshua. The Israelites are getting ready to claim the land that had been promised to Abraham several centuries beforehand. But this wasn’t a mere collection of military campaigns, it was the Judgment of God being poured out against the vile behavior of…

…the descendants of Canaan.

Just how sinful many Canaanite religious practices were is now known from archaeological artifacts and from their own epic literature, discovered at Ras Shamra (ancient Ugarit) on the north Syrian coast beginning in 1929. Their “worship” was polytheistic and included child sacrifice, idolatry, religious prostitution and divination.1

The Canaanites have descended into a mindset that despises God, just as Noah had declared in his response to Ham’s belligerence centuries beforehand. Their idolatry and their immorality are so repugnant in the sight of the One that saved their forefathers from the Flood that they are now literally on death row from God’s standpoint. These aren’t whole people groups, however. Rather, they’re cities and areas that represent concentrated regions of pure evil and it’s these cities that God specifies in Deuteronomy 20:16-18:

 16 However, you must not let any living thing survive among the cities of these people the Lord your God is giving you as an inheritance. 17 You must completely destroy them—the Hittite, Amorite, Canaanite, Perizzite, Hivite, and Jebusite—as the Lord your God has commanded you, 18 so that they won’t teach you to do all the detestable things they do for their gods, and you sin against the Lord your God (Dt 20:16-18 [see also Dt 7:1-2]).

Again, these are geographical areas and not entire bloodlines. You see that in Joshua 11. There were Hivites among the northern kingdoms that joined forces against the Israelites that lived below Hermon in the region of Mizpah. The Israelites totally destroyed them. In verse 14-15, it says:

The Israelites carried off for themselves all the plunder and livestock of these cities, but all the people they put to the sword until they completely destroyed them, not sparing anyone that breathed. 15As the Lord commanded his servant Moses, so Moses commanded Joshua, and Joshua did it; he left nothing undone of all that the Lord commanded Moses (Josh 11:14-15).

But, again…

     C) …Only in Specific Areas

While there were Hivites among those destroyed in Joshua 11:14-15, there were also Hivites living in Gibeon:

These devoted nations are here named and numbered (v. 1), seven in all, and seven to one are great odds. They are specified, that Israel might know the bounds and limits of their commission: hitherto their severity must come, but no further; nor must they, under colour of this commission, kill all that came in their way; no, here must its waves be stayed. The confining of this commission to the nations here mentioned plainly intimates that after-ages were not to draw this into a precedent; this will not serve to justify those barbarous laws which give no quarter. (Matthew Henry Commentary on Deuteronomy 12

19 Except for the Hivites living in Gibeon, not one city made a treaty of peace with the Israelites, who took them all in battle. 20 For it was the Lord himself who hardened their hearts to wage war against Israel, so that he might destroy them totally, exterminating them without mercy, as the Lord had commanded Moses. (Josh 11:19-20)

So not every Hivite was killed. Only those that lived among the northern kingdoms referenced in Joshua 11:3 (they lived at the foot of Hermon in the land of Mizpah) were destroyed. But those that were spared were nevertheless condemned to become slaves as was stated centuries beforehand in Genesis 9:25.

Critics of Scripture are quick to point to the total decimation of all those that lived in the cities that God had directed Israel to destroy as evidence that God endorsed genocide. Their perspective is that a God Who would condone or, even worse, command the Israelites to “not spare anyone that breathed” is not worthy of worship.

Their indignation is ill founded, however.

First of all, as has already been discussed, it wasn’t entire people groups that were destroyed – just those that lived in areas that engaged in an aggressive brand of idolatry and decadence. Just like there were Hivites living in Gibeon as well as Mizpah, the Hittites were not exclusive to one particular area in that you have godly Hittites showing up later in Scripture occupying prominent positions within Israel such as Uriah, one of David’s Mighty Men (1 Chron 11:41 [“Uriah” in Hebrew means, “Yahweh is my light”]). So, yes there were entire cities that were put to the sword, but not entire ethnic groups. And the inhabitants of those cities slated for destruction were not mere military targets, they were direct descendants of the sons of Noah who knew and experienced God first hand. Yet, they chose a reprehensible lifestyle and a form of idolatry that was a belligerent dismissal of what they knew to be True which included an awareness of what happens when you choose a lifestyle that labors to advance a satanic agenda.

This is the wrath of God. And when you process it knowing the truly despicable psychology and methodology that characterized the Canaanites, while it still makes you cringe the way you might wince as you view pictures of the atomic bomb being dropped on Hiroshima and Nagasaki, it is an understandable horror given the evil that was being addressed and justly destroyed.

But not all those who deserved the wrath of God were taken to task for their actions. Some were given an option despite the spiritual blood on their hands.

     D) You Have an Option…

Every city that constituted a threat to Israel, with the exception of those that were specified by God as being objects of His Wrath, were to be given the option of either being destroyed in combat or live among the Israelites as servants:

10 “When you approach a city to fight against it, you must make an offer of peace. 11 If it accepts your offer of peace and opens its gates to you, all the people found in it will become forced laborers for you and serve you. (Dt 20:10-11)

If they didn’t accept that offer, however, the men were to be completely destroyed and all the remaining inhabitants:

12 However, if it does not make peace with you but wages war against you, lay siege to it. 13 When the Lord your God hands it over to you, you must strike down all its males with the sword. 14 But you may take the women, children, animals, and whatever else is in the city—all its spoil—as plunder. You may enjoy the spoil of your enemies that the Lord your God has given you. 15 This is how you are to treat all the cities that are far away from you and are not among the cities of these nations. 16 However, you must not let any living thing survive among the cities of these people the Lord your God is giving you as an inheritance. 17 You must completely destroy them—the Hittite, Amorite, Canaanite, Perizzite, Hivite, and Jebusite—as the Lord your God has commanded you, 18 so that they won’t teach you to do all the detestable things they do for their gods, and you sin against the Lord your God. (Dt 20:10-18)

So with the Conquest of the Promised Land, you have a large territory populated with a substantial number of people, many of whom have distinguished themselves as truly heinous in the eyes of God. They live in specific cites / areas that the Lord had directed the armies of Israel to wipe out entirely. Every city – even those that are slated for destruction – are given the option of surrendering and living among the Israelites as servants. But only Gibeon is allowed to take advantage of that offer (see Josh 11:20). Every other city chooses to fight Israel and God deals with them accordingly.

     E) Surrounding Nations

There are the “other nations” surrounding the area where the Canaanites are being destroyed. It’s these nations that are being referred to in Leviticus 25. If you look at a map of the area surrounding Canaan, those nations would’ve included the Moabites, Hittites, Ammonites, the kingdom of Bashan, the Edomites and the Philistines. Take a look at the chart below and consider the lineage and the disposition that characterizes each of these nations.

nation lineage history
Moab Moab was the son of Lot and his daughter. Lot was the nephew of Abraham who was a descendant of Shem (see Gen 19:25) Balak enlisted the help of Balaam in order to curse Israel (Num 22). The Moabites were hostile to Israel on more than one occasion.
Ammonites Ammon was the son of Lot, the brother of Moab (see Gen 19:38). They were a part of the party that enlisted the help of Balaam in order to curse Israel. They were enemies of Israel throughout their existence. Click here for more information.
Amorites “Amorite” literally means, “dwellers in the summits.” They were not one particular nation, but a collection of Canaanites that dwelled in the high country as opposed to the lowlands. In Numbers 21 you read of how the Israelites defeated Sihon king of the Amorites after he denied them permission to pass through his territory and attacked them.
Bashan Bashan was an Amorite territory that consisted of 60 cities. The king of Bashan was a giant of a man named Og. After the defeat of King Sihon, he and his army attacked Israel and were soundly defeated.
Edomites The Edomites were descendants of Esau who was Jacob’s brother. But while they were close relatives, all of Esau’s wives came from the Canaanites. The Edomites were hostile towards Israel (see Numbers 20:14-21) and are listed among the enemies of Israel that Saul defeated in 1 Samuel 14:47 and again in 2 Samuel 8:13-14 where David defeats them in combat and established garrisons in their cities.
Philistines The Philistines were descendants of Egypt – one of Ham’s four sons (Cush, Egypt, Put and Canaan). While the Philistines are probably recognized most readily by the story of David and Goliath, they were enemies of Israel beginning as early as Genesis 26:14-15 when they were antagonistic towards Isaac.

 

Joshua 12 gives a summary of all the nations and kings that were conquered as part of the conquest of the Promised Land. In Joshua 13, God identifies several other territories that need to be subdued but represent campaigns that are distinct from the original marching orders given to Moses and Joshua. Among those that God enumerates are the five cities within the territory of the Philistines. While the Philistines were not initially listed alongside those slated for destruction, the five cities that God specifies could nevertheless be counted as Canaanite cities. Reason being is that while they were governed by Philistine rulers, the inhabitants were entirely Canaanite and thus deserving of God’s wrath.

Each of these “surrounding nations” represent enemies of Israel and to be an enemy of Israel is to be an enemy of God (see 1 Sam 2:9-10; Zec 2:8). To oppose God is to invite His Wrath and that’s exactly what is going on behind the scenes when you’re looking at Israel’s military actions.It’s not Israel’s tactical might nor their moral superiority that translated to increased land holdings or a greater population of servants (Dt 9:1-6). It’s the fact that all of these nations, to varying degrees, had identified themselves as enemies of God and it’s for that reason that they were either executed, defeated in combat or allowed to live among the Israelites as servants.           1) Servants and Not Enemies Given the obvious tension that existed between Israel and her hostile neighbors, it’s not difficult to imagine the potential for the way in which a slave might be physically abused by a Hebrew or the hostile actions a passionate enemy of Israel might attempt while serving an Israelite. God made it very clear on numerous occasions that a foreigner was to be treated with dignity and respect. Even those Egyptians that had chosen to live among the Israelites were to be treated with kindness and love:

The foreigner residing among you must be treated as your native-born. Love them as yourself, for you were foreigners in Egypt. I am the Lord your God. (Lev 19:34)

That being the case, should a foreign soldier find themselves working for an Israelite and they give full vent to the antagonism they feel towards the Hebrew community by doing something heinous, while their actions may merit some harsh discipline, their punishment was to be just and not used as an excuse to play out hostile intentions based on past social and military experiences.

20 “Anyone who beats their male or female slave with a rod must be punished if the slave dies as a direct result, 21 but they are not to be punished if the slave recovers after a day or two, since the slave is their property. (Ex 21:20-21)

By the way, the word “property” in Exodus 21 is actually translated “money.” It’s not a term to be interpreted as something demeaning as much as it’s referring to the worth of that servant’s labor. The Contemporary English Version translates it as:

However, if the slave lives a few days after the beating, you are not to be punished. After all, you have already lost the services of that slave who was your property. *Ex 21:21 [CEV])

 Another thing to consider is the way in which runaway slaves were treated. Rather than them being returned to their master, they’re allowed to remain with whomever they took refuge:

If a slave has taken refuge with you, do not hand them over to their master. (Dt 23:15)

 The bottom line is that “slavery” in the Old Testament is completely different from the slave trade that existed in the United States. Whereas slavery in ancient Hebrew culture was a form of servanthood that was either offered as a means by which you could pay off a financial debt, or imposed as a work release program / alternative to judgment, the slave trade as it existed in the 17th and 18th centuries was based on kidnapping (a capital offense) and the dehumanization of individuals to the point where they were mere appliances with no rights, no future and no real value.

II) Slavery in the New Testament

In the New Testament, the world is ruled by Rome and their domination was maintained almost entirely by slave labor.

Slavery was an ever-present feature of the Roman world. Slaves served in households, agriculture, mines, the military, manufacturing workshops, construction and a wide range of services within the city. As many as 1 in 3 of the population in Italy or 1 in 5 across the empire were slaves and upon this foundation of forced labour was built the entire edifice of the Roman state and society.2

Much of the slave population in the Roman Empire was procured in the context of military campaigns where those who were defeated were enslaved. Their numbers were further supplemented by piracy and kidnapping.

”… if any people ought to be allowed to consecrate their origins and refer them to a divine source, so great is the military glory of the Roman People that when they profess that their Father and the Father of their Founder was none other than Mars, the nations of the earth may well submit to this also with as good a grace as they submit to Rome’s dominion.”3

Unlike the situation in the Old Testament where Israel’s military victories and their domination over the surrounding nations were a consequence of those countries’ resolve to rebel against God, Rome’s approach to the world was inspired by nothing more other than to simply increase its size and might as is evidenced by the way in which they defined themselves as dedicated disciples of Mars, the god of war (see sidebar to the right).

And while those who were consigned to a lifetime of menial labor within the Hebrew community were treated with kindness and respect, those that had to answer to their Roman masters were nothing more than pieces of property who had fewer rights than freed criminals.

This was not an institution endorsed or invented by God. Whereas slavery in the Old Testament was either a way of paying off a financial debt – be it a loan or something you stole – or offered to a condemned people as an option to being a casualty of a just war, here it’s just a terrible manifestation of greed and a will to dominate those around you.

A) Man is Made in the Image of God

In addition to Scripture’s condemnation of kidnapping, which deals a lethal and final blow to the slave trade right out of the chute, there’s also the fact that because man is made in the image of God (Gen 1:26-27) you can’t rightfully strip a person of their humanity to the degree where they’re nothing more than an appliance. Genesis 9:6 demonstrates that because man is made in the image of God that murder is considered an assault on the Person of God as well as an attack on the individual:

Whoever sheds human blood, by humans shall their blood be shed; for in the image of God has God made mankind. (Gen 9:6 [see also Jas 3:9])

In a similar way, to reduce a person to nothing more than an intelligent beast is to ignore the Divine Dignity that characterizes every human being that has ever walked this earth. You see this expressed in Job 31:13-15:

“If I have denied justice to any of my servants, whether male or female, when they had a grievance against me 14 what will I do when God confronts me? What will I answer when called to account? 15 Did not he who made me in the womb make them? Did not the same one form us both within our mothers? (Job 31:13-15)

Yet, this is what the Roman brand of slavery was: A demeaning subjugation of another human being that, not only consigned them to a lifetime of hard labor, but also stripped them of the most basic human rights. God’s condemnation of such an institution was expressed in the Old Testament, as has already been mentioned (Lev 19:34). But God’s grace takes it a step further by erasing all of the cultural boundaries that would otherwise elevate one person over another.      

B) There is No Slave or Free…

Here there is no Gentile or Jew, circumcised or uncircumcised, barbarian, Scythian, slave or free, but Christ is all, and is in all. (Col 3:11)

It’s that Truth in particular that Paul emphasizes in his letter to Philemon. Onesimus was a runaway slave that had, at one point, belonged to Philemon. Onesimus had stolen from Philemon and then ran away to Rome – a crime punishable by death. But after hearing the preaching of Paul, he became a believer and worked alongside Paul for a season before deciding he needed to make things right with his former master. While Onesimus would’ve been safe under Old Testament law (Dt 23:15-16) in that, while he would’ve been held responsible for what he stole, he would not have been handed over to his original master, his future was far more bleak under Roman law. But in the context of the gospel, Philemon and Onesimus are in a place where they can view each other as equals in that they’re both sinners saved by grace.

This is what Paul is referring to when he says…

12 I am sending him—who is my very heart—back to you. 13 I would have liked to keep him with me so that he could take your place in helping me while I am in chains for the gospel. 14 But I did not want to do anything without your consent, so that any favor you do would not seem forced but would be voluntary. 15 Perhaps the reason he was separated from you for a little while was that you might have him back forever— 16 no longer as a slave, but better than a slave, as a dear brother. He is very dear to me but even dearer to you, both as a fellow man and as a brother in the Lord. (Philemon 1:12-16)

So, while in the Old Testament where a slave who had taken refuge with another person was not to be handed back over to their original master, Paul points to the New Covenant that is even more liberating by admonishing Philemon to welcome back Onesimus as a…

…brother!      

C) Making a Difference

As has already been mentioned, Roman law forbade the harboring of fugitives and runaways were often punished with great severity. Freedom was a possibility but, for all intents and purposes, was highly unlikely. You were doomed to watch others bask in the light of comfort and liberty while you were forever destined to be at their beck and call to do whatever work needed to be done.

It was a crushing reality in some cases, in others it was just a cultural and legal weight that had to be borne with no complaint and to aspire to the status of a free man was to reach for something that was virtually impossible. Given that kind of culture, imagine the response of a master whose slave is suddenly enthusiastic about doing the work they’re assigned to do. Ponder what must’ve been going in the mind of a Roman whose slave bordered on belligerent just yesterday and is now respectful and even pleasant.

This is what the New Testament encouraged among those who were slaves. While both the Old and New Testament provide a voluminous and substantial body of Divine Concepts for the abolitionist, the New Testament don’t merely condemn slavery as much as it eliminates any social construct that could justify the elevation of one person over another by establishing all people being equal in the sight of God .

You see this in the book of Colossians. To slaves he says:

22 Slaves, obey your earthly masters in everything; and do it, not only when their eye is on you and to curry their favor, but with sincerity of heart and reverence for the Lord. 23 Whatever you do, work at it with all your heart, as working for the Lord, not for human masters, 24 since you know that you will receive an inheritance from the Lord as a reward. It is the Lord Christ you are serving. 25 Anyone who does wrong will be repaid for their wrongs, and there is no favoritism. (Col 3:22-25)

And to their masters, he says:

Masters, provide your slaves with what is right and fair, because you know that you also have a Master in heaven. Col 4:1)

In order for this change to occur, it would require a Divine change of heart which is precisely what the gospel facilitates:

17 Therefore, if anyone is in Christ, the new creation has come: The old has gone, the new is here… 21 God made him who had no sin to be sin for us, so that in him we might become the righteousness of God. (2 Cor 5:17; 21 [see also Jn 1:3])

It’s in the context of being a “new creation” and becoming the “righteousness of God” that, not only would the relationship between slave and master be dramatically changed, it would also promote the Power and the Reality of the gospel itself. And as the gospel spread, so did the tools and the Truth that would one day be used to eliminate slavery entirely.

III) Conclusion

Critics of Scripture have a series of talking points that can be hard to refute if you engage them according to the way in which they formulate their convictions. They’re not looking at a full color portrait, they’re looking at a black and white thumbnail that resonates as compelling only if certain elements are accepted as both comprehensive and assumed givens. If you structure your rebuttal according to a series of questions whose answers reveal those elements as flawed, they’re forced to concede the fact that their argument is lacking. On the other hand, if you target only those things they cite as relevant, you never get beyond the thumbnail and, not only does your platform look anemic, more importantly the full color portrait get overlooked and the Truth gets ignored once again.

That said…

Does the Bible advocate kidnapping as an acceptable practice?

No. It doesn’t. It was a capital offense which means that the Slave Trade as it existed in the United State during the 18th and 19th centuries is contrary to God’s Word.

What did the nation of Israel provide as an alternative to penitentiaries? How did an Israelite go about filing for bankruptcy?

You didn’t file for bankruptcy, rather you worked off the dollar amount of whatever you owed. And if you were guilty of having stolen something, you were not incarcerated, instead you provided restitution by working off the value of whatever it is that you stole. These were the dynamics that characterized two of the three types of slavery referenced in the Old Testament.

Did the Israelites offer their enemies the opportunity to live among them as respected servants as an alternative to war?

Yes. To raise your hand against the Israelites was to take your idolatry a step further in that now you were not only ignoring Him, you were actively seeking to destroy His Work and His People. This placed you in a category of wrongdoing so heinous that justice in the form of the death penalty was an absolutely certainty. On the other hand, to live among the Israelites as dignified servants allowed you a second chance and in that way receive grace that, apart from God’s intervention, was neither deserved nor desired.

Was the slavery that existed in the Roman Empire during the time of Christ similar to the slavery referenced in the Old Testament?

No. Slavery was a consequence of war in the Roman world. In the Old Testament, it was either an alternative to war or an institution used to make restitution for a crime or make good on a debt. And where slavery in the Roman empire involuntarily reduced you to a subhuman status with no rights and no prospects, in the Old Testament it was an option and one that was chosen in the context of respect and dignity.

How can Scripture be said to promote slavery when it was the Bible that the Abolitionist used as a philosophical foundation upon which to base their argument that slavery was wrong?

When Abraham Lincoln took the stage in his debates with Stephen Douglas, it was his articulate condemnation of slavery that earned him the Republican party’s nomination for President. On September 16, 1859, in Columbus, Ohio, he gave a speech. In it, you can see a sample of the rhetoric that earned him a spot in the national spotlight. Stephen Douglas believed slavery to be something that could be engaged on the premise that negroes were subordinate to the white race and were not to be thought of as equals in any way. And he believed that the slavery question should be determined by individual states – an approach referred to as “popular sovereignty.” Lincoln identifies the fallacy of that argument by referring to a comment made by Thomas Jefferson almost a century beforehand that references the inevitably justice of God and how it will be visited upon the United States because of the way certain elements approved of and even insisted upon the enslavement of the black race.

Judge Douglas ought to remember when he is endeavoring to force this policy upon the American people that while he is put up in that way a good many are not. He ought to remember that there was once in this country a man by the name of Thomas Jefferson, supposed to be a Democrat — a man whose principles and policy are not very prevalent amongst Democrats to-day, it is true; but that man did not take exactly this view of the insignificance of the element of slavery which our friend Judge Douglas does. In contemplation of this thing, we all know he was led to exclaim, “I tremble for my country when I remember that God is just!” We know how he looked upon it when he thus expressed himself. There was danger to this country — danger of the avenging justice of God in that little unimportant popular sovereignty question of Judge Douglas. He supposed there was a question of God’s eternal justice wrapped up in the enslaving of any race of men, or any man, and that those who did so braved the arm of Jehovah — that when a nation thus dared the Almighty every friend of that nation had cause to dread His wrath. Choose ye between Jefferson and Douglas as to what is the true view of this element among us.

Bottom line: Those who insist that the Bible condones slavery rely on a distortion of Scripture and not an expression of it. Remember, it was the Christian creed that inspired the spiritual songs4 of freedom sung by the slaves and it was that same doctrine that the abolitionists based their arguments upon5. To even suggest that the Bible supports slavery requires a limited intake of Scripture, a biased perspective on history, and a resolve to base one’s convictions on an intentionally streamlined collection of facts rather than a comprehensive analysis of the truth.

1. “NIV Study Bible”, Zondervan Publishing House, Grand Rapids, MI, 1985, p28-29
2. “Slavery in the Roman World,” Mark Cartwright, “Ancient History Encyclopedia”, https://www.ancient.eu/article/629/slavery-in-the-roman-world/, accessed November 1, 2019
3. “Military of Ancient Rome”, Wikipedia, https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Military_of_ancient_Rome, accessed November 1, 2019
4. African American Spirituals Lyrics, https://africanamericanspirituals.com/African-American-Spirituals-Lyrics.htm, accessed January 21, 2020 5. “Christian Abolitionism”, https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Christian_Abolitionism, accessed January 22, 2020

Baked On Grease

/in , , /by

Oswald Chambers once said that one of the greatest strains in life is waiting on God.

It’s true.

You pray, you work, you hope, you pray some more and the thing that you’re wanting to happen continues to lie dormant and you wonder if you’re wasting your time.

You even start to doubt God and question whether or not He’s listening or if He’s telling you, “No.” And while you’re willing to accept the fact that maybe He’s got you on a different course than the one you’ve mapped out, the desire in your heart doesn’t fade and you find yourself stuck between defeat and despair – not sure how to proceed and not certain if you even want to try anymore.

Baked on grease can be a real challenge to clean up. But one thing that works really well is to let it soak. Some of the most stubborn messes can be easily wiped clean by simply letting that pan soak in some soapy water for a little bit and what a moment ago was virtually impossible to remove, not comes off easily and completely.

Regardless of how our situation looks, there are innumerable variables that only God can fully know. Sometimes what we’re asking requires the removal of some baked on grease. There’s things that have to be addressed in order for our request to be answered in a way that’s complete and structured in a way where He gets the glory. And in order for that to occur, we have to “soak.”

That doesn’t mean we do nothing, nor does it mean that we have to struggle with a negative or an exasperated disposition. Rather, we move forward with confidence and a perspective based, not on our circumstance, but the One Who’s in charge of our circumstances.

In other words, don’t give up…

Let us not become weary in doing good, for at the proper time we will reap a harvest if we do not give up. (Gal 6:9)

God is always doing something (Jn 5:17) and there’s always a Purpose behind whatever it is that we’re contending with – a portion of that being the development of our spiritual biceps in order that we might become more like Christ (Rom 12:2; 2 Cor 3:18 [Is 40:29-31; Hab 3:19]). And while that doesn’t always resonate as a real priority compared to what we’re striving for, it’s only when we’re processing our triumphs in the context of true wisdom that our victories move us in a genuinely positive direction (Dt 8:10-18).

So keep at it and trust that, regardless of what might appear to be a gauge that doesn’t move or a situation that doesn’t change, God is listening and He is working. You might be having to “soak” for a little bit, but that is progress in and of itself and, like it says in Galatians 6:9, you will reap a harvest if you don’t give up.

Go get ’em!

Ten Questions for Atheists

/in , , , /by

Here’s my thought:

You remove God from the equation and the questions that are otherwise answered according to a biblically based dynamic are now responded to with horrendous probability values, concepts that bend the laws of Nature rather than explain them, and philosophical arguments that do not match what we know about the human experience. In short, you’ve got to do a lot of intellectual scrambling to make up for the lack of substance that characterizes an atheist’s perspective on life.

Take a look at the following questions and you tell me…

1) Where did you get your gravity from?

The origin of the cosmos, from the standpoint of the atheist, comes about as a result of a lucky collision of random elements. Then, thanks to the properties of gravity, physics, chemistry and so on, the elegant intricacies of life begin to surface. But where did you get your gravity from? Everything about your explanation is predicated on the preexistence of ordered systems within which your raw materials can combine and form into more complicated life forms. But you never attempt to explain who or what put the science in place that produces your end result.

2) How does a vacuum cleaner become a drummer?

If the starting point for life was something basic that then evolved into a thinking organism with a unique personality and capable of artistic expression, then at some point your “matter” is no longer a mere collection of molecules. It has somehow become both material and non-material and you’ve redefined the essential composition of what matter is. “Panpsychism” is not a new theory, but it borders on the absurd given the lack of evidence there is to support it.

3) Where is your fossil record?

When Darwin first published his theory of evolution, he admitted that the fossil record that was needed in order to substantiate his theory was sorely lacking. Chapter Nine of his book “Origin of Species” is dedicated to what constitutes the most glaring discrepancy of his theory. He says “Geology assuredly does not reveal any such finely-graduated organic chain; and this, perhaps, is the most obvious and serious objection which can be urged against the theory.”1

He goes on to explain that it’s not his theory that is flawed, rather it’s the geological record. “Origin of Species” was published in 1859. The fossil record is no more conclusive now as it was 150 years ago. “Java Man,” the iconic image of man’s supposed distant ancestor, is a creative extrapolation based on three teeth, a skull cap and a femur.2 It is not even remotely close to a complete skeleton, nor are the other hypothetical half man / half ape intermediaries that fill the textbooks of biology classes throughout the nation.

The archaeopteryx (ar-key-OPT-er-icks), the fossil remains of a bizarre looking bird discovered in 1861, is unreservedly embraced by many proponents of Darwin’s theories as a conclusive example of a transitional life form, bridging the gap between reptiles and birds. The problem, however, is that birds are very different from reptiles in terms of their breeding system, their bone structure, their lungs and their distribution of weight and muscles. The fact that you have a reptilian look bird doesn’t qualify it as a reptile when it is fundamentally a bird.3

Michael Denton, in his book, Evolution: A Theory in Crisis, sums it up by saying:

…[T]he universal experience of paleontology…[is that] while the rocks have continually yielded new and exciting and even bizarre life forms of life…what they have never yielded is any of Darwin’s myriads of transitional forms. Despite the tremendous increase in geological activity in every corner of the globe and despite the discovery of many strange and hitherto unknown forms, the infinitude of connecting links has still not been discovered and the fossil record is about as discontinuous as it was when Darwin was writing the Origin. The intermediaries have remained as elusive as ever and their absence remains, a century later, one of the most striking characteristics of the fossil record.4

4) What’s the point of your existence?

That may sound kind of abrupt, but think about it: If the fact that you have a pulse is due to nothing more than a fortuitous and altogether random pileup of chemical materials, then you have no real role to play. Your presence in the cosmos is entirely inconsequential – you don’t matter to the storyline because there is no storyline and you’re just an insignificant bump in the road.

You might respond with a noble sentiment that says you’re here to do as much “good” as you can do, or you might feel liberated to be as self serving as you can possibly be. But, again, if there’s nothing intentional behind the structure of the universe, then even the very definition of what’s “good” becomes subjective.

In the absence of a definitive standard, what resonates as a positive to one person is perceived as a problem to another. In short, it’s all pointless. There’s nothing truly worthwhile that endures and you are nothing more than dust on a windy street.

5) How would you defend Darwin’s regard for Africans?

This is a little awkward:

At some future period, not very distant as measured by centuries, the civilised races of man will almost certainly exterminate, and replace, the savage races throughout the world. At the same time the anthropomorphous apes, as Professor Schaaffhausen has remarked, will no doubt be exterminated. The break between man and his nearest allies will then be wider, for it will intervene between man in a more civilised state, as we may hope, even than the Caucasian, and some ape as low as a baboon, instead of as now between the negro or Australian and the gorilla.5

Darwin saw Africans as being inferior to Caucasians. In his mind, from a scientific standpoint, Negroes were similar to gorillas in that they were an evolutionary precursor to Europeans. Given Darwin’s prestige as the iconic champion of Evolutionary Theory, no doubt this is something you agree with.

6) What makes your definition of “moral behavior” superior to mine?

While Hitler’s approach to the Jewish people today is regarded as unconscionable, in the late 1930’s and early 1940’s many perceived it as scientifically sound.

Germany’s “Society for Racial Hygiene” was Darwinian as far as its philosophical foundation and the ruthless acts committed in the context of the Holocaust were endorsed by some of the greatest German minds of that time as being a reasonable compliment to the forces of Natural Selection.6

Hitler’s approach worked for him and those who were like minded because they weren’t Jewish. But what if Adolf Hitler had been born a Jew? Would he have been as passionate in his belief that his race was inferior to those with blond hair and blue eyes?

Probably not.

But how would he have pleaded his case? If he was on the short end of Darwin’s evolutionary stick, how would he have convinced Germany’s scientific think tank that his brand of “moral behavior” was superior to their clinical justification for murder?

In the absence of an Absolute moral standard, the basis for one’s behavior is now more about what’s preferred as opposed to what’s right, and the code of ethics that is established for the community is established by those who are more persuasive rather than those who are more wise.

7) At what point do you admit that your theories are based on impossible scenarios?

Scientists have concluded that the chances of a single protein molecule coming together by chance is 1 in 10450 power. These are the sort of probability values upon which you build your entire approach to life, morality and all the intangibles that constitute the human experience. Is that your idea of a credible philosophical foundation?7

8) What makes your explanation of the origin of the cosmos any less “faith based” than mine?

You believe that something can come from nothing, that order can proceed from chaos and, given enough time, a plant can develop a personality. In other words, you subscribe to a doctrine that transcends the natural world as we know it, which is the essence of the term “supernatural.”

In the absence of the concrete evidence required to substantiate your theories, like Darwin, you have “faith” that science will one day vindicate your convictions. Regardless of how you attempt to veil your paradigm in academic sounding verbiage, your arguments are ultimately founded on a metaphysical platform and not an empirical one.

When it comes to the origin of the cosmos, you believe in processes and forces that don’t exist. If your aversion to including a Judeo-Christian perspective in the conversation pertaining to the creation of the universe is due to the fact that one must have “faith” in order to subscribe to such a thing, then what prevents you from disqualifying yourself given the fact that your approach is no less subjective?

9) Why does the tone of the conversation change anytime the name “Jesus Christ” is mentioned?

You can talk about any religious figure that has ever graced the world stage and the tone of the conversation remains comfortably academic. But mention the name Jesus Christ and something changes. People start getting a little uncomfortable.

Why?

If Christ is nothing more than either a ridiculous fairy tale or a self-serving promotion designed to advance the fortunes of charlatans posing as pastors, then why does the very mention of Jesus’ Name reverberate in a manner that makes people look down and take a sudden in interest in their shoes?

10) If the Bible is nothing more than a massive PR campaign, then why make Peter a coward, Moses a murderer and Jacob a liar?

Why include all of the flaws and shortcomings belonging to the principal characters of Scripture?

If Christianity is nothing more than a massive PR campaign, then how do you explain what is obviously a nonsensical decision as far as discrediting the heroes of the Bible by detailing their weaknesses and bad decisions? Peter denied that He even knew Christ while talking to a servant girl. He wasn’t even conversing with someone of stature. He caved in the face of talking with a girl that was probably young enough to be his daughter (Matt 26:69-70). Moses was guilty of murder (Ex 2:11-12) and Jacob was a liar (Gen 27:19). Compare that to the way even Muhammad’s fingernail clippings and hairs were fought over by his followers.8

Scripture presents human beings as they are and not the way in which an intentionally misleading commercial would attempt to play down the undesirable characteristics of its main characters. Furthermore, the Bible invites questions and acknowledges its absurdity should its central theme prove false (Is 1:18, 1 Cor 15:19, 2 Pet 1:16).

In short, this is hardly the verbiage of a text attempting to mislead its reader.

Conclusion

No doubt, there will always be those that simply refuse to believe. At the end of the day, it’s a spiritual dynamic that’s being engaged, which doesn’t always fit neatly within the confines of a box defined by purely empirical parameters.

But…

The existence of God can be recognized (Rom 1:20), the Reality of Christ can be observed (Acts 26:25-27) and His Gospel can be understood (Jn 6:65; 1 Cor 2:12; Jas 1:5). The only thing that’s illogical about the Bible is why God would go to the lengths that He does for the sake of humanity.

To dismiss the Bible and Christianity in general based on the notion that it has no basis in fact is not an assessment founded on evidence, rather it’s a choice inspired by preferences. What is it that possesses a human being to look at the stars – to consider the elegant intricacies of the created order – and respond with an explanation that contemptuously dismisses God and replaces Him with horrendous probability values, questionable time frames and theoretical processes that mock the boundaries of legitimate science? Moreover, what drives an individual to spit upon the notion of a sinless Savior who lays aside His right to condemn and sacrifices Himself in order to redeem?

Typically, atheists proudly promote themselves as enlightened thinkers that tolerate followers of Christ as fools that refuse to accept the obvious and instead cling to antiquated myths that are ultimately revealed as limiting and intolerant.

Here’s my thought: I see you at the foot of the cross either sneering at your God as He dies for you or dismissing it as a pointless fiction. I hear you dismiss the depths of the ocean, the expanse of space and the exquisite complexity of our planet as crossword puzzles that can be solved, it’s just a matter of time. And finally, I watch you passionately cling to a terminal existence where significance and happiness are built upon a foundation comprised entirely of things that are destined to die, quit or change at any given moment.

Christ brings a lot to the table – more than what you might’ve been lead to conclude based on whatever bad experiences you’ve had with “religion” in the past. Don’t evaluate a system according to the way that it’s abused and don’t dismiss your King according to the way He’s been distorted.

I’ve got no further questions…

1. “Origin of Species”, Charles Darwin, Penguin Classics, New York, NY, 2006, p250
2. “The Case for a Creator”, Lee Strobel, Zondervan, Grand Rapids, MI, 2004, p61
3. Ibid, p57
4. Ibid p56
5. “On the Origin of Species – Sixth Edition”, Charles Darwin, https://www.andrew.cmu.edu/user/jksadegh/A%20Good%20Atheist%20Secularist%20Skeptical%20Book%20Collection/Charles%20Darwin%20-%20The%20Origin%20of%20Species%20-%206th%20Edition.pdf, accessed March 4, 2015
6. “Darwinism and the Nazi Race Holocaust”, Jerry Bergman, http://creation.com/darwinism-and-the-nazi-race-holocaust, accessed August 28, 2015
7.”Probability and Order Versus Evolution”, Henry Morris, PhD., Institute for Creation Research, http://www.icr.org/article/probability-order-versus-evolution/, accessed May 11, 2015 (see also http://www.icr.org/article/mathematical-impossibility-evolution/)
8. “Muhammad: A Very Short Introduction”, Jonathan A.C. Brown, Oxford University Press, New York, NY, 2011, https://books.google.com/books?id=9JafXLrLiwYC&pg=PT48&lpg=PT48&dq=Muhammads+fingernail+clippings+&source=bl&ots=9yZoCsiR2G&sig=SGuWORW8dxaD9P_gOeAc9MqB3U0&hl=en&sa=X&ved=0CCIQ6AEwAGoVChMIvNesz_DVxwIVCjI-Ch0HRg3t#v=onepage&q=Muhammads%20fingernail%20clippings&f=false, accessed September 1, 2015