One of the results of this new situation is that if one wishes to be thought of as “scientifically astute” or ‘educated” one must bow before the orthodox idol of materialistic thought, primarily expressed in its greatest child, the theory of evolution. If one dares to ask the freedom to fit the facts of scientific research into any other theory than that of evolution, one is automatically the target of ad hominem attacks and slanderous abuse. All is fair in the defense of the orthodox religion. No level of abject lying or misrepresentation is prohibited from the faithful Darwinite. Surely no Roman Catholic inquisitor was more dutiful than the modem defenders of naturalistic materialism.

But, we are told, there is no possible way that any other view could be true! Really? Well, let’s take some of the facts of science and demonstrate that what we know to be true fits far better within a theistic/creationist viewpoint than an atheistic/materialistic one. We shall first look at the function of natural selection and ask the question, "which theory best explains and even predicts the existence of natural selection in species today?”

If, in any instance, it is found that the information better fits into the creation model than the evolution model, then surely simple honesty demands the granting of freedom for further examination. Only an incredibly deep prejudice, from a commitment to the religion of materialism, can possibly provide a basis for a denial of such freedom.

The genetic make-up of animal and vegetable species includes a mechanism that allows a species to adapt to changing environmental conditions that, without the existence of this mechanism, would result in the extinction of the species. This process or mechanism is known as natural selection. How does it work? Basically, the forces of predatory or environmental selection work upon the inherent ability of the genetic mechanisms to change and adapt to allow the species to survive and adapt.

Natural selection is the process whereby the spectrum of phenotypic manifestations of the genetic make-up is “taken advantage of” by the selection pressures of the environment. Stasis could be described as a time when there is no specific or directional pressures being exerted upon a species, either by predation or environment. For example, those individuals with genetic makeup “g” predominate in the gene-pool of the species. These individuals, then, have more viable offspring that pass on their genotype than an individual with, say, genotype “i”. Since “i" is not as well adapted to the environment as "g" then “i” will not, as long as environmental conditions remain the same, replace “g” as the center-point of the genotypic spectrum of this species.

Now, let’s say that a shift takes place in some environmental factor. The classic Illustration is predation. A new predator enters the environment and begins to exert more pressure upon the individuals with the “g" genotype than the “i” genotype (which was, till this time, a minority in the gene-pool). The practical result of this is that those with the “i” genotype begin to have more viable offspring in the second generation than those with the “g” genotype. The effect over time, of course, is a shift of the center of the gene-pool.

Now, it is important to differentiate between natural selection and micro-mutational evolution as proposed in the neo-Darwinian model. Natural selection, as described above, is not dependent upon, nor driven by, any mutation in the genetic code of the individuals within the species. As we saw, the above genotypes in our example both existed together in the gene-pool; the environmental pressures did not “create” anything new, but the ability of the species to adapt was derived from the pre-existing range of genetic possibilities. Now, it is clear, why the neo-Darwinian synthesis must place such a huge emphasis and weight upon the existence of mutation to provide “new” genetic material upon which, over great expanses of time, natural selection can then work to bring about the incredible complexity and variation of life as we see today.

Now, in light of all this, let’s ask some simple questions. First, which of the two models would predict such a mechanism as natural selection? Well, natural selection is primarily a mechanism of conservation. It is not the “engine" of change that is so often claimed for it. Which model would predict a mechanism that would allow for the conservation of a species? If a Creator did indeed produce a purposeful creation, would not such a mechanism be expected? And how shall the evolutionist explain the origination of the process of natural selection? Clearly the model does not predict it at all, and neither can it provide a logical explanation for how it came about.

The point is that the whole spectrum of scientific evidence relative to natural selection fits perfectly and without contradiction into the creationist model. The evolutionist must emphasize the exceptional circumstance, rather than the norm. In the exceptional he must deny the fundamental precept that the function of the DNA/RNA system is to copy itself and repair copy errors. Mutation leads to extinction, not increased complexity and new function. Natural selection of existing genetic potential leads to the conservation of life as from a wise Creator.

We see from this brief examination of the scientific evidence that it can successfully be fit into the creationist model. In fact, it fits with better consistency and accuracy than in the evolutionary model. This alone is sufficient to demonstrate the sad religious bigotry that predominates in scientific circles today that would eliminate the freedom to think in any way other than the “orthodox” way of naturalistic materialism. Professing themselves to be wise, they became fools and bigots.

 Score

The sands of time are sinking,
The dawn of heaven breaks,
The summer morn I’ve sighed for,
The fair sweet morn awakes;
Dark, dark, hath been the midnight,
But dayspring is at hand,
And glory, glory dwelleth
In Emmanuel’s land.

The King there in his beauty
Without a veil is seen;
It were a well-spent journey
Though seven deaths lay between:
The Lamb with his fair army
Doth on Mount Zion stand,
And glory, glory dwelleth
In Emmanuel’s land.

O Christ, he is the fountain,
The deep sweet well of love!
The streams on earth I’ve tasted
More deep I’ll drink above:
There to an ocean fullness
His mercy doth expand,
And glory, glory dwelleth
In Emmanuel’s land.

The bride eyes not her garment,
But her dear bridegroom’s face;
I will not gaze at glory,
But on my King of grace;
Not at the crown he gifteth,
But on his pierced hand:
The Lamb is all the glory
Of Emmanuel’s land.

According to Romans 1:18-21, unbelievers actually know God in their heart of hearts. Indeed, that which is known of God is evident within them so that they are without excuse for their professed unbelief. Since He is not far from any of us, even pagan philosophers cannot escape knowing Him [Acts 17:27-28]. What unbelievers do is "suppress the truth in unrighteousness". They are guilty of self-deception.

Although in one sense they very sincerely deny knowing God or being persuaded by His revelation, they nevertheless are mistaken in this denial. In fact they do know God, they are persuaded by His revelation of Himself, and they now are doing whatever they can to keep that truth from sight and to keep from dealing honestly with their Maker and Judge. Rationalization and any number of intellectual games will be enlisted to convince themselves and others that God's revelation of Himself is not to be believed. In this way unbelievers, who genuinely know God in condemnation, work hard to deceive themselves into believing that they do not believe in God or the revealed truths about Him.

It is the knowledge of God which all believers inescapably have within themselves that makes it possible for them to know what the Bible reveals about themselves or about the world. Because they know God, they have a rationale for the laws of logic, the uniformity of nature, man's dignity and ethical absolutes.

The unbeliever cannot provide the preconditions for the intelligibility of logic, science or ethics, so he sees no problem in the irrational pursuit of knowledge that denies logic, contradicts science and is without ethics. Every bit of his knowledge is an evidence supporting the truth of God's revelation, and a further indictment against unbelief on the day of judgment.

Differing worldviews can be compared to each other in terms of the important philosophical question about the "preconditions of intelligibility" for such important assumptions as the universality of logical laws, the uniformity of nature, and the reality of moral absolutes. We can examine a worldview and ask whether its portrayal of nature, man and knowledge provide an outlook in terms of which logic, science and ethics can make sense.

For instance, it does not comport with the practices of natural science to believe that all events are random and unpredictable and that the world and what exists in it are the product of such events. It does not comport with the demand for honesty in scientific research, if no moral principle expresses anything but a personal preference or feeling. Moreover, if there are internal contradictions in a person's worldview, it does not provide the preconditions for making sense out of man's experience.

It is the Christian's contention that all non-Christian worldviews are beset with internal contradictions, as well as with beliefs which do not render logic, science or ethics intelligible. On the other hand, the Christian worldview, taken from God's self-revelation in Scripture, demands our intellectual commitment because it does provide the preconditions of intelligibility for man's reasoning, experience, and dignity.

In Biblical terms, because of the unbelievers rejection of God's revealed truth, they have "become vain in their reasonings" [Romans 1:21]. By means of their foolish perspective they end up "opposing themselves" [2 Tim. 2:25]. They follow a conception of knowledge which does not deserve the name [1 Tim. 6:20]. Their philosophy and presuppositions rob one of knowledge [Col. 2:3, 8], leaving them in ignorance [Eph. 4:17-18; Acts 17:23]. The aim of the Christian is to cast down their reasonings [2 Cor. 10:5] and to challenge them in the spirit of Paul: "Where is the wise? Where is the disputer of this world? Has not God made foolish the wisdom of the world?" [1 Cor. 1:20].

In various forms, the fundamental argument is that the Christian worldview is true because of the impossibility of the contrary. When the perspective of God's revelation is rejected, then the unbeliever is left in foolish ignorance because his philosophy does not provide the preconditions of knowledge and meaningful experience. The proof that Biblical Christianity is true is that if it were not, we would not be able to prove anything, because there is no explanation for the laws of logic and antithesis outside the Biblical world view.

The justification of belief or rejection of belief will be governed by the underlying presuppositions. These are our most basic commitments or assumptions about reality, knowledge and ethics.

Everybody has a worldview, a perspective in terms of which they see everything and understand their perceptions and feelings. A worldview is a network of related presuppositions in terms of which every aspect of man's knowledge and awareness is interpreted. This worldview is not completely derived from human experience, nor can it be verified or refuted by the procedures of natural science. Not everybody reflects explicitly upon the content of his worldview or is consistent in maintaining it, but everybody has one nonetheless.

A person's worldview clues him as to the nature, structure and origin of reality. It tells him what are the limits of possibility. It involves a view of the nature, sources and limits of human knowledge. It includes fundamental convictions about right and wrong. One's worldview says something about who man is, his place in the universe, and the meaning of life. Worldviews determine our acceptance and understanding of events in human experience, and thus they play the crucial role in our interpreting of evidence or in disputes over conflicting fundamental beliefs.

We must not think that the unbeliever simply lacks information or needs to be given observational evidence. A person may be so misled by the prejudiced and hostile voices about religion all around him (from the school classroom to the popular media) that he has the unstudied impression that absolutely "no thinking person" sees any credibility to the historical or textural accuracy of the Bible. He may be amazed to find that very competent scientists, historians and other scholars can present thoughtful evidence in favor of Christian claims in science or history. However, in some cases, the resistance of unbelievers to the evidence is more principled and tenacious.

Simple appeals to observational evidence need not be decisive at all. The reason is that a person's presuppositions determine what he will accept as evidence and determine how that evidence will be interpreted.

Naturalism and supernaturalism are conflicting outlooks regarding the world in which we live and man's knowledge of it. The naturalist claims that what is studied by empirical science is all that there is to reality, and that every event can be explained without resorting to forces outside the scope of man's experience as from the supernatural.

"Empiricism" as a school of thought claims that all of man's knowledge is dependent upon experience, observation, or sense perception. This is what we call neo-science. It rejects the dominion mandate given to man at creation in Genesis 1:26. This is what gives legitimate science its theological basis for investigation and discovery.

Christian supernaturalism, on the other hand, believes that there is a transcendent and all-powerful God who can intervene in the universe and perform miracles which cannot be explained by the ordinary principles of man's natural experience. Now then, having well-accredited reports of a "miraculous" event is not in itself sufficient to change the mind of the naturalist - and for good reason. The naturalist's presuppositions will require him to dispute the claim that such an event really occurred, or alternatively, will lead him to say that the event is subject to a natural explanation once we learn more about it. Simple evidence need not dislodge his naturalistic approach to all things. Our presuppositions about the nature of reality and knowledge will control what we accept as evidence and how we view it.

This is evident from the historical narratives recorded in the Bible. The Israelites saw miracles first-hand in the wilderness, but still disbelieved and disobeyed God. The Jewish leaders saw Jesus raise Lazarus from the dead, and responded by plotting to kill Jesus! They paid the soldiers to lie about the Christ’s own resurrection! The Lord has provided plenty of empirical evidence of His veracity, but the way evidence is treated is determined by a person’s more fundamental beliefs. “If they hear not Moses and the prophets, neither will they be persuaded if one rises from the dead” [Luke 16:31].

The Bible teaches us that the mental and spiritual perspectives of believers and unbelievers differ radically from each other. In principle, and according to what they profess, the basic worldviews of the Christian and non-Christian conflict with each other at every point. The all-pervading sinful depravity of the unregenerate man touches his intellect as much as anything else. "The mind of the sinful nature is at enmity with God, for it is not subject to the law of God, nor can it be" [Romans 8:7]. Paul's description of the unbelieving mind in Ephesians 4:17-19 is graphic. Unbelievers walk in vanity of mind, with darkened understanding, ignorance and a hardened heart. "Professing themselves to be wise, they became fools" [Rom. 1:22].

On the other hand, believers are said to be transformed by the renewing of their minds [Rom. 12:2; cf. Eph. 4:23-24]. They now have the mind of Christ [1 Cor. 2:16] and bring every thought captive to Him [2 Cor. 10:5]. It is not surprising that believers and unbelievers, with their conflicting worldviews and heart conditions, do not really share a common view of knowledge, logic, evidence, language, or truth. Pilate arrogantly asked, "what is truth?" [John 18:38]. Agrippa differed with Paul over what is "believable" [Acts 26:8]. What unbelievers call "knowledge”, believers shun as "pseudo-knowledge" [1 Tim. 6:20]. What believers call wisdom, unbelievers call foolishness [1 Cor. 1:18-2:5].

[credits to Greg Bahnsen]

Re: http://townhall.com/columnists/StarParker/2009/09/21/why_were_talking_about_race_-_again

We have come up with all sorts of explanations for our problems. We like to blame objects and our circumstances to the exclusion of the truth; we are natural born truth suppressors and already under wrath. Evil is not inherent in inanimate things; its origin is from man himself…

“For from within, out of the heart of men, proceed evil thoughts, adulteries, fornications, murders, thefts, covetousness, wickedness, deceit, lewdness, an evil eye, blasphemy, pride, foolishness. All these evil things come from within and defile a man”[Mark 7].

The state is powerless to effect change in the heart of man. Its role is to restrain evil and secure the inalienable rights of life, liberty and property endowed by our Creator. Real change must originate from a change of heart where the enmity lives…

The good news of the victorious confrontation of the Savior with Satan must be viewed in its context…

(1)   Man's guilty conscience created alienation between him and his wife, as well as a desire to flee from the presence of God.

(2)   God's curse was pronounced against the serpent precisely because he dared to beguile man into repudiating the self-establishing authority of God's word.

Both point to the spiritual antithesis inherent in the present human situation. The antithesis is explicitly declared by God, “I will put enmity” between the seed of the woman and the seed of the serpent -- between the children of God (those joined to Christ by faith) and the children of the devil [John 8:44]. It is worth noting that the emphasis falls upon the word "enmity" as the first word in the Hebrew ("Enmity will I put"). God himself is said to constitute, establish, and deliberately impose this enmity between men.

The opposition and antithesis between followers of God and followers of Satan is not simply predicted by God; it is sovereignly inflicted as His judicial curse. The distinction and antipathy between the two seeds must and indeed will be maintained. Only in that light do we properly understand and hope in the Messiah's crushing defeat of the tempter. Were that antithesis disregarded, diluted or dispelled, the very meaning of the gospel of salvation would be lost -- either by consigning all men indiscriminately to the perdition of Satan, or by neglecting the discriminating love of God, which “delivered us out of the power of darkness and transferred us into the kingdom of His beloved son.”

Re: http://townhall.com/columnists/NathanTabor/2009/09/15/islam_on_capitol_hill

Who is it that divides men?

Jesus said, “Do not think that I came to bring peace on earth. I did not come to bring peace but a sword…” [Matthew 10:4]. How shall we reconcile that statement with the name given to Him by Isaiah the prophet? ‘And His name shall be called the Prince of Peace’ [Isaiah 9:6].

The point is that Obama’s statement reveals his misunderstanding of the doctrine of Christ and His kingdom. In Obama’s perverted view of Christianity the Sermon on the Mount applies to the state; social justice enforced by the state is the way of fulfillment.

The Founders wisely separated church and state. The state was to insure liberty and to control lawlessness. The church was the pillar and ground of truth for the sanctification of men and the state. They were to remain separate and free.

Obama has confused what the Founders separated. The Obama state promotes both lawlessness and tyranny; it offers a counterfeit and hollow redemption to a people willing to settle for dependency rather than liberty. The anti-Christian state and the apostate church support the Obama theocracy. Obama plays the antichrist well.

After having further analyzed the data published on Ida, which was scientifically named Darwinius in honor of the late British naturalist, more paleontologists are now expressing their doubts about the fossil’s relevance. In fact, Richard Kay of Duke University told Scientific American that creatures like Ida “are decidedly not in the direct line leading to living monkeys, apes and humans.”

Certain traits of Ida’s lower jaw were hyped as being critical indicators of her transitional status. However, her partially fused lower jaw structure also appears sporadically in various other mammals. This distribution flies in the face of Darwinian “tree of life” reconstructions, but it follows a mosaic pattern of shared characteristics among disparate forms that is consistent with creation science predictions of design forms and methods from a common designer rather than evidence of common descent.

Ida’s jaw does not show evolutionary development, and the fossilized creature’s total failure to provide any “transitional” evidence caused Robert Martin of the Field Museum in Chicago to conclude, “I am utterly convinced that Darwinius has nothing whatsoever to do with the origin of higher primates.”

These statements are quite the opposite in both volume and content from the bold and loud proclamations of Ida’s significance upon her “unveiling.” Unfortunately, few outside of paleontological academia will hear these expert voices, only having been exposed to the local evening news or to the Google web search site, both of which featured Ida in her false loftiness, and neither of which now feature Ida in her true guise of a well-preserved, but otherwise inconsequential, extinct lemur.

And what is the source of strong conviction?

What is the origin of the conviction of Patrick Henry who preferred death to life under tyranny? He had a high view of man as a noble image bearer of the Creator, worthy of life, liberty and property. Government intrusion into his freedom was unthinkable.

What is different with men today? What has changed is our view of man and our view of reality. The biblical view of man is replaced by the humanistic view. No longer is man seen as unique but fallen. No longer is the state seen as ordained to secure individual rights necessary to obey to the Law of God. No longer is the church seen as the pillar and ground of truth in redemptive history.

These are the traits of that person the secularists say doesn’t exist. But if he doesn’t exist then how do we explain the existence of such evil? And how can the secularists propose their socialist utopia based on a foundation of such deceit?

No Soldier shall, in time of peace be quartered in any house, without the consent of the Owner, nor in time of war, but in a manner to be prescribed by law.

While on the surface, the prohibition against quartering troops in "any house, without the consent of the Owner" seems quaintly anchored in the 18th century, it is, in fact, firmly grounded in the framers' recognition that government is the institutionalized monopoly of force; that the instrument of that monopoly is the standing army; and that unless government is constrained by rigidly defined constitutional limits on the use of force, a standing army will inevitably become an instrument of despotism, not one of national defense.

The inclusion of the Third Amendment was rooted in the Founders' realization that, historically, standing armies were used to enforce unpopular laws, keep the population subjugated, and impel the dictates of the central government. In other words, in times of peace standing armies were the central government's police. The premise underpinning the Third Amendment is the individual's unalienable right to be free from the exercise of arbitrary, capricious, and despotic compulsion by armed forces answerable only to the executive branch of the central government. The Third Amendment's prohibition against quartering troops amongst the population is simply the expression of that fundamental right.

Demonstration of the Founders' concern over the despotic use of the standing army came in the late 1860s, less than a century after ratification of the Constitution, with the Reconstruction Acts following the War Between the States. Reconstruction was designed to crush any expression of intractability by the Southern states against their federal conquerors. Whatever one's thoughts about the outcome of the Civil War, Reconstruction was a brutal, arbitrary, and capricious exercise in the abuse of federal powers, including the use of the standing Army of the United States to enforce domestic "law."

So oppressive were the Reconstruction Acts passed by Congress that President Andrew Johnson vetoed every Reconstruction bill the Radical Republican Congress sent to him. In his veto of the first Reconstruction Act of 1867 Johnson stated: "It is plain that the authority given to the military officer amounts to absolute despotism. But to make it still more unendurable, the bill provides that it may be delegated to as many subordinates as he chooses to appoint...." Johnson further asked, "Have we the power to establish and carry into execution a measure like this? I answer, certainly not, if we derive our authority from the Constitution and if we are bound by the limitations which it imposes."

The Radical Republican Congress overrode all of President Johnson's anti-Reconstruction vetoes, and excesses by the federal Army eventually became so egregious that congressional dissenters passed the Posse Comitatus Act of 1878 (by a narrow margin). The act stated, in part, that "it shall not be lawful to employ any part of the Army of the United States as a posse comitatus, or otherwise, for the purpose of executing the laws, except in such cases and under such circumstances as such employment of said force may be expressly authorized by the Constitution or by an act of Congress...."

The Posse Comitatus Act of 1878 was, in fact, a return to the intent of the framers to separate federal executive, legislative, and judicial powers, and to keep the federal government from overstepping its proper boundaries. With the passage of the act, Reconstruction ostensibly ended, having been stripped of its overt martial law compulsion.

But while the nightmare of Reconstruction ended, statist and socialist sentiments within the federal government were spreading following the Civil War. Thus began the establishment, multiplication, and expansion of inherently unconstitutional executive branch law enforcement, regulation, and social welfare agencies.

These federal agencies exist for no other purpose than the enforcement of arbitrary, capricious "laws" designed to expand federal powers at the expense of state sovereignty and individual liberty. These agencies, which often have their own armaments, now constitute the functional equivalent of a standing army living amongst the people in time of peace and against which the Second and Third amendments were specifically intended to protect the people.

True, these myriad militarized federal agencies are not "quartered" in the traditional sense. However, the very nature of their jobs -- control of the people -- sets them distinctly apart from their neighbors. They are not quartered "with" us, but they are quartered among us. And their training (for example, the FBI teaches its agents that there is no individual right to bear arms) makes them sufficiently hostile to individual liberties that they constitute the equivalent of an occupying army working for a government hostile to freedom.

In short, the increasing militarization of federal, state, and local law enforcement agencies -- aided through duplicity by the Department of Defense -- has created the very monster feared by our nation's Founders: An armed force, quartered amongst the people, under the exclusive control of the executive branch of the federal government.

Now with generations of young people graduated from the system how is it possible for the American people to discern the damage being done to our culture? When inadequate funding is not blamed for the system failure, reflected in deceasing SAT scores, parents get the blame. Aren’t today’s parents the produce of the system that said its goal was the perfection of humanity?

As example of the problem, some believe that reform is possible when the educational leaders are convinced that phonics works better than the whole-word method in teaching kids to read. What is not believed is that the educational leaders already know that phonics works better and that's the very reason why they don’t want it. They want illiteracy! And because that is simply unbelievable, the reading problem in the public schools continues to be a problem.

The same thing applies with vouchers. Whether they work is not the issue, because the issue is state control.

Because most people prefer to believe a credible lie to an incredible truth, it is difficult to arouse a credulous public easily swayed by the arguments of the professional educators. Educators could not possibly be that diabolical! If children can’t learn to read, it must be that the fault is with the children. They are dyslexic! They are learning disabled! A whole educational industry has grown up around these assertions.

The reason Obama won the election and why more Americans are not suspicious of the motives behind his address to the captive audience in the public schools is because of the job the government schools have done on the youth of America. They have been educated to accept the socialism that Obama wants to impose on all of us.

Socialism is assumed to be truth. Critical thinking as that which led to constitutionalism is not considered relevant because it rests on a conflicting authority above the state. To question the state is now considered un-American rather than part of our founding documents. The faults of America are a main course, but the historical failures of socialism and its fruits are suppressed.

How many public schoolers have even read the Declaration, much less understand the principles supporting it statements?

Until Americans begin to abandon the government schools in mass, we will not be able to undo the damage the leftists continue to inflict on our nation.