What Might Have Been

Throughout my life I have had certain and varied plans for how I wanted my life to progress. When I was very little, I wanted to be a fireman and ride on a fire truck with a big nozzle that shot fire everywhere. After that, my plans seemed to alternate between being a sheriff, a farmer, a cowboy, and an “armyman”. By the time I turned sixteen, my plans were a little more definite. I planned to go to college at Hutch JuCo for the first two years where I would major in physics, during which time I would join the Air National Guard, take martial arts training, and start my own business. As most of you who know me know, I did not join the ANG or start my own business. It seems that my whole life has been like that. I make plans and goals, and some are fulfilled, while others merely remain a past thought. Lately, it has been very hard on me, as I look back at all of the things I wanted to do by this point in my life. It is partly due to a lack of drive on my, partly due to a lack of time and money, and sometimes it is due to me changing my mind or just impossible circumstances.
I once read a poem by Whittier about a romance that was not to be, and the poem ended with these lines:

God pity them both! and pity us all,
Who vainly the dreams of youth recall;
For of all sad words of tongue or pen,
The saddest are these: ‘It might have been!’
Ah, well! for us all some sweet hope lies
Deeply buried from human eyes;
And, in the hereafter, angels may
Roll the stone from its grave away!

Proverbs 16:9:
A man’s heart plans his way,
But the LORD directs his steps.

The poem expresses a very romantic sentimentality, but it shows an error in thinking. “For of all sad words of tongue or pen,” it says “The saddest are these: 'It might have been!'” However, there is no what might have been. In God's perfect will, there is only what was, just as there is only what is and only a what will be, though we don't know what it is yet. By the grace of God, I have had great joy and heartbreak; I have had easy times and harder times; and I have had trials and growth, the last being usually at the same time,

Isaiah 64:8
“But now, O LORD,
You are our Father;
We are the clay, and You our potter;
And all we are the work of Your hand..”

Our comfort isn't to be in our accomplishments, but rather in His works. I should be content with where God has placed me. Though at times I would rather be somewhere else, like hitchhiking through some foreign country, He has placed me here for a reason (Rom. 8:28), and though I might not ever understand it in this life, it is for my best, and I can rest on that. This does not mean that I may just lazily sit back and coast through life doing as little as possible. Rather, resting on the promises of God means laboring intensely to glorify God to the best of my abilities is what I seek and desire. As it says in Colossians3:1-7:

1 If then you were raised with Christ, seek those things which are above, where Christ is, sitting at the right hand of God. 2 Set your mind on things above, not on things on the earth. 3 For you died, and your life is hidden with Christ in God. 4 When Christ who is our life appears, then you also will appear with Him in glory.
5 Therefore put to death your members which are on the earth: fornication, uncleanness, passion, evil desire, and covetousness, which is idolatry. 6 Because of these things the wrath of God is coming upon the sons of disobedience, 7 in which you yourselves once walked when you lived in them.

We can find our true rest only by taking His yoke upon us.

The Tea Party, and the Danger of Excess in Response to Excess

Finally after a long absence from writing, I have the time again. I have been working on this post for a few months, and I finally decided to stop editing and post it. Besides being very busy over the last 18 months or so, I tend to alternate between only writing what is worth writing, and writing whatever is in my head. Usually when I only write what needs to be written, I don't write anything, so that explains the long absence. I think I am alternating the other way now, so who knows what stupid things I might post in the future. As always, if you disagree, think I am a total idiot, or have something constructive to add, please respond. Thanks.


As I am sure that you have noticed lately, the Tea Party is becoming a key political force in our nation's politics, promoting the so called "Country Class" above the "Ruling Class". Things like this are fairly typical, and you can even see similar examples in ancient Roman history, such as in the writings of Cicero. They are more or less a reactionary movement against the country's excesses, and strive for simpler and more traditional standards. The reaction seems to be a pragmatic one, for there is little in actual philosophical reason that has persuaded so many that our country is going in the wrong direction. This seems to be a key point in why they as a whole were not nearly so active in the past couple of decades. From the beginning, though I have supported them and appreciate how they are limiting our nation's political excesses, I had some reservations because of the human nature of excess in response to excess. At first, the Tea Parties seemed like a breath of fresh air and I still revel in the changing tide of the political scene. That being said, there is a tone in my local Tea Party, which is somewhat disconcerting. While the tone comes primarily from a big Tea Party organizer in my corner of the state, I have also seen it echoed in those who attend and many other locals. I suppose that it can best be described as nationalistic Palegianism with a modern version of manifest destiny. They say things like, "God has a wonderful plan for America to be the best nation in the world, but he needs our help." It is as if they live by Benjamin Franklin's quote that, "God helps those who help themselves," but at the same time, they believe that God has a plan. It is as if He is some incompetent force who wants good, but is incapable of it Himself. A few weeks ago, one of the meetings was about the US being a Christian nation, and I would have liked to attend, but they had it on Sunday afternoon. However, I kind of got the general gist from the newsletters. It is as if many today have taken the Fundamentalist view of Israel and extended it to the US. While it is true that there are some similarities between our nation and Israel, our country is not necessarily God's chosen country for bringing Christianity to the World. What was special about these United States was the Christian foundation they were based on and those Christian principles which used to be the standard for most areas of society; but whether or not our nation survives or keeps those principles, the principles themselves will still survive. Moreover, so many of these things that my local tea party looks on as being the problem with my country are actually only the symptoms. One such example is abortion. So many people are not against abortion because they don't want to see the embryo as a human life. They do not know, understand, or believe that humans are created in the image of God. Moreover, they would not respect that image anyway. That is the actual problem. The resulting apathy and embrace of abortion, is merely the result. What good does it do to be for truth and justice, if you don't know why and don't care what it is? Strangely enough, most people don't seem interested in discussing it. They kind of just get a glazed look and then change the subject back to the horror of these bad symptoms. Now I realize that this is just one man's observations of his own local Tea Party, and that it might not be the norm in yours or even throughout the country, and I hope it is not. However, it is something to think about and beware of. Furthermore, these problems do not lie only in the political arena, but have their roots in religion, and primarily in the church. We know that God has everything under His control and that the response for the Christian is to proclaim the truth to the world. However, the American church has been lax and has rested too much on its own merits. Now that things are on a downward spiral, people are panicking and thinking that they need to fix things in a sort of "God helps those who help themselves" type of way. It is as if they think that, "We let God down and now, to earn His grace, we need to redeem ourselves." Though they have suddenly changed their actions, the philosophies that led them to their error in the first place are still wrong. The local tea Party meetings have made it quite clear, that politics is tied to religion, but sadly they don't seem to understand their own religion.
The solution to these symptoms is nothing that we can do. While we are to preach the Gospel in both word and deed, not even it will fix the problem, unless the Spirit sees fit to soften the heart and open the eyes of those who hear it. We must remember that if the world is made better by our actions, it is because God decided to use it, and not because we did it. Our actions are to be a response to God. It is what we owe, and what the regenerate heart will want to do. It is not, however, natural for the sinful man. This brings us back to being reactionary, which is natural. Lenin, Hitler, Mao, Castro, and Che were all merely reacting to their experiences. None of them can be considered average people, but they all did the normal thing. While it can not be denied that some of our founding fathers were also reactionaries, such as Samuel Adams, in the end the level heads of the those such as George Washington and John Adams won out and an admirable attempt was made to avoid to the resulting war. It was not until it became obvious that the only options were war or to allow the British to break the law and subject the Americans to tyranny and eventually worse, that violence was pursued. However, the Americans were not the initiating force, and only responded in a nature that was true to their Christian beliefs, and which was, for the Christian founding fathers, likewise a result of their response to God. The Reformers were the same way.
People are reactionary by nature and we can see many examples both throughout history, and in our everyday lives. It has been said that for every action in society, just as in physics, there is an equal and opposite reaction, and sometimes a greater than and opposite reaction as both sides try to out do each other. Some examples of this in the church can be the Anglican episcopalism and Puritan congregationalism, and Kohlbruggianism and The Federal Vision, and more generally antinomianism and legalism which seem to constantly be trying to outdo each other. A very good example from the world of politics is the French Revolution. Only after foreign intervention, were things finally brought under control, but not before many live were lost and great atrocities committed. In our everyday lives, we can see it in the old Ford vs. GM John Deere vs. International Harvester (now CNH) rivalry, where people are fiercely and irrationally loyal to a brand name. The best and almost only explanation that I have heard for this is that somebody long ago bought a Model T or a Waterloo Boy and was so impressed that a brand loyalty was created, to which the somewhat competitive neighbors reacted by bragging up their New Chevy coupe or McCormick-Deering Regular just to spite their neighbors. The rest you know. We need to strive against falling into this tempting reaction. Though many of these reactionary positions often seem to be at odds with each other, the truth does not lie in the middle. It is not as if it is the reverse of Hegel's dialectic where the truth would lie in the middle and both antitheses on either side. The synthesis of two errant views is not the original and correct thesis. One example that shows this is the big Common Grace and Covenant of Works debate that has occurred in some churches. Over time, one group corrupted the doctrines around these subjects, and instead of returning to the truth, the reaction was to accept the errant definitions and deny the existence of Common Grace and the Covenant of Works completely. In such a case the middle ground would still include the incorrect definitions. We need to be careful that we do not go the same way with the Tea Party movement and accept the flawed basis of the problems. We must remember not to put our hope in government, even if it be in government limiting itself, and that only God can bring true change. Whether He does or not, though, we can still rest in the glorious fact that He has everything under control and that it is all going according to His wonderful Providence. Much of western Christian society has not done its part through the years to preach the truth of the Scriptures. We have let our neighbors forget about the sovereignty of the God they claim to serve, of the sin that is in man's heart, and of the way in which it can be changed from one of stone to one of flesh, for that is where the true problem lies. Are we, who know that we do not live for ourselves, so worried about what others think? It is sad that we should neglect to keep living and proclaiming truth that is so wonderful. Are we not grateful for this knowledge?
In some ways it is only natural that a reactionary movement should start, for it is the natural reaction. Perhaps the saddest part of the whole ordeal is that things got so out of hand that there could be a reactionary movement. It is really ironic that my local tea party is a reactionary movement against those who were reactionary against them in the first place.

The Reply

This is a response to my previous post. The letters are replies to each other, and the numbers are different points.

I.
A.“'and since government is promoting the religion of Atheism'

B. If this were so, then why are nearly all of our politicians Christian? The government is separating church and state. Freedom of religion means you can go to any church you want. Freedom of religion means that the church doesn’t come to people who don’t want it.”

C. Nearly all politicians claim to be Christian. According to their actions and words, I would think that very few are. Take George W. for example, when he said that Christians, Jews, and Muslims all worship the same God, or when he said that mankind is naturally good, or the way in which he thinks that Democracy will fix all the worlds problems. As for Obama, I could go on a lot longer. See my previous facebook notes for more comments on the subject.

D. It seems you mistake “Christian” and “tyrant.” Just because myriad people don’t hold to your views doesn’t mean that something’s wrong with them. And as for your implication that God can fix all of humanity, they tried that. They called it the Holy Roman Empire. And wouldn’t you know it, it was neither holy, nor Roman. Your politics seem to lean towards tyrannical theocracy. They tried that method back in the middle-ages, and I think we know where that ended.

II.
A. "'Not only are they unable to find evidence, but their theory can't explain such simple things as the geological column not being continuous or even in order; they can't explain why fossils appeared suddenly above strata that is completely void of fossils, or why some fossils are buried through several strata.'

B. I would seem that you have not done enough of your own homework. The geologic column is influenced by two things: erosion, and deposition. Erosion wears entire layers down. Deposition builds them up. If the layer eroded was marine, the rock eroded will be very different than the rock deposited. However, when strata is eroded, it has to go somewhere. The fossils within it were eroded away, but the sediment moves on. And if the last part is implying that a single individual is buried through several layers, it would be incorrect. Fossils are deposited parallel to the layer they are within. If we’re talking about one species found in several layers, then its simple: change occurs when it must. I am rather curious about what you mean by “evidence” because virtually all forms of it are there. And as time and technology progress, they only shed more light on what is there.”

C. It would seem that you have not done your own homework and are getting most of your information from false texts. Fossils are generally buried parallel to the strata, but often times they lie through two or more layers. An animal must be covered quickly to become fossilized, but often times evolutionists say that there are millions of years between different layers of sediment. How can that be? If you look at the supposed evolution of the horse, you will find that the supposed natural evolutionary progression can be found nowhere, and in some places it is upside down. Furthermore, the same “steps” in the evolutionary progression of the horse can be found in many different places of the world, but there are large steps between these supposedly intermediate species, and there are no missing links between them. Hopeful monsters?

D. Really? Because I would think that the paleontologist knows more of paleontology than the engineer. Do I tell you how to design stuff? What did you check, one website that told you what you wanted to hear? Fossils are ALWAYS buried parallel to the strata. Because when they die, they tend to fall over. That’s called gravity, which is also a theory, though you may consider questioning that one too. Fact is that most rock layers are around hundreds of feet thick, and if you can find a creature that’s that long, you’d be rich. In fact, show me an example. Even one.

However, it would seem that I’m speaking to a wall. Erosion and deposition causes rock layers to be worn away and deposited on top of later. I said it nice and you didn’t seem to understand.

As for the evolution of the horse, I still wonder where you get your information from. That’s one of the most consistent examples of evolution out there. And they are NEVER upside down. Again, if you choose to make such claims, please provide evidence. Considering that I have actually spent time at the sites and studied them with my own eyes, I think your texts speak volumes of bullshit. And you mentioned the steps in your note. The process is called punctuated equilibrium. And these species ARE missing links. How much more transitional can they get without jumping out of the rock and screaming it at you? The size, the teeth crowns, the level of fossilization, the toes, the forelimb structure, the torso structure. Read a damn book, man.

III.
A. “'What it was or where it came to be would still be up to interpretation.'

B. Comparative anatomy is a wonderful thing. And where it was found within the rock layers tends to be where it was. Otherwise there would be a disturbance in the area, which would be immediately recognized. And genetic evidences tend to be pretty good. If multiple species have similar DNA, then it would seem reasonable to believe that they are related. Otherwise, Gregor Mendel (who you later mentioned) faked a science.”

C. Mendel did not fake a science and what he discovered is very helpful today. For instance, if we were to find a species with intermediate DNA, according to Mendel it would mean that it was half human and half ape. Mendel's findings suggest that variety within kinds results from preexisting genetic variety. It would not mean that it was a missing link. However, I have no doubt that evolutionists would trumpet it as such since that is what they have done with all of the supposed “missing link” fossils that they have found. This just goes to show what I was talking about with the wide and varied theories that are used to interpret data.

D. If one of the greatest uses of genetics is false, how is it “very useful?” You seem to be purposefully patronizing over things that you support, even if you believe that they’re incorrect. And why? Because the discoverer is a Christian.

IV.
A. “'[Science] cannot prove anything, but is only a tool.'

B. However, if this is true, then what is the point of Intelligent Design? I thought they were out to prove a point.”

C. You should be careful when using the term, “Intelligent Design”, since many people that call themselves such are theistic evolutionists. It is true that many Creationists attempt to prove creation through science. However, many see the fallacy in this, since the results of their research are often ignored by those who don't want such results to be. They know that it is nearly impossible to change a persons mind with the facts, if they do not want it to be changed. “Faith comes by hearing, and hearing by the word of God.” It doesn't come by seeing and seeing by the Book of Nature.

D. Isn’t this the entire point of this argument? You refuse to read a non-theological book of basic geology because you have your beliefs so firmly ingrained that you go on the attack over an alternative point of view? You were brought up with a certain belief system, went to home school (never being exposed to the idea that what you may believe may not be correct, because by golly, you believe it…thus it is correct), then you went to Dordt, which is notorious for pandering to people without upsetting them, for fear that they may get angry letters. Believe it or not, Dr. Mahaffy, Dr. De Haan, and Dr. Allen from the science department believe in evolution. They have doctorates from schools that require actual work. Dr. Allen worked for NASA. They teach the students and are kind enough not to press their beliefs down their throat. So I find it odd that you try to do that here. What is your entire point in this? To be belligerent? To spout logical fallacies at someone, for doing enough homework and having an adaptable enough mind to consider that they may be wrong? Honestly, online, we call people like you fundie trolls. Fundamentalist (meaning you hold to the most conservative views possible) troll (meaning you can’t just let people be without terrorizing them). And I posted you note on another Facebook group. Last I saw, they were enjoying dissecting it and pointing out pages of flaws included. You article holds logic like a sieve holds water.

V.
A. “'The fact is, that even apart from bias in data taking, data must be interpreted and interpretation leads to opinion and error.'

B. However, when the data all suggests one thing, we are more inclined to go with the suggestion.  In science, you first figure out what you want solved. Then you make a hypothesis. Then you experiment. After the experimentation stage, you either make another hypothesis, or move on to theory. When the experiment suggests our hypothesis is incorrect, we revise it and try again. Evolution has last for 150 years in its present form, with almost no revision to the theory.”

C. If science is truly objective, the data will suggest nothing. The hypothesis predicts what the data will be but does not concern itself with why it will be. All the data can do is to confirm the hypothesis. It is the theory that does all the suggesting. The Theory of evolution has changed more in the past 150 years than it did from from the Anaxamander to Darwin. Since that time, Darwin and Mendel had to be synthesized, the age of the earth had to be lengthened (and is still being lengthened), the way and place in which man and birds had evolved had to be altered, and Punctuated Equilibrium had to be theorized. The reason for the mass dinosaur extinctions still has not been pinned down, nor the cause for the Great Ice Age but both.

D. And the data were used for hundreds of years to attempt to confirm the hypothesis you champion, and all attempts have been met like a square peg through a round hole. Face it, what you’re saying is the equivalent of saying that the Earth is flat.

VI.
A. “'So it is with the evolutionist who must constantly be changing his theory in order to make up for the increasing evidence against it,'

B. I’m still pondering where this evidence must be. If it were there, I would think people would parade it through the streets. And the lack of revisions towards evolutionary theory also makes me question the legitimacy of this statement. It has changed, yes, but these changes are never large. They’re additions of experimental data to support it. The way in which it changing are small, but numerous and indicate that it is a living, dynamic theory. The study of the origins of life through RNA have been at a standstill for years. Thus, that area is dead. On the whole, however, the theory appears to be holding.”

C. If you want to see the evidence, here it is though I doubt you will accept it.
http://www.answersingenesis.org
http://www.icr.org
http://www.creationresearch.org
http://www.discovercreation.org
If you want real lasting evidence, check out Genesis, the fourth commandment and many of the other places in Scripture where it speaks of such things.

D. Are you kidding me? The IRC website? Those guys are a joke. Real geologists, who use real theories to put real gas in peoples’ cars and find real coal and make sure that real buildings don’t sick into the Earth read these articles for laughs. And you know what? The oil, coal, and ore we find are done so using secular geology. There are certain time periods where coal is and isn’t found. And wouldn’t you know it, the coal produces spores from extinct plant species and we can determine changes through the environments through time because of changes in spore content. Oh my god, real geology has a practical application! What’s this? Its based on science that makes use of evolutionary theory? Check your gas tanks, that stuff is real.

VII.
A. “'If an evolutionist were to believe in Creationism, it would completely destroy the way in which he views the world, and would in turn mean that there is a supreme, omnipotent, omnipresent, and omniscient being who controls everything.'

B. Is that why the Catholic church advocates evolutionary theory? Is that why the main opponent for Intelligent Design is Ken Miller, who is also a Catholic. Believe it or not, it is possible to believe in God and evolution.”

C. To answer your question about the Papists in one word, yes. Too many people who call themselves Christians actually believe in a god that is made in their own image. This grants a lot of freedom to believe whatever you want and yet leaves the stamp of religion on what you say. The Roman Catholics also believe in purgatory, indulgences, transubstantiation, and salvation by works. If what you say about the RCC is true, it is no wonder when one considers the synthesis that has been made with the Hellenistic philosophers. I do indeed know some people who I would guess would be Christians that believe in theistic evolution, but it is always do to an ignorance of the facts on their part since they haven't thought about it.

D. Have you even studied the alternative to what you’re saying outside of your comfortable safety net? In order to find which of two theories holds the most merit, I believe that both must be given equal right to speak. Suppressing one and then claiming that its inferior makes you ignorant by choice.

VIII.
A. “'Though most evolutionists are atheists, there is a sad, small number that call themselves Christians.'

B. You know what they say about assumptions. Though that last part seems to be like an ideological suicide. Like saying “only people under this tall are allowed in heaven.” I think that part may have stepped on millions of toes.”

C. What do they say about assumptions?

D. They that when you assume, you make an ass out of you and me. However, your assumptions make an ass out of you and Umptions. In fact, most Christians believe in evolution. You’re in the minority, but you’ve never left your safety net long enough to realize that you were so outnumbered. Even Muslims acknowledge evolution, in their own way. How bad is it when you’re more conservative than Muslims, who force their women to cover their face or be shot?

IX.
A. Comparative anatomy & Vertebrate paleontology
-Georges Cuvier

B.(who had to argue for years against the religious laymen that there were species that were in fact extinct)

C. So what?

D. So, he spent years arguing against narrow-minded, sheltered people like you, only for you to use him to back your argument? I imagine the G-force of his body spinning in his grave has torn what was left of him to dust.

X.
A. Genetics
-Gregor Mendel

B.(who you earlier discredited the science of)

C. You misunderstood me. See above.

D.No, I caught you using evidence to further your claim that you argued against earlier. They call that a hypocritical belief where I’m from.

XI.
A. Glacial geology & Ictheology
-Louis Agassiz

B. (who actually argued for evolution, because glacial geology usurped flood model geology in the scientific community…which has also since gotten better)

C. So glacial models usurped flood models. It still fits the Creationists model.

D. He spent the rest of his life arguing his theory against people like you. I’d imagine that you using them as references sent them to an ironic and personal hell.

XII.
A. Paleontology
-John Woodward

B. (who actually only wrote the first book on the topic, and was ridiculed by his predecessors for being so incredibly wrong)

C. Sounds like Darwin.

D. No, see, the difference is that Woodward wrote the first book, which sucked royally and which people made fun of him for for decades. Darwin actually holds respect from people who actually study what he said, rather than the implications made by what was said.

XIII.
There is no A.

B. “And now it would seem to be my turn to attack your credibility. However, I think I’ll refrain. I think you’ve done enough damage to your own credibility. I think its great that you have such strong faith. However, you are not the first person to attempt to “correct” me or chastise me for my perspective or whatever. This isn’t my first rodeo. And because I respect your perspective, I won’t do more than defend my own”.

C. Harsh words. I can see that you don't really understand my point, so I hope that this reply will help. By no means is this my “first rodeo” either, but I find that the more I discuss this, the more I learn and the clearer my perspective gets. I am glad that you are willing to stand for what you believe instead of just moping along like most other people. Read your Bible and if you have any questions about the hermeneutics of Genesis, just ask and I will send you more than you ever wanted to know. The RCUS position on evolution paper is a good start. God bless.

D. I really don’t. Unprovoked attacks generally spur me to fight back. And I’m still being comparatively nice.

I think your perspective has never been blurred. I think you need to go out on a limb and consider the possibility that everything you were raised believing may not be correct. Trace your family far enough back and we were all pagans. If your pagan ancestors hadn’t considered that they weren’t correct, this conversation would not be occurring. I think that believing something because you were taught , rather than because you came to that conclusion on your own after extensive research is dangerous. Akin to telling people not to leave their burning house because the cold will kill them. Believing something because that’s the position of your church, rather than because that’s your conclusion is ridiculous. In the animal kingdom, blindly following the leader is bad. Lemmings do that, right before they run off a cliff. Though I would think lemmings are less insistent that they’re completely correct. Do you toss around the idea that potentially one thing you believe may not be correct? I consider that everything I believe is potentially incorrect, which is why I’m fighting this position. I came from where you are, saw that it was ludicrous, and moved on.

XIV.
A. I rest my case. You have proven what I was saying.

P.S.
I got my associates at public school, and spent much of my time discussing this very subject. What I believe HAS changed greatly from what I did initially. Show me where the horse progression is.

On Darwin's 200th Birthday

Recently, a friend of mine posted a note on Facebook in which he tried to show some of the fallacies of Intelligent Design. It got me rather fired up, so here is a reply which I am posting today on the 200th birthday of Charles Darwin. He seems to think that proponents of Intelligent Design have not done their homework in order to prove their point. It does seem to be true that there has not been as much research into Intelligent Design as there has been for evolution. This seems to be in large part due to the fact that evolution is at the present time very fashionable, and since government is promoting the religion of Atheism, there is more funding for such research. Furthermore, due to the humanistic and liberal nature of most facilities of higher learning, there is a need to conduct such research in order to justify their beliefs. The ironic thing is that, as much as proponents of evolution have looked for evidence to support their theory, they still have yet to find any. Not only are they unable to find evidence, but their theory can't explain such simple things as the geological column not being continuous or even in order; they can't explain why fossils appeared suddenly above strata that is completely void of fossils, or why some fossils are buried through several strata. The lack of evidence has lead to such interesting theories as Punctuated Equilibrium to describe the lack of evidence. I could go on from Dryopithecus to Java Man, but it is much easier to disprove than to prove something. The sad thing is that, even if Evolutionists were to discover actual and indisputable remains of some species that had DNA which was proved to be half way between a man and an ape, it wouldn't mean that the creature had been a missing link. It would simply mean that another species had been found. What it was or where it came from would still be up to interpretation. That is the nature of science. It cannot prove anything, but is only a tool. The fact is, that even apart from bias in data taking, data must be interpreted and interpretation leads to opinion and error. Take for example, the electron. No one knows for sure if electrons exist. No one has seen an electron, felt an electron, tasted an electron, smelled an electron, or heard an electron. What is an electron? It is a particle, which was theorized to exist, and so far every experiment to disprove it has failed. However, in order to remain a viable theory, numerous complexities have been added to account for its behavior. It is like Plato's light in the cave. We can see the results, but we don't actually know the cause. So it is with evolution and everything else in the world. It all depends upon the world view of the viewer and the perspective that he takes.
Throughout the Middle ages, the Roman Church accepted the ideas of Aristotle and invested heavily in his philosophy. Its synthesis of Aristotelianism and Christianity led to many great errors, and greatly distorted its world view. It is no wonder, then, that the Papists also adopted their geocentric view of the world. Later, when Ptolemy discovered that the orbits of the planets were not circular, he started modeling their motion with epicycles in order to make the world continue to fit the Aristotelian circular ideal. So it is with the evolutionist who must constantly be changing his theory in order to make up for the increasing evidence against it, but will not give up the idea that chance and mother nature are God. If an evolutionist were to believe in Creationism, it would completely destroy the way in which he views the world, and would in turn mean that there is a supreme, omnipotent, omnipresent, and omniscient being who controls everything. It means that there is absolute right and wrong. It would mean that there are things beyond mere human comprehension and control. It would be humbling.
Though most evolutionists are atheists, there is a sad, small number that call themselves Christians. Just as many in the middle ages tried to synthesize Hellenistic philosophy and science with Christianity, so they are trying with modern philosophy and science. They are committing spiritual adultery. This is extremely strange when you consider that the book of nature is much more difficult to interpret than the book of Scripture. Moreover, the Christian is to interpret the world through the spectacles of Scripture rather than the other way around (II Tim. 3:15-17) If we begin to apply other interpretations to Genesis, and say that it can not be taken literally, then what is there to to keep us from doing the same with the rest of Scripture. Soon, sin is in material objects, love is just an emotion, Christ was just a good man, and “God” is just what we call an abstract idea that refers to positive occurrences. Many times liberal theology tends to say that there are certain elements of creation that God does not control, whether it be the hearts of men, or the movement of the planets. The problem with this is that if God is not in control of even one thing, He is not God. Nothing that God creates is self sustaining. The fact that the Earth is not a wind up clock that God has released can be seen throughout the Scriptures.

Now, my friend seems to think that Creationists have contributed very little to science. Ergo, here is an abbreviated list of Scientists who were Creationists, and most of them have openly said that their Creationistic beliefs had a very large impact on their work.

Antiseptic Surgery
Joseph Lister

Bacteriology
Louis Pasteur

Calculus & Dynamics
Isaac Newton

Celestial Mechanics & Physical astronomy
Johannes Kepler

Chemistry & Gas dynamics
Robert Boyle

Comparative anatomy & Vertebrate paleontology
Georges Cuvier

Computer Science
Charles Babbage

Dimensional analysis & Model analysis
Lord Rayleigh

Electrodynamics & Statistical thermodynamics
James C. Maxwell

Electromagnetics & Field Theory
Michael Faraday

Electronoics
John A. Fleming

Energetics & Thermodynamics
Lord Kelvin

Entomology of living insects
Henri Fabre

Fluid Mechanics
George Stokes

Galactic astronomy
William Gerschel

Genetics
Gregor Mendel

Glacial geology & Ictheology
Louis Agassiz

Hydraulics
Leonardo da Vinci

Hydrography & Oceanography
Matthew Maury

Hydrostatics
Blaise Pascal

Isotopic chemistry
William Ramsay

Natural history
John Ray

Non-Euclidean geometry
Bernhard Riemann

Optical mineralogy
David Brewster

Paleontology
John Woodward

Pathology
Rudolph Virchow

Reversible thermodynamics
James Joule

Stratigraphy
Nicholas Steno

Systematic Biology
Carolus Linnaeus

Thermokinetics
Humphrey Davy


This is the kind of paper that I would have gotten a “C” on at Dordt, which means either A) It is very poorly written and makes me look like an idiot, or B) It is very controversial and people don't want to hear it. Perhaps it is both, but don't hesitate to tell me that it is “A” if you think so.


The list of Creationistic Scientists came from
Vision, March/April 1982, Volume XXVII, no. 7, p. 13.

Psalm 14

Oral Fixation

I have decided to post something a little on the lighter side. What follows is my attempt at humor. I hope it makes you laugh.

Instead of the normal theological, political, and philosophical stuff, I decided to write on an overlooked issue that affects many people. Oral fixation plagues our society and could very well lead to its downfall. This problem takes on many forms, but some of the most common are chewing tobacco, chewing gum, eating, drinking, smoking, and kissing (the last two seem to be more common in Europe , probably because it is a more progressive society). While these habits are threatening the very fabric of society, there is still yet a more dangerous oral fixation. It is at this point that I feel I must confess that until just a few years ago I had an addiction to the most dangerous oral fixation. I admit it here now before everyone that I was a thumbsucker. It is not a fact that I am proud of, but I feel, as a rehabilitated thumbsucker, that I must share my story so that other thumbsuckers and friends and family of thumbsuckers might know that there is hope. I do not recall the first time I started sucking my thumb. I suppose that I did it out of peer pressure. A couple of my friends probably put their thumbs in their mouths and so to be cool I did too. The point is that I didn't see it coming; all of a sudden I woke up one day and realized that I had a thumb and that I was addicted to it. At first, everyone thought it was cool but after a while it grew old and my family tried to tell me that it was wrong. Naturally, I pretended I couldn't understand what they were saying. By the time I finally understood them, denial had set in. First came the denial that thumbsucking was a problem, and then I denied that I was addicted. However, as time went on, I found that I could not quite no matter what tricks I tried. I even tried covering my thumb with a sock (a clean sock mind you) but it was to no avail. Then came the day when I learned the truth about thumbsucking. Now, having spent my whole life in farming communities, you would think that I would have been used to people missing various body parts, such as finger, toes, hands, feet, arms, legs, ears, tonsils, appendixes, kidneys, heads, and spleens. (Just kidding; I actually don't think I have ever seen a farmer missing his spleen.) However, I seemed to have more of a fear of such absences than the normal child. On the day in question, I was attending an annual supper at the local old folks home. As I, with thumb planted firmly in my mouth, rounded the corner where the chili was, a neighbor of mine, whom I had never met, held up half a finger and said, “See what happens when you suck your thumb.” The sudden appearance of Mr. Buller's stub was very shocking and I think I overreacted a little. What was even more shocking than that was the idea that sucking my thumb could cause it to fall off. Up till this point in my life, whenever I was stressed, I would take comfort in my thumb. This caused a great dilemma and left me feeling very open and helpless with a quivering thumb trying to go to my mouth while my other hand kept it away. Though my parents tried to convince me that what Mr. Buller said was not true, I knew I could take no chances. Even yet, the addiction proved so strong that in the days following, I would often wake up with my thumb in my mouth. It was hard, but eventually I overcame my addiction and I have been thumb free for about twenty years now. As I look back, I am very happy that Mr. Buller scared me so badly. After all, if he had not, I might be a few digits short today which would have definitely changed the course of my life and may have made me fear my own hand (except to suck on it). Moreover, in search of other new highs and thrills, I may have experimented with other dangerous things, like liver and onions, bull riding, miming, or Russian Roulette. I hope that all of you will remember this next time you feel compelled to suck your thumb. Remember, “Suck on your tongue and save your thumb.”

We Forgot

In an article in the latest issue of Homeschool Update, which is published by the Christian Home Educators of Colorado (CHEC), there is a mention of one of the latest new state laws. It is SB 200 and it states that no one can, “publish, issue, circulate, send, distribute, give away, or display in any way, manner, or shape or by any means or method, except as provided in this section, any communication, paper, poster, folder, manuscript, book, pamphlet, writing, print, letter, notice, or advertisement of any kind, nature, or description THAT is intended or calculated to discriminate or actually discriminates against any disability, race, creed, color, sex, SEXUAL ORIENTATION, marital status, national origin, or ancestry” in public places. From what I have heard, it does not sound like this is a lone incident. It appears that it will be homosexual issues that become the cause of Christian silencing and persecution.
Our society has come to the point where, not only are Christian principles no longer taught, but they are no longer respected and it is getting to the point where you can not say that someone or something is merely wrong without claims that it is out of hate. What is really sad is the fact that the Church has allowed it to get to this point. I find it rather interesting that our society has picked the issue of homosexuality as the point where we say that we need change when for decades our society has slowly been becoming more and more secular even though the number of confessing Christians in our society has changed little. It seems that the churches forgot what was truly offensive (Luke 12:49-53) and are providing resistance against homosexuality, which is only a symptom, merely because it is so disgusting and gross (I am thankful that they take a stand here, for it shows that society is not yet totally hardened). Where was the Church when it became normal for people to get divorced for trivial reasons? Where was the Church when it became normal for people to start shacking up together? The institution of marriage was being defaced and trivialized long before the homosexuals started coming out of their closets. What is even sadder is that these problems in our society are merely the symptoms and fruit of the real problems. For too long the American Church has ceased to preach the Gospel, instead opting for legalism or antinomianism, and often times a legalism that gives way to antinomianism. They forget to teach that man is naturally sinful; that, “all our righteousness is as filthy rags,” and God's greatness and terror of His wrath. They forget to teach that there is nothing we can do to save ourselves and that Christ's graciously given righteousness not only takes away our sin but it is imputed to us as our own. They forget that Christ was both God and man and that he came to this world to save us, substituting in its stead that He was a good man that came to teach us good lessons. They forget what it means to truly love ones neighbor thinking that it is an emotion rather than an action. They forget to teach that the Scriptures are the inspired word of God and final authority, opting instead for a take what you want attitude combined with a liberal hermeneutic that does not take the Bible seriously and interprets unpopular passages as mere allegory written to help ignorant and stupid ancients to understand the “real” meaning. Thus they fall prey to the Devil's question, “Does God really say?” In general, the Church has given up its established and orthodox doctrines and have adopted new ones that really say nothing (and hurt no ones feelings) or they decide that they do not need doctrine, and so they try to believe either everything, or nothing (it is up to the individual to decide which). They forget to teach that sin is in our hearts and motives, and instead ascribe it to our actions and then to the objects associated with those actions. Thus cards, and movies, and dances, and alcohol, and certain kinds of music all become sinful while other objects start to be regarded as “Christian” objects and thus become a part of every complete, healthy, and well balanced Christian life. They forget that we exist, not for our own glory, but for Gods. They forget where true comfort and freedom lies choosing instead to remain in the uncomfortable fetters of the world. They forgot and what was to be a shining city on a hill is turning into a ghetto. Let us pray that we do not forget.

Know Thy Enemy.... And Thy Friends.

Since our country is becoming ever more liberal and since there is the possibility that we could have a Marxist president next year, I have decided to brush up on my Communist knowledge by reading some of their more popular works in order to understand them better. However, I have felt convicted of late to stop merely studying people that I disagree with and to study what others on my side have to say. Thus, I have put together a list of books that I would like to read this winter.

On the good side:

Commentaries on the Laws of England
by William Blackstone

Philosophical Essays on Various Subjects
&
Logic: Or the Right Use of Reason in the Inquiry After Truth
by Isaac Watts

"Conciliation with the Colonies,"
A Vindication of Natural Society: A View of the Miseries and Evils Arising to Mankind,
A Philosophical Enquiry into the Origin of Our Ideas of the Sublime and Beautiful,
&
Reflections on the Revolution in France
by Edmund Burke

The Federalist Papers

The Anti-Federalist Papers


On the bad side:

The Communist Manifesto,
Das Kapital,
Grundrisse,
The German Ideology,
&
Economic and Philosophical Manuscripts of 1844,
By Karl Marx

Revolution at the Gates: A Selection of Writings from February to October 1917
by V. I. Lenin

On Contradiction,
On Protracted War,
&
On New Democracy
by Mao Tse-tung

History of the CPSU

A New Society: Reflections for Today's World,
Che Guevara, Cuba, and the Road to Socialism,
Che Guevara on Global Justice,
Che Guevara: Radical Writings on Guerrilla Warfare, Politics and Revolution,
Colonialism is Doomed,
Critical Notes on Political Economy: A Revolutionary Humanist Approach to Marxist Economics,
The Great Debate on Political Economy,
& (If I have any extra time)
The Motorcycle Diaries: A Journey Around South America
by Ernesto “Che” Guevara


All together, it is quite a heavy reading and I have no hope of getting all the way through it in one year. As you can see from my “good” list, I am one of the few modern Conservatives that is actually a Classical Conservative and not a Classical Liberal so there are few modern sources. I am posting this so that if any of you would happen to know any other good sources, please put them down for me. If any of you would know where I can find Calvin and Zwingli's thoughts on government, I would greatly appreciate it.