Should science point men to God, or be used to reinforce their unbelief? It has been said that 17^th century scientists limited themselves to the how without interest in the why. The early scientists had no problem with the why because they began with the existence of a personal God that had created the universe. Since their authority was the personal God who had spoken in the Bible, they had no problem with the metaphysical questions of our existence and the question of how do we know truth. Their interest in the Bible came out of their view that the same God who had created the universe had spoken truth to His image-bearers in the Bible.[Francis Shaeffer, How Should We Then Live? ]

Here is the classic statement by Newton that distinguishes him and the early scientists that contributed to the scientific revolution. “Gravity explains the motion of planets,” Newton wrote, “but it cannot explain who set the planets in motion.” His understanding of natural laws like gravity that were discoverable by the scientific method was that they originated from the creator as the ordinary means by which God exercised His sovereign control over the physical universe. Modern scientists completely miss the question of why.

The Problem of Regularity in nature:

“There is something about nature that is much more striking and inexplicable than its design. All scientific, inductive reasoning is based on the assumption of the regularity (the laws) of nature, that water will boil tomorrow under the identical conditions of today. The method of induction requires generalizing from observed cases to all cases of the same kind. Without inductive reasoning we couldn't learn from experience, we couldn't use language, we couldn't rely on our memories.

“Most people find that normal and untroubling. But not philosophers! David Hume and Bertrand Russell, as good secular men, were troubled by the fact that we haven't got the slightest idea of why nature-regularity is happening now, and moreover we haven't the slightest rational justification for assuming it will continue tomorrow. If someone would say, 'Well the future has always been like the past in the past', Hume and Russell reply that you are assuming the very thing you are trying to establish. To put it another way, science cannot prove the continued regularity of nature, it can only take it on faith.

“There have been many scholars in the last decades who have argued that modern science arose in its most sustained form out of Christian civilization because of its belief in an all-powerful, personal God who created and sustains an orderly universe. As a proof for the existence of God, the regularity of nature is escapable. You can always say, 'We don't know why things are as they are. As a clue for God, however it is helpful.” [Tim Keller The Reason for God]

Consider Hawking's belief that the universe created itself. In his new book, The Grand Design, Hawking faces the problem of the origin of consciousness. Hawking ends up using himself as the inadequate authority. He has no basis in metaphysics for his science. Hawking begins with an inadequate basis for metaphysics and then tries to use his science to answer the questions of metaphysics. Presupposition is used as conclusion. Here is his great departure from Newton and the early scientists. Inductive reasoning is the basis of the scientific method. So if modern science has no answer for the regularity of nature, and they don't, then they have no basis for formulating natural law which is based on the validity of the scientific method. Timothy Keller identifies this problem in his book, The Reason for God, as the fatal contradiction inherent in evolutionary theory.

The fatal contradiction:

“Despite fierce debates within the field, evolutionary theorists all agree that our capacity to believe in God is hardwired into our physiology because it was directly or indirectly associated with traits that helped our ancestors adapt to their environment...I don't believe evolutionary theorists realize the full implications of this crucial insight. Evolution can only be trusted to give us cognitive faculties that help us live on, not to provide ones that give us an accurate and true picture of the world around us...if we can't trust our belief-forming faculties to tell us the truth about God, why should we trust them to tell us the truth about anything, including evolutionary science?”

Hawking and those like him reject the ultimate authority of God and rely instead on the authority of finite men. This leads inevitably to the denial of God and to confusion. How can we ever hope to explain the existence of personal beings with longings for love, beauty, dignity? The material universe can never give rise through natural processes to the personal, which can only be explained by the existence of a personal creator/god. Real science points men toward God, false science suppresses the knowledge of God. “Although organic life could have just happened without a Creator, does it make sense to live as if that infinitely remote chance is true?” [Keller] The science of men like Stephen Hawking seeks to answer the question of metaphysics but can never do so. Modern scientists are forced to become bad philosophers.

‘What was never addressed is when the parents are the bullies.’ [Dan Savage; anti-Christian homosexual activist]


Thanks again to Robert Knight for exposing absurdity that is part of a broader agenda towards the suppression of the knowledge of God in the culture.

Re: http://townhall.com/columnists/robertknight/2011/03/23/the_bullies%E2%80%99_many_pulpits/


It is not enough that the Ten Commandments have been removed from the public schools; Mr. Savage wants them removed from the homes as well, because in his debased mind it is the God of the Bible who is the real bully. Children who are taught the Law of God may get the wrong idea about sodomy and sexual perversion.

Men like Savage know that there is a God, but they hate the idea of a Creator and Lawgiver to whom they are accountable. They deny His existence; they despise His Law and would exchange it for their own lawlessness. They are wise in their own eyes, and would redefine the family structure. When did sodomites become credible consultants on family and the education of children? When did we as a culture lose our sense and begin to think that exposing children to lawlessness is not abuse of their conscience and the violation of the authority of parents? When did we begin to approve of what God says is an abomination?

A nation that is wise in its own eyes is on the path that leads to destruction. The new morality is nothing but the old immorality that always comes with self-idolatry that always follows the suppression of truth. But we are much worse than the old paganism because we have suppressed more than truth; we are suppressing its practical applications realized under New Covenant principles in exchanging our liberty for a return to the rule of tyrants. The message to the Galatian church applies to us: how is it that we turn back again to weak and worthless elemental things to be enslaved all over again?

When we advocate for public school improvements, the assumption is implicit that the ruling class wants to improve the system and that agreement with them is possible on what the improvements should look like. Is this a valid premise? How did the public schools arrive at their current condition without usurping the authority of parents over their own children? Real education helped to found this nation on a consensus of truth leading to liberty and justice. Public education had no part and can take no credit in our founding, but it has been instrumental in our decline, given that a nation's decline can be measured by the integrity and statesmanship of its elected leadership.

Real education is inconsistent with the tyranny of modern liberalism and would lead to its exposure as modern man's self-idolatry and rebellion against the authority of Jesus Christ. The political power of the socialists depend on a voting class that is indoctrinated rather than educated. The government schools are doing exactly what they are designed to do: suppressing the religious heritage of America; exchanging the biblical world-view for darwinism; advocating a moral relativism and the absence of truth. What are the fruits of such rebellion and the departure from the consensus of the biblical world view?

Many have no answer for their existence or purpose. The absence of truth leads many to despair and many more enter the sinful practice of immorality and drug abuse, creating an expanding cycle of dependency. The sovereignty of God and the responsibility of man are forgotten fundamentals; truth is trampled under foot as despised and without value. Western culture is returning to paganism, lost and deceived by autonomous wisdom. The best thing we can do for our children and our nation is to remove them from the public school system and teach them at home.

Through the first man sin entered the world. And being subjected to futility the whole creation groans and labors with birth pangs together until now waiting to be delivered from the bondage of corruption. And we ourselves groan within ourselves, eagerly waiting for the redemption of our body. [Romans 5 and 8]

Is genetic entropy consistent with the bondage of corruption or the primary axiom of mutation and selection? Can there be any accommodation between evolution theory and Biblical Theology?


What is Entropy?

"Another way of stating the second law: The universe is constantly getting more disorderly. Viewed that way we can see the second law all about us. We have to work hard to straighten a room, but left to itself, it becomes a mess again very quickly and very easily. Even if we never enter it, it becomes dusty and musty. How difficult to maintain houses, and machinery, and our own bodies in perfect working order; how easy to let them deteriorate. In fact, all we have to do is nothing, and everything deteriorates, collapses, breaks down, wears out, all by itself, and that is what the second law is all about." [Isaac Asimov]

This is a remarkable statement from Mr. Asimov because he is a well known anti-theist and defender of the primary axiom. He sees no conflict between evolution theory and the second law. If evolution is fact and the second law is fact, then obviously there can be no contradiction between the two. Let's try to untangle their twisted logic...


What is Uniformitarianism?

In the philosophy of naturalism, uniformitarianism assumes that the same natural laws and processes that operate in the universe now, have always operated in the universe in the past and apply everywhere in the universe. It is frequently summarized as "the present is the key to the past," because it holds that all things continue as they were from the beginning of the world. [Wikipedia]

We like this definition because it unknowingly fulfills Peter's prophecy, even using the same language...

Beloved, I now write to you this second epistle (in both of which I stir up your pure minds by way of reminder), that you may be mindful of the words which were spoken before by the holy prophets, and of the commandment of us, the apostles of the Lord and Savior, knowing this first: that scoffers will come in the last days, walking according to their own lusts, and saying, “Where is the promise of His coming? For since the fathers fell asleep, all things continue as they were from the beginning of creation” [2 Peter 3].

If the present universe is constantly getting more disorderly, meaning that its entropy is steadily increasing as the supply of energy available for work constantly decreases, then how can men as intelligent as Asimov not see the illogic of their own statements and beliefs? How can they hold to uniformitarianism in one context and then claim that the conditions of the present universe must not be confused for those conditions that must have existed during the origin of the universe?

If the natural laws and natural processes now governing the universe are leading inexorably to its death and destruction, and if these natural laws and processes are all there is and all there ever has been, then how could these very same natural laws and processes create the universe in the first place? Could the natural laws and processes now destroying the universe also be responsible for its creation? [Duane Gish]

What sort of tortured logic would one have to use to reach such an impossible conclusion? Welcome to darwinite group think: the primary axiom must be defended even at the expense of logic. Presupposition is taken as axiomatic in the religion of neo-science.


Does the "Open System" argument trump the Second Law?

Consistently and without exception, the darwinites advance the "open system" argument against the Second Law contradiction raised against their theory. Here are some quotes cherry picked from their writings to illustrate the shallowness of neo-science...

"What [the creationists] completely overlook, of course, is that in biological systems order can be created from disorder at the expense of energy input from an external source, the sun. Their arguments are spurious at best and are based on a misleading simplistic approach to a complex, quantitative scientific concept. In brief, they have created a clever word game by introducing thermodynamics into their arguments." [Darwinite #1]

So now the darwinites are accusing creationists of sophistry? Note what is being said:

1. Raw energy from the sun is all that is needed for biological systems to create order from disorder.

2. These things are too complex for the simple minded; they can only be comprehended by the neo-scientists.

Even the simple minded can see the fault in this logic. Raw energy cannot bring order to anything without a means of energy conversion into useful, beneficial work. The Second Law requires work to be done on any system (open or closed) in order to reverse the natural tendency for systems towards increasing entropy. Work requires more than raw energy. Work requires the existence of an engine designed for the purpose of energy conversion. The darwinites assume the existence of the engine. Now who is being simplistic? or are they intentionally being deceptive?

"We must emphasize that the laws of thermodynamics apply only to closed systems...What has all this got to do with the appearance of new organisms on the earth? Absolutely nothing! The origin of life, and the evolution of progressively more complex organisms, took place on the earth's surface, and this cannot possibly be described as operating in a closed system. Energy is free to flow in and out of the system, and the laws of thermodynamics are therefore absolutely irrelevant." [Darwinite #2]

Note that the natural laws and processes of thermodynamics are irrelevant to the origin of life and the evolution of life to more and more complex life forms. The neo-scientist has spoken. Who are we to question such compelling arguments? Free energy evidently doesn't require a directing program or an engine. How is it then that my tractor deteriorates while left alone on the surface of the earth in the sun and wind? Unless a man "works" on it to keep it maintained, without exception, it will eventually stop working all on its own. We can see that the practical definition of work is intelligent and directed energy. Raw energy is no answer to the Second Law contradiction to origin of life and the evolution of life. How can it even be considered when present processes indicate that even on simple systems, raw energy is totally inadequate for the purpose of increasing order, but actually contributes to the deterioration. Ever been to a junkyard?

"Most [darwinites] simply dismiss the Second Law as irrelevant to the central questions of their field because it deals with closed systems and does not preclude local buildups of more highly organized energy in open systems." [Darwinite #3]

There it is! The Second Law is dismissed because the darwinites have declared it irrelevant. If only they would listen to their own words and consider that they are most properly applied to themselves..."Their arguments are spurious at best and are based on a misleading simplistic approach..."

'So, if religion is not important to them, does that mean journalists cannot understand its importance to others? It shouldn’t. Harvard’s great scholar Perry Miller understood the Puritans better, perhaps, than any professor at any American university. But Miller himself was an atheist.' -Ken Blackwell

Re: http://townhall.com/columnists/kenblackwell/2011/03/10/purple_fingers_arent_enough/


The Puritan knows the atheist much better than the atheist can know the Puritan. The atheist may know about Puritanism, but he can not possibly know what the Puritan knows...

“If you abide in My word, you are My disciples indeed. And you shall know the truth, and the truth shall make you free” [John 8:31-32].

This is the New Covenant fulfillment of the Jewish practice of Jubilee; this is the declaration of real freedom and true liberty prophesied in Isaiah 61 from the Man sent to accomplish it. The Puritan is first a disciple of Christ and because of that he knows the truth and because of that he is a free man. It is not coincidence that civil liberty came to America because of Puritan influence. A man free in Christ will not be subject to the tyrant or the commandments of men.

How can a man spiritually dead in his sins know what it is to be alive in the Spirit? The dead man is so deceived that he thinks he is free when he is a slave of sin. How can he know the freedom that the Puritan knows? Only the man that has died to sin in Christ can know what it is to be free.

Now the Puritan knows the atheist because he used to be like the one walking in the futility of his mind, having his understanding darkened, being alienated from the life of God, because of the ignorance that was in him, because of the blindness of his heart [Ephesians 4].

The atheist is alienated from the life of God because he is blind to spiritual reality. He has suppressed the knowledge of God and exchanged it for the things of this world. And that is all he can know.

"Living things are specified with incredible delicacy and precision down to the level of individual molecules and atoms. It is simply impossible for a random mixture of relevant and irrelevant molecules and atoms to individually sort themselves out, expell those which are irrelevant, and then assemble those which remain thereby giving life to non-life." -Nobel Laureate, Francis Crick (1981).

This quote from Francis Crick is historically significant because he is one of the first to see that the DNA molecular is in part a biochemical storage device of coded genetic information that is decoded in the living cell to produce proteins from chains of amino acids linked together according to the linear sequences contained in DNA.

At this point the scientific community was at a crossroad. But rather than abandon their autonomous reason that had come to be a necessary criteria for science and bow to the self-revealed God, the theory of modern panspermia has increased over the ensuing years. Here are some quotes from one of its leading defenders...

"No one has ever demonstrated that Earthly life can be produced from non-life, at least on Earth. The maxim: only life can produce life, has never been discredited. Therefore, based purely on the facts and scientific evidence, the only reasonable explanation is that the first living creatures to appear on this planet were produced by other living things which arrived on Earth safely encased in the debris which was bombarding this world during the Hadean eon."

"...no attempt is made to explain the origins of life. However, given the incredible vastness and unknown age of the universe, and the little blue dot we call Earth, isn't it reasonable to assume life would have emerged somewhere in the cosmos long before it appeared on this insignificant spec of dust? Certainly, the world does not revolve around us, the Earth is not the center of the solar system, and our planet is not at the center of the biological universe."

[Life on Earth Came From Other Planets by Rhawn Joseph; http://journalofcosmology.com/Cosmology1.html]

This is an example of what we mean by neo-science. Note what he is saying...

Given the scientific evidence of biogenesis, the ONLY reasonable explanation for life on earth is panspermia. So, to disagree with Rhawn Joseph, PhD is to be unreasonable. And what is his basis for such and authoritative statement? 'Based PURELY on the FACTS and scientific evidence'. Is this a true statement or an example of neo-science?

We do not doubt that there are 'facts and scientific evidence', but the radical departure from the scientific method common to the neo-scientists is that their opinions are expressed as conclusions. And as with all men, their opinions are always consistent with their presuppositions. The result is that presupposition enters into what they call science.

In the second quote he is careful to avoid the OOL problem because panspermia has no answer. Rhawn Joseph, PhD asks the rhetorical question that he wants to answer with more opinion based on presupposition...

"...isn't it reasonable to assume life would have emerged somewhere in the cosmos long before it appeared on this insignificant spec of dust?"

Note his opinion offered as a conclusion:

"Certainly...our planet is not at the center of the biological universe."

The opinion of Rhawn Joseph, PhD is certainly ONE possible explanation, but the evidence does not exist to say that his is the ONLY explanation. The methods used by these men as well as the darwinites are particularly hypocritical because they accuse other men of bringing religious presupposition into their science. We must revise our definition of neo-science to include the panspermians as well as the darwinians...

Neo-science is the hypocritical practice of including presupposition into what is called scientific conclusion.

I have reviewed enough of the writings of Rhawn Joseph, PhD to get a flavor of his anti-theist world view. We give him credit for rejecting darwinism, but he is a good example of what is written of such men in the context of 2 Timothy 3...

'always learning and never able to come to the knowledge of the truth'.

Official Statement from The Journal of Cosmology

http://journalofcosmology.com/Life100.html


Our intention has always been to promote science and this means, particularly in this case, stepping on the toes of the "status quo" who have responded with a barrage of slanderous attacks. They are lying to you.

The Journal of Cosmology is a Prestigious Scientific Journal Two of NASA Senior Scientists Science Directorates have published in the Journal of Cosmology (JOC). A NASA Senior Scientist Science Directorate served as a "guest" Executive editor and repeatedly referred to the Journal as "prestigious." Four astronauts, two who walked on the Moon have published with JOC. Over 30 top NASA scientists have published in JOC.

Top scientists from prestigious universities from around the world have published in the Journal of Cosmology, Harvard, Yale, Stanford, Berkeley, UCLA, Oxford, Cambridge, MIT, and so on. Sir Roger Penrose of Oxford and who shared the "Wolf Prize" in physics with Stephen Hawking is Guest editing the April edition.

Peer Review NASA Senior Scientist Science Directorate Joel Levine, while participating in a NASA press conference, remarked about how his papers were peer reviewed and he was required to revise all of them, even though he was the editor for that edition of JOC!

As every editor, and guest editor will attest, all articles are subjected to peer review. We reject over 30% of invited papers and over 70% of those which are not invited. Every editor, and Guest editor, has had their work subjected to peer review, and every editor has been required to revise their articles after peer review. Even the executive editors have been required to revise their papers after peer review. We believe in peer review. Peer review provides wonderful feedback which can help make a paper better, or which can explain why the paper is hopeless and must be rejected. However, we do not reject great papers because we disagree with them as is the habit of other periodicals.

Richard Hoover's paper was received in November. It was subjected to repeated reviews and underwent one significant revision...We were well aware we would suffer profound, slanderous, attacks by those who would do anything to destroy our reputation.

Only a few crackpots and charlatans have denounced the Hoover study. NASA's chief scientist was charged with unprofessional conduct for lying publicly about the Journal of Cosmology and the Hoover paper. The same crackpots, self-promoters, liars, and failures, are quoted repeatedly in the media. However, where is the evidence the Hoover study is not accurate?

Few legitimate scientists have come forward to contest Hoover's findings. Why is that? Because the evidence is solid. But why have so few scientists come forward to attest to the validity? The answer is: They are afraid. They are terrified. And for good reason.

The status quo and their "hand puppets" will stop at nothing to crush debate about important scientific issues, and this includes slander, defamation, trade libel... they will ruin you. Three hundred years ago, they would burn you for questioning orthodoxy. Has anything changed?

The scientific community must march according to the tune whistled by those who control the funding. If you don't do as you are told, if you dare to ask the wrong questions, they will destroy you. JOC offered the scientific community a unique opportunity to debate an important paper, but for the most part they have declined.

The message is: Be afraid. Be very afraid. Or you will be destroyed.

Why is America in decline? Maybe the terrorists have won.

Top NASA scientists said Monday there was no scientific evidence to support a colleague's claim that fossils of alien microbes born in outer space had been found in meteorites on Earth.

The US space agency formally distanced itself from the paper by NASA scientist Richard Hoover, whose findings were published Friday in the peer-reviewed Journal of Cosmology, which is available free online.

[Looks like Hoover cherry picked his peer reviewers]

http://news.yahoo.com/s/afp/20110307/ts_alt_afp/usspacebiologyastrobiologynasa_20110307213642

'Failure to take seriously the need for religious freedom will doom any attempts at democracy. The grounding of human liberty rests in the belief that our rights come from God.' - Robert Morrison


Re: http://townhall.com/columnists/robertmorrison/2011/03/05/bowing_to_persecutors_endangers_christians/


Thanks to Robert Morrison for summarizing the uniqueness of American freedom. His intent was to expose the Islamic culture based on Sharia law as incompatible with ever achieving freedom. They are bound in their Old Covenant mindset with their own perversions of Mosaic Law. But more interesting is the implicit condemnation of the religious practice of radical naturalism that is being imposed on the American culture.

Why does freedom and civil liberty depend on religious liberty?  Why is religious liberty not the norm rather than the exception in the history of man? Why is it now not enjoyed by all men in all nations since America has demonstrated its fruits? Why is the importance of religious liberty no longer recognized in America, and why is its first amendment guarantees under assault?

The answer to these questions will reveal why the Darwinite Leftists are the greatest threat to the American Republic. Many have discernment to recognize the flaws in the nations under the influence of Islam, but how many can see the same faults being revealed in Western liberalism? Tyranny comes in many flavors, but in common they share the suppression of an open Bible.

The belief that rights come from God has revolutionary implications. If rights are defined with respect to God, then there must be a consensus of who God is and a submission to His authority. Implicit in this belief is that man is not God, but that he is dependent on God to reveal Himself and to make His will known to man. So for the colonial Americans, the Personal and Infinite God of the Bible became the reference point for understanding their being, their knowledge of truth and their concepts of law and morality. True knowledge of the self-revealed God transformed their culture.

The first amendment guarantees the right of religious liberty. How did they understand this to be fundamental to civil liberty? If men are made in the image of God and morally responsible before God, then it follows that a man's conscience is the sacred property of God alone. This is the fundamental truth from which liberty comes forth: all men have a consciousness of his creator. Therefore, all men have infinite worth and dignity that demand their conscious not be violated, being subject to the commandments of men.

So civil rights became associated with the liberty to fulfill the law of conscious, which is equivalent to the natural law. As image bearers all men deserve the liberty of conscious. The state was not to interfere in a man's duty to obey the Law of God written on his conscious.
 
Men preach the Word, but it is God who gives the increase. Unless the Spirit does His work of applying the Word in regeneration and transformation, then men remain dead in their sin. It is this theology that we say is the testimony of the apostolic doctrine of Christ that brought an end to the tyranny of church and state hierarchies in America, whether they be Catholic or Protestant.

Christ builds His churches and His eternal kingdom is extended into every generation and nation. Though the preaching ministries of the churches come the knowledge of God which builds up Christian families. This is the work of God and under His blessing can transform whole cultures; it can also result in persecution depending on the sovereign purposes of God.

Our premise is that liberty is dependent on the doctrines of sovereign grace and man's responsibility worked out by Augustine and applied by Calvin. When there is no consensus of these doctrines even among the churches, then we cannot expect their transforming influence to be felt in the culture.

Our heritage in Biblical Theology is being transformed into a self-idolatrous world view of the radical naturalists that try to create a reality independent of God. History reveals their folly, but they like to deny history as well as natural law.

NASA Scientist Claims Evidence of Alien Life on Meteorite

Riccardo Guerrero / Richard B. Hoover / Journal of Cosmology

A photograph taken through a scanning electron microscope of a CI1 meteorite (right) is similar in size and overall structure to the giant bacterium Titanospirillum velox (left), an organism found here on planet Earth.

We are not alone in the universe -- and alien life forms may have a lot more in common with life on Earth than we had previously thought. That's the stunning conclusion one NASA scientist has come to, releasing his groundbreaking revelations in a new study in the March edition of the Journal of Cosmology.

[Is that a stunning conclusion or an uninformed and biased opinion? Let's consider the assumptions and presuppositions...]

Dr. Richard B. Hoover, an astrobiologist with NASA’s Marshall Space Flight Center, has traveled to remote areas in Antarctica, Siberia, and Alaska, amongst others, for over ten years now, collecting and studying meteorites...Hoover describes the latest findings in his study of an extremely rare class of meteorites, called CI1 carbonaceous chondrites.

[Carbonaceous chondrite meteorites typically contain a high proportion of water (up to 20%) and organic matter in the form of amino acids.]

Though it may be hard to swallow, Hoover is convinced that his findings reveal fossil evidence of bacterial life within such meteorites, the remains of living organisms from their parent bodies -- comets, moons and other astral bodies.

[What about the most likely "parent body"? Where in the known universe does organic material and water exist in abundance? Did they ever consider that comets and meteorites containing water and organic material originated here on earth? Is there any science to suggest that is the case? Yes! but the darwinites have shut themselves off from such evidence because of their presuppositions. I challenge any NASA scientist to show the fault in Walt Brown's analysis that comets must have originated from earth based on the known laws of physics rather than opinion and personal attack...

Walt Brown Origin of Comets Theory: http://creationscience.com/onlinebook/Comets2.html ]

By extension, the findings suggest we are not alone in the universe. “I interpret it as indicating that life is more broadly distributed than restricted strictly to the planet earth,” Hoover said. He fractured the meteorite stones under a sterile environment before examining the freshly broken surface with scanning electron microscopes searching the stone’s surface for evidence of fossilized remains. He found the fossilized remains of micro-organisms not so different from ordinary ones found underfoot -- here on earth.

[The origin of meteorites is assumed extraterrestrial, and since they contain micro-organisms similar to ones found on earth, the conclusion is that life is broadly distributed rather than restricted to earth. This is opinion based on presupposition. If we change the assumption that meteorites and comets originate from earth, then the darwinite conclusion is nonsense. Since the meteorites and comets contain water and organic material, which assumption more likely reflects the truth? Why do they not consider the most likely origin first? Because their presupposition of deep time is needed to support macro-evolution. There must be an eternal source of comets outside the solar system since their life span in the solar system is on the order of 10K years. Comets are young, indicating a young solar system.]

Other scientists tell FoxNews.com the implications of this research are shocking, describing the findings variously as profound, very important and extraordinary. But Dr. David Marais, an astrobiologist with NASA’s AMES Research Center, says he’s very cautious about jumping onto the bandwagon. These kinds of claims have been made before, he noted -- and found to be false. “It’s an extraordinary claim, and thus I’ll need extraordinary evidence,” Marais said.

[What happened to the so called peer review progress? Are you admitting that it failed?]

"Given the controversial nature of his discovery, we have invited 100 experts and have issued a general invitation to over 5,000 scientists from the scientific community to review the paper and to offer their critical analysis," said Dr. Rudy Schild, a scientist with the Harvard-Smithsonian's Center for Astrophysics and the editor-in-chief of the Journal of Cosmology. "No other paper in the history of science has undergone such a thorough vetting, and never before in the history of science has the scientific community been given the opportunity to critically analyze an important research paper before it is published."

[Weren't the previous claims that turned out to be false also peer reviewed? What confidence do we have that this review will be any different? When everyone thinks the same or is afraid to think differently, then who will do the critical analysis? The term 'begging the question' applies here. The presupposition of extraterrestrial origin has already been established and will not be questioned. This is nothing but opinion based on presupposition.]

Dr. Seth Shostak, senior astronomer at the SETI Institute, said there is a lot of hesitancy to believe such proclamations. If true, the implications would be far-reaching throughout the fields of science and astronomy, the suggestions and possibilities stunning. “Maybe life was seeded on earth -- it developed on comets for example, and just landed here when these things were hitting the very early Earth,” Shostak speculated. “It would suggest, well, life didn’t really begin on the Earth, it began as the solar system was forming.”

[There it is! Another panspermian offers up his stunning analysis...'Maybe life was seeded on earth' from extraterrestrial sources. Is this science or opinion? Note the leap from 'life was seeded on earth' to 'life began as the solar system was forming'. Again, is this science or opinion based on presupposition?]

Hesitancy to believe new claims is something common and necessary to the field of science, Hoover said. “A lot of times it takes a long time before scientists start changing their mind as to what is valid and what is not. I’m sure there will be many many scientists that will be very skeptical and that’s OK.”

[Oh, really, let's add the unspoken caveat...as long as they do not violate the prime axiom: no matter how absurd it gets, we must defend darwinism. If life did not originate here on earth, then of course, it must have evolved some where else before it came here. But who is to say that life didn't originate spontaneously in more than one place? If evolution is such a powerful force as to trump the first and second laws, then would multiple streams not be expected? Why should we limit evolution to just one stream?]

Until Hoover’s research can be independently verified, Marais said, the findings should be considered “a potential signature of life.” Scientists, he said, will now take the research to the next level of scrutiny, which includes an independent confirmation of the results by another lab, before the findings can be classified “a confirmed signature of life.” Hoover says he isn’t worried about the process and is open to any other explanations.

[Is Hoover open to the explanation given by Walt Brown, a young earth creationist? The statement that he is open to any other explanations is not true, because he has closed his mind to the possibility of creation and flood explanations.]

“If someone can explain how it is possible to have a biological remain that has no nitrogen...in a time period as short as 150 years, then I would be very interested in hearing that. I’ve talked with many scientists about this and no one has been able to explain,” he said.

[Let's get another opinion from a scientist working from a biblical framework. Maybe he can understand the question and then give an answer. To be continued with input from Walt Brown...]

“Marriage is slowly dying in Scandinavia. A majority of children in Sweden and Norway are born out of wedlock...Same-sex marriage has...reinforced an existing Scandinavian trend toward the separation of marriage and parenthood.” -Robert Knight

Re: http://townhall.com/columnists/robertknight/2011/03/03/obama_to_god_and_america_youre_wrong_about_marriage/


Thanks to Robert Knight for addressing the cultural war over which world view will dominate our culture. The preachers of unrighteousness appeal to the autonomous wisdom of fallen man; the American Founders and those who would conserve their vision of America appeal to the eternal wisdom revealed in Jesus Christ.

The proverbs of Solomon speak of this wisdom in that 'the fear of the Lord is the beginning of knowledge, but fools despise wisdom and instruction' [Proverbs 1:7]. The next verse from the wise man says that parental authority is the ordained means the Lord uses to teach His wisdom...'hear the instruction of thy father and forsake not the law of thy mother' [Proverbs 1:8].

The commandment is to 'honor thy father and thy mother' [Exodus 20:12]. And with this the New Covenant law of liberty agrees, 'Children, obey your parents in the Lord, for this is right [Ephesians 6:1].

What does it matter what authority we adopt? The context of the proverbs is the profound truth that 'as a man thinks in his heart, so is he'. A man's world view reflects his heart and determines how he thinks and acts.

The culture continues in its undermining of biblical authority. Having undermined parental authority in the public schools by teaching things contrary to home and church, it would now redefine marriage and the family. The culture itself is degenerating into lawlessness and personal irresponsibility as the public schools produce another generation of irresponsible parents. Wisdom begins with a reverence of God and His Word which begins or is undermined in our children with their earliest teachers.

The contrast between Washington and Obama is most evident in comparing the men and the nation who elected them. Our first president paid homage to the Ruler of Nations in his first inaugural address. Here is his reference to Psalm 2 in context...

Such being the impressions under which I have, in obedience to the public summons, repaired to the present station, it would be peculiarly improper to omit in this first official act my fervent supplications to that Almighty Being who rules over the universe, who presides in the councils of nations, and whose providential aids can supply every human defect, that His benediction may consecrate to the liberties and happiness of the people of the United States a Government instituted by themselves for these essential purposes, and may enable every instrument employed in its administration to execute with success the functions allotted to his charge. In tendering this homage to the Great Author of every public and private good, I assure myself that it expresses your sentiments not less than my own, nor those of my fellow-citizens at large less than either. No people can be bound to acknowledge and adore the Invisible Hand which conducts the affairs of men more than those of the United States. Every step by which they have advanced to the character of an independent nation seems to have been distinguished by some token of providential agency; and in the important revolution just accomplished in the system of their united government the tranquil deliberations and voluntary consent of so many distinct communities from which the event has resulted can not be compared with the means by which most governments have been established without some return of pious gratitude, along with an humble anticipation of the future blessings which the past seem to presage. These reflections, arising out of the present crisis, have forced themselves too strongly on my mind to be suppressed. You will join with me, I trust, in thinking that there are none under the influence of which the proceedings of a new and free government can more auspiciously commence. [George Washington; from his first inaugural address]

In retrospect, I realize that I have wasted so much of my life arguing about things that don’t really matter. It is my sincere hope that this book can actually address something that really does matter. The issue of who we are, where we came from, and where we are going seem to me to be of enormous importance. This is the real subject of this book.

Modern Darwinism is built on what I will be calling “The Primary Axiom”. The Primary Axiom is that man is merely the product of random mutations plus natural selection. Within our society’s academia, the Primary Axiom is universally taught, and almost universally accepted. It is the constantly mouthed mantra, repeated endlessly on every college campus. It is very difficult to find any professor on any college campus who would even consider (or should I say dare) to question the Primary Axiom.

Late in my career, I did something which for a Cornell professor would seem unthinkable. I began to question the Primary Axiom. I did this with great fear and trepidation. By doing this, I knew I would be at odds with the most “sacred cow” of modern academia. Among other things, it might even result in my expulsion from the academic world.

Although I had achieved considerable success and notoriety within my own particular specialty (applied genetics), it would mean I would have to be stepping out of the safety of my own little niche. I would have to begin to explore some very big things, including aspects of theoretical genetics which I had always accepted by faith alone. I felt compelled to do all this, but I must confess I fully expected to simply hit a brick wall. To my own amazement, I gradually realized that the seemingly “great and unassailable fortress” which has been built up around the primary axiom is really a house of cards. The Primary Axiom is actually an extremely vulnerable theory, in fact it is essentially indefensible. Its apparent invincibility derives mostly from bluster, smoke, and mirrors. A large part of what keeps the Axiom standing is an almost mystical faith, which the true-believers have in the omnipotence of natural selection. Furthermore, I began to see that this deep-seated faith in natural selection was typically coupled with a degree of ideological commitment which can only be described as religious. I started to realize (again with trepidation) that I might be offending a lot of people’s religion!

To question the Primary Axiom required me to re-examine virtually everything I thought I knew about genetics. This was probably the most difficult intellectual endeavor of my life. Deeply entrenched thought pattern only change very slowly (and I must add — painfully). What I eventually experienced was a complete overthrow of my previous understandings. Several years of personal struggle resulted in a new understanding, and a very strong conviction that the Primary Axiom was most definitely wrong. More importantly, I became convinced that the Axiom could be shown to be wrong to any reasonable and open-minded individual. This realization was exhilarating, but again frightening. I realized that I had a moral obligation to openly challenge this most sacred of cows. In doing this, I realized I would earn for myself the most intense disdain of most of my colleagues in academia not to mention very intense opposition and anger from other high places.

What should I do? It has become my conviction that the Primary Axiom is insidious on the highest level, having catastrophic impact on countless human lives. Furthermore, every form of objective analysis I have performed has convinced me that the Axiom is clearly false. So now, regardless of the consequences, I have to say it out loud: the Emperor has no clothes!

To the extent that the Primary Axiom can be shown to be false, it should have a major impact on your own life and on the world at large. For this reason, I have dared to write this humble little book which some will receive as blasphemous treason, and others revelation.

If the Primary Axiom is wrong, then there is a surprising and very practical consequence. When subjected only to natural forces, the human genome must irrevocably degenerate over time. Such a sober realization should have more than just intellectual or historical significance. It should rightfully cause us to personally reconsider where we should rationally be placing our hope for the future.

    [John Sanford author; Genetic Entropy & the Mystery of the Genome]

God constituted Israel as a special nation apart from all other nations, with national promises. To inherit those promises, one was physically born into the nation and kept the national laws. 

Israel also stands as a prophecy, a foreshadow, of the true Israel to come, who is Jesus Christ. To be a part of this Israel required something other than being a physical descendant of Abraham. One must be the spiritual heir of Abraham, having Abraham’s faith. Physical descent is not sufficient.

Every aspect of Israel’s life fulfilled both of these relationships at the same time. For example...
 

The ten commandments are both a national covenant for a national people, and an expression of moral law which Christ came to fulfill. 

Circumcision is a mark of the national people, and a type of the need for the circumcision of the heart, which is a regeneration accomplished in us through divine application of the work of Christ. 

Passover is a special holiday, commemorating a national deliverance from Egypt. It also foreshadows the ultimate deliverance from sin and death which would be accomplished in Christ. 

The church, as it stands in Jesus Christ, is the fulfillment of the second relationship in the New Covenant. The Old Covenant became obsolete at the resurrection and ascension of Christ and practically passed away at the 70 AD destruction of Jerusalem along with the Jewish temple [Hebrews 8:13].

'Moreover, brethren, I do not want you to be unaware that all our fathers were under the cloud, all passed through the sea, all were baptized into Moses in the cloud and in the sea, all ate the same spiritual food, and all drank the same spiritual drink...Now all these things happened to them as examples, and they were written for our admonition...' [1 Corinthians 10:1-11].

The apostolic testimony in 1 Corinthians 10 establishes that Old Testament Israel was an example for the New Testament Church.

Paul uses the term "tupos" from which we get the word “type” to describe how Israel is our example. God ordained that much of the OT is given as a type to predict and teach Israel about Christ. The spiritual realities that we know and see in full light today in the New Covenant are found in shadow and type in the OT.

Israel is our example because they are “our fathers" [1 Corinthians 10:1]. The Corinthian church was comprised of both Jews and Gentiles. The term must apply equally to both, since he is warning the whole church against idolatry as happened in Israel. But how are the Israelites “fathers” of the Gentiles?

1.    By our connection to Abraham as the father of the faithful, and the one whose faith was accounted as righteousness  [Romans 2:26-29; Galatians 3:13-14, 29; Philippians 3:1-3; Romans 4:3-5].

2.    By our common history in Israel as the “precursor” of the NT church. God chose Israel as a means of preparing the world to receive Messiah.

[Credits: Pastor Steve Garrick]


How is OT Israel an Example to the NT Church?
Part 2: They are a “type” of the church

How is OT Israel an Example to the NT Church?
Part 3: They had the same spiritual signs of Christ

How is OT Israel an Example to the NT Church?
Part 4: Many of them ignored the testimonies of Christ and died in their sins.  

OT Israel: a Type of the Real Prince of God

We applaud Robert Knight for engaging the enemies of the cross in our cultural war.

Re: http://townhall.com/columnists/robertknight/2011/02/22/you_christians_can_believe,_just_don’t_act_on_it/


Since the world is full of false prophets and their prophecies, why should we consider the ancient writings of the apostles of Jesus Christ? What does it matter what is written in Romans 1? What could it possibly have to say about modern America?

What is more characteristic of American culture than the lawlessness of idolatry and sexual perversion? What other prophecy explains the link between the divine wrath against idolatry and its display in giving men over to sexual perversion?

Men do not approve of God and do not want to retain the knowledge of God in their thinking. So the criminalization of Christianity is the next thing in the suppression of truth and is consistent with the lawless normalization of sexual perversion. Biblical morality must be suppressed along with the knowledge of God.

'Although they knew God, they did not glorify Him as God, nor were thankful, but became futile in their thoughts, and their foolish hearts were darkened' [Romans 1:21].

As man glories in autonomous reason he has rid himself of the doctrine of creation out of nothing by assuming that matter and energy are eternal and that life and immaterial mind emerge from what is dead; he has invented macro-evolution to explain the record of divine judgment of the antediluvian world; he has exchanged the natural law for that which the Bible says is sin as if the Bible is no longer authoritative; he has vainly judged that this generation is wiser than the men of the founding generation. This generation glories in their shame, rather than in God.