Proof For All Time Of Unhinged Hypocrisy And Bias From The Pseudo-Journalist Class And The Rank-And-File Democrat

So this morning I’m looking through the crappy bird-cage-liner that passes itself off as the newspaper of record on the West Coast, just as I’ve been looking through the same bird-cage-liner every day since Trump announced his candidacy, let alone since he was elected.  And it’s just rabidly unhinged bias day after day after day.

Meanwhile, the same Democrat establishment and the same voters who literally swarmed Obama with fanatic worship when he was elected – who hysterically told anyone who didn’t take the Mark of the Obama that you were a racist, a hater, a traitor, fill in your own blank – rose up in a spirit of rabid, violent hatred against the President of the United States even before he took office.

There was an article about journalism and the “end of democracy” in the previous days’ sanctimonious hate-offering of all things Trump.  Under the title, “The vicious cycle that leads to the end of democracy,” I saw these words:

Does democracy require journalists and educators to strive for political balance? I’m hardly alone in thinking the answer is “yes.” But it also requires them to present the facts as they understand them — and when it is not possible to be factual and balanced at the same time, democratic institutions risk collapse.

Consider the problem abstractly. Democracy X is dominated by two parties, Y and Z. Party Y is committed to the truth of propositions A, B and C, while Party Z is committed to the falsity of A, B and C. Slowly the evidence mounts: A, B and C look very likely to be false. Observers in the media and experts in the education system begin to see this, but the evidence isn’t quite plain enough for non-experts, especially if those non-experts are aligned with Party Y and already committed to A, B and C.

Both psychological research and commonsense observation of the recent political situation (I think you’ll agree with this, whatever side you’re on) demonstrate the great human capacity to rationalize and justify what you want to believe. The evidence against A can be very substantial — compelling, even, from a neutral point of view — without convincing people who are emotionally invested in the truth of A.

The journalists and educators who live in X now face a dilemma. They can present both sides in a balanced way, or they can call the facts as they see them. Either choice threatens the basic institutions of democracy.

If they present balanced cases for and against A, B and C, they give equal time to the false and the true. They create the misleading impression that the matter is still in doubt, that opinion is divided, that it’s equally reasonable to believe either side. They thereby undermine and discredit their own assessment that A, B and C are very likely to be false. This is dangerous, since democracy depends on a well-educated, informed voting public, aware of the relevant facts.

In the long term, journalists and educators will likely turn against balance, because they care intensely about the facts in question and don’t wish to pretend that the evidence is unclear. They understand that they cannot routinely promote false equivalencies while retaining their integrity.

Schwittzoebel blathers on a little longer and then finally concludes,

This is all general and oversimplified. But it’s clear in the abstract and in the real world that knowledgeable people can be forced by the evidence to disproportionately favor one political party over another, creating a vicious cycle of bias and partisan alignment.

We might be entering this cycle in the United States. To fight against it, we must allow journalists, educators and researchers to speak freely. Political leaders and their supporters must not rush to the conclusion that experts who disagree with them — even systematically — are their enemies.

The first thing you need to understand is that, in the “abstract” presentation that he provides, he this “academic” firmly sides with the Democratic Party.  The Republican Party is “abstractly” Party Y – you know, the one that has every single one of its facts wrong because it’s dominated by stupid, ignorant, emotional people – whereas his Party Z is the Enlightened Party that knows all and is struggling to accommodate all of these stupid, vacuous, ignorant, clueless unwashed masses.

Eric Schwitzgebel fails throughout his piece to acknowledge on dirty little factoid, namely that 96 percent of journalists are progressive liberals who supported Hillary Clinton:

In all, people identified in federal campaign finance filings as journalists, reporters, news editors or television news anchors — as well as other donors known to be working in journalism — have combined to give more than $396,000 to the presidential campaigns of Clinton and Trump, according to a Center for Public Integrity analysis.

Nearly all of that money — more than 96 percent — has benefited Clinton: About 430 people who work in journalism have, through August, combined to give about $382,000 to the Democratic nominee, the Center for Public Integrity’s analysis indicates.

What about the academics?  Yeah, he fails to mention the same rabid bias in that group, also.

As an example, in 2012, 96 percent of Ivy League professors’ donations went to Obama.

Does such lightning of bias strike twice?  Yep:

99% of top liberal arts professor campaign donations go to Democrats: report
By Kelly Riddell – The Washington Times – Tuesday, October 27, 2015

Almost 100 percent of the 2016 presidential political donations made by top liberal arts professors went to Democratic candidates, with only one professor giving to a Republican candidate.

Forty-seven professors at the top 50 liberal arts colleges in the country, as ranked by U.S. News & World Report, have given to presidential campaigns, according to donations recorded in the third quarter by the Federal Election Commission and aggregated by Campus Reform, a conservative watchdog of higher education.

Of those 47 professors, Hamilton College History Professor Robert Paquette was the only one to give to a Republican — donating $150 to Carly Fiorina’s campaign.

The 46 other professors gave $20,875 to Democratic front-runner Hillary Rodham Clinton and $8,417 to Vermont Sen. Bernard Sanders, the report said.

“I do believe these numbers give an accurate representation of the political leanings of faculty on most college campuses, especially allegedly elite liberal arts colleges like Hamilton College,” Mr. Paquette told Campus Reform. Mr. Paquette told the organization he was the “only out-of-closet conservative in a faculty of 200.”

And yeah, once again, the end result for academia was an overwhelming bias for Democrats and an overwhelming rabid bias against Republicans.

The truly frightening thing about Schwitzgebel’s “analysis” is that, for Schwitzgebel, this rabidly lopsided bias probably isn’t even a problem.  After all, he is telling us that journalists and academics HAVE to ultimately choose sides and “present facts as they understand them.”  They have to be able “to speak freely.”

And so they have a RIGHT and even a DUTY to be in Nazi goose-stepping fascist synchronized march toward one political ideology.

And if you are NOT in these elite classes of the Übermensch, you have the right to shut up and mindlessly follow.  Because, that is all they believe you are capable of doing.

In order for Schwitzgebel to have his utopian “democracy” where  we have “a well-educated, informed voting public, aware of the relevant facts,” we have only tow alternatives: the first is to put everyone who supports Party Y in a reeducation camp until they understand that the only acceptable reality is to accept the one presented by the journalists and the academics; and the second is to surgically “correct” the members of Party Y with a full frontal lobotomy and fit them with a drool-collecting prosthetic so that they can be led to the way, the truth and the life according to “the facts” as journalists and academics understand them.

I have to laugh at Eric.  Here is an example of what he claims to believe as the two abiding principles for his particular academic discipline:

two things make a philosopher great: quality of argument and creative vigor

I mean, gee whiz, Eric, “quality of argument”?  HOW ABOUT ANY DAMN ARGUMENT AT ALL???  “Creative vigor”?  I mean, what the hell, when nearly one-hundred percent of your ilk are all marching in lock-step for one side.  I mean, oh yeah, there’s just ALL KINDS of “creativity” going on in your ivy tower and your faculty lounge, isn’t there???

Eric, you are true to your liberal-progressive kind: you are a devout, abject moral hypocrite of the very lowest order.

Allow me to post every single page of the Los Angles Times main section to prove a point:

There they are: a photograph of every single page of the main section of the Los Angles times for Monday, January 30, 2017

Let me go through every single headline and subtitle of each article in the main page section of the newspaper of record for the West Coast:

• CONFUSION REIGNS: Trump calls travel ban a success as chaos mounts on many fronts
• Thousands of protesters turn out at airports, and even top Republicans criticize the directive.
• GOP’s case of whiplash: Republicans hoped for collaboration between the White House and Congress, but Trump isn’t making it easy.
• Police wary of new duty: Trump’s order to use local units to enforce immigration laws elicits resistance by some L.A. officers.
• BONDS MADE CLOSER: Muslim Americans ‘standing shoulder to shoulder’
• You can’t build a wall on a river: Border fence must be set back from Rio Grande, leaving some Texans on wrong side.
• Screening under scrutiny: Trump wants ‘extreme vetting,’ but refugees already face tough checks
• Mexico braces for uncertain era: Trump’s tough talk on cross-border trade threatens to cut off region’s lifeblood.
• Bernie Sanders of France wins vote: Benoit Hamon triumphs in the Socialist Party primary for president.
• River poses challenge to wall plan (continuing ‘You can’t build a wall’ story)
• 5 killed at Quebec City mosque
• Trump’s powerful political duo: Travel ban signals the intent by advisors Bannon and Miler to reshape the country.
• New duties would ‘create a wedge’ (continuing ‘Police wary of new duty’ article)
• Riled veterans leap to Muslims’ defense: Military members offer support to Iraqi interpreters blocked by Trump’s order
• Are plans for jobs just PR? Trump is taking credit for them, but skeptics say many were already in the works.
• Travel ban hits a community hard (continuing ‘BONDS MADE CLOSER’ article)
• A reprise of anxiety, heartbreak (continuing ‘CONFUSION REIGNS’ article)
• Trump’s actions are blindsiding the GOP (continuing ‘GOP’s case of whiplash’ article)
• How Trump created chaos at the airports: Not only was his order on refugees unfair and inhumane, but they way it was carried out was a disaster.
• Leader of the free world [on Angela Merkel, celebrating her leftist immigration policies in contrast to Trump’s]
• A cruel, illegal executive order

It’s been this way ever since EVER, for the record.

There is not ONE example of objective, impartial journalism in the entire newspaper.  Rather, it is blatantly obvious that the policy of the Los Angeles Times is of echoing and amplifying ALL the criticisms from the unhinged left, while steadfastly refusing to so much as allow for mention ANYTHING that Trump may have done that could even conceivably be good.

Every single article is negative and unrelentingly critical.  For example, the “Police wary of new duty article” subtitled, “Trump’s order to use local units to enforce immigration laws elicits resistance by some L.A. officers” and then titled as it continues “New duties would ‘create a wedge'”: how likely is it that there are not “some L.A. officers” who are FOR this executive order and welcome it as good policy???  But the “some officers” who take the leftist side are the ONLY ones who get to count.  And to the extent that there is any nuance in the article itself, you don’t see anything but unrelenting anger and criticism in the headlines and subtitles that are what most people glance at as they pick up this biased piece of leftist propaganda.

And again, in the “BONDS MADE CLOSER” story: do you think it’s possible that someone with bad intentions might have been blocked?  But no, it’s going to be framed as sobbing mothers and hysterical children.  And that’s all that matters.  Which amounts to an entirely emotionalism-laded framing of this policy from a biased, slanted perspective while our philosophy professor Eric Schwitzgebe lambasts US as the “emotional” ones.

Do you want to see “emotional”???  How about Senate Minority Leader Charles Schumer weeping and sobbing at just what a mean, bad, mean old man Donald Trump is???

Donald Trump’s response:

“Only 109 people out of 325,000 were detained and held for questioning,” he wrote. “Big problems at airports were caused by Delta computer outage, protesters and the tears of Senator Schumer.”

Have to admit I loved this meme:

PLEASE, lefties, PLEASE don’t give me this garbage crap about being “emotionally invested” coming from the right.

The media and academia pull this tactic all the damn time: let’s search and search and search until we can find some sympathetic victim that suits our narrative, and then follow the Saul Alinsky strategy: “Pick the target, freeze it, personalize it, and polarize it.”  And it is ALWAYS emotional and it is ALWAYS leftist.  But it’s marvelous when they do what they demonize us for doing.  Because to be a liberal progressive is to be an abject moral hypocrite incapable of shame or virtue or integrity or decency or honesty.

The “Trump’s powerful political duo” article where Trump advisors want to “reshape the country” forces me to remember when Obama said he was only days away from “fundamentally transforming the United States of America.”  But THAT was wonderful and greeted with cheers and adoration whereas what Trump is doing is utterly evil because somebody who isn’t a beloved liberal ideologue now wants to “reshape the country.”

How about the article on “Riled veterans”?  Does that title give you the suggestion that veterans voted for Trump by a 2-1 margin???  And literally are the ones who gave Trump his swing-state victories that propelled him to the White House???  How about the fact that for career-oriented troops that form the backbone of our nation’s military and our national security, the margin favoring Trump was THREE to one???

No, or to put it more accurately, HELL no: rather, to put it in Eric’s language, “they present the facts as they understand them.”  Or at least “the facts” that they CHOOSE in their BIAS to present.

“Thousands of protesters” are framed as HEROES.  Remember when the Tea Party was demonstrating?  Not ONE SINGLE arrest was EVER made of a tea party supporter – and in fact the ONLY arrests were of unhinged liberal progressives whose fascist souls were filled with hate and rage at the thought that free people had the freedom to demonstrate.  But the mainstream media demonized us like we were burning and looting and raping and rioting.  But then we had first the vile protests of the Occupy Movement where we had acts of terrorism, acts of rape, acts of mass vandalism; then we had Black Lives Matter chanting “Pigs in a blanket, fry ’em like bacon” and “What do we want?”  Dead cops!”  When do we want it?”  “NOW!” which corresponded to an orgy of execution-style slayings of police officers.  And now we’ve got Democrats charged with RIOTING the day Donald Trump was inaugurated.  And the way the mainstream media depicts it it’s all so, so wonderful.

Such as when Democrats were using Nazi-style Brownshirt tactics to physically beat and terrorize Donald Trump supporters for the crime of participating in the 1st Amendment of our Constitution (see my articles documenting this here and here and here).

And you’re actually worried that the mainstream media that ignored the rise of the Nazi Party from within the Democrat Party isn’t being given enough respect, Eric???

Damn near very single story the mainstream media does emerges from the Saul Alinsky tactic: Pick a target, freeze it, personalize it, and polarize it.  DAMN NEAR EVERY SINGLE TIME.

We have that Time Magazine White House pool correspondent who wrote a post slandering Donald Trump as a racist for removing the Martin Luther King, Jr. bust.  Why did he assume that?  Well, he glanced at where it was and didn’t see it.  Why didn’t he see it?  Didn’t matter to him at the time in his rabid, unhinged, fanatic desire to post it.  It turned out that a Secret Service agent was blocking his view.

Of course, you have to realize that at NO TIME EVER in the last eight years did ANY Secret Service agent EVER ONCE obstruct ANY reporter’s view of the MLK bust: or else we can safely assume that these unbiased purveyors of fact and truth would have immediately reported that Barack Obama had ordered the MLK bust removed.

Amazingly, Zeke Miller STILL has a job in spite of the fact that he just proved that Time Magazine is a nest of poisonous, fanged, venomous vipers who are NOTHING but biased propagandists trying to slander and pervert the truth to suit their ideology and political narrative to harm and undermine Donald Trump and every single voter who elected him president.

Kellyanne Conway is asking the question: when will these lie peddlers be FIRED for “presenting the facts as their slandering bias compels them to understand them????

You go back and look over the disgrace that journalists made of themselves as Donald Trump kept proving that all the crap they were “reporting” was “FAKE NEWS” from a biased perspective: Donald Trump couldn’t win the primary because he was too polarizing and too divisive; Donald Trump could never defeat Hillary Clinton because he was too polarizing and too divisive; Donald Trump was out of contention in all the swing states because he was too polarizing and too divisive.  And all our biased polls prove our foreordained biased conclusion justifying our biased narrative.

THIS is what it means to be a “journalist” today.  THIS is what it means to be an “academic” today.  And if you’re not one of these propagandists, good luck in finding a damn job with them or keeping a job if you already managed to sneak in.

If you are a “journalist” or an “academic” today, YOU ARE THE LIVING EMBODIMENT OF DISHONESTY AND DISGRACE.

On the academic side, what we see is outright psycho-terror for professors whose expertise and scientific analysis tell them that evolution as a “fact” is a load of crap; we see an avalanche in academia of intolerable denials of tenure, denials of promotion, denials of contract renewals, denials of earned degrees, denials of admission into graduate programs”, and other rabid discrimination against a substantial minority of credentialed scientists that disagrees with the prevailing dogmatism of the myth of evolution.

This is “science” to an evolutionist.  Consider the words from Nobel Laureate Dr. George Wald who concedes a great deal in this quote: “One only has to concede the magnitude of the task to concede the possibility of the spontaneous generation of a living organism is impossible.  Yet here we are—as a result, I believe, of spontaneous generation.”  Wald talks about billions of years and then concludes, “Given so much time, the ‘impossible’ becomes possible, the possible probable, and the probable virtually certain.”

This is NOT science, it is “magic.”  Billions of years are NOWHERE NEAR ENOUGH TIME for “the magic” of evolution to occur if you actually believe in legitimate science.

But “academia” is purging and destroying ANYONE no matter how credentialed or how accomplished that scientist might be who disagrees with “the acceptable narrative.”

And you want to talk about “creativity” and “arguments”???

We’re seeing the same rabid spirit of academic fascism on another front that we have seen for decades in the myth of godless evolution.

Dr. Judith Curry, a climatologist who had held the chair of the School of Earth and Atmospheric Sciences at the Georgia Institute of Technology, resigned in protest of the modern-day witch-hunt that has become academia today, saying, “A deciding factor was that I no longer know what to say to students and postdocs regarding how to navigate the CRAZINESS in the field of climate science. Research and other professional activities are professionally rewarded only if they are channeled in certain directions approved by a politicized academic establishment — funding, ease of getting your papers published, getting hired in prestigious positions, appointments to prestigious committees and boards, professional recognition, etc.”

Do you know what caused the end of the Old Egyptian Kingdom?  It wasn’t the Industrial Revolution, liberal progressive crazies.  It was “climate change” that had NOTHING WHATSOEVER TO DO WITH ANTHROPOMORPHIC GLOBAL WARMING.  Do you know what caused the collapse of the Mayan Civilization?  It wasn’t SUVs, liberal progressive whackjobs.  It was “climate change” that had NOTHING WHATSOEVER TO DO WITH ANTHROPOMORPHIC GLOBAL WARMING.  Because our climate just changes; it’s unstoppable.  It is a FACT of both science and logic that the hated Bogeyman of CO2 produces less than 0.1 percent of all global warming gases; just as it is a fact that nature creates thirty damn times the CO2 that human beings do.  The left, out of POLITICAL rather than SCIENTIFIC ideology, made CO2 (which is actually essential for life on planet earth) an earth-murdering poison and ignored all the other global warming gases such as water vapor which accounts for NINETY-FIVE PERCENT of global warming gases.  Or to put it another way, IT’S THE WATER VAPOR, NOT THE CO2, YOU DAMN FOOLS.

But what the hell; we’re Nazis and Stalinists masquerading as “scientists,” and so everything we say must surely be “scientific” no matter how UNSCIENTIFIC it clearly is.

Eric wants us to worship rabid leftist bias that is masqueraded as “science” and “journalism” as “fact.”

What we have in both fields is nothing short of intellectual STALINISM.

HERE is an example of a rabid, disgraced FOOL who is BOTH an “academic” AND a “journalist.”  And he disgraced himself on BOTH fronts.  Which is why he was given a Nobel Prize, I suppose.

You have discredited yourselves.  Nobody ought to listen to you who wants the truth or even anything vaguely resembling the truth.  Your “facts” “as you understand them” are carefully selected lies that pimp a false narrative.  You’ve done it over and over and over again.

The bottom line is this, Eric: where were YOU when Barack Obama announced the New Reality: “Elections have consequences, and at the end of the day, I won.”  Or to put the New Reality another way, “We don’t mind the Republicans joining us. They can come for a ride, but they gotta sit in back.”

WHERE was your outrage, Mr. Schwittzoebel, when Obama was imposing every manner of outrageous, polarizing executive orders and policies and spitting in the eyes of increasingly outraged and alienated Americans???

I wrote this prediction back in 2012:

Obama’s strategy is to set aside and flatly ignore the law for his own political benefit.  Every American who is not deeply troubled by that – troubled enough to not vote for this fascist – is UN-American.

What Obama has done is provide an example of out-and-out lawlessness on the part of the president of the United States.  And when we get a hard-core right wing president the way Obama has been a hard-core left wing president, Obama and the Democrat Party and all of those who voted for Obama and the Democrat Party will be entirely to blame for that president and his extremist actions.  You mark my words.  Because what goes around comes around, and if a Democrat can set aside the law the way Obama has now repeatedly done, well, guess who’s going to be stomping on your necks under your own president’s prior justification???  Conservatives are rising up in a spirit of righteous outrage.  You have repeatedly slapped us in the face through your messiah Obama, and the time is coming when we’re going to punch you hard in the nose and then keep on punching.  And when that day comes, liberals, look to yourselves for blame. — My words on June 18, 2012

If you want to get even with the people most responsible for the rise of Donald Trump, then hunt every Democrat who voted for Barack Obama down with dogs and burn them alive.  Because Donald Trump was the result of eight years of FASCISM.

So we get to Trump’s entirely LAWFUL order to limit immigrants and refugees from seven countries that were actually even on Obama’s list as dangerous sponsors of terrorism.  For eight years, Obama gave us lawless executive orders that he himself had previously labeled as the acts of a king, an emperor, arguing that they were unconstitutional and anti-democratic before then  issuing them anyway.  And Democrats smiled and laughed at the abandonment of our Constitution and the tossing out of our laws.

DON’T complain, Democrat: YOU INVITED THIS.  YOU DEMANDED THIS.  YOU GOT WHAT YOU GAVE US.

Further, these seven countries are notorious abusers of human rights against Christian minorities, against women, against homosexuals.  But that’s perfectly okay, isn’t it???

Obama has been nothing short of a total disaster for the Democratic Party.  He lost the White House.  He lost the House.  He lost the Senate.  He lost a giant number of governorships.  He lost a giant number of state houses.  He’s a disgrace.  And yet he is the liberal progressives’ god and the  only god with whom they will have to do.

If Democrats had ANY virtue or integrity whatsoever, they would say, “Elections have consequences, and at the end of the day, Trump won.”  They would say, “We Democrats can go for a ride with Donald Trump, but we gotta sit in back.”

The fact that you won’t abide by the rules of your own game that you created is the biggest crisis facing America today.

 

 

 

 

 

Ten Reasons Why Everyone Who Is NOT A Fool Believes In The Reality Of A Creator God

The fool says in his heart, “There is no God.” — Psalm 14:1; 53:1

I came across something rather odd while I was hiking out in the desert a day or so ago.  And then I came upon another thing, and then another, and another.  I’ll post what I saw:

So I came upon – one after another – what turns out to be ten objects remarkably shaped like hearts.

How did these hearts happen to come to be?

How did they “evolve”???  I only know that I neither made them, saw them made, or had anything to do with them other than I happened to see them in the desert, one after another.

Well, being a thoughtful man I thought about it.

Did they just happen by purely random natural evolutionary forces?  The wind and/or the water carried each component and just happened to deposit each piece without relocating the pieces that nature had already placed there until we had our “hearts”???

You can believe that.  And I can properly label you as a fool.

Of COURSE that didn’t happen.  Only a truly indoctrinated ideologue would ever believe an asinine story like that.  No, somebody – and I would guess the same somebody – made all ten of these hearts.  A MIND designed them and arranged the pieces just so according to a plan to bring about a purposeful result.

You can believe otherwise.  But you’re wrong.  And what’s more, you are a fool.  It doesn’t matter what your IQ is: you are a moral idiot who has committed your intellect to idiocy.  You have committed yourself to being wrong, and you have used every resource you have – your mind included – to justify your stupidity.  And you can have a dozen PhDs and you can have a buttload of money and you can have all sorts of prestigious titles and accolades and, yes, you can be a morally and therefore intellectual stupid person; a fool.

It may not have been a coincidence that whoever made ten hearts seems to have stopped at that number.

As I reflected on this “intelligent creative designer’s” work, I immediately thought of an analogy: the major systems of the human body.

It turns out that there are TEN such systems:

1. Circulatory System: This system is made up of the heart, blood, blood vessels, and lymphatics. It is the body’s delivery system, concerned with circulating blood to deliver oxygen and nutrients to every part of the body.
2. Digestive System: The purpose of the digestive system is to turn the food you eat into something useful for the body. When you eat, your body uses this system to digest food so your cells can use it to make energy. The organs involved in this system include the mouth, stomach, and intestines.
3. Endocrine System: This system is made up of a collection of glands, including the pituitary and thyroid glands, as well as the ovaries and testes. It regulates, coordinates, and controls a number of body functions by secreting chemicals into the bloodstream. These secretions help control moods, growth and development, and metabolism.
4. Integumentary System: This system consists of the skin, hair, nails, and sweat glands. Its main function is to act as a barrier to protect the body from the outside world. It also functions to retain body fluids, protect against disease, eliminate waste products, and regulate body temperature.
5. Muscular System: This system is made up of muscle tissue that helps move the body and move materials through the body. Quite simply, muscles move you. Muscles are bundles of cells and fibers that work in a simple way: they tighten up and relax.
6. Nervous System: The nervous system is the control center of the human body. It is made up of the brain, spinal cord, and nerves. It receives and interprets stimuli and transmits impulses to organs. Your brain uses the information it receives to coordinate all of your actions and reactions.
7. Reproductive System: The human reproductive system ensures that humans are able to reproduce and survive as a species. It is made up of organs such as the uterus, penis, ovaries, and testes.
8. Respiratory System: The primary function of the respiratory system is to supply the blood with oxygen in order for the blood to deliver oxygen to all parts of the body. The respiratory system does this through breathing. It consists of the nose, larynx, trachea, diaphragm, bronchi, and lungs.
9. Skeletal System: The skeletal system provides the shape and form for our bodies in addition to supporting and protecting our bodies, allowing bodily movement, producing blood cells, and storing minerals. This system consists of bones, cartilage, and joints.
10. Urinary System: The purpose of the urinary system is to filter out excess fluid and other substances from your bloodstream. Some fluid gets reabsorbed by your body but most gets expelled as urine. The organs found in this system are the kidneys, ureters, urinary bladder, and urethra.

Ten hearts.  Ten organ systems.  How fitting!!!

Now, it’s not merely ten systems versus ten systems.  We’ll get to the vastly – INFINITELY – more complicated nature of the ten organ systems of the human body shortly, but let’s consider the fact that, unlike the hearts, each of the ten organ systems of the human body must already be present all at once for the rest of the systems to function.

Again, you can be a good Darwinist and claim that the skeletal system somehow evolved with all 206 individual bones (which actually starts with 270 bones at birth, with some of the bones being programmed to fuse together as the child develops) just somehow “assembled themselves” the same way the fool would claim the individual components of the hearts somehow assembled themselves.  But to what telos?  To what end?  For what purpose?  A skeleton would be a pretty amazing feat for natural forces to assemble – FAR MORE SO than the pieces of any of those hearts! – but it’s not like it’s alive or anything.

As it turns out, you need EVERY SINGLE ONE OF ALL TEN OF THESE SYSTEMS ALL FUNCTIONING SIMULTANEOUSLY for the organism to live or do a damn thing.  Just imagine you had the other nine but couldn’t eliminate: you’d live a very short life and explode in a tremendously icky manner!  But don’t worry, all of your friends would explode the same way and the human species would be extinct.

I’m going to guess that whoever designed and built those hearts with the purpose and plan they had in their minds, they built one at a time and then moved on to the next one.  But that aint the way a living, breathing, eliminating organism works.  All ten systems had to be designed so that they were all perfectly functioning at the exact same moment.  Or nothing.

That fact screams God.  And only the worst, most pitiable kind of unrelenting FOOL doesn’t comprehend that fact because of a terrible and terrifying moral defect worse even than sociopathy in the heart of that fool.

Evolutionists are a particular species of fool who believe that time solves everything.  If you were to stare at a rock for a long enough period of time, why, that rock would eventually come alive, and then it would eventually sprout wings and begin to fly.  Then it would talk and mock the atheist for being deluded enough to believe in flying, talking rocks.  And of course, given enough time, another rock of the opposite gender would similarly arise.  And then it would only be a matter of time before the two flying rocks evolved near enough the same place and the same time over the potential span of billions of years and they would fine one another and reproduce and … and.. build a monument of rocks in the shape of a heart in the California desert so that I could eventually find them and ponder the meaning.

How about “not.”

Let’s examine the “time problem,” not just from the standpoint of all of those ten incredibly and yes, infinitely complex organ systems.  Let’s consider the problem of time just for the very simplest living cell:

The Time Problem

To go from a bacterium to people is less of a step than to go from a mixture of amino acids to a bacterium. — Lynn Margulis (21.5)

The only premise that all of the precellular theories share is that it would be an extremely long time before the first bacterial cells evolved. If precellular life somehow got going, it could then conceivably begin to crank out, by some precellular process, random strings of nucleotides and amino acids, trying to luck into a gene or a protein with advantages which would lead to bacterial life. There is no evidence in life today of anything that produces huge quantities of new, random strings of nucleotides or amino acids, some of which are advantageous. But if precellular life did that, it would need lots of time to create any useful genes or proteins. How long would it need? After making some helpful assumptions we can get the ratio of actual, useful proteins to all possible random proteins up to something like one in 10^500 (ten to the 500th power). So it would take, barring incredible luck, something like 10^500 trials to probably find one. Imagine that every cubic quarter-inch of ocean in the world contains ten billion precellular ribosomes. Imagine that each ribosome produces proteins at ten trials per minute (about the speed that a working ribosome in a bacterial cell manufactures proteins). Even then, it would take about 10^450 years to probably make one useful protein. But Earth was formed only about 4.6 x 10^9 years ago. The amount of time available for this hypothetical protein creation process was maybe a few hundred million or ~10^8 years. And now, to make a cell, we need not just one protein, but a minimum of several hundred.

So even if we allow precellular life, there is a problem getting from there to proteins, genes and cells. The random production of proteins does not succeed as an explanation. Other intermediate, unspecified stages must be imagined. We could call these stages post-precellular life. By whatever means, life’s evolution through these stages would have to be time-consuming.

Now, I wrote about this before (when I came upon a similar phenomenon out in the desert that prompted me to think).  And here’s what I just pointed out about the above SCIENTIFIC FACTS:

“Time-consuming.”  There’s a rather gigantic understatement for you.  Try to write that number down: 10^450 years, which is 10 with 450 zeroes after it.  That is a number that makes our national debt even after the Obama spendaholic presidency look so infinitesimal that any kid ought to easily be able to solve our national debt crisis with his lunch money by comparison.  And it makes the length of time since our universe exploded into being some 14 billion years ago (1.4×10^10 years) and the earth formed 4.6 billion (4.6×10^9) yeas ago look tiny and insignificant by comparison.

4.6 billion years ago might seem like a long time: 4.6 with nine zeros after it.  That is, unless you compare it to the number “1” followed by a MINIMUM of FOUR HUNDRED AND FIFTY freaking zeroes.  We’re not talking about billions, we’re not talking about trillions, we’re talking about a number so vast only a true mathematician has ever even HEARD of it before: a Novenquadragintacentillion, at least according to our dictionary of Big Ass Numbers.

And that 10^450  years is just for ONE protein when you need to multiply that 10^450 years by several hundred proteins.  That last sentence of the first paragraph is actually staggeringly optimistic, considering that in this case “several hundred” is actually SEVERAL THOUSAND:

“A typical bacterium requires more than 4,000 proteins for growth and reproduction.”

So understand the dilemma: you need random trials requiring 10^450  years to form just ONE protein; but you actually would need at least another 3,999 more proteins that will take just as long to randomly generate after you finally generate that first one.  Each one is going to take you about another 10^450  years’ worth of random trials to generate!  And finally after 10^450  a.k.a. a novenquadragintacentillion years multiplied by “more than 4,000 proteins,” just what are the odds that that first protein that you made would still exist so many trillions times trillions times trillions of years later???  Just what are the odds that you would have all 4,000-plus proteins available at one time and in one place to make the assembly of that simplest cell possible???

There’s just not enough time literally in the whole universe just to form a stupid bacterial cell, let along a human being with those ten amazing organ systems.  Do you get this blatantly obvious scientific fact???

How long did it take for the intelligent, creative designer to build each of those hearts?  Half an hour, maybe?  Maybe a little longer?  But without that intelligent, creative designer building those hearts out of the plan of an intelligent mind, those individual components of each of those hearts would have sat wherever they originally were for all eternity and nothing would have ever happened.

And you have to be a particular type of fool not to comprehend that.

Atheists/secular humanists/evolutionists tell us that time is their best friend in the world and that time can do ANYTHING.  Well, I’ve got news for you: time actually CAN’T DO ANYTHING: it just sits there, doing nothing except ticking moments away.  Anyone who has ever had a deadline and not intelligently worked on producing whatever was necessary to accomplish that deadline surely understands that time doesn’t solve anything.  In fact, the 2nd law of thermodynamics (popularly known as entropy) actually guarantees that, far from being the best friend, time is in actual scientific fact our worst enemy:

Entropy: lack of order or predictability; gradual decline into disorder.

The more expansive definition of the law of entropy doesn’t make it any better.  Evolutionists are not only wrong; they are laughingstock wrong.  Because things DON’T become more ordered over time; they become more DISORDERED.  If you tell your kids, “Don’t worry, your room will clean itself,” you’re a perfect candidate for atheistic evolution.

So, scientifically – let’s NOT be fool enough to think that actual, legitimate SCIENCE actually in any way, shape or form supports godless evolution – there simply scientifically isn’t enough time in the universe for even the most simple possible cell to evolve.  And if you believe in the miraculous nature of time to achieve anything rather than accepting the legitimate science that says the opposite, well, the biblical term “fool” most certainly applies to you.

One other factoid to prove what FOOLS those who embrace godless evolution truly are: there are 100 TRILLION cells in the human body that are more complex than that simple bacterium that even all the time in the universe couldn’t produce.

And not only are there one hundred trillion cells in the human body, but it gets WORSE for you godless fools: because there are 200 different kinds of cells in the human body — in the brain, liver, bone, heart and many other structures — must somehow those 200 different kinds of cells must be read off a different set of the hereditary instructions written into the DNA.  Or else nothing happens.

Scientist Michael Behe describes what he labelled “irreducible complexity.”  He’s entirely right.  You must have the entire living system present all at once or nothing will happen.  His opponents are driven entirely by atheism and ideology that has perverted their “science.”

Some of the “greatest” evolutionary minds, such as Harvard professor Stephen Jay Gould, believe in something called “panspermia,” which is the recognition of the obvious REALITY that evolution is completely impossible and therefore punting to a belief that life was seeded here from “somewhere else” that is of course scientifically impossible to prove (or disprove).  This becomes an anti-scientific religious faith offered in the name of “science.”  But it is nothing short of “junk science” that the most brilliant so-called “scientists” accept.  The same way that Darwin’s “falsifiability” is a totally bogus joke that any but the most ardent propagandist ought to recognize:

Ann Coulter pointed it out with the false claim that evolution was “falsifiable” versus any religious claim which was not. Darwin said, “If it could be demonstrated that any complex organ existed which could not possibly have been formed by numerous, successive, slight modifications, my theory would absolutely break down.”

And Ann Coulter brilliantly changed a couple of words to demonstrate what a load of crap that was: “If it could be demonstrated that any complex organ existed which could not possibly have been formed by God, my God theory would absolutely break down.”

In other words, evolution is no more “scientifically falsifiable” than even the most ardent young earth creationist claim. Their standard is impossible to disprove. I mean, you show me that God “could not possibly have” created the earth.

The whole way they sold evolution was a lie.

You go down the list of “human evolution proofs” that the entire “scientific community” swallowed much the way restaurant pond goldfish or koi that greedily swallow children’s lougies because they stupidly think it’s food: Piltdown Man.  Nebraska Man.  Peking Man.  Java Man.  Not only did all of these “fossil finds” turn out to be hoaxes, but they were entirely obvious hoaxes right from the get go.  But science had already become a philosophy, and an idiotic philosophy at that.  And so “scientists” not only accepted these “evidences” but embellished upon them, creating entire worlds out of their moral idiocy that were as false as the fake proofs of evolution upon which they depended in the first place.

The evolutionary “scientists” disallowed any theory of origin that could in ANY way, ANY shape or ANY form depend on a Creator God because they claimed it wasn’t “scientifically falsifiable” and therefore not a legitimate scientific theory.  But they have broken their own rule over and over again in their rabid determination to impose their philosophical atheism onto science.  Science that ONLY formed as a result of Christian premises that the universe was NOT random, but was ordered, and which came as a result of a Creator’s Mind, which in turn formed the mind of man in His own image; such that human beings could explore God’s creation and think His thoughts that He formed us to think AFTER HIM.

Let me continue.

There are 100 trillion cells in the human body and there are 200 different kinds of cells in the human body.  And those 200 different cells combining for a total of 100 trillion cells must all somehow precisely correct form at the precisely correct time according to an incredibly complex and complicated plan with virtually no room for error whatsoever.  Or nothing happens.

Further, we talk about DNA.  Well, DNA is an alphabet of three letters which combine to form “words,” not a language.  And even if it WAS a language it would STILL require an intelligent communicator to use words in the proper order at the proper time such as not to result in gibberish.  I know that for a fact because I’ve repeated what Google translated my English sentence into, and my Spanish-speaking friends started laughing.

I’ve described it as “the marching band argument.”  Let’s say you are part of a marching band, and you want to form the words, “Go Trojans!” on the playing field.  Do you just count on that to happen all by itself, do you?  Do you think if you just randomly have the individuals march around and form the letters all by themselves – especially if you don’t even tell them they’re supposed to form anything or tell them what letters they are supposed to form – that will somehow happen, do you?  If so, congratulations!  You ARE fool enough to believe in evolution, after all!  Rather, no!  There must be an intelligent designer issuing commands and sequences that the band members follow at the appropriate times.

It also turns out that DNA – even when the entire code is there and is correct in every way (which obviously to anyone with common sense doesn’t happen without an intelligent programmer) – needs a driver, the way a computer program needs a driver to install it.  Again, maybe you have DNA; so what?  How does it DO anything?  Something must be present to communicate the incredibly sophisticated instructions of the DNA to the incredibly sophisticated physical body so that the entire sequence installs correctly.  DNA demands a driver, and personally, I believe that driver is the soul of the organism.  God creates the soul in the womb at conception, and the soul drives the installation of what that body will become.  In a fallen, sin-tainted, imperfect, degraded world, that process doesn’t always unfold as it was designed to unfold, but something like this God-ordered and God-ordained system far more accurately describes the procedure of life than any other even comes close to.

Allow me to offer a theory from “science” to prove my case: recapitulation.  Because these people will believe ANYTHING rather than face the truth, according to Colossians 2:8; according to Romans 1:22; according to 2 Thessalonians 2:11.  Because they are ultimately fools, and it is the nature of the fool to believe lies and reject reality.

And so, continuing, just as the individual members of the marching band “install” themselves at a particular location at a particular moment even as all the other individual members of the band are swirling around him, and so on and so forth until the living letters are formed with all the individual band members having precisely arranged themselves to form those letters, so also the soul serves as the driver of the body around it, driving the DNA and unfolding the installation sequence at a marvelously precise symphony of order.  As the Scriptures say, “I praise you because I am fearfully and wonderfully made; your works are wonderful, I know that full well” (Psalm 139:14).

And the ONLY reason the so-called “scientific community” will not accept this is because it would then point out the godless EVIL of abortion.  The scientific method was formulated by a publicly confessing Christian in the heart of Christendom out of uniquely Christian presuppositions.  Every single major branch of science was discovered by publicly confessing Christians.  But just as every single Ivy-League university was formed out of evangelical Christian presuppositions but BETRAYED those values, so also modern “science” has betrayed the very noble system that it once was.

And so I look at those hearts that are composed from a tiny number of components by comparison, I look at the heart-shape they were arranged in BY AN INTELLIGENT DESIGNER; and I am not a fool.  And all I can do is fall on my knees and thank the Living God who created me in His image (and that’s a whole other issue that screams for the reality of God as a moral fact) that I am not a fool.

We talked about the ten systems of the human body.  We have not yet discussed the human mind.  Let’s examine the problem of mind from mindlessness:

“But it should be pointed out that consistent atheism, which represents itself to be the most rational and logical of all approaches to reality, is in actuality completely self defeating and incapable of logical defense. That is to say, if indeed all matter has combined by mere chance, unguided by any Higher Power of Transcendental Intelligence, then it necessarily follows that the molecules of the human brain are also the product of mere chance. In other words, we think the way we do simply because the atoms and molecules of our brain tissue happen to have combined in the way they have, totally without transcendental guidance or control. So then even the philosophies of men, their system of logic and all their approaches to reality are the result of mere fortuity. There is no absolute validity to any argument advanced by the atheist against the position of theism.

On the basis of his won presuppositions, the atheist completely cancels himself out, for on his own premises his arguments are without any absolute validity. By his own confession he thinks the way he does simply because the atoms in his brain happen to combine the way they do. If this is so, he cannot honestly say that his view is any more valid than the contrary view of his opponent. His basic postulates are self contradictory and self defeating; for when he asserts that there are no absolutes, he thereby is asserting a very dogmatic absolute. Nor can he logically disprove the existence of God without resorting to a logic that depends on the existence of God for its validity. Apart from such a transcendent guarantor of the validity of logic, any attempts at logic or argumentation are simply manifestations of the behavior of the collocation of molecules that make up the thinker’s brain.”  — Gleason Archer, Encyclopedia of Bible Difficulties, 1982, pp. 55-56

If you are an atheist, mindlessness is what you proudly assert that you came from – and mindlessness is what you ARE.  An orderly, rational mind – even MORE than those ten amazing organ systems in the human body – CANNOT be a disordered product of disorder, a random result of randomness.  And so if you are an atheist, you are not only a fool, you are a MINDLESS fool.  Because you stand on an altar of random, disorganized mindlessness and pronounce yourself brilliant.

The Book of Romans starts out this way:

For the wrath of God is revealed from heaven against all ungodliness and unrighteousness of men who suppress the truth in unrighteousness,, because that which is known about God is evident within them; for God made it evident to them.  For since the creation of the world His invisible attributes, His eternal power and divine nature, have been clearly seen, being understood through what has been made, so that they are without excuse.  For even though they knew God, they did not honor Him as God or give thanks, but they became futile in their speculations, and their foolish heart was darkened.  Professing to be wise, they became fools, and exchanged the glory of the incorruptible God for an image in the form of corruptible man and of birds and four-footed animals and crawling creatures. — Romans 1:18-23

That last verse, verse 23, is especially interesting to me in this context, because it so directly applies to the atheist, the evolutionist.  The primitive peoples practice something called “ancestor worship.”  And why SHOULDN’T they worship their ancestors?  That is where they came from!  And what does the evolutionist claim he or she comes from?  From “birds and four-footed animals and crawling creatures.”  And so just as the modern-day man hordes money and buys things with it and by any theological standard worships these things as “idols” yet denies his idolatry, the evolutionist is an “ancestor worshiper” who denies his ancestor worship.  But it’s there, every bit as much as the primitive aboriginal, squatting in front of his hut in the mud.  And these fools actually call US “backward”!!!

We have not advanced as a species; we have degenerated and become worse and worse according to 2 Timothy 3:1-7.  According to the Book of Revelation which prophetically describes the depths of depravity that modern man is well on his way to degenerating into.  And the only things that have “improved” merely speak of our idolatrous nature and our determination to have “things” as part of our modern version of “the rat race” otherwise known as “keeping up with the Joneses.”

Now, I am an evangelical, fundamentalist Christian.  And I am such FOR A REASON.  And that reason is because the world conforms to the Word of the Creator God who clearly made it all.

Isaiah 40:8 states, “The grass withers, the flower fades, But the word of our God stands forever.”  But contrast that with evolution and the bait-and-switch pile of garbage that it is.  Think of how toxic cultures and societies twist and distort reality.  Think of Stalinism: the entire culture – science, academia media, you name it – was profoundly perverted into an instrument of deception and even terror.  Oh, yes, you can rightly believe this officially State Atheist regime taught Darwinism and evolution as part of THEIR indoctrination propaganda.  And the same thing is happening here.

I look at the world around me and recognize the profound reality of the formulation as expressed by theologian D.A. Carson:

“If God had perceived that our greatest need was economic, He would have sent an economist. If He had perceived that our greatest need was entertainment, He would have sent us a comedian or an artist. If God had perceived that our greatest need was political stability, He would have sent us a politician. If He had perceived that our greatest need was health, He would have sent us a doctor. But He perceived that our greatest need involved our sin, our alienation from him, our profound rebellion, our death; and He sent us a Savior. ”

And the basic fact is that all of these leaders of our culture that Carson’s quote finds lacking have directed their middle finger at God and screamed NO!  WE are the solutions to all the problems plaguing the world that we re-formed in OUR image!

I reject them and those who share their worldview.  And I embrace the God who fearfully and wonderfully formed me in His image; and who created me in His image so that one day, in the fullness of time, He could assume my image.  And live a perfect life in my place, representing me, representing all humanity.  And then, because He was God and death can’t hold God in the ground, rose again bodily from death as remarkably testified to by modern science to offer eternal life to any who would just believe in Him and follow Him.

Oh, yes, we went from easily disproving Richard Dawkins’ “Infinite Monkey Theorem” – that is easily falsifiable in its argument that a monkey randomly typing letters for an infinite period of time could reproduce the works of Shakespeare; to manufacturing an incredibly loaded and contrived “experiment” to prove lunacy really IS evolutionary reality, after all (that and the belief that there is no difference between a human-programmed virtual monkey which performs as programmed to perform VERSUS AN ACTUAL MONKEY); to deciding to banish Shakespeare from our universities (see also here and here to note that this is a widespread phenomenon on American college campuses) because apparently Stalin was right all along.  Because rabid intolerance is clearly our direction.

The Bible said this day would happen.  It told us the last days would happen.  They are happening today just as the God who declares the end from the beginning declared in His Word.  But the same fools who deny God to begin with refuse to accept plain reality.

God created the actual human heart, a heart capable of beating more than 100,000 times a day and more than 3 billion times as a machine the size of a fist pumps 3 supertankers (a million barrels!) worth of blood.  And I assure you that that was FAR more marvelous than the creator of the ten hearts the pictures of which I posted.

And I believe and declare that God is the LORD, and that His ways are superior to any scientist, or any rock star, or any movie actor, or any politician, or any other imposter offering himself or herself or any rival thing or idea in the place of God.  And I declare that His Word stands as true forever.  And I declare that in accordance with prophecies offered centuries in advance by a God who declares the end from the beginning, and from ancient times things which have not been done (Isaiah 46:10), God sent His Son to live and to die in my place for my sin, and to rise gloriously again so that I can be with my Creator forever and ever.  And that every rival to that truth is a lie from the devil and from hell.

What REALLY Matters And How Should We Decide What Really Matters? Ask The Right Questions And Pursue The Answers With Passion!!!

How should you live your life?  What should you believe and why should you believe it?  What values should you cherish and why should you cherish them?  Is there a God, to give life meaning, or is it all just random and therefore ultimately all meaningless and purposeless and valueless?

Do you ever think about that?  You know, for longer than the commercial break at some point during your favorite television program?

So many people just never bother.

It’s kind of interesting, the question-the-Bible thing: there comes a point where someone OUGHT to have questions: giving your life to Someone Else is not an easy proposition. Even Jesus told us we need to count the cost. But there comes that point when you ask your questions and you have an open heart to an ANSWER and you have your greatest questions ANSWERED. And you decide to take your stand on what you believe, what you have come to believe is true based on your own investigation.

That’s exactly what I did.  I was raised in a Christian home, but when I was in the Army, my faith was eroded by the life I was living and then it was ultimately mangled. I got out of the Army spiritually broken. And I lived my life like a pagan for YEARS.

But the backslidden Christian is the most miserable person on the face of the earth, because on the one hand you can’t enjoy sin (because you’ve got the Holy Spirit in you constantly comparing your thoughts, words and actions to the Truth as you keep hearing a voice that says, “This is the way, walk in it“); and at the same time you aren’t living a pure, righteous life that honors God and cannot enjoy any of the benefits of the Christian life.  And so you are “double-minded, unstable in all your ways” (James 1:8); you are wavering between two opinions (1 Kings 18:21) – and you need to make up your mind and decide who or what you will follow.

I came to realize that the person who follows himself and his own path and his own way is a selfish, self-centered narcissist: let’s talk about me for a while. And let’s KEEP talking about me; in fact let’s ALWAYS talk about me and NOTHING BUT me, because that is ultimately all that is important in this universe.   Is that seriously all there is to life?  Is there nothing more?  Is there nothing beyond me that is more important than me that ought to shape who I am and who and what I become?  And I came to a point where I needed to live for something beyond me, something greater than me. Something I could marvel at.

Another thing that came to me was a simple question: if there is no God, if the evolution that I always hear about is true, then what is right and wrong, and who decides? Another way to put it is, “How can you be a bad atheist?” Now, the ONLY way you can be a “bad atheist” is to believe in God; there ARE no moral requirements to being an atheist and no possibility for any moral requirement. You are nothing but the product of your DNA and your experiences that were outside of your control; more, you think whatever the hell you think merely because the atoms in your brain randomly happened to arrange themselves however the hell they arranged themselves.

I want you to understand very clearly where I am going here: I am making the point that when you consider the Bible, or Christianity, or religion, you are NOT doing so in a vacuum.  No, you are considering one alternative from the rest of the alternatives.  And so if religion is wrong, then embrace the alternative and embrace its consequences.  And understand what those consequences are.

There IS no “right” or “wrong.”  Not if Darwinian evolution has any credibility.  And it turns out the consequences of that alternative truly matters.

Now, SOMEBODY – you know, like Hillary Clinton or Barack Obama or somebody like that – manufactured some rules for the entire herd to follow.  And the herd has to follow these rules.  And if you don’t follow the rules of the herd, you don’t get to be in the herd.  Or at least the herd frowns on you and says you aren’t a very good herd member.  But there are HERD animals and there are PREDATOR animals that HUNT and KILL and EAT the herd animals and do so without any shame or regret or guilt whatsoever.  And you can alter or edit or change this morality willy-nilly, it turns out – such as when Obama was opposed to gay marriage but then was suddenly for what he’d been against – his contortions are actually even worse than that – but now it is incumbent upon all humanity to get in line with Obama or else be deemed “intolerant” and “bigoted” and “hateful.”

Because whatever is deemed “politically correct” is whatever the hell somebody else says it is until it isn’t that any more.

Now, I reject Obama and his bullcrap-bogus-pseudo morality and I reject political correctness and there had BETTER be some better reason why I ought to be “moral” – whatever the hell “morality” even is – or else in the words of that song, “Let the bodies hit the floor…”

And let it be YOUR body, or the body of your wife or your kid.  Because nobody and nothing matters.  This whole universe is nothing more than something that accidentally exploded into existence and will ultimately be swallowed up by the same meaningless process of nihilism that spat it out in the first place.

Me personally, I’ve always most identified with the predatory animals. Ask me what all my favorite animals are and you won’t hear me telling you, “Well, I like sheep and cows…” Nope. I favor the wolves and the lions that chase down and kill and eat their fill and are content and happy with a lifestyle that really kills the buzz of those helpless herd animals.

So start running, herd animals.  Because we’re hot on your heels and we mean to chase you down and drag you down and end you and your morally idiotic evolution only justifies our doing it to you.

Rape.  Burn.  Slaughter.  Loot.  It matters not.  For the madman who rips out your still beating heart with his bare fingernails is no morally different than the firemen who went up the stairs to their deaths during the hell of 9/11 when everybody else was fleeing as fast as they could.

I recall the line from the movie Alien:

Ash: You still don’t understand what you’re dealing with, do you? Perfect organism. Its structural perfection is matched only by its hostility.

Lambert: You admire it.

Ash: I admire its purity. A survivor… unclouded by conscience, remorse, or delusions of morality.

Why not be that way? Be pure, be a survivor, unclouded by bogus conscience, remorse, delusions of morality that have nothing to do with the real essence of human existence if evolution has any validity whatsoever.

Dylan Klebold, one of the infamous Columbine killers, wrote in his journal that he and his accomplice Eric Harris were “god-like” and more highly evolved than every other human being. I remember hearing one of their quotes: “We are no longer human, for we have evolved beyond human morality.”

They wrote in their journals (and pardon the language but it is theirs and not mine): “Why give a fuck what Jesus would do?” And, “I blew off his head with one shot. I am god. He died.”

And why, indeed?  I mean, other than the fact that WWJD is a much better acronym than WGAFWJWD.

And I demand the evolutionist give me a detailed scientific answer based on a chemical analysis of our damn brain cells that definitively proves that we should not all go thou and do likewise.

Show me how the sociopath is NOT the most evolved life form.

And evolution is a farce, or you prove they HADN’T evolved beyond human morality. Because evolution teaches me why I should murder and rape and steal to get whatever I want; and it does NOT teach me why I should love or cherish or give my what is mine for the good of someone who doesn’t even share my DNA.

I could on that simple evolutionary level be very content being a serial killer, a serial rapist, tracking down, stalking and HUNTING my human prey and satiating my own lusts, my own desires, doing my own thing my own way. If I want something, I ought to steal it. I have a lust for someone, I ought to kidnap and rape. If I don’t like somebody, I ought to hunt down and kill that somebody.

I can show you scholarly articles from evolutionists talking about rape as a simple adaptation to the requirements of natural selection and the survival of the fittest. Because evolution is all about spreading your DNA to the next generation – THAT’S WHAT MAKES YOU “THE FITTEST” BABY – and evolution doesn’t have any stipulations on how to do that. If it works, do it.

Last night I discovered and called in a bunch of stolen copper wire that somebody had stripped and sold. Why not?

At some point, I realized that if evolution were actually true, if there is no God who holds me accountable for my works, then anything is equally permissible. Not only is the torture-rapist-murderer no morally different from the Mother Teresa, but in fact the former is actually SUPERIOR to the latter; because the torture-rapist-murderer GOT IT and grasped the essence and the sheer absurdity of human existence and Mother Teresa was a stupid fool who made the wrong bet stupidly thinking there was some God at the end of the picture when there wasn’t. And now both people get the same dirt nap, only one of them lived their lives realizing all along that they would get that same dirt nap and lived their life consistently by that plan in a completely self-centered manner.

The sociopath is the true moral hero of Darwinism. Go thou and do likewise.

I always laugh when I hear the secular humanist and the atheist claim that religion is intolerance and mass murder.  Because they are the worst kind of ignorant fools and because the simple fact of the matter is that State Atheism has been responsible for the brutal murder of one hundred million just of their OWN people and JUST during PEACETIME alone.  Hey, you go ahead and add up the Crusades and the Inquisition and the witch burnings – which were all actually all more secular than truly coming from the Church, but that’s an argument for another day – and whatever you want – and you won’t even scratch the surface of what Mao and Stalin and Pol Pot and the Kims in North Korea did in their official state atheism.  And you can really and truly rack up a giant death toll when you add in the fact that according to the members of Adolf Hitler’s inner circle, he was a self-revealed atheist as well – and he started World War II and bears the guilt of the 60 million casualties from that war.  Then add to that terrible death toll another sixty million murdered innocent human beings just in the United States alone at the hands of secular humanists in their abortion mills.  And don’t even TRY to imagine what would happen if the secular humanists truly took power, because they would deliberately wipe out the vast majority of humanity in order to achieve their insane and evil environmentalist goals.

Jesus actually taught Christians to put away their swords, to turn the other cheek, to live in peace.  Because His Way was the anathema of the Way of evolution and natural selection and survival of the fittest.

And so, confronted with a very stark choice, something in me with every fiber of my being said NO this crap that I’ve been force-fed is NOT the TRUTH. There IS a way that we should live, a right way and a WRONG way. And each must have CONSEQUENCES. And if that ISN’T so, then don’t you DARE look down and judge the torture-murder-rapist who enjoys his “work” with that screaming woman or that terrorized little child.  Because he is only doing what is in him to do. If it feels good, do it, right?  Just like the homosexuals and the abortionists and the dope users say to justify their “choices” that fly in the face of everything every culture before them previously ever believed.   There is no more wrong with what they do than what the heyena does when they chase an exhausted animal down and start literally eating it alive.  And who the hell are YOU who DON’T have that person’s DNA and DIDN’T live his life and have his however-twisted experiences to judge that person???

Because either God created me in His divine image or I am no different from all the other animals that are the same mindless product of the exact same mindless evolution.  Human beings are either the one or they are the other.  Period.

Now, I want you to realize that this wasn’t just an intellectual game for me: I got out of the Army a trained killer, a highly trained expert stalker of human beings, a soldier thoroughly trained to deploy weapons specifically engineered to exterminate human beings like bugs – and more than a little bit bitter besides – and I was at that point where I could have gone either way.  And why NOT go to the dark side unless there was a genuine, profound difference between the two sides???

Unless there is a God who truly stands above ALL of us as our Creator and has the RIGHT to make the rules for ALL of us and hold ALL of us accountable to His rules that emerge from HIS character and nature and purpose for creating us in the first place.  And I was accountable to that Creator and no eternal dirt nap: the choice is either everlasting heavenly reward or everlasting hellish suffering.  And you get to choose which.

I mean, just so you know, I was trained by my own government how to kill my fellow genus homo and species sapiens with my bare hands, with a knife, with the bayonet, with pistols, with rifles, with machine guns, with hand grenades, with grenade launchers, with mortars, with rocket launchers, with the M47 Dragon, and even with the M220 Tube-launched, Optically tracked, Wire-guided missle system.  Not that I have most of those things now.  And I was trained how to parachute out of a perfectly good airplane so I could – on command – kill my fellow human beings like bugs within 18 hours notice anywhere on planet earth.  The question whether I would kill other human beings wasn’t an “academic” one; if and when I was activated, I would accomplish my mission that I was trained and indoctrinated to accomplish.  And by “indoctrinated,” I mean mentally and morally conditioned to sight in on an enemy and gently squeeze the trigger.  So I can state categorically that I was a trained killer; the lion and the wolf have nothing on me.

You have likely heard that slogan, “There are no atheists in foxholes.”  I’m sure that’s not an absolute statement, but it does underscore a very valid point: soldiers are people who for the most part need to believe in absolutes and objective values and transcendence in order to function.  And that’s because, for example, we have to deal with the reality that there is indeed an “absolute” difference between being alive and being a screaming, dismembered, disemboweled pile of bloody, quivering guts.  We believe in objective values because we need to believe that we’re living and dying for some kind of ultimately meaningful purpose; we need to know our sacrifice ultimately means something.  And we tend to believe in transcendence because we are people who may have to go through that moment of knowledge that in a very short time we are going to be in a battle and we may not live through it and we want to be in heaven.  And those three reasons are why there aren’t very many atheists in foxholes.

And so it was on that background that I began my investigation as to whether or not I should believe in God and what God I should believe in if there IS a God.  And also consider the consequences if there is NOT a God.

I mean, how ought a US-government trained super-predator live?

Now, the people who lived half-ass lives, who are afraid one the one hand to be what the Obama’s and the Clinton’s who make up all the politically correct rules for society call “intolerant” or whatever, but who at the same time don’t with any passion follow God or His ways, I GOT NO TIME FOR THEM.

Maybe that disgust at those who won’t get off the fence comes from my experience serving on a team where it was “us” and “them” – and “they” were trying to kill “us” and if “us” had any desire to live whatsoever we better kill “them” first.  That’s certainly one very good way to get at the essence of how black-and-white reality truly is.

Get on one side or get on the other side, choose this day whom you will serve (Joshua 24:15). The person sitting on the middle of the teeter totter of life is totally useless. And the people who just can’t sit themselves on the ends just muck up the whole operation of the teeter totter of life.

And that’s exactly the way God designed the world: there is heaven on the one side and there is hell on the other. There isn’t any “middle place” where the useless people who never had the balls to make up their damn useless minds go.

Jesus says that there are the sheep (the righteous) and there are the goats (the wicked). He says He will divide them into two and ONLY two groups, and He will say to one, “Enter into the joy of your Master,” while to the other He will say, “Depart from Me, you who practice lawlessness. I never knew you.”

Jesus says in the Book of Revelation, “I know all the things you do, that you are neither hot nor cold. I wish that you were one or the other! But since you are like lukewarm water, neither hot nor cold, I will spit you out of my mouth! You say, ‘I am rich. I have everything I want. I don’t need a thing!’ And you don’t realize that you are wretched and miserable and poor and blind and naked.” — Revelation 3:15-17.

And yes. That’s the way it works in God’s universe.  And to quote J. Vernon McGee, “you might have a better plan than God, but what you DON’T have is your own universe.”

God wants PASSION in His pursuers. He frankly wants us to follow Him with all our heart and all our soul and all our strength and all our mind (Luke 10:27) or else hey, please don’t bother.

And so it was with that big picture – one way or the other, the light side or the dark side – that I began to investigate whether there is a God and which God I should follow if there is.

I actually gave the Darwinists their first shot. I mean, if they could prove their case, then why bother looking at useless religions that talked about fairy-tale gods???

And so I read the hot-off-the-press at-that-time atheist work, “The Blind Watchmaker,” from cover to cover.

Right off the bat, I came across this memorable quote from Dawkins:

Biology is the study of complicated things that give the appearance of having been designed for a purpose. — The Blind Watchmaker (1996) p.1

And Dawkins also said in The Blind Watchmaker:

“Animals give the appearance of having been designed by a theoretically sophisticated and practically ingenious physicist or engineer…” — (p. 36)

Okay, so I’m hearing the man CONCEDE the major point that HIS SIDE has the BURDEN OF PROOF because he concedes that prima facie – on its face to be accepted as correct until proven otherwise – admission that it DOES in FACT appear self-evident that things were DESIGNED by a creator with a purpose. Just as St. Paul confirmed to believers in Romans chapter one.

And I have two arms with opposable thumbs so that I can open the stupid fridge with my right hand and take out the gallon of milk or the six pack of beer with my left hand. Design and purpose, kids.  As in design WITH a purpose.

So Dawkins told us from the outset that the burden of proof was on his side to PROVE beyond any shadow of a doubt whatsoever that there is no Creator God and can be no Creator God. But as I read, do you know what I increasingly began to observe? That this man was an appalling moral idiot, and that what truly set him apart was the gargantuan arrogance of a genuine fool.

I found it interesting to learn that Richard Dawkins was not opposed to the idea of an “intelligent designer.”  Unless that intelligent designer turned out to be God.  Because ultimately the man is a anti-religious bigot and an intellectual hypocrite rather than any kind of scientist.

If the prima facie case rests with design and therefore Creation, then the sensible person believes that unless and until the alternative is PROVEN otherwise. And he proceeded to FAIL spectacularly by any standard outside of his own incredibly narrow-minded presupposed viewpoint that he holds a priori based on his narrow-minded speculations rather than any legitimate science.

Then I read a book that I got from the library called “Darwin’s Enigma” from a man named Luther Sunderland. And what intrigued me about that book was that it was written by a guy who had literally been hired by the state of New York for the purpose of ascertaining whether creationism was an acceptable teaching for public schools. And he talked to the leading evolutionists in the world as he compiled his research from that secular purpose. Some of the curators from the leading museums of natural history on planet earth were literally quoted as saying that evolution was NOT a legitimate scientific theory and should NOT be taught as a fact in the public schools.

So I believe as I ought to believe when I intellectually believe there is a God who intelligently designed us with a plan for His creation. And I believe what I ought to believe when I morally believe that there is a God who holds us accountable for how we live and how we act.

And then from that I began to study the world religions. I examined each one until it disqualified itself. But at the same time I had already determined that ONE of them must be the real McCoy.

I considered Buddhism and Hinduism. I considered Islam. The first two disqualified themselves on the intellectual level because who the heck instituted “reincarnation”??? Who built that thing? Who designed that system? And who made the rest of us that go through these endless cycles of reincarnation? And who was the Big Banger who made it all happen? They also failed on numerous moral grounds. You look at India and see the caste system and you know what I’m talking about; you see the millions of gods and the fact that evil and good are basically viewed as being two sides of the same coin and you see what I’m talking about.

It isn’t rocket science, kiddies.  God is either personal or impersonal: if He is personal, then Buddhism and Hinduism are false; if He is impersonal, then Christianity and Judaism and Islam are false.

And this is critical because it answers a fundamental question about the human race: either WE are personal or impersonal.  If we are personal, where do we get our personhood from?  How is it that we come to have free will?  Genesis 1:27 provides a very clear answer: “God created man in His own image, in the image of God He created him; male and female He created them.”

Buddhism strictly denies the existence of human beings as “selves.”  This doctrine is literally one of the three marks of existence of Buddhism: Anattā (no-self, without soul, no essence) is the nature of living beings.  The other two are Anicca (impermanence, nothing lasts) and Dukkha (suffering, unsatisfactoriness is innate in birth, aging, death, rebirth, redeath – the Saṃsāra cycle of existence).  And scientific naturalism likewise denies the existence of the self, of the soul, of a “you” that is a permanent you, for what it’s worth.  According to these views, there IS no “you” inside you; there IS no free will; you are a strictly determined and strictly conditioned being with no soul.

Islam is mono-theistic, which is good. But from there it gets very, very bad very, very quickly. And the fact that today 99.99 percent of terrorist attackers are being committed by the most ardent followers of what Muhammad actually taught is kind of icing on that cake.  If you understand the dilemma of violence inherent within Islam – which is NOT shared by Christianity – it is frankly terrifying.  Islam specifically denies that God has a Son, so if Jesus is who the Bible declares He is, Islam is false.  And if Jesus is NOT who the Bible declares Him to be, then Christianity is false.

Each of the great religions of the world teach mutually exclusive truth claims: they can’t all be true or right.  You are a fool according to the rules of logic and reason to believe “all paths lead to the same God.”  Because no, they don’t.

And Jesus Himself ruled that politically-correct cultural relativist view that all religions were equally valid when He said, “I am the Way, and the Truth, and the Life.  No one comes to the Father except through Me.”

There are literally thousands and thousands of teachers and professors with PhDs who are literally presenting their students with intellectual gibberish when they teach the pluralistic universalism that is so common today.

Now, I want you to understand; I’m not micro-nitpicking at this point on ANY of my above investigations. I’m just trying to ascertain whether or not the BIG PICTURE is true. If the big picture is false, then all the tiny little details are false, too. Or, to put it another way: if the big picture is fake, who gives a damn about whether the inconsequential details are true or not?

So when I get to Christianity, it all ends up boiling down to one simple question: did Jesus rise bodily from the dead, as His disciples claimed? What’s the evidence for that central claim of Christianity? And if that big picture claim is false, then I frankly don’t give a flying damn about the Bible. But if it’s true…?

I dedicated myself to a study of the evidence about the Resurrection of Jesus from the dead. And if you examine that claim with a halfway open mind, the evidence for the Resurrection of Jesus from the dead is simply astounding and irrefutable. The bottom line comes down to this: there is simply no reasonable question that Jesus’ disciples believed with ever fiber of their being that they had seen Jesus alive after His crucifixion and death and burial. There isn’t a single New Testament scholar – Christian or secularist alike – who claims the disciples didn’t genuine believe they had seen Jesus alive. Their completely transformed lives and boldness in the face of certain persecution and even death confirms that fact. And in fact it is a historical fact that every single one of the apostles save St. John died as martyrs having traveled the known world to tell people about the Jesus they had personally seen alive after His death in confirmation of all of His claims of His deity and His purpose for coming into the world: to die for our sins and to rise again and take His sheep with Him to the Father in Heaven.

Find me one person who you know to have died for something that they knew for a fact to be false. Yes, we have a lot of Muslim “martyrs” who blow themselves up to kill “infidels” and we probably both agree these people are tragically wrong: but THEY believe what they’re doing is right and THEY believe in Allah. But you need to understand as you read the Gospel accounts: the disciples were in a unique position in human history: they were in the position to absolutely know for certain whether or not Jesus actually rose from the dead.

And every single one of them signed in their own blood their testimony that yes, they had witnessed it with their own eyes and they were willing to therefore lay down their own lives to carry their OWN crosses (literally the instruments of their death penalties) and die for their Lord who had already died for them and given their lives and their deaths meaning.

If Jesus died and rose again from the dead, Christianity is true and everything Jesus said is true and the Christianity that He founded is true and the Bible is true and that’s that. And He did and He did and He WAS true and Christianity IS true and the Bible that He affirmed is true and that’s that.

And to a man like me, that is all I need to tell me what I should live for and how I ought to live.

That’s the big picture. But there is so much confirmation in the little tidbits, too.

Just – and I mean JUST – watched a program called “The Fall of Jericho” on the military history channel I love to watch. And I watched a drama that has been played out over and over again about the accuracy and legitimacy of the Holy Bible. I couldn’t find the transcript of the program, but here’s a link that describes in even more detail what was presented.

So Jericho. Did it happen according to what the Bible claims in the Book of Joshua? Well, you wouldn’t believe how many times “scientists” said hell no. And they said it with no legitimate archaeological basis. An archaeologist named Garstang made it his life’s work to go through the layers of cities that Jericho had been built and rebuilt on in the 1930s. And he found something fascinating in one of those layers: the walls had collapsed in EXACTLY the pattern that the Bible described in the conquest of Jericho. Well, we know that Joshua and the Israelites entered the land in the late Bronze age. In fact we know by other data the actual time of 1406 BC. So Garstang was interested in WHEN the walls had collapsed. And he started collecting and dating pottery. And according to his analysis, the date of the site was 1406BC – EXACTLY WHEN THE BIBLE SAID. So the Bible was established FACT and to the level of amazing scientific verifiability.

But hold on. A different archaeologist showed up named Kathleen Kenyon and “found” that no, the walls of Jericho had been destroyed 150 years earlier. And she used the same pottery as her primary source of dating.

Thirty years pass. For thirty years all the “scholars” and all the “scientists” sneered at the Bible. It had been factually refuted.

But a guy named Dr. Bryant Woods shows up in the 1980s. And he’s doing his PhD on pottery and decides to reopen the case that had been “rock-solid” against the Bible. He decided he was going to evaluate ALL the evidence of the pottery fragments. He tracked them all down. And to his intellectual horror he discovered that this pseudo-scientific fraud Kathleen Kenyon had not even BOTHERED to look at most of the actual evidence before arriving at her sneering bogus conclusion.  Seriously, Woods went to the museums and found that Kenyon hadn’t even examined the evidence.

And Dr. Bryant Woods CONCLUSIVELY PROVED THAT THE BIBLE WAS COMPLETELY HISTORICALLY ACCURATE IN EVERY SINGLE DETAIL THAT IT HAD AFFIRMED.

And this sneering arrogant intellectually dishonest fools’ game has been played over and over and over again with the Bible.

But the fact remains that NO archaeological find has EVER controverted a SINGLE fact presented in the Bible. It stands as completely true in all that it affirms.

The Bible remains true as the anvil of history. You can pound on it as you will, but you will die and the Word of the Living God will go on and on and on.

The Bible is beyond any doubt the best seller in the entire history of planet earth: more copies are sold every year, more are sold every single month, every single week, every single DAY, than any other book in the world. Twenty million copies of the Bible are sold each year just in the United States alone.  And that doesn’t even count the millions of copies that are given away by people who have their OWN stories of their OWN encounters with a Jesus who is STILL alive.  As an example, the Gideons alone distributes about 60 million copies of the Bible a year.

The Harry Potter series has collectively sold 500 million copies worldwide, which is truly astounding.  Unless you compare it to the more than six BILLION copies of the Bible.

The Bible is available in over 2,100 languages.  Because humanity has a passion and a hunger for the true Word of the Living God.

Richard Dawkins’ book, for the official record, is not; in fact it’s none of the above at all.

So I read the Bible with that understanding that it is THE most sacred Book in the history of the world. It ought to be given that respect because what I just stated is simply true by any objective measure. But the scoffers continue to abound and they have no respect for anything that is sacred.

But it comes down to this: people who fixate on the most minor details and then say, “See? It’s wrong, it’s ALL wrong!!!” are not wise.

Most of the time, when I hear somebody assert to me that the Bible isn’t accurate or isn’t reliable, and I ask them to give me an example, they literally cannot think of even ONE such example. Somebody at some time said something, and that was all they needed and they never bothered on their own to verify or refute a claim they just took at face value.

I simply marvel at that: your entire ETERNITY hangs on this, and you just yawn and walk away like it’s no big deal when it is the biggest deal of your existence.

My challenge to everyone is to study the questions of eternity as though your soul depends on it: because it DOES.

DON’T be a “Kathleen Kenyon” who doesn’t bother with the facts and arrives at bogus conclusions that are based on lies; be a “Bryant Wood” who carefully examines all the evidence and arrives at the truth.  Be like St. Luke the author of the Gospels and Acts, who stated, “I myself have carefully investigated everything from the beginning” (Luke 1:3).  Be like the Bereans, who “were more noble-minded than those in Thessalonica, for they received the word with great eagerness, examining the Scriptures daily to see whether these things were so” (Acts 17:11).

Consider Jesus.  Consider Who He was and whether He Is.

One way or another, you have to answer the ultimate questions. Is there a God? Who is He? What does He expect of us? Or is there NO god? And if not why should I bother living in accordance with a bunch of made-up politically correct gibberish and if I want something that someone else has, why shouldn’t I steal it and if somebody’s bothering me why shouldn’t I kill him or her? And who the hell does any other human being think he or she is to tell me what I should do or how I should live when it’s MY life and it will be MY eternal dirt nap and butt the hell out of my business because I’m not a herd animal, I’m a predator animal.  And your own precious evolution says we predators are every bit as evolutionarily valid as your herd animals.

Or chose Christ and choose life and experience life more abundantly instead.  Because Jesus contrasted the Way of Evolution with His Way when He said:

“The thief comes only to steal and kill and destroy; I came that they may have life, and have it abundantly.” — John 10:10

Stop being double-minded, unstable in all your ways.  Stop wavering between two opinions.  Make up your mind.  Get off the fence.  Choose this day whom you will serve.

Brock Turner, Stanford, College Rape Culture, And The Liberal Progressivism That Is Responsible For All Three

So let’s start with the current story of the vile punk rapist who got a joke six-month sentence which was apparently twice as harsh as it should have been given the fact that they released him in three.

And decent people are left saying, “What the hell…?”

And the ONLY reason liberals are angry is because women constitute one of the perennial victim classes that make up the left.  And how dare you prey on one of our victim classes when it is our coalition of victim classes that is supposed to be able to ride political correctness to exploit everyone else instead?

I recently read an LA Times op ed titled, “Understanding the Nate Parker scandal” by Michael Eric Dyson in which the author rehashes every leftist slogan as he tries to swim through the waters of liberal butthurt women and black butthurt activists who both demand that their sacred cows remain sacred.  I mean, gosh, they’re both such victims, and what happens when one liberal protected victim class preys on another liberal victim class?  It’s GOT to be the white man’s fault; it’s just GOT to.  So the conclusion of the article would seem to be that every time a black man rapes a white woman, a white male should do hard, painful time for it.  Because otherwise the piece was a load of patronizing leftist drivel.

Allow me to dive in – since this is a story about a rapist swimmer – and offer my own op ed on the gist of this despicable story.  Brock Turner is an entitled punk who doesn’t believe he should be held responsible for his own actions; Stanford is one of the most leftist liberal progressive major universities in the nation, and “college rape culture” is the inevitable result of leftist Darwinian values, in that order.

We start with this pathetic little worm Brock Turner and the sense of entitlement that permeates his little roach soul.  The view is, “If I want something, someone else should provide it for me.”  You know, like if I want your money, I should vote for the government to confiscate it from hard-working people and redistribute it to me.  As I will say throughout here, it’s just the exact same entitlement worldview on a different entitlement stage.  I want your hard-earned money and you won’t give it up to me unless I redistribute it to myself; I want your sex and you won’t give it to me unless I can redistribute your unconscious body behind a dumpster.  Either way, I’m taking something that isn’t mine, and I ought to be able to do it because after all, I’m entitled and somebody somewhere owes me what I want but can’t obtain the honest way by legitimately working for it.

“Affluenza” is the latest form of stupid entitlement excuses.  It wasn’t Brock Turner’s fault, it was “the whole rotten village,” right?  But ALL of these damn excuses are vile.  “I did it because I’m rich and white” is no more morally shame-worthy of an excuse than “I did it because I’m poor and black.”  And I simply state for the record that accepting the latter entitlement excuse guaranteed that the former one would ultimately succeed, too.  So black writer Michael Eric Dyson, trying to explain or better-yet explain away Nate Parker’s behavior, blames it on “jock culture” and “male privilege.”  How about you did it because you’re a bad person and you’re going to pay the consequences of your depraved actions?

If you live by victim mentality, you ought to die by victim mentality.  Because sooner or later, you whiny victim, there will come a more whiny victim than you.  And so now the feminists who “fundamentally transformed” women into a victim class are aghast and appalled because male rapists are themselves victims.

It’s like liberal heroine Sen. Elizabeth Warren, who falsely claimed special status because she believes that somewhere in her family ancestry going back to the dinosaurs, somebody was a Native American.  It’s like that, because somewhere sometime I was a victim of something.  And I’m not responsible because after all, I’m a victim and I’ve got the entitled whining to prove it.

And thank you, liberalism.  That whole load of crap would have been impossible without the toxic pile of fecal matter that is your worldview.

So our rapist swimmer went to Stanford, of course.  Where else would a whiny liberal puke go?

Now, consider the “college culture” and whose damn culture it is:

That’s political donations.  Now consider the faculties of these indoctrination centers:

If you’ve spent time in a college or university any time in the past quarter-century you probably aren’t surprised to hear that professors have become strikingly more liberal. In 1990, according to survey data by the Higher Education Research Institute (HERI) at UCLA, 42 percent of professors identified as “liberal” or “far-left.” By 2014, that number had jumped to 60 percent.

Over the same period, the number of academics identifying as “moderate” fell by 13 percentage points, and the share of “conservative” and “far-right” professors dropped nearly six points. In the academy, liberals now outnumber conservatives by roughly 5 to 1. Among the general public, on the other hand, conservatives are considerably more prevalent than liberals and have been for some time.

Let’s put it in terms of the Pottery Barn Rule that Colin Powel claims he told Bush before he went into Iraq: “You break it, you bought it.”

The college “rape culture” is out of control.  And you’ll find that “over the same period” that liberalism came to so entirely dominate college/university culture, rape culture came right along with it.

On the liberal diatribe, conservatives are warmongers.  How dare we want to fight back against terrorists who want to burn us alive?  Obama’s 1,900 percent increase in terrorism is surely much more peaceful, right?  But by that same diatribe that brought Obama to power, liberals are rapists.  The more liberal you are, the more rapist you are, and vice versa.

This is no accident.  It is literally a scientific progression, as I’ve described before:

And the horror that results in society is equally true of the individual who lives by Darwinism.

Why do we as individuals rape, murder and sleep around?  Because – and I quote – “rape is (in the vernacular of evolutionary biology) an adaptation, a trait encoded by genes that confers an advantage on anyone who possesses them. Back in the late Pleistocene epoch 100,000 years ago, men who carried rape genes had a reproductive and evolutionary edge over men who did not: they sired children not only with willing mates, but also with unwilling ones, allowing them to leave more offspring (also carrying rape genes) who were similarly more likely to survive and reproduce, unto the nth generation. That would be us. And that is why we carry rape genes today. The family trees of prehistoric men lacking rape genes petered out.”  Darwinism is “a scientific idea that, if true, consigns traditions of self-restraint, loyalty, the very basis of family life, to the shredder.”  Now go ye and do likewise.  Unless something inside of you screams “NO!  I will NOT live in accordance with that terrible, wicked, demonic theory of Darwinian evolution!”

One incredibly interesting read calls this “Darwin’s Dirty Secret.”

Let’s call it the ULTIMATE ENTITLEMENT EXCUSE: “I’m a rapist because I evolved that way.”

And progressive liberals “evolved” to become the most closed-minded, rabidly intolerant fascists there are.

Liberal progressivism is intellectual godlessness, and to put it in terms of Obama’s incredibly hypocritical debt, intellectual godlessness leads to moral godlessness 20 trillion times out of 20 trillion times.

If you can murder a baby, you can certainly whitewash away the act that led to the creation of that baby.

I love the Word of God, which is WHY I so passionately reject liberal progressivism which is so totally the denial of the Word of God and the God of the Bible as it is dominated by secular humanism, atheism, Darwinism, postmodernism, existentialism, behaviorism and every other vile form of “-ism” there is.  God’s Word declares:

• Don’t let anyone capture you with empty philosophies and high-sounding nonsense that come from human thinking and the spiritual powers of this world, rather than from God – Colossians 2:8
• Claiming to be wise, they instead became utter fools. – Romans 1:22
• … always learning but never able to come to a knowledge of the truth.  – 2 Timothy 3:7

Whatever progressive liberalism touches, it infects with cancer.  It touched Brock Turner, just as it touched our societal acceptance of drugs and alcohol, touched our abandonment of God and His morality in favor of the amoral nihilism of Darwinism, touched the embrace of personal responsibility and replaced it with the denial of the same and the embrace of the entitlement and victimhood mindset.

You “carry your rape genes,” liberal; I’ll carry my Bible.

And the empirical fact of the matter is that the morality that comes from my Bible is so vastly superior to the depraved bile that comes out of your university system that it is far more beyond belief than the belief in God that you so ardently deny.

 

 

 

 

The God Of Liberalism And Ben Carson’s Unpardonable Sin In His Response, ‘I Would Not Just Stand There And Let Him Shoot Me.’

The most hateful words ever uttered, based on the mainstream media’s outright hate poured over Dr. Ben Carson when he said the following in answer to a question:

Question from reporter: “But Dr. Carson, if a gunman walks up and puts a gun at you and says, ‘What religion are you?’  That is the ultimate test of your faith.”

Dr. Cason: “I’m glad you asked that question, because, not only would I probably not cooperate with him, I would not just stand there and let him shoot me.  I would say, ‘Hey, guys, everybody attack him. He may shoot me, but he can’t get us all.'”

I want you to notice that I took these words from the video in which Huffington Post says in bold typeface, “Skip to 0:25 in the video above to hear Carson describe what he would have done if he’d been present at the shooting.”  In other words, skip PAST the part where the reporter asks, “What would you do?”  And Dr. Carson responds with what he would do.

It’s frankly amazing on one level.  I mean, what in the hell is controversial about that?  The argument to this side is literally, I WILL stand there and let him shoot me.”  And of course, “I will stand there and let him shoot me until my Savior and Lord, the State, kicks down every single door in America and goes over every square inch of land with metal detectors and confiscates until it can account for every single one of the more than 300 million guns in this country.  And PISS on the Constitution in the process.

Remember those three American heroes who were so honored in France for saving that trainload of passive French people from that terrorist?  WHAT BEN CARSON SAID HE ASPIRED TO DO WAS EXACTLY WHAT THEY DID.

Let me tell you why what Ben Carson said is such a horrifying sin in the religion of liberalism: because liberalism is a religion of radical submission and radical helplessness.  You are to be helpless and submissive in your role as a member of “the State.”  And liberalism is a MISSIONARY religion in that every liberal must force the rest of us to be as helpless and as submissive in the face of “the State” as they seek to be.

If you so much as BELIEVE or FEEL that you ought to have a right to protect or defend yourself, you are a blasphemer and a heretic.

I guess that’s quite possibly why Spencer Stone – one of those heroes on that train in France who did not “cooperate” with the terrorist because they ddn’t want to “just stand there and let him shoot” them, was stabled – and fittingly stabled in the back by some coward – in the liberal bastion of Sacramento, California.

Somebody got this point in their title parodying the leftist piece of truly lousy toilet paper known as GQ: “F*CK Ben Carson For Preaching Self-Defense.”  Because we’re getting to the very core essence of what truly separates a liberal from a conservative.

The Bible frequently uses the metaphor of “sheep” to describe believers before their God.  And yes, apart from the wisdom of God, which we should therefore seek, humans are described as helpless and stupid, like sheep.

If you are a liberal, don’t sneeringly tell me you don’t have a religious faith.  Because YES YOU DO.  Liberalism is a religion following secular humanism that replaces “God” with “Government,” with human government.  And the priests of this religion are bureaucrats, and to them the words of Isaiah 53 – “all we like sheep have gone astray” – ring like music.  We are poor, stupid, helpless sheep under liberalism.  And Government is our God, our Savior, to whom we ought to helplessly submit.

And when it comes to weapons, the biblical metaphor couldn’t be more apt in describing what liberals’ want: the SHEEP don’t get to carry weapons.  They are far too stupid and they would clearly only hurt themselves or one another.  No, only the shepherd, only the bureaucrat’s designated force-bearer, can carry weapons.

Probably the most famous passage in the Bible, Psalm 23, the Shepherd’s Psalm, sums it up: “Thy rod and Thy staff, they comfort me.”  God is the One who carries the rod and the staff, not the sheep.  And liberalism is a rabid religion that keeps shrieking, “There is no God but Government, and Obama is His Prophet!”

AND THEY MUST STRIP YOU OF YOUR GUNS AND LEAVE YOU UTTERLY HELPLESS, BECAUSE YOU ARE A SHEEP AND IT IS BLASPHEMY AGAINST THE ONE TRUE GOD THE STATE TO THINK ANYTHING ELSE ABOUT YOURSELF.

You have the right to religious freedom if and ONLY If you are a liberal.  But every other religion is blasphemy before liberalism and its One True God, the human State.  And every other religion must ultimately be forced to SUBMIT and be HELPLESS.  Like a good sheep.

This doesn’t just apply to guns; it is all encompassing.  Allow me to give you another example of God vs. Government and the side liberalism takes:

The silver is mine and the gold is mine,’ declares the LORD Almighty.  — Haggai 2:8

WHO does all the wealth belong to?  Well, I think we all understand those words very easily: the LORD Almighty.  GOVERNMENT.  OBAMA.

Liberals are the faithful demanding that all wealth go to the One True God, the State.  It’s not that liberals disagree with the Bible as much as they disagree on who “God” is.

I’ve written about this stuff before, of course.  I wrote about 1 Samuel 8:10-22 and how a wicked people refused God as their king and wanted giant, powerful human government instead.  I wrote about Daniel 2:31-35 and how Democrats have picked the absolutely WRONG side of history to be on as they side with the human government that will utterly perish before the coming Christ who as the Rock will destroy it.

These people worship human Government in place of God, and human government will ultimately burn in hell right along with them.

Sheep are helpless.  Just as liberals want those whom they dole out welfare to for literally generation after generation after generation to be helpless sheep who cannot take care of themselves.  And all you have to do to guarantee that you will be poor for life, that your children will be poor for all of their lives, that their children will be trapped in poverty all of their lives, and so on, ad nauseam, is to vote Democrat.  Because they seek to trap you in a vicious cycle that you will never get out of and you will therefore always need to keep voting for them to keep you in.

Liberals take money from one group and dole it out to keep another group dependent and helpless.  Like sheep.

Liberalism is the confiscation of wealth and the offering of that wealth to the One True God, the State.  And the priests of this religion, the bureaucrats, distribute it according to their theology.

There’s more, of course: who says what life is and who gets to live?  God, of course, and ONLY God:

¹³You made all the delicate, inner parts of my body
    and knit me together in my mother’s womb.
¹⁴ Thank you for making me so wonderfully complex!
    Your workmanship is marvelous—how well I know it.
¹⁵ You watched me as I was being formed in utter seclusion,
    as I was woven together in the dark of the womb.
¹⁶ You saw me before I was born.
    Every day of my life was recorded in your book.
Every moment was laid out
    before a single day had passed. — Psalm 139:13-16

And who gets to decide these weighty questions of what is life, what is sacred, who gets to live and who should die?  God, of course.  The State.  The Black-Robed High Priests of Liberalism.

Which is why the doctrine of abortion and the support for that doctrine is tantamount to an act of religious devotion.  It is an act of religious faith, for I the LORD your God gave you Roe v. Wade.  And let all other gods be forced to bow down before Me, and let all who oppose my rule be torn limb-from-limb or burned with acid in the very womb in which I, Obama, formed him.

What is marriage?  Who decides?  Only God, of course.  That’s obvious.  We all agree with that.  Jesus, the divine Messiah of the God of the Bible, summed up God’s way according to Genesis 2:22-24 when He described biblical marriage:

“Haven’t you read,” [Jesus] replied, “that at the beginning the Creator ‘made them male and female,’ and said, ‘For this reason a man will leave his father and mother and be united to his wife, and the two will become one flesh’?  So they are no longer two, but one. Therefore what God has joined together, let man not separate.” — Matthew 19:4-6

Well, liberals rabidly and utterly reject that God.  They have their own God, the State.  And so we now have Obama, the divine Messiah of the God of the State, providing a radically different view of “marriage.”

Atheism is a religion. It has been ruled so by the same Supreme Court that gave us Roe v. Wade and gay marriage.  Just as secular humanism has been defined as a religion.  It is now an amply documented scientific FACT that the human brain is hard-WIRED for religion and religious experience.  It is literally now ANTI-SCIENCE to claim that humans aren’t intrinsically religious beings.  You can put it in the most atheistic, physicalist, materialistic terms you want: but the human brain is hard-wired for religious experience and it’s only a question of what you worship, not whether you worship.  Let me take a moment to deal with this part about our religious instincts being genetically or evolutionarily “hard-wired” into our brains: atheists have kind of GOT to say something like that to explain the fact that atheists are an incredibly tiny minority of the world’s population; “Adherents.com, estimates that the proportion of the world’s people who are “secular, non-religious, agnostics and atheists” at about 14%.”  With about one-fifth of that 14% – or 2.8% – categorically stating themselves as “atheist” rather than some form of agnostic or secular.  2.8% of the world’s population is atheist.  So here’s the question: since religion is hard-wired into our brains, who the hell do these people think they are telling us that we don’t need something that their very own precious evolution very clearly put in us because we need it?  Their claim is tantamount to saying, “I evolved to no longer need evolution.”  There’s an awful lot of problems with consistent atheism, but this is one of those contradictions that needs to be exposed.

Atheists can play their rhetorical word games and say, “If atheism is a religion, then off is a TV channel.”  Here’s the problem with it: the very word “atheism” means, “no god.”  Let’s acknowledge and then move beyond the problem with atheism as expressed by G.K. Chesterton: “When a man stops believing in God he doesn’t then believe in nothing, he believes anything.”  Which corresponds with the admonition in Colossians 2:8 which says, “Don’t let anyone capture you with empty philosophies and high-sounding nonsense that come from human thinking and from the spiritual powers of this world, rather than from Christ.”  I am making a different point here that strictly relates to the TV channel analogy; namely that atheism is espoused as a belief in the denial of something, but the very thing they are denying is such a quintessential part of who they are that the very word “theist” is the most prominent part of their own self-description.  To wit: in the analogy that the atheist provides, “GOD is the TV. Religions are the channels. If it is off, maybe he’s dead or disengaged, but at least you admit there’s a TV.”  .  Just for the record, I can cite you MILLION of Christians who can easily use the same “logic” to rationalize that Christianity is NOT a religion.  I googled the phrase, Christianity is not a religion, and got 86,000,000 hits.  Their point is that “Religion is man’s way to reach God.  Christianity is God’s way to reach man.”  That many atheists don’t consider themselves “religious” is no more an accurate part of their perspective than that many Christians don’t consider themselves “religious.”  The simple fact boils down to this: whether you are talking about atheism not being a religion, or Christianity not being a religion, the only way the proponents of either view are correct is if their belief (i.e., atheism or Christianity) is correct.  If there is in fact a God, atheism is merely one of many false religious systems.  And belief in God is NOT an essential part of a religious system, for the record, given that many Buddhists are actually atheists.  Finally,  the author of this actually quite-good article I cite above points out that the rabidness of the atheist and the tendency of the atheist to hate theists is every bit as fervent as it is the other way around.  She points out, “Let me tell you: The angriest ones can be as malicious as a coven of Westboro Baptists at a veteran’s funeral.”  In case anybody actually has the foolishness to doubt that, let me just point out that the very shooting that Ben Carson is the target of so much hate for describing how he would react was an ATHEIST who TARGETED CHRISTIANS.

I say this because of the incredibly dishonest, deceitful, disingenuous way that liberals and their counterparts who dominate the mainstream media constantly frame any and basically all religious debate in America.  Religious people are constantly told that we have no right to impose our religion on others.  From the very same people who even as they are saying that are exploiting it as an incredibly cynical device to impose their damn religion on me.  As an example, an atheist decided to get offended over students being allowed to pray and rabidly determined to impose HIS religion of refusing to pray on every student whose religion encouraged them to pray.  Every single court or every single bureaucracy that seeks to remove prayer from school is NOT removing religion; they are DICTATING which religion that students will be forced to practice, namely the religion of atheism/secular humanism.

My point is that liberals ARE worshipers.  They are RABID worshipers.  They merely choose to worship a very different God from the God of Christianity.  And to the extent that they don’t worship the State, they worship themselves and their religion is about selfishly and self-centeredly obtaining their lusts and their desires through the power of the State and forcing others to provide these things for them.

I am beyond sick of liberals imposing their religion on me while they smarmily tell me that I don’t have a right to impose my religion on them.  I’m sick of liberals perverting the Word of God and constantly seeking to turn me a sheep, as the Bible says I am, but a sheep of their God the State.  I’m sick and tired of liberals telling me that I should be helpless, and that as a stupid, helpless sheep the only thing I’d do if I were allowed to have a weapon is hurt myself or some other innocent.  So only the Shepherd of the religion of the State ought to be allowed to have weapons.  I’m sick and tired of being told that I don’t have a right to impose my view of marriage on people as the people who tell me that impose their view of marriage on me with in-your-face-hypocrisy.  I’m sick of liberals telling me that I’m crazy to believe that human life begins in the womb when they can’t produce a single example of a single human who didn’t begin in the womb.  If their mothers had aborted those liberals, those liberals would have been killed.  A child in the womb is human by virtue of the taxonomy of her parents, she is a being by virtue of the fact that she is a living thing: she is a HUMAN BEING.  Let’s go through the taxonomic system that classifies every single living thing with our unborn baby: That “fetus” (which is Latin for “unborn child” by the way) is classified from the moment of conception as Kingdom-Animal; Phylum-chordata; Class-Mammalia; Order-Primate; Family-Hominid; Genus-Homo; and Species-Sapiens.  Just like every human being whose life is precious unless you are describing human value in the hateful religious system of liberalism.  These things are simply facts, but the religion of liberalism doesn’t give a damn about facts; it is a rabid religious faith.  It is in fact a totalitarian religious faith that is missionary in its determined intent to impose itself on heretic unbelievers in Government.

We’re watching the Middle East and the world melt down due to President Barack Obama’s morally idiotic foreign policy.  Right now we’ve got five million refugees fleeing Obama’s collapse, and millions more are going to come behind them.  And where the hell are they going to go?  And we’re ultimately going to see why Obama’s epic fail in the Middle East will result in America’s epic fail.  We’re watching the complete vacuum of any kind of moral or military leadership being filled not by the United States but by Russia and now Iran.  But there’s something in the strategy of the only man who actually HAS a strategy – Vladimir Putin – that I want to close this piece on the religion of liberalism with.  Marco Rubio – the man WHO PREDICTED the invasion of Syria by Russia which so stunned and caught Obama off guard – NAILED Putin’s strategy:

“Vladimir Putin is deliberately targeting the non-ISIS rebels,” Rubio explains. “And here’s why: If he’s going to wipe out all the non-ISIS elements on the ground in Syria, then they can say: ISIS or Assad, there are no other options. We killed all the non-ISIS people.”

“And at that point, he’ll be able to force the world to support Assad, and that is what he is doing.”

Vladimir Putin is crushing all the non-Islamic State rebels, leaving only Assad’s regime and Islamic State.  And his plan is then to force America to support Assad’s regime as the only viable alternative.

That is precisely what is happening with Christianity.  We know damn well what it feels like to be a “non-ISIS rebel” in America right now.  Whether it’s the Little Sisters of the Poor, whether it’s the Christian baker, or the Christian florist – whom a judge demanded the “personal ruin” of – or Kim Davis, the millions of Christians around the world who are being exterminated under the Obama presidency in numbers that have NEVER BEFORE IN ALL OF HUMAN HISTORY BEEN WITNESSED, Christians are being systematically wiped out more than any other group of people on earth.  There’s a new Holocaust going on right now.  And Obama and liberals are participating as much as the bystander of any vile event who does NOTHING participates in the horror they are standing by and allowing to happen.

By commission and by omission, Barack Obama is the world’s leading persecutor of Christians in the history of the world in terms of the sheer, mass numbers of Christians whom have suffered under him and as a result of his colossal failure.

Obama has said he is a Christian.  He also said that “as a Christian” he was opposed to gay marriage.  The latter statement turned out to be an outright lie, and the first one about Obama being a Christian is a lie as well.  I have pointed out and documented how Obama’s theology has NOTHING whatsoever to do with biblical Christianity.  He can go into a church and call himself a “Christian.”  Just like I can lay down in my garage and call myself a “car.”  But both statements are equally false.

You shall have no other gods before me, says liberalism.  And every Christian who says or believes otherwise shall be devoted to destruction.  Because liberalism is a rabid, religious faith.  And all we like sheep have gone astray and need to be brought under the Stalinist boot heel for our own good and for the good, for the praise and for the glory, of the State.

That’s Ben Carson’s real sin.  He’s “the Coon of the Year” to them.  At least that’s what a liberal professor in a liberal Ivy League university with the liberal system of tenure protecting her says.  She helps us get back to the God of the Bible – whom she calls “a white racist” – versus the liberal God also known as the State.

Why Do Liberals Like Obama Embrace And Defend Islam?

We’ve seen it over and over and over again: Barack Obama defending Islam and saying this religion – founded by a man who had fought in over thirty military campaigns of conquest and had another thirty planned at the time of his death, a man who owned slaves, a man who by today’s standards was without any question a pedophile, a man of violence who ordered genocide – has nothing whatsoever to do with terrorism.

It’s CHRISTIANITY – according to our herald to the Antichrist – which is responsible for terrorism.  Oh, and slavery, too.

It doesn’t matter that Islam was responsible for acts of barbaric violence and slavery long before Christianity and never bothered to reform itself of its barbarity unlike Christianity most certainly did.  It doesn’t matter if the acts that Obama condemns by citing the Crusades was itself a Christian RESPONSE to Islamic jihadism and invasion and that the Inquistion he cites was primarily done by tyrant secular kings like he himself wants to be rather than “the Church.”

It’s not just Obama; it is LIBERALISM that is celebrating Islam, the world’s most profoundly and rabidly intolerant religion.  We recently saw it at liberal Duke University where the left tried to “fundamentally transform” and “redistribute” the Christian chapel of the university that was founded and established as a Christian institution into a mosque broadcasting the Muslim call to prayer.  And we’re seeing it in public schools where liberal bureaucrats and liberal school teachers are literally indoctrinating children into Islam in the name of “education.”  And you tell ME how many public school children were forced to say the Lord’s Prayer: ZERO.

There are reasons for this, and they are EVIL.  Liberalism is evil.  Liberals are doing the work of their father, the devil, on a daily basis.

It is frankly stunning how dishonest secular humanism is and always has been in its historical perversions to make Christianity the villain.  This vicious lie has been going since even before Christianity formulated the scientific method and began the Enlightenment that the enemies of Christianity subsequently hijacked and claimed for itself.  The first modern scientist and the discoverer of the scientific method upon which modern science is based was a product of Christendom and a publicly avowed Christian who described his faith in Christianity – and its influence on his approach to science – in his writings.  The discoverer of every single modern branch of science was a publicly confessed Christian.  The presuppositions necessary FOR the rise of science itself uniquely came out of the Christian worldview:

J.P. Moreland (Source: The Creation Hypothesis: Scientific Evidence for an Intelligent Designer, p. 17) listed some of the philosophical presuppositions – based on the Judeo-Christian worldview – that were necessary for the foundation of science:

1. the existence of a theory-independent, external world

2. the orderly nature of the external world

3. the knowability of the external world

4. the existence of truth

5. the laws of logic

6. the reliability of human cognitive and sensory faculties to serve as -truth-gatherers and as a source of justified beliefs in our intellectual environment

7. the adequacy of language to describe the world

8. the existence of values used in science (e.g., “test theories fairly and report test results honestly”)

9. the uniformity of nature and induction

10. the existence of numbers

Good luck in starting science without all of these assumptions – of which the assumption of God according to the Judeo-Christian worldview was necessary to provide.  Science could not verify or validate any of the list above for the reason that they already needed to be accepted in order for science to ever get off the ground in the first place.

To put it crassly, if it were up to secular humanists, we would still be living in caves and afraid of fire.  And if it left up to secular humanists, we will ultimately be living in caves and afraid of fire again.  And all you have to do to realize that society is not advancing under their standard, but degenerating, to know that.

God created the world as a habitation for the capstone of His creation, man.  And then God created man in His own image and therefore able to see and fathom the world which He had created for humanity.  That is the basis for science.

Gleason Archer framed an insurmountable intellectual contradiction for the “scientific atheist”:

“But it should be pointed out that consistent atheism, which represents itself to be the most rational and logical of all approaches to reality, is in actuality completely self defeating and incapable of logical defense. That is to say, if indeed all matter has combined by mere chance, unguided by any Higher Power of Transcendental Intelligence, then it necessarily follows that the molecules of the human brain are also the product of mere chance. In other words, we think the way we do simply because the atoms and molecules of our brain tissue happen to have combined in the way they have, totally without transcendental guidance or control. So then even the philosophies of men, their system of logic and all their approaches to reality are the result of mere fortuity. There is no absolute validity to any argument advanced by the atheist against the position of theism.

On the basis of his won presuppositions, the atheist completely cancels himself out, for on his own premises his arguments are without any absolute validity. By his own confession he thinks the way he does simply because the atoms in his brain happen to combine the way they do. If this is so, he cannot honestly say that his view is any more valid than the contrary view of his opponent. His basic postulates are self contradictory and self defeating; for when he asserts that there are no absolutes, he thereby is asserting a very dogmatic absolute. Nor can he logically disprove the existence of God without resorting to a logic that depends on the existence of God for its validity. Apart from such a transcendent guarantor of the validity of logic, any attempts at logic or argumentation are simply manifestations of the behavior of the collocation of molecules that make up the thinker’s brain.”  — Gleason Archer, Encyclopedia of Bible Difficulties, 1982, pp. 55-56

Basically, if the atheist is right, then “human reason” becomes a contradiction in terms and let’s just live like the beasts they say we are and be done pretending we’re something we’re not.

What secular humanists have been trying to do – frankly for generations – is to perpetuate a fraud.  It would be akin to me intercepting a great thinker’s work and trying to pass it off as my own.

But what the hey, we’ve got Obama and we have his “fundamental transformation” of America and of history itself.  And so what if he’s the most thoroughly documented liar – literally ON VIDEO – who ever lived?  So what if his most significant legislative accomplishment was based entirely on a system of deliberate lies on the view that people were Darwinian sheep who needed to be manipulated by their DNA master race superiors for their own good?

Why did the Roman Empire fall?  Christianity, the secular humanists – citing works such as Edward Gibbon’s Rise and Fall of the Roman Empire – have been dishonestly telling us.  It doesn’t matter that the Roman Empire was a massive and vicious persecutor of Christianity and murdered Christians by the hundreds of thousands.  It doesn’t matter if the so-called “global warming” that the same secular humanists are using today to try to redistribute wealth for their socialist expansion of their god the State ended and an ice age began that prompted invasion by wave after migrating wave of barbarian peoples who pressured Rome.  It doesn’t matter that the so-called “climate change” that these socialist redistributionist Government-worshipers are saying is unique to our own time due to modern pollution actually brought about the collapse of the Old Egyptian Kingdom prior to bringing down the Roman Empire.  It doesn’t matter if Rome suffered from its own massive excesses and from generations of poor emperors that culminated in civil wars and ultimately threat of defeat by these barbarian peoples who had fled from their own realm in search of warmer weather.  And it doesn’t matter that when all of this occurred Christianity was in actual fact the only institution left to provide the leadership and the moral framework necessary to keep a system that otherwise would have collapsed centuries before.

All the secular humanists – all the Obamas of this world – needed was the fact that when the Roman Empire finally truly collapsed, Christians were in charge.  And therefore it was all their fault and all of the above facts of history can be forgotten.

Obama is nothing more than one more liar in a long series of liars who have made Christianity their whipping boy.

There are three reasons for this.

The first – the true foundation for liberal and secular humanist hatred of Christianity – is very simple and it comes directly from the mouth of Jesus Himself:

“If the world hates you, you know that it has hated Me before it hated you.   If you were of the world, the world would love its own; but because you are not of the world, but I chose you out of the world, because of this the world hates you.  Remember the word that I said to you, ‘A slave is not greater than his master.’ If they persecuted Me, they will also persecute you; if they kept My word, they will keep yours also.  But all these things they will do to you for My name’s sake, because they do not know the One who sent Me.”  — John 15:18-21

I argued that when a liberal- and secular humanist-hijacked Duke University – once a Christian-founded institution launched to advance the spread of the Christian Gospel of Jesus Christ – called upon the Christian chapel to be used to broadcast the Muslim call to prayer .  You know, the Muslim prayer that Obama claimed was one of the most beautiful sounds on earth.

It’s not very beautiful to me, because after it gets prayed, Christians and Jews tend to get murdered.  It’s kind of like the creepy psychopathic serial killer who sings with a nice voice as he’s preparing to skin you alive.  Pardon me for not appreciating the nice voice.

But it is a simple fact that has been proven over and over and over again for centuries now: Secular humanists and liberals like Obama hate Christianity and demonize the Christians who believe in Christianity in all kinds of ways as a matter of routine because it hated Jesus first.

Secular humanist liberal progressives decry Christianity as “intolerant” because it criticizes homosexuality and radical feminist doctrines such as abortion.  And in embracing Islam as they have, they refute themselves because they have embraced a rival of the Judeo-Christian worldview that is so rabidly and hatefully intolerant to the same homosexuals and women it is beyond UNREAL.

Satan hates Jesus more than anything.  And so do his followers, who like their father the devil are liars.

The second reason is arrogance.

Secular humanism and liberalism arise from atheism, the belief that there is no God – and certainly no God as revealed and described by the Holy Bible – as an a priori.

They ultimately believe that “God” is a big, giant joke.  And it isn’t just that they don’t believe in God; they believe that it is ridiculous for ANYONE to believe in God.  And so ultimately no one really does believe in God and we are all just economic meat puppets as their intellectual master Karl Marx described:

The foundation of irreligious criticism is: Man makes religion, religion does not make man. Religion is, indeed, the self-consciousness and self-esteem of man who has either not yet won through to himself, or has already lost himself again. But man is no abstract being squatting outside the world. Man is the world of man – state, society. This state and this society produce religion, which is an inverted consciousness of the world, because they are an inverted world. Religion is the general theory of this world, its encyclopaedic compendium, its logic in popular form, its spiritual point d’honneur, its enthusiasm, its moral sanction, its solemn complement, and its universal basis of consolation and justification. It is the fantastic realization of the human essence since the human essence has not acquired any true reality. The struggle against religion is, therefore, indirectly the struggle against that world whose spiritual aroma is religion.

Religious suffering is, at one and the same time, the expression of real suffering and a protest against real suffering. Religion is the sigh of the oppressed creature, the heart of a heartless world, and the soul of soulless conditions. It is the opium of the people.

The abolition of religion as the illusory happiness of the people is the demand for their real happiness. To call on them to give up their illusions about their condition is to call on them to give up a condition that requires illusions. The criticism of religion is, therefore, in embryo, the criticism of that vale of tears of which religion is the halo.

Criticism has plucked the imaginary flowers on the chain not in order that man shall continue to bear that chain without fantasy or consolation, but so that he shall throw off the chain and pluck the living flower. The criticism of religion disillusions man, so that he will think, act, and fashion his reality like a man who has discarded his illusions and regained his senses, so that he will move around himself as his own true Sun. Religion is only the illusory Sun which revolves around man as long as he does not revolve around himself. ^[2]

Religion cannot possibly be true.  No one can actually truly believe in religion.  And economics and human government, they believe, is the ultimate human reality.

And so liberals and secular humanists believe, in their arrogance, that they can actually ultimately reason with people who put other people in cages and burn them alive.  Or behead them.  Or bury them alive.  Or crucify them.  Or you name the vile thing that they do.

As amazing as it is, it is true: liberals keep believing that if they can just deny reality, deny the real, powerful religious motivation of the terrorists, they can get to the real grounds of the human essence of atheist economics.

The third reason is that radical Islam and secular humanist progressive liberalism both have the same cherished goal: that of human-Government as having divine power.  The Government as God, able to dictate its will by executive order tyranny.  I’ve previously argued that, also.

I’ve pointed out – with examples – that radical Islam and just-as-radical secular humanist progressive liberalism employ the same basic tactics and have the same basic ultimate goal.  And the only difference is the means to that same end and the fact that the latter extremist group are bound by the fact that they have to seize total totalitarian power from within the confines of democracy that they named themselves after but ultimately despise.

Where does government power end?  Where does the power to tax end?  Where does the power of government to say, “No you DON’T have the freedom to practice your religion!’ end?  And both radical Islam and the modern Democrat Party basically say the power of Government NEVER ends and HAS no limits.  We are to do and think and believe and obey as our Ayatollahs or our Obamas dictate that we are to do and think and believe and obey.

I just thought I’d point that out to those of you who can still think.

“Don’t let anyone capture you with empty philosophies and high-sounding nonsense that come from human thinking and from the spiritual powers of this world, rather than from Christ.”  – Colossians 2:8

 

The World’s Tragedy: The Consequences of Godless Secular Humanist Liberalism Upon A Rapidly Deteriorating World

He said, “Go and tell this people: “‘Be ever hearing, but never understanding; be ever seeing, but never perceiving.’  Make the heart of this people calloused; make their ears dull and close their eyes. Otherwise they might see with their eyes, hear with their ears, understand with their hearts, and turn and be healed.” — Isaiah 6:9-10

I spotted a liberal op-ed that basically tells us that the tragedy otherwise known as progressive liberalism is as old as the 18th century and quite likely as old as time.

The article is about the “intellectuals'” disappointment with and in Barack Obama.  It begins:

When Barack Obama ran for president in 2008, intellectuals everywhere hailed him as one of their own. So closely was he identified with this elite that many Democrats worried, and Republicans hoped, that voters would reject him: As Richard Hofstadter noted long ago, a strong current of anti-intellectualism has long coursed through American history.

But his pointy head in no way proved an insurmountable obstacle in 2008. Maybe because it wasn’t all that inclined toward pointiness to begin with.

Since he was first elected, Obama has distanced himself from progressive intellectuals. You can expect to hear a few of them sadly critiquing his penultimate State of the Union speech this week.

Translation: We’re completely responsible for campaigning  for this pathetic turd and getting him elected and getting his policies passed.  But you can’t blame us.  Because if he’d just been even more “liberal” than this leftist turd turned out to be, everything would have worked out wonderful.

Mind you, Obama didn’t actually present himself as a far leftist; he presented himself as someone who would “transcend the starkly red-and-blue politics of the last 15 years, end the partisan and ideological wars and build a new governing majority.”  Which is another way of saying Obama lied and the “intellectuals” wish he’d been an even BIGGER liar than he turned out to be and do even MORE to tear the fabric of this nation apart by waging an even more vicious political war against the right than he has.  But “honesty” is no more a virtue of “intellectuals” than objectivity or common sense for that matter.

I won’t bore you with the whole boring piece (you can read it yourself if you’d like by clicking the link); but here is the portion that caught my eye:

In early 1765, Diderot was desperate. Thanks to his herculean efforts as editor of the Encyclopédie, the 17th and final volume of this monument to the Enlightenment was then rolling off the press. Yet the celebrated thinker was in serious financial straits. When Catherine learned of the situation, she made Diderot an offer he couldn’t refuse. She would purchase his personal library of 3,000 books and manuscripts for the then-vast sum of 50,000 livres. Not only would Diderot be allowed to keep his books until his death, but he would also be paid a yearly salary as the collection’s librarian.

The magnanimity of Catherine’s deal struck the imagination of intellectuals across Europe, who believed that true and lasting social reform could be made only from above. Since the great mass of people was mired in superstition and ignorance, enlightened decrees, not popular democracy, was called for. With Voltaire in the lead, the great minds of the age invested their hopes in well-intentioned kings and queens and saw themselves as qualified investment advisors.

Few intellectual ventures seemed as promising as Russia. Catherine had ascended to the throne in 1762 — in a coup d’etat and over the body of her husband, Peter III — determined to haul her vast country from its primitive conditions via Enlightenment ideals. She wrote the Nakaz, or Instruction, translating Montesquieu’s case for a rational and humane legal system into Russian. Her early enthusiasm for such progressive ideas, though sincere, would prove unequal to the challenges presented by her empire.

Okay, so let’s see: the “intellectuals” had an a priori rejection of God, the Bible and anything whatsoever to do with the supernatural.  Anybody who believed otherwise didn’t get to join the “intellectual club.”  They might claim otherwise, but they LOVE their dictators and tyrants because they keep rubbing their own faces into the fecal matter of totalitarianism, which is why they always HAVE loved Russia and totalitarianism and communism and socialism and every form of government control.  In their utter rejection of God, SOMETHING has to take God’s place – and so they worship government with a big ‘G’ and worship the power of the human State and its ability to control and dictate and bypass the democracy the despise and always have despised.  Oh, they’ll cynically use “democracy” long enough to garner the power to bypass the will of the people so they can impose their agenda with the raw force of totalitarianism and sweeping executive orders.

I mean, when Obama said –

You go into these small towns in Pennsylvania and, like a lot of small towns in the Midwest, the jobs have been gone now for 25 years and nothing’s replaced them. And they fell through the Clinton administration, and the Bush administration, and each successive administration has said that somehow these communities are gonna regenerate and they have not.

And it’s not surprising then they get bitter, they cling to guns or religion or antipathy toward people who aren’t like them or anti-immigrant sentiment or anti-trade sentiment as a way to explain their frustrations.

– He wasn’t saying anything that hadn’t been said by his sort many times before.  The stupid unwashed masses.  One of the great books about wisdom in the Bible states that there is nothing new under the sun and that what has been will be again and what was done will be done again.  And so we have the same moral idiocy we’ve had before because we keep turning to the same sort of fools and the same sort of fool ideas that have failed us before when they weren’t killing us by the millions before.

I mean, listen to liberalism in the words of the LA Times piece that describes the same sort of thinking we see today only near three hundred damn years ago: “the great mass of people was mired in superstition and ignorance”…. “true and lasting social reform could be made only from above”… “enlightened decrees, not popular democracy, was called for.”  And so with the famous atheist Voltaire in the lead, the left charged into Stalinism and has been full-throttle Stalinist ever since.

Leftist “intellectuals” have a pathological naked contempt of the people, whom they see and always have seen as inferior and beneath them.  And so they can lie to the people without shame because the people are stupid sheep and what does it matter if you lie to a farm animal as long as you get the farm animal to do what you want it to do and what you’ve convinced yourself is in the best interest of the farm animal to do.  So the left has its Grubers and yeah, got its Obama’s who with a straight face has claimed he issued far fewer executive orders than any other president when in fact he was issuing MASSIVELY SWEEPING executive orders by another name (executive memoranda).

It’s who these people are.

Before I keep going with this, let me begin with another quote about the nature of intellectuals:

“George Orwell said that some ideas are so foolish that only an intellectual could believe them, for no ordinary man could be such a fool. The record of twentieth century intellectuals was especially appalling in this regard. Scarcely a mass-murdering dictator of the twentieth century was without his intellectual supporters, not simply in his own country, but also in foreign democracies, where people were free to say whatever they wished.  Lenin, Stalin, Mao and Hitler all had their admirers, defenders, and apologists among the intelligentsia in Western democratic nations, despite the fact that these dictators ended up killing people of their own country on a scale unprecedented even by despotic regimes that preceded them” – Thomas Sowell, Intellectuals and Society, p. 2.

That’s right, folks.  The “intellectuals” from the left have ALWAYS loved Russia and Russia has ALWAYS been near and dear to their hearts.  They loved Hitler and his Nazi fascism, too.  They choose the most wicked side in every argument.

“Intellectual” is another word for “fool.”  This is a fact that is stated in the Bible:

Professing themselves to be wise, they became fools… Romans 1:22

And we’re warned about these fools and their fool ideas:

Don’t let anyone capture you with empty philosophies and high-sounding nonsense that come from human thinking and from the spiritual powers of this world, rather than from Christ. — Colossians 2:8

Three of the greatest scientists who ever lived were Sir Francis Bacon, the discoverer of the scientific method and founder of modern science, Sir Isaac Newton, whose physics transformed science and Blaise Pascal, the great mathematician and inventor of the first practical computer.  The man who discovered modern science by devising the scientific method rather than relying upon speculation and opinion wrote:

“There was never law, or sect, or opinion did so much magnify goodness, as the Christian religion doth.”

It is true, that a little philosophy inclineth man’s mind to atheism; but depth in philosophy brings about man’s mind to religion: for while the mind of man looketh upon second causes scattered, it may sometimes rest in them, and go no further; but when it beholdeth the chain of them confederate and linked together, it must needs fly to Providence and Deity. — Sir Francis Bacon

“They that deny a God destroy man’s nobility; for certainly man is of kin to the beasts in his body; and, if he be not of kin to God by his spirit, he is a base and ignoble creature.” — Sir Francis Bacon

Sir Isaac Newton has widely been called the greatest scientist who ever lived.  Albert Einstein credited Newton with his own work and claimed he’d stood on the backs of giants.  He wrote more about Christian theology than he did about science.

And Blaise Pascal – and please think about this while you’re playing games on your smart phone – wrote:

There is a God shaped vacuum in the heart of every man which cannot be filled by any created thing, but only by God, the Creator, made known through Jesus. — Blaise Pascal

Pascal was pointing out something Bacon clearly understood that the left has tried to pervert ever since.  It comes from Ecclesiastes 3:11 that God set eternity in the human heart.  It comes from Genesis 1:27 that humans were created in God’s image as His image bearers.  And the next verse describes God as having given man sovereignty over the world He created for humankind.  Which is why great scientist Johannes Kepler described science as “thinking God’s thoughts after Him.”

G.K. Chesterton put it even better in terms of my point when he wrote:

“For when we cease to worship God, we do not worship nothing, we worship anything.”

In rejecting God as their source for a worldview and for ideas, they believe in utter foolishness.  It may be high-sounding foolishness, but it is all the more foolish to be expressed in lofty words.  The left fills their minds with foolishness.  And that is why their ideas don’t work.

Leftist intellectuals are pure fools whose ideas have no contact with reality.  They have absolutely no understanding whatsoever how power works or how government truly functions or how to achieve peace or how to do anything that is truly meaningful or significant.  All they can do is mock and then mimic and then point fingers for their failures to try to blame others for their failures.

And a leftist like Obama has two choices: he can either reject the foolish and failed liberalism and try a different approach, which the leftist intellectuals claim he is at least partly doing.  Or he can keep trying to apply liberalism and keep failing, as he is very clearly also doing.

Obama is a joke.  And it would have been a funny joke if he had afflicted another country that wasn’t urgently needed in this time as the leader of the free world.  But here he is, plaguing this formerly great nation.  And so the joke is on America and it is on the whole human race.

Barack Obama has failed America and he has failed the world.  No one on earth is more responsible for the vicious wave or resurgent Islamic terrorism than Barack Hussein Obama who STILL insanely continues to reject the notion that he is in a war or that the war is against Islamic terrorism.  No one did more to underestimate the threat of terror and falsely and stupidly claim he had defeated it than Obama, no one did more to gut the resources needed to defeat Islamic terrorism while that threat metastasized into a deadly cancer all around him while he selfishly focused on his own personal politics.

And Obama failed America.  He keeps trying to play class warfare when HE is the man who widened the gap between the richest and the poorest beyond any human being who ever lived.  He dishonestly talks about his policies being exactly what the middle class needs when it was HIS policies that have crushed the middle class more than ANYONE’S in history.  Which is why all the day back in August of last year conservative writers RIGHTLY predicted the outcome of November’s election in which Republicans massively kicked Democrat and Obama ass and pointing out it was Obama’s war on the middle class come boomeranging back at his face.  That writer who predicted the result of the election called it “The Murder of the Middle Class.”  By the man who is now about to give a dishonest State of the Union speech claiming once again he is the savior of the very thing he is in fact murdering.

Obama has spent more money on government than any human being in all of human history.  And he is about to have spent more than every American president in all of human history combined from George Washington to George W. Bush.  And his policies have failed unless it was his goal to weaken America abroad and to weaken every American except the very wealthiest.  As even the LEFT that backed Obama is now pointing out.

And Barack Obama – without any question unless you ask the fool “intellectuals” – has done more to destroy democracy and more to destroy the American Constitution than any president who ever lived.  Because he is now the same totalitarian that the left has ALWAYS ended up worshiping whether some of them came to rue the object of their worship or not.

Pretty soon, because of Obama’s spectacular failure, the world will accept the coming Antichrist and worship him as their savior and take his mark of big-socialist-government domination on their right hands or on their foreheads.  And Barack Hussein Obama will have been the Antichrist’s Most Useful Idiot.

And don’t think for one second that the same intellectuals who couldn’t wait to support Stalin before they couldn’t wait to support Hitler before they couldn’t wait to support murderous communist dictator Chairman Mao before they couldn’t wait to support Obama won’t rush to support the Antichrist, too.

Evolution Vs. The 10 Commandments: And The Winner Is…?

One of the things that makes living a moral life – keeping the 10 commandments – discouraging and disheartening these days is the fact that people all around us are NOT keeping them.  If you’ve been around kids you know how kids invariably look at other kids as the measure of what should and shouldn’t be okay.  When exasperated children say, “But all the other kids are doing it!” parents offer the knee-jerk response: “If all the other kids jumped off a cliff, would you do that, too?”  And that’s a valid point, of course.  But your kid isn’t asking to jump off a cliff; he’s asking to stay out late or he’s asking to go to a concert or something else that he simply doesn’t view as tantamount to leaping off a cliff to his certain death.  What that child sees is a fun thing that the other kids are doing that he can’t do, and as a child who has himself been confronted with “the cliff” question, I can tell you that it might end the argument but it hardly ends a kid’s angst.

It would be a very different world if someone received heavenly electroshocks from God every single time they violated the 10 commandments.  But that isn’t the way it happens.  David and later Jeremiah famously asked the question we’ve all likely asked at one time or another: “Why do the wicked prosper?”

It’s not merely that so many people break God’s laws all around us and seem to get away with it and even seem to get rewarded for it that creates discouragement, however.  It’s also that there is an entire worldview that explains this apparent state in terms of a presentation that God’s laws aren’t really even “laws” at all but merely intolerant edicts written by intolerant, superstitious and frankly bigoted human beings who invented God as a means to control and dominate people.  Sometimes it very much seems like the whole world system has been designed to confuse and discourage God’s people into wondering why we bother to follow God’s commands.  In place of God today we are instead being offered a Darwinian system of evolution that is being held up as “science” and therefore beyond question.

We’ve all heard about the Ten Commandments in the Bible.  And it occurred to me that it would be interesting to explore them from the viewpoint of Darwinian evolution – consistently applied – and see how the results strike your moral intuitions.  I submit to you that sometimes the best way to finally put your trust on God’s system is to consider the results of man’s systems and see their end.  That’s ultimately how David began to receive his answer to his question of why the wicked prosper: in verse 17 of Psalm 73 David said, “then I understood their final destiny.”  We need to be able to do that with Darwinism.

When Jesus Christ and His Word are your source for ideas, you simply do not need to be afraid of the competition.  The best antidote to all the lies that surround us is the truth.  And so I would like to take some time to survey the truth: the truth about science and where it came from; the truth about some very interesting issues in which science is surprisingly ignorant; the truth about a giant flaw in Darwin’s presentation; and finally an examination of what Darwinian “ethics” would look like to show you its end.  And what I want you to see is that God’s law makes absolute sense in light of its vicious Darwinian competition.

So I begin with the origin of science: how did we get science?  Should we view it as incompatible with Christianity?  Well, it turns out that we got science from Christianity.  Here’s an interesting fact I link to in my notes: The scientific method itself and the founder of virtually every single branch of modern science was discovered by a publicly confessed Christian.  Dr. Rodney Stark, a sociologist, “researched the leading scientists from 1543 [– the beginning of the scientific revolution –] to 1680 and found that of the top 52 scientists, one was a skeptic, one was a pantheist and 50 were Christians, 30 of whom could be characterized as devout because of their zeal.”  We find that science arose only once in human history – and it arose in Europe under the civilization then called “Christendom.” Christianity provided the worldview foundations necessary and essential for the birth of science: The earth was not the illusion of Eastern religion and philosophy, but a physical, tangible place. And the material world was not the corrupt and lower realm of Greek religion and philosophy, but God created it and called it “good.” And God endowed the capstone of His creation, man – as the bearer of His divine image – with the reason, the curiosity, and the desire to know the truth. And God – who designed an orderly and law-abiding universe and earth for man – made man the caretaker of His creation. And thus the great astronomer Johannes Kepler described his project as “thinking God’s thoughts after Him.”  And that is frankly why 106 of the first 108 colleges in America were founded as religious Christian institutions.  My point is this: is Christianity at war with the essence of science?  NO!  Atheism is at war with the essence of science.  It is simply a demonstrable lie that legitimate science is at odds with Christianity; and this lie should not trouble you no matter how often you hear the lie or who repeats it.

There’s another myth that I would like to briefly examine; and that is the myth of science as some monolithic field that has answered all of the profoundly important questions.  That is how it is frequently presented in the media; but when you listen to scientists themselves you get a very different story.  I’ve recently began watching a Science Channel program called “Through the Wormhole.”  And I’ve been shocked at just how little science genuinely knows when the scientists and not the news media discuss science.

For example, take black holes:  We find that “black holes are places where the accepted laws of physics break down.”  Dr. Gabor Kunstatter of the University of Winnipeg physics department, defines black holes as a “a tiny region of space where the known laws of physics break down.”  It turns out that every system of physics known to man – Newtonian, Einsteinian, Quantum Mechanics, String Theory – all are falsified inside black holes.  And by the way, this is kind of a big deal because there are something like 100 million black holes in our galaxy.  It’s simply not true to claim that science accounts for all reality.  It simply doesn’t.

Here’s another one that surprised me.  If you try to reconcile Einstein’s relativity with Quantum Mechanics, a strange thing happens: you’re left with an equation that has no ‘t’ variable for time.  Time gets cancelled out of any equation that tries to harmonize these two widely held theories.  Since this runs counter to observable reality, most scientists rightly believe that quantum physics and relatively theory “don’t play well together.”  In fact, they invalidate one another.  It is rather astonishing that modern physics can’t account for something as basic to human existence as time.  But some physicists are so determined to believe their theories that they literally argue that if their equations says time doesn’t exist, then time doesn’t exist.  I laughed as a Rutgers University philosopher of physics named Tim Madulin explained that these guys are spending way too much time with numbers and not enough time with reality.  But that’s what is going on far too often in what is passing for “science” today – especially evolutionary science.

How about this one: 95% of the universe that physicists depend on for their theories is MISSING.  “An enormous chunk of the Universe seems to be invisible. We can’t see it, hear it, or detect it in any way… To crack the cosmic code that underlies our Universe, we have to understand energy in all its forms. But what if almost 95% of the Universe is made of a form of energy we can’t see and don’t understand?”  The 95% of the universe that they can’t detect in any way is there because it HAS to be there for their theories to hold up.

Here’s another one  – and it’s actually quite a doozy: the Big Bang.  99.9% of working scientists in relevant fields of astronomy accept the Big Bang.  But taking what had to happen into account, what is the likelihood of a life-supporting universe coming into existence by chance?  Think about it: there’s nothing, there’s nothing, there’s nothing.  And then POOF! There’s everything.  Just what are the odds of something like that just happening by chance?  According to the great mathematician Roger Penrose, who calculated the odds of what had to happen for the Big Bang, the odds against such an occurrence happening by chance were on the order of 10^10^123 to 1.  How big of a number against the Big Bang happening by chance is that?  I’ll let well-known theoretical physicist Laura Mersini-Houghton – who is an atheist, by the way – tell you. From “Through the Wormhole”: “The seed of this idea was planted many years ago when she realized she had a problem with the Universe – a pretty big problem. According to her calculations, the Universe should not exist. “The chances to start the Universe with the high-energy Big Bang are one in 10 with another 10 zeros behind it and another 123 zeros behind it. So, pretty much, zero.”  As a result of these odds, Mersini-Houghton wrote a paper proposing what she acknowledged to be a “highly speculative” theory denying Big Bang cosmology which might provide the materialists with a way to rescue their atheistic belief system.

The big problem with the Big Bang is that the Big Bang requires a Big Banger.  All matter, all energy, all space and all time came into existence.  You need somebody to make that “POOF” happen – someone who Himself is not limited by matter, energy, space or time.  Only the Bible identifies Him:  “In the beginning, God created the heavens and the earth.”  We need that Guy.  We need God.

The strongest argument against “science” disproving the existence of God is SCIENCE.

Let me leave you with one last example right out of the Bible: Jeremiah 33:22 records a statement by God that the stars in the sky are “countless.”  That may not sound like that big of a deal, but consider: In 128BC Hipparchus claimed to have counted the stars, with their number being 1,026.  That number stood as the official count of the stars of the sky for seventeen hundred years until 1600AD, when Kepler counted the stars and concluded that Hipparchus had double-counted some: and the updated number was 1,005 stars.  Was God wrong?  Well, with the aid of the Hubble telescope scientists now estimate that there are 70 sextillion – that’s a number followed by 21 zeroes – stars in over 1 billion galaxies.  And that number actually exceeds the number of grains of sand on all the seashores on earth, to complete the proof of Jeremiah 33.

We don’t have to be afraid to debate the truth.  We don’t have to be afraid of the facts.  We don’t have to play games with the numbers and the evidence in order to support our faith.  THAT’S WHAT THE OTHER SIDE HAS TO DO.  Another way to put it is this: don’t let science or anything else tell you how to read your Bible.  Because you are a LOT more warranted to let your Bible tell you how to read everything else.

So with that as a primer, let’s begin to contemplate Charles Darwin and his Darwinian evolution. There is one primary reason that Darwinism is accepted as a “valid scientific theory” and “Creationism” or even “Intelligent Design” is not so accepted: and that is that we’re told that Darwinism passes the bar of being “testable” or “falsifiable” but theories that depend on God in any way are NOT so testable or falsifiable.  We’re told that we can’t put a Creator God under a microscope and observe Him creating.  But let me show you how utterly fallacious that standard is by showing you Darwin’s “test” for his theory: “If it could be demonstrated that any complex organ existed which could not possibly have been formed by numerous, successive, slight modifications, my theory would absolutely break down.”

Well, Darwin himself said the eye as a refutation of his theory gave him cold fits.  He wrote in a letter: “I remember well the time when the thought of the eye made me cold all over, but I have got over this stage of the complaint, and now small trifling particulars of structure often make me very uncomfortable.  The sight of a feather in a peacock’s tail, whenever I gaze at it, makes me sick!”  A couple of things leap out of that: the first thing is that Darwin is clearly not an objective scientist who is willing to go wherever the evidence leads; he is passionately determined to get God out of the picture.  It makes him literally “cold” and “sick” to see any evidence of a Designer, doesn’t it?  With that said, let’s talk about Darwin’s own dilemma with the eye.  The thing about an eye is that it doesn’t work unless all the components are properly in place.  It’s not like you can grow an eyeball but not have any optical nerves and still see a little bit.  You’ve either got the whole eye or you’ve got squat.  I read Richard Dawkins’ The Blind Watchmaker during a period when I was genuinely doubting whether God really existed or not.  And when I saw his account of how the eye developed a little tiny bit at a time, it was a laugher for me, even being the skeptic that I was.  On his account, the first eye began to form from a photoreceptor cell on a depression in some early creature’s body – as though we all need to go home and check our belly buttons every day lest an eye is starting to grow out of it.  And as Dawkins presented this bizarre story of how the eye formed by “numerous, successive, slight modifications,” his story just got worse and worse.  It amounted to a fairy-tale for atheists.  It had to happen this way to keep God out of the picture, so that’s clearly how it happened no matter how implausible or even ridiculous it sounds.

And it actually gets WORSE for Darwinists, because we now know that the cell is filled with incredible tiny machines that all have to be present in a cell in order for that cell to work.  And scientists point out that it would take a good 50 times even the 4.6 billion of years earth has supposedly existed for random chance to manufacture just one useful protein for even the simplest bacteria cell.  That’s not amoeba to man; “numerous, successive, slight modifications” can’t even get Darwinism to a bacteria cell!  We now know a lot more about what the Bible describes: that we are truly “fearfully and wonderfully made” just as Psalm 139:14

But there is actually an even more glaring problem with Darwin’s “falsifiability” than most Christian thinkers have attacked.  Let’s look at the Darwin’s falsifiability standard again: “If it could be demonstrated that any complex organ existed which could not possibly have been formed by numerous, successive, slight modifications, my theory would absolutely break down.”  That is a nearly impossible standard to defeat: we have to prove something is absolutely impossible.  But let me try doing the same thing with my Creationist theory so you can see the bait-and-switch that’s going on here: “If it could be demonstrated that any complex organ existed which could not have possibly been formed by God, my Creation theory would absolutely break down.”  My point is that Creationism and Intelligent Design have been ruled out without any consideration by the modern scientific establishment because they are “not falsifiable” when the Darwinism that they want to embrace is actually no more falsifiable than our Creation theories are.  The only difference is that when atheists tell their stories about how time and chance and random mutation managed to pull off one impossible miracle after another, OUR STORIES MAKE A LOT MORE SENSE!  You need to understand that there is a true spirit of delusion and hypocrisy at work in our world.

So science itself originated out of Christian thought on fundamentally Christian precepts of intelligence and design and the science that arose out of and because of Christianity clearly isn’t incompatible with Christianity; so science really truly doesn’t know that much about the ultimate nature of the universe and what it DOES know confirms rather than contradicts that our universe and life itself was the product of supernatural Intelligent Design; and so Darwinism amounts to an atheist polemic that has support merely because it illegitimately rules out its rivals on utterly fraudulent grounds.  Are you with me so far?

With all of that as our backdrop, let us now ponder the implications of Darwinian morality.  As a young man with a mangled faith, wondering if God truly existed and cared about how I lived, I realized something: if evolution is true and there is no God, then there is no such thing as human morality, either.  And I literally not only could but frankly ought to have been utterly amoral if that was the case.  As soon as that thought occurred to me, however, it frightened me far more than it reassured me.  Because I had not been raised to be amoral.  Everything I had been taught in my entire life up to that point had directed me to believing in right and wrong.  And it was a dark thought indeed that there was no God and morality flowed from Darwinism.  Because Darwinian morality is as vicious as it is violent.

Let’s start with the fact that evolutionists claim that their system of Darwinism is simply the way the world works.  Assume that’s true for a moment.  And then look at the world around you.  Because like it or not, Darwinism entails social Darwinism.  What is true for nature must be true for the individual and society.  If nature progresses by competition for survival, and the victory of the strong over the weak, then all progress must come the same way.  If life is an unceasing struggle for existence, and its outcome is the survival of the fittest, as Darwin claimed, then that is how we ought to function as individuals and as a society.

Modern Darwinists want to use their system to violently club God to death, then drop that club and say, “Now that Darwinism has killed God and religion, let’s not live as if our system that says life is a struggle for existence in which only the fittest survive and the weak are a threat to the rest of the herd is actually true.”  Like so many other elements of Darwinian thought, there is a massive self-contradiction.

Richard Dawkins has laid war and death on the back of religion, but he refuses to accept the far greater holocaust of death on the back of his atheism.  When we rightly point out that atheistic communism was responsible for the murder of more than 110 million people during peacetime alone, Dawkins claims that communism and atheism have nothing to do with each other.  But as I showed last week, that simply is false: atheism was at the very core of Marxism.  If you look up “state atheism,” you find that it is virtually identical with communism.  And it is no coincidence that not only did Karl Marx identify with Charles Darwin as strongly supporting his theory of class struggle and write that Darwinism was “the basis in natural history for our views,” but Nazism was also little more than applied Darwinism – with the rationale of both creating a master race and exterminating the Jews being profoundly Darwinian.  Hitler even made his own people the victims of his Darwinism, stating, “If the German Volk is not strong enough and is not sufficiently prepared to offer its own blood for its existence, it should cease to exist and be destroyed by a stronger power.”  That is profoundly Darwinian.  Now intellectual frauds like Richard Dawkins are trying to go back and rewrite history to expunge the incredibly tragic results of Darwinism being applied to the actual world and society.

And the horror that results in society is equally true of the individual who lives by Darwinism.

Why do we as individuals rape, murder and sleep around?  Because “rape is (in the vernacular of evolutionary biology) an adaptation, a trait encoded by genes that confers an advantage on anyone who possesses them. Back in the late Pleistocene epoch 100,000 years ago, men who carried rape genes had a reproductive and evolutionary edge over men who did not: they sired children not only with willing mates, but also with unwilling ones, allowing them to leave more offspring (also carrying rape genes) who were similarly more likely to survive and reproduce, unto the nth generation. That would be us. And that is why we carry rape genes today. The family trees of prehistoric men lacking rape genes petered out.”  Darwinism is “a scientific idea that, if true, consigns traditions of self-restraint, loyalty, the very basis of family life, to the shredder.”  Now go ye and do likewise.  Unless something inside of you screams “NO!  I will NOT live in accordance with that terrible, wicked, demonic theory of Darwinian evolution!”

I like to watch nature programs on TV, although it is often hard – because the stories end so bleakly.  In one episode, I watched a dominant female baboon whose had baby died because she couldn’t produce milk snatch the baby of a healthy mother.  And of course that baby died because the dominant baboon female couldn’t produce any milk but wouldn’t return it to its mother.  In another program, I watched a lion cub get trampled by buffalo when the herd suddenly changed direction; its pelvis was crushed and it was dragging itself around by its front lets with its hind legs useless.  What happened?  Was there a lion welfare program?  No.  The mother and its siblings and the pride abandoned it after a few days, and it surely died horribly.  Because in nature the weak, the sick and the injured are a liability and even a threat to the rest of society and they should die so the strong can live.  That’s the way the world often is in the aftermath of the Fall.

Have you ever wondered why God allows animal suffering like that?  Let me offer an answer: because God wants us to look at the animals and see that He created us different.  We are NOT animals; we are made in the image of a rational, moral God.  And we should not live or think like beings lacking the Imago Dei.

Now, in the time that I have left, let me finally get to the essence of the 10 Commandments.  God told Israel in Exodus 20:2, “I am the LORD your God, who brought you out of Egypt, out of the land of slavery .“  Allow me to restate that in a slightly different way: “I am the Lord your God, who brought you OUT” of that animal state of bondage.  You will NOT live like animals in some Darwinian state; instead you will live like My people whom I created and whom I love and hold to a higher standard than any beast of the field.

Why is it that the first five commandments focus on man’s relationship to God?  Today, our government schools are trying to abandon the commandments focusing on God but somehow keep the ethics of the last five.  A US District Court Judge actually tried to cut the Ten Commandments down to six.  One pastor recently preached on that and said, “The educators are attempting to enact the ethics of the second half of the Ten Commandments which have to do with not lying, stealing, etc. without taking heed to the first half!  They are trying to teach young men and women how to love their neighbor without first training them to love God!  All such attempts will fall short, because unless you first love God, and have God living in you, it is not possible to live out his character, which is what loving your neighbor is all about.”

In light of what you have just heard on Darwinism, let me sing the same song again: because we are NOT to live like animals; we are NOT to live like a bunch of creatures who invent our own meanings and values for ourselves; instead we ARE to live in the light of our relationship to our Creator from which our love for our neighbor flows.  We are to live up to the image of God in us as humans.  And frankly if we truly love the Lord our God with all of our heart, mind and strength, and if we truly have the love of God in Christ in our hearts, we cannot help but love our neighbors as we love ourselves.  It flows out of us like water flows out of a spring.

There’s a powerful reason for this: it derives from the fact that community is central to the heart of the Trinity.  There’s a theological term in Greek called “Perichoresis.”  It means, “to dance around.” The divine dance within the Trinity.  It derives from passages such as John 14:10, in which Jesus asked, “Don’t you believe that I am in the Father, and that the Father is in me?”  The Father is in the Son and the Son is in the Father.  The Father loves the Son and the Spirit, and the Son and the Spirit cooperate together to bring joy to the Father.  You have every element within the Trinity that you need to have complete community.  God did not have to invent community the way man invented the wheel; community was central to the heart of God.

You can’t give what you don’t have.  If God were strictly one in the most rigorous sense, as Allah is in Islam, where would we get true, genuine community?  When God created man in His own image, according to Genesis 1:27, how was it that Adam and Eve were relational and communal beings unless community were an essential part of the essence of the God who had created them?  When you love your neighbor as you love yourself, as taught in both the Ten Commandments and by Jesus, what else are you doing but modeling the love that was essential to the “divine dance” of the Godhead before the Creation of the world?

You don’t get that from Darwinism.  In fact, you don’t get anything good from Darwinism at all.

In allowing the demonic doctrine of Darwinism, God allowed a very stark contrast between His way and the way of fallen man.  Joshua told the Israelites in Joshua 24:15, “choose for yourselves this day whom you will serve.”  And like the Israelites of old, we too have a choice to make.  The resurrected Jesus tells the Laodiceans in Rev 3:15-16, “I know your deeds, that you are neither cold nor hot. I wish you were either one or the other!  So, because you are lukewarm–neither hot nor cold–I am about to spit you out of my mouth.”  We need to stop living with one foot in the “survival of the fittest” world of Darwin and the other foot in the “love your neighbor as yourself” world of Jesus and truly choose this day whom we will serve.  There is a gigantic gulf between the “vicious animal” world of Darwinism and the “image of God” world of Christianity.  There are two natures – the selfish animal nature of Darwinism and the selfless divine nature of God – that are profoundly and fundamentally opposed to one another.  And they are at war within you.

The Ten Commandments as Jesus taught were not given to the descendants of animals, as Darwinism teaches; they were given to the children of God who love Him and want His love to flow through them to others.

Let’s pray that we may be radical followers of the Ten Commandments as they were taught in both the Old and New Testaments.  It’s evolution vs. the Ten Commandments; it’s Darwin vs. Jesus.  Who will be the true winner in your life?

Secular Humanism The Source Behind Education’s Ills Across The Board As We Decline In Knowledge, In Tolerance And In Morality

Secular humanism – in religious terms you can label it “atheism” and in political terms you can label it “progressive liberalism” – is a shell game that tries to hide the existence of the human soul.

The soul is there, of course.  It simply HAS to be there for humans to be in any meaningful way categorically different than the beasts, or for human justice to be anything other than a morbid joke as “beasts” judge one another for acting like beasts.  But the project of secular humanism is to only allow as much “soul” as is absolutely necessary to allow society to function while at the same time denying it’s reality lest the people reject the atheism and the progressive liberalism that are based on the denial of the soul.

The problem is that the soul is NOT a degreed property.  “Size” and “weight” are a degreed properties; a thing can have more of it or less of it and still be the thing itself.  But in this case the soul must be the kind of thing (a substance) that HAS properties rather than a property that has degrees.  We therefore either have souls – in which case the secular humanists are entirely wrong about the nature of humanity, the nature of religion, the nature of morality, the nature of science and the very  nature of the universe – or we do NOT have souls and therefore we do NOT have “free will” in which case human society, human justice and basically everything worthwhile about “humanity” is an entirely manufactured lie.

Look, I am either a soul – created in the image of God – that has a body, or else I am nothing more than a body – and frankly a meat puppet – which was the result of random DNA conditioned by my environment.  It’s one or the other; there is no middle ground.  Free will becomes a logical as well as biological impossibility for the latter view – which is why secular humanist scientists and philosophers are increasingly rejecting the very possibility of free will.

The problem is that if you were to actually assume the latter was actually true, then how could you hold anybody responsible for anything?  It’s really a frightening thought.  After all, if I commit a brutal murder, but there really is no “me” inside of me to truly hold accountable, but rather I was conditioned by genes I didn’t choose and an environment I didn’t choose, why should I be held accountable?  How is this not like holding a child responsible for what his parents did?  But of course, on this view, you can’t hold the parents responsible any more than the child, because they suffer the same complete lack of moral free will that their child does.  And the final result of this view is that we should no more hold a human being – who is NOTHING but an evolved monkey, after all – any more morally responsible for his or her “crimes” than we would hold a tiger responsible for killing a goat.   Because in both cases, you merely do what you “evolved” to do.

Therefore, the people who claim the latter (no God, ergo sum no imago dei ergo sum no free will) is reality have to pretend for the most part that it is most definitely NOT reality in order to have any kind of functioning human society.  What they have done is determined that humans are in fact “animals” (or beasts); and that, more specifically, we are “herd animals.”  Mind you, we are also clearly – judging by human experience – “predator animals” who prey on herd animals.  And so the secular humanists have construed for themselves a “foundation for their description of reality” in which they have appointed themselves the outside role of “the bureaucrats” and “the professors” and “the journalists” (etc.) who shape and control the behavior of the herd and attempt to keep the herd animals relatively safe from the predator animals.

And of course liberalism only becomes consistent in their anthropology when they refuse to execute murderers (after all, THAT would be holding someone accountable for their moral crimes when that man is merely a beast who merely did what his brain had evolved to do); so we house them, keep them locked up in cages.  Just like animals.  Because they ARE animals and nothing more than animals conditioned by DNA plus environment.  Just like YOU’RE nothing more than a mindless animal purely conditioned by DNA plus environment.

I suggest that the increasing breakdown of society under the control of secular humanism is itself a refutation of their system.  We are skyrocketing out of control as a species because when you treat men like beasts, like beasts men shall increasingly become.  As the Bible puts it, “As a man thinks in his heart, so is he” (Proverbs 23:7).  But we can offer a great deal more of an analysis than merely pointing out that “by their fruits shall ye know them” (Matthew 7:16-20).

One of the things you need to realize is the bait and switch you have received regarding science and the nature of science.  You have been fed a pile of lies in the form of a narrative that science is incompatible with religion and that “science” produces open-mindedness and tolerance for new ideas whereas “religion” produces close-mindedness and hostility to new ideas.  But that is simply a lie: as a matter of factual history, “science” is uniquely a product of Judeo-Christianity.  It arose ONLY in Christendom as the result of belief in a Personal, Transcendent Creator God rather than anywhere else on earth.  Belief in God was a necessary condition for the rise of science as not only the discoverer of the scientific method itself (Francis Bacon) but the discoverer of every single branch of science was a publicly confessing Christian who “sought appreciate the beauty of God’s handiwork” and who “wanted to think God’s thoughts after Him.”

J.P. Moreland (Source: The Creation Hypothesis: Scientific Evidence for an Intelligent Designer, p. 17) listed some of the philosophical presuppositions – based on the Judeo-Christian worldview – that were necessary for the foundation of science:

1. the existence of a theory-independent, external world

2. the orderly nature of the external world

3. the knowability of the external world

4. the existence of truth

5. the laws of logic

6. the reliability of human cognitive and sensory faculties to serve as -truth-gatherers and as a source of justified beliefs in our intellectual environment

7. the adequacy of language to describe the world

8. the existence of values used in science (e.g., “test theories fairly and report test results honestly”)

9. the uniformity of nature and induction

10. the existence of numbers

Good luck in starting science without all of these assumptions – of which the assumption of God according to the Judeo-Christian worldview was necessary to provide.  Science could not verify or validate any of the list above for the reason that they already needed to be accepted in order for science to ever get off the ground in the first place.

To put it crassly, if it were up to secular humanists, we would still be living in caves and afraid of fire.  And if it left up to secular humanists, we will ultimately be living in caves and afraid of fire again.  And all you have to do to realize that society is not advancing under their standard, but degenerating, to know that.

God created the world as a habitation for the capstone of His creation, man.  And then God created man in His own image and therefore able to see and fathom the world which He had created for humanity.  That is the basis for science.

Gleason Archer framed an insurmountable intellectual contradiction for the “scientific atheist”:

“But it should be pointed out that consistent atheism, which represents itself to be the most rational and logical of all approaches to reality, is in actuality completely self defeating and incapable of logical defense. That is to say, if indeed all matter has combined by mere chance, unguided by any Higher Power of Transcendental Intelligence, then it necessarily follows that the molecules of the human brain are also the product of mere chance. In other words, we think the way we do simply because the atoms and molecules of our brain tissue happen to have combined in the way they have, totally without transcendental guidance or control. So then even the philosophies of men, their system of logic and all their approaches to reality are the result of mere fortuity. There is no absolute validity to any argument advanced by the atheist against the position of theism.

On the basis of his won presuppositions, the atheist completely cancels himself out, for on his own premises his arguments are without any absolute validity. By his own confession he thinks the way he does simply because the atoms in his brain happen to combine the way they do. If this is so, he cannot honestly say that his view is any more valid than the contrary view of his opponent. His basic postulates are self contradictory and self defeating; for when he asserts that there are no absolutes, he thereby is asserting a very dogmatic absolute. Nor can he logically disprove the existence of God without resorting to a logic that depends on the existence of God for its validity. Apart from such a transcendent guarantor of the validity of logic, any attempts at logic or argumentation are simply manifestations of the behavior of the collocation of molecules that make up the thinker’s brain.”  — Gleason Archer, Encyclopedia of Bible Difficulties, 1982, pp. 55-56

Basically, if the atheist is right, then “human reason” becomes a contradiction in terms and let’s just live like the beasts they say we are and be done pretending we’re something we’re not.

What secular humanists have been trying to do – frankly for generations – is to perpetuate a fraud.  It would be akin to me intercepting a great thinker’s work and trying to pass it off as my own.

But imagine – for the sake of argument – what would have happened had I done such a thing with the work of Albert Einstein.  Imagine I had enough of a vocabulary to pass myself off as a great scientific mind.  What would have happened to science as a result of my limiting it?

And that is what’s essentially being described in the R. Scott Smith article below.  Education – the teaching of science and of how to do science, for example – would suffer more and more as fools who are “always learning and never able to arrive at a knowledge of the truth” (2 Timothy 3:7) hijacked the agenda.

I would like to begin this discussion with an article on the logically-entailed implications of Darwinism in crucial human pursuits by beginning with an article detailing the ramifications of Darwinism on education:

Winter 2014
Does Darwinian Evolution Actually Undermine Education?
By R. Scott Smith

Low standard test scores, serious budget crunches and more — our public schools face daunting challenges. But perhaps they face a deeper issue, one not being mentioned in recent public discussions: What if they aren’t really teaching our youth knowledge?

Today’s education is based upon the assumption that science gives us knowledge. But other disciplines give us (at best) “inferior knowledge,” or just preferences and opinions.

And today’s scientific orthodoxy is Darwinian and naturalistic, meaning all that’s real is natural, or material; there isn’t anything real that’s supernatural or immaterial. There’s no God, souls or minds, and so no real “mental states” — thoughts, beliefs, experiences, intentions, etc.

If that seems overstated, notice what Daniel Dennett, a leading philosopher of neuroscience at Tufts University, says. He admits that according to naturalistic evolution, the dominant scientific theory, brains and physical patterns of physical forces exist. Physical stuff (matter) is real, but things like mental states aren’t.

Yet when we do science, pay our taxes or watch a football game, it seems we really think, have beliefs and experience things. So, how can that be?

According to Dennett, all that’s going on is the interpretation of the behavior of “intentional systems,” like sophisticated chess-playing computers and people. While observing them, we try to interpret and predict their behavior. For instance, we might interpret a computer’s move in a game as “intending” to checkmate its opponent, whereas the human player “thinks” or “believes” she can escape by making a certain move. We just interpret their behaviors by how we conceive of (or talk about) their behaviors as mental states — but that’s all there’s to it. There are no real beliefs, thoughts or observations.

However, suppose a person comes here from a fourth-world country. She’ll need to get a concept of what a traffic light is and that she can cross the street on a green light, not red. To learn that, she’ll need experiences and thoughts of what these things are, and then form a concept of when it’s safe to cross a street.

So, for Darwinian evolution and naturalism, there’s a crucial problem here: How could anyone make observations and form concepts and interpretations? To do these seems to require we use the very mental things we’re told don’t exist.

Yet without real observations, we don’t seem able to do any scientific experiments. Without concepts, thoughts and beliefs, how could we even form, test and accept scientific theories?

Worse, how could we have knowledge if there aren’t real beliefs we can accept as true? We also need adequate evidence for our beliefs to count as knowledge. But with Darwinian, naturalistic science, evidence from experience seems impossible.

Now, maybe Michael Tye (a philosopher at the University of Texas at Austin) could reply that we do have mental states, yet these really are just something physical, like brain states, being conceived of as being mental. But, that won’t work — to even have concepts, we need real mental states to work with.

So, it seems the assumption upon which our education system is founded — that Darwinian evolutionary, naturalistic science uniquely gives us knowledge of the facts — cannot be true. And, Darwinian evolution also is mistaken, for on it we couldn’t know anything. Yet we do know many things — for instance, that we’re alive.

Therefore, real, immaterial mental states must exist. While this essay doesn’t prove it, it suggests something very important — supernaturalism isn’t far-fetched after all. Indeed, we can infer even more. If we can have real immaterial thoughts, experiences, beliefs and more, then it seems that there must be something immaterial that is real which can have and use them. That suggests that we have minds, even souls, that are real and non-physical. So, how then do we best explain their existence? Surely not from Darwinian evolution. Instead, it seems that this short study highly suggests that God exists and has made us in a way that we can have knowledge. I am reminded of what Solomon said: “To have knowledge, you must first have reverence for the Lord” (Prov. 1:7, GNT).

Thus, fixing our education system seems to involve, in part, a  repudiation of naturalism and Darwinian, naturalistic science. For on it, we lose all knowledge whatsoever. But since we do know many things, that fact strongly suggests that God exists.

---

R. Scott Smith (M.A. ’95) is an associate professor of ethics and Christian apologetics in Biola’s master’s program in Christian
apologetics. He holds a Ph.D. in religion and social ethics from the University of Southern California.

Science isn’t “discovering” very much.  We put a man on the moon in the 1960s and we literally aren’t capable of repeating that feat today.  The first computer was invented by a Christian, of course.  We keep making them smaller and faster, but we haven’t had any major leaps for decades.  We’ve been following Moore’s Law rather than any “scientific advance.”  We’ve been very successful at “technology,” and at reducing the size of previously designed devices or at creatively marketing/engineering a device based on the success of a previous device.  But contrary to your secular humanist, we’re not making giant leaps and bounds on the frontiers of science.

And that is most definitely true of education – and especially education in America relative to other nations as we plunge ever more deeply into the philosophy of secular humanism that had NOTHING to do with the origin of science or the origin of ANY OTHER MEANINGFUL THING.

I look at education and I see what many parents as well as many educators see: kids that are getting dumber and dumber.

And you have to ask yourself, why is that, given that we’re spending more per pupil than ever???  Why do we keep falling behind?  And why do Christian schools run circles around the government (secular humanist education center) schools???  Because it is simply a FACT that they do:

If you want a flourishing education system – you know, the kind of system that put a man on the moon – you need to demand a return to a religion-friendly education system rather than the one that has replaced the system that made America great.

It is a fact of history that American public education began as a RELIGIOUS ENDEAVOR.  Of the first 108 universities founded in America, 106 were distinctly Christian.  As a native Californian, I also marveled to learn that Christianity and churches EXCLUSIVELY bore the burden of education for basically the first hundred years of westward expansion.

I’ve written about what happened as government invited itself in to take over education:

Then what turned out to be a Faustian bargain was struck.  Government took over the education system, ostensibly allowing the churches and denominations to pursue other noble work such as the mission fields.  It didn’t take long for the same government that had protected human slavery and created the Trail of Tears to begin systematically removing Scripture, God and prayer from the classrooms and thus from the children of each successive generation’s minds.

Christians stepped away from the work of education that they had historically devoted themselves to and began to put the overwhelming majority of their funds into their churches and their missionaries.  Meanwhile, liberals began to place virtually all of their funds into the universities and thus began to increasingly shape the curricula.

Ultimately, as a result, the Christians who began the universities and schools found themselves completely shut out of their own progeny.

Look what’s happened.  Liberals have purged out conservatives.  The snootiest, most hoity toity, most sanctimonious lecturers about “tolerance” are THE most intolerant people of all:

College faculties, long assumed to be a liberal bastion, lean further to the left than even the most conspiratorial conservatives might have imagined, a new study says.

By their own description, 72 percent of those teaching at American universities and colleges are liberal and 15 percent are conservative, says the study being published this week. The imbalance is almost as striking in partisan terms, with 50 percent of the faculty members surveyed identifying themselves as Democrats and 11 percent as Republicans.

The disparity is even more pronounced at the most elite schools, where, according to the study, 87 percent of faculty are liberal and 13 percent are conservative.

“What’s most striking is how few conservatives there are in any field,” said Robert Lichter, a professor at George Mason University and a co-author of the study. “There was no field we studied in which there were more conservatives than liberals or more Republicans than Democrats. It’s a very homogenous environment, not just in the places you’d expect to be dominated by liberals.” […]

Rothman sees the findings as evidence of “possible discrimination” against conservatives in hiring and promotion. Even after factoring in levels of achievement, as measured by published work and organization memberships, “the most likely conclusion” is that “being conservative counts against you,” he said. “It doesn’t surprise me, because I’ve observed it happening.” The study, however, describes this finding as “preliminary.”

By the way, I’m “possibly” liberal by that standard of measurement.  Yeah, being conservative or being a Christian (and recall that it was the Democrat Party that voted to remove “God” from its party platform until God was illegally put back into the platform amid a chorus of boos) most definitely “counts against you” in the stacked deck that liberalism has created to benefit itself and punish its enemies.  As Professor Guillermo Gonzalez found out the hard way when liberals denied him tenure because he had the gall to write a book expressing his belief in an intelligent designer of the universe.  And after denying him tenure because he believed in God and they are fascists, they fired a professor who should by all rights have been celebrated.

Because liberals are in fact the most intolerant people.  Once they took over the universities, they made very certain that they would never lose that control by making certain that conservative faculty would be systematically denied tenure and purged out.

That was our strike two for us [note: I write about three strikes in the article].  Liberals got into the education system and then barricaded the door behind them.

By the way, the two fields of academia liberals most hijacked were the fields of education and law.  They trained up the teachers and the lawyers who would be able to indoctrinate their students and more lawyers who would be able to basically make the Constitution an infinitely malleable document that basically means whatever liberals think it means.  By taking over education, liberals were able to introduce increasingly and frankly wildly failed teaching methodologies that brainwashed kids into liberalism without bothering to teach them reading, writing, arithmetic and history.  Our government school system has completely broken down and failed because liberals turned education into indoctrination.  And what is even worse, the more liberal teaching methodologies fail, the more liberals exploit their failure to usher in even WORSE methodologies.  It has become a vicious circle.

Today we have an “education system” ladened with secular humanist theories which don’t teach children because as secular humanists they have understanding of “humanity” or the little souls whom they seek more to indoctrinate than to educate.

Johnny can’t read, at least he can’t read very well.  But that’s okay; he doesn’t need to be able to read very well in order to serve the future State or the crony capitalist corporations in the progressive liberals’ fascist system in order to be a good drone worker bee.  When your child is toiling away at his or her menial job, feel good in the knowledge that your child will do so believing that being a good citizen and taking your place as one of myriad cogs in the machine will keep him or her moving mindlessly forward.

In a way, I’ve already also described the rabid intolerance that is the quintessence of secular humanism in describing above the purging of conservatives by liberals.  But believe me, there is way, way more than that.

One of the frightening things about the Holocaust was that only one who closely followed the theories presented in the German universities could see it coming.  But those who DID follow what was being taught in the elite German universities could see it coming very clearly.  Many of those who did follow what was being taught were terrified and tried to warn the free nations about what was happening.  But of course nobody listened.  And so it all played out exactly as the most strident voices warned it would play out unless something was done.  That “play” was World War II and the death camps that accompanied it.

The lesson of history is that ideas have consequences.  And terrible ideas have terrible consequences, indeed.

So with that introduction, allow me to replay a recent article written by a student of one of the most – if not THE most – prestigious of universities in America reflecting a new rabid intolerance of free speech in academia:

 In its oft-cited Statement of Principles on Academic Freedom and Tenure, the American Association of University Professors declares that “Teachers are entitled to full freedom in research and in the publication of the results.” In principle, this policy seems sound: It would not do for academics to have their research restricted by the political whims of the moment.

Yet the liberal obsession with “academic freedom” seems a bit misplaced to me. After all, no one ever has “full freedom” in research and publication. Which research proposals receive funding and what papers are accepted for publication are always contingent on political priorities. The words used to articulate a research question can have implications for its outcome. No academic question is ever “free” from political realities. If our university community opposes racism, sexism, and heterosexism, why should we put up with research that counters our goals simply in the name of “academic freedom”?

Instead, I would like to propose a more rigorous standard: one of “academic justice.” When an academic community observes research promoting or justifying oppression, it should ensure that this research does not continue. […]

It is tempting to decry frustrating restrictions on academic research as violations of academic freedom. Yet I would encourage student and worker organizers to instead use a framework of justice. After all, if we give up our obsessive reliance on the doctrine of academic freedom, we can consider more thoughtfully what is just.

Basically, she says that free speech on campus should be abolished and professors with opposing views be fired.

Here as in so many other ways, secular humanist “liberalism” is Nazism.  Period.

I want you to consider the bastion of bias and intolerance that academia has truly become:

AN ANTONIO — Some of the world’s pre-eminent experts on bias discovered an unexpected form of it at their annual meeting.

Discrimination is always high on the agenda at the Society for Personality and Social Psychology’s conference, where psychologists discuss their research on racial prejudice, homophobia, sexism, stereotype threat and unconscious bias against minorities. But the most talked-about speech at this year’s meeting, which ended Jan. 30, involved a new “outgroup.”

It was identified by Jonathan Haidt, a social psychologist at the University of Virginia who studies the intuitive foundations of morality and ideology. He polled his audience at the San Antonio Convention Center, starting by asking how many considered themselves politically liberal. A sea of hands appeared, and Dr. Haidt estimated that liberals made up 80 percent of the 1,000 psychologists in the ballroom. When he asked for centrists and libertarians, he spotted fewer than three dozen hands. And then, when he asked for conservatives, he counted a grand total of three.

“This is a statistically impossible lack of diversity,” Dr. Haidt concluded, noting polls showing that 40 percent of Americans are conservative and 20 percent are liberal. In his speech and in an interview, Dr. Haidt argued that social psychologists are a “tribal-moral community” united by “sacred values” that hinder research and damage their credibility — and blind them to the hostile climate they’ve created for non-liberals.

“Anywhere in the world that social psychologists see women or minorities underrepresented by a factor of two or three, our minds jump to discrimination as the explanation,” said Dr. Haidt, who called himself a longtime liberal turned centrist. “But when we find out that conservatives are underrepresented among us by a factor of more than 100, suddenly everyone finds it quite easy to generate alternate explanations.”

We are now seeing a massive effort on the part of students who have been brain-washed by the above secular humanist dictatorship of academia in which they simply refuse to tolerate or even listen to any ideas that disagree with their dogma.

Students are now shouting down anyone with whom they disagree.  It doesn’t matter how many other students want to hear a speaker: secular humanist liberal students and faculty are fascists who impose their will and dictate their agenda on others (even when they are in the very tiny minority):  And so:

At least three prominent leaders — former U.S. Secretary of State Condoleezza Rice, International Monetary Fund Managing Director Christine Lagarde, and former UC Berkeley Chancellor Robert Birgeneau — cancelled their commencement speeches this spring after a typhoon of campus activism.

Consider what happened this week with Birgeneau, who had been scheduled to speak at Haverford College, a close-knit liberal arts school just outside Philadelphia.

By some measures, Birgeneau is the perfect person to give a graduation speech: Successful, civic-minded and notable, not least for guiding Berkeley as it became the first American public university to offer comprehensive financial aid to students in the country illegally. But Birgeneau was actually far from ideal, some Haverford students and faculty decided.

Despite his left-friendly work on immigration, they said they wanted Birgeneau to apologize for how campus police brutalized Occupy Wall Street demonstrators in 2011 — or else they would protest his graduation speech.

In response, Birgeneau decided not to attend the graduation. His cancellation, the most recent of the three, is raising concerns in some quarters that campus leftist groups are putting so much emphasis on social justice issues that they’re squashing the spirit of open debate. […]

But some observers say the recent campus blow back belongs in its own category, which political writer Michelle Goldberg, in a column for The Nation, called “left-wing anti-liberalism” – the idea that some speech and some people are so politically disagreeable that their views don’t need to be heard.

Lukianoff, of the Foundation for Individual Rights in Education, pointed to a 2013 dust-up at Brown University in which former New York police head Ray Kelly’s speech to students had to be canceled after he was shouted down and unable to speak.

Kelly has long been despised by the left for his defense of stop-and-frisk policies and how the NYPD cracked down on Occupy Wall Street protesters. His embarrassment at Brown became a YouTube moment that other officials would likely hope to avoid. [….]

For centuries, universities – which again were started by Christians out of the monasticism movement (as in America, where 106 of the first 108 universities in America including ALL the Ivy League schools were began by Christians; and of the first 126 colleges, 123 were Christian) have celebrated their institutions as bastions of free expression and the interchange of ideas.  That is a lie today.  You don’t GET to learn “ideas” any more; you get to learn THE idea of secular humanist liberalism and nothing else.  Because whether you are a student or a professor or an administrator, these secular humanist liberals will come after you if you commit the sin of heresy in their rabid eyes.

Therefore, what has happened in the colleges and universities is analogous to a wayward girl who began to date a monster and ultimately helped murder her own parents in the night.  That’s what secular humanism did in purging the universities and colleges from the Christian tradition that gave BIRTH to those universities and colleges.

I compare what I’m seeing today to the French Revolution.  It, like what we’re seeing today, was the result of secular humanism.  And like what we’re seeing today, the French Revolution quickly degenerated from a bunch of hoity-toity pronouncements to hell on earth as the French Revolution rapidly degenerated into the Reign of Terror.

It is an easy thing to prove that rabid intolerance is a defining feature of the (secular humanist “liberal”) left today.  We are seeing the left declare open war on free speech and on the exercise of First Amendment rights as this nation has never seen before.  Executives are being forced out of companies they helped found because they had the audacity to exercise their free speech rights as Americans.  Journalists are getting purged for daring to speak the truth.   And just consider the vicious, rabid leftist Occupy Movement compared to the conservative Tea Party that was so demonized by the leftist press:

Occupy Movement Costs America UNTOLD MILLIONS ($2.3 Milion In L.A. ALONE) Versus Tea Party Movement Which MADE Cities Money

Liberalism = Marxism. See The Occupy Movement Shutting Down Ports, Capitalism, Jobs To Get Their Way (Communist Russian Revolution Part Deux)

After Obama Deceitfully Demonized GOP For ‘Dirtier Air And Dirtier Water,’ His Occupy Movement Leaves Behind 30 TONS Of Diseased Filfth At Just ONE Site

Vile Liberal Occupy Movement Killed The Grass At L.A. City Hall – What Should Be Done Now?

Occupy Movement Officially A Terrorist Group Now

The American Left Personified By Occupy Movement: Vile, Violent Fascist Thugs

Occupy Movement Is Destroying Jobs And Hurting Little People

Consider The Fundamental Incoherence And Hypocrisy Of The Left And The Occupy Movement

Occupy Wall Street Movement Ranks Have Criminals, Rioters, Rapists, Terrorists And Now Murderers

There have been 7,765 documented arrests of leftist Occupy Movement fascists.  Versus ZERO for the Tea Party.

Occupy – as a symbol and a symptom of the left – believed it had the right to “occupy” private property, to destroy property, to destroy jobs, to pretty much take over.  And in the case of UC Berkeley Chancellor Robert Birgeneau, we discover that it is a sin punishable by the maximum penalty to apply law and order to the left.  Better to just let them occupy and riot and vandalize, I suppose.

Liberalism is fascist intolerance when “liberalism” has been hijacked by secular humanist progressive liberalism.  Liberals are simply pathologically intolerant people across the board as expressed in pretty much any way you can measure it.

I come at last to sexual assaults.  They’ve either absolutely skyrocketed in Obama’s military and in liberalism’s universities or Obama has – incredibly cynically – manufactured a political crisis to demagogue.  Let’s just assume the data we have is correct and Obama ISN’T an incredibly evil man and go with it.  Sexual assaults have skyrocketed on his watch during his administration.

Secular humanists have no answer for why this would be.  After all, they’ve been talking about it and requiring more enforcement – including universities which clearly aren’t able to deal with the crisis – and punishing it more than ever.  So why is it growing out of control on a liberal president’s watch?

The answer is easy.  On my Judeo-Christian view, rape is wrong, wrong, WRONG.  Because contrary to secular humanism, we’re NOT just DNA-plus-environment-plus nothing meat puppets; we are human beings created by God in His image.  And to sexually assault another human being is to ignore, degrade and pervert the image of God in another soul.

On a secular humanist, not so much.

Oh, your liberal feminist asserts it’s wrong.  But when you stop and consider the tenets of Darwinian evolution, on what grounds do they assert such a thing?

Evolutionists have long talked about rape in terms of advancing evolution.  We’re equipped for fleeing, fighting and fornicating, we’re told.  There’s such a thing as a “rape gene,” we’re told.  And since Darwinism is all about “survival of the fittest,” and since the fittest survive precisely by passing on their DNA, well, rape is merely one of many possible pathways for an organism to strive to be the fittest in Darwinan terms.  And of course the animal world abounds with examples in which humans would call it “rape” but animals would call it “reproducing.”

Why do we as individuals rape, murder and sleep around?  Because as evolutionists explain:

“rape is (in the vernacular of evolutionary biology) an adaptation, a trait encoded by genes that confers an advantage on anyone who possesses them. Back in the late Pleistocene epoch 100,000 years ago, men who carried rape genes had a reproductive and evolutionary edge over men who did not: they sired children not only with willing mates, but also with unwilling ones, allowing them to leave more offspring (also carrying rape genes) who were similarly more likely to survive and reproduce, unto the nth generation. That would be us. And that is why we carry rape genes today. The family trees of prehistoric men lacking rape genes petered out.”

Darwinism is “a scientific idea that, if true, consigns traditions of self-restraint, loyalty, the very basis of family life, to the shredder.”  Now go ye and do likewise.  Unless something inside of you screams “NO!  I will NOT live in accordance with that terrible, wicked, demonic theory of Darwinian evolution!”

Rape isn’t wrong because secular humanists say it is.  That’s not a good enough reason.  Certainly not for the increasing numbers of humans committing sexual assaults it isn’t, anyway.

Why is rape wrong?  Frankly, in our new system of “morality,” rape is wrong because Obama says it is wrong.  That’s certainly the “logic” Obama used to first say that homosexual marriage was wrong when it was politically convenient to do so and that it somehow became right when it was politically convenient for him to say it was right.  I mean, literally, gay marriage was wrong until Obama said it was right.  And now it’s right.  But anyone who thinks that this is the way morality works is quite literally morally insane.

And so we have insane sexual assault statistics to go with it.

If secular humanist liberalism is in any way, shape or form true, THERE IS NO REASON TO BE TOLERANT.  In fact, we ought to be as vicious, as ruthless, as determined to win in our struggle for ideology – which of course is merely the result of how our brains happened to be randomly wired versus having any “truth” to them if secular humanism is true – as is necessary to prevail.

If secular humanist liberalism is true, then the struggle for “ideas” today is no different between rival packs of baboons fighting over the same turf.

And the reason the beast is coming is because God foreknew 2,000 years ago and beyond that in the last days, the most vicious pack of baboons (the secular humanist liberals) would prevail in a world in which rational argument and debate had been expunged by “liberalism.”

 

Climate Change, AKA Chicken Little Psychosis Syndrome

I read the Los Angeles Times this morning.  It’s an ugly, nasty habit that I usually do wearing only underwear while sipping on hot, black water that is supposed to pass for coffee.  When I go out to pick up the paper on the driveway (I’m usually wearing a robe for that trick), I always wish I were rich enough to be able to afford an actual NEWSPAPER like the Wall Street Journal.

Because advertisers clearly think the LA Times is an ugly, nasty habit, too.

I take my shower after reading the Times.  Otherwise, I’d have to take another one after throwing the bird-cage-liner down in disgust.

Anyway, with that undoubtedly unwanted description of my morning habits aside, what I found this morning was in many ways par for the course, but I thought I’d share it with you anyway.

We all have our newspaper peccadillos.  I remember my dad always reading the sports page first and my mom always reading the comics first.  I always read the op-ed section first, my theory apparently being to start the day annoyed and then just keep adding caffeine to it.  So I come across the usual “climate change” garbage from the unhinged left.

The content of the leftwing op-eds really isn’t that important, but I found the online versions just to show you what I saw.  The first was titled (in the print version of the LA Times) “Stanford’s Choice.”  The author of the piece doesn’t think energy or anything produced by energy is quite expensive enough, and demands a carbon tax.  You know, help the planet, screw the human race.  The second one (titled, “Storm clouds over climate policy” began thus:

Miami will likely be underwater before the Senate can muster enough votes to meaningfully confront climate change. And probably Tampa and Charleston, too—two other cities that last week’s National Climate Assessment placed at maximum risk from rising sea levels.

Even as studies proliferate on the dangers of a changing climate, the issue’s underlying politics virtually ensure that Congress will remain paralyzed over it indefinitely. That means the U.S. response for the foreseeable future is likely to come through executive-branch actions, such as the regulations on carbon emissions from power plants that the Environmental Protection Agency is due to propose next month. And that means climate change will likely spike as a point of conflict in the 2016 presidential race.

Well, I could either have given up and gone back to bed to hide from all the moral idiots or I could face the day.  So, bravely – and with another hit of caffeine – I turned the paper over in disgust to the front page news section.  And the most interesting story was about ancient skeletal human remains found some 12,000 years ago in an underwater cave.  So I read it.  And I’ll reproduce it for you here and stop at the point that put all of the above into the “idiot” context that the two above articles deserve:

DNA from skull links Ice Age girl to Native Americans alive today
By Monte Morin
May 15, 2014

The divers called her Naia, for “water nymph,” because they discovered her teenage remains in a dark, underwater cave in Mexico’s Yucatan Peninsula.

She had been hidden there for more than 12,000 years — along with the bones of dozens of extinct Ice Age beasts — and divers quickly spotted her skull as they swept the chamber with flashlights.

“It was a small cranium laying upside-down with a perfect set of teeth and dark eye sockets looking back at us,” recalled diver Alberto Nava of Bay Area Underwater Explorers, a nonprofit conservation organization based in Berkeley.

On Thursday, researchers published a formal analysis of Naia’s skeletal remains in the journal Science, calling it the oldest, most complete specimen ever discovered in the Americas.

The study authors say the buck-toothed 15- or 16-year-old girl did not resemble today’s Native Americans — her cheeks were narrow and her forehead very high — but that her mitochondrial DNA reveals she is related to 11% of living American Indians, and links them genetically to a population of early humans who inhabited a land now submerged beneath the Bering Sea.

The researchers say the girl was probably very slight and stood just 4 feet, 10 inches tall. Her eyes were wide-set and low, and her nose was broad.

Carbon-dating of her teeth and isotope data from crystals that formed on her bones helped study authors determine that the girl lived 12,000 to 13,000 years ago in what would have been a very parched environment. They believe she was probably searching for water when she entered a dark, underground cave and then plummeted 100 feet into the massive chamber now called Hoyo Negro, or black hole.

Unable to escape — her hip bone shattered from the fall — she died amid a menagerie of similarly doomed megafauna, including saber-toothed cats, elephant-like gomphotheres and giant sloths. As the Ice Age ended and glaciers melted, sea levels rose and slowly filled the chamber with water, sealing it off from humanity.

Or at least it did until 2007, when scuba divers first explored the natural ossuary and discovered “a time capsule” of Central American life at the end of the Ice Age, according to study leader James Chatters, a paleoarchaeologist at Applied Paleoscience, a private research company in Bothell, Wash.

Well, allow me to wrap this package up in a nice little bow for you.

“Miami will likely be underwater before the Senate can muster enough votes to meaningfully confront climate change…” the snotty leftwing turd begins his piece.

You know what, idiot?  IT PROBABLY WILL BE UNDERWATER.

Because that’s kind of what happens over time, isn’t it?  And anybody who has any connection whatsoever to something called “reality” understands that.

To put it in biblical terms, “There’s nothing new under the sun.” — Ecclesiastes 1:9

Including “global warming,” “climate change,” ice ages and melting glaciers.  This old earth has had them all before and it’s had them all keep happen in cycles that keep repeating over and over and over again.

The only thing that IS apparently new is a particularly loathsome species of whackjob liberal who runs around like Chicken Little screaming about the falling sky because they are totally ignorant about the fact that the damn sky falls every single night.  The only thing that IS new is complete jackass idiots who in the name of global warming “science” pronounce “Children just aren’t going to know what snow is.”

But children DO know what snow is.  The problem is that global warming morons don’t know what truth is.  They don’t know what reality is.  And therefore they don’t know what facts are.

When I first heard the phrase, “global warming,” I had no ideological axe to grind.  I was (and remain) an evangelical Christian who believes the Bible and therefore believes biblical prophecy.  And of course there is all kinds of stuff about crazy weather in the last days.  I was QUITE ready to accept the hypothesis that the climate was changing.

Do you want to know what tipped me off that these leftists had their skulls filled with cockroach poop?  When I subsequently heard about the 1995 Kyoto Protocol on global warming.  The thing that they did – which STILL proves the whole issue is either a giant load of crap or is being treated LIKE a giant load of crap by those pushing its agenda – was say a) global warming gasses present a clear and present danger to human existence and b) we’ll allow China, Russia, India and all the third world nations to keep spewing the pollution that is murdering the planet and only annihilate all the western free market-based economies instead.

This was NEVER about “science.”  This is and always has been about politics and the socialist redistribution of wealth in the name of “science.”

A short article by Patrick Bedard exposes the fraud that is “global warming” or “climate change” or whatever the hell these propagandists will call it next after their current lies are exposed:

An Inconvenient Truth: SOS from Al Gore
September 2006
BY PATRICK BEDARD

He’s baack! Just when you thought the scolding was over and it was safe to pull your ear plugs out, Al Gore has a brand-new harangue going.

Actually, it’s the same old doomsday prediction he’s been peddling since he was a senator bucking to be President back in the ’90s, only this time it’s packaged as a 94-minute film. An Inconvenient Truth previewed at the Sundance Film Festival last January. “This is activist cinema at its very best,” said the official festival guide.

You can guess what activated him; his long-playing paranoia about global warming. He and the mainstream media say it’s a done deal. We’re toast.

“Be Worried. Be Very Worried,” blared the cover of Time in April. “Climate change isn’t some vague future problem — it’s already damaging the planet at an alarming pace. Here’s how it affects you, your kids, and their kids as well.”

This is, by the way, the same Time that was telling us as late as 1983 to be worried, very worried, that temperatures were descending into another era of “glaciation.”

Gore’s “inconvenient truth” is that — there’s no tactful way to say this — we gas-guzzling, SUV-flaunting, comfort-addicted humans, wallowing in our own self-indulgences, have screwed up the planet. We’ve hauled prodigious quantities of fossil fuels out of the ground where they belong, combusted them to release carbon dioxide (CO2) into the sky where it shouldn’t be, and now we’re going to burn for our sins.

This feverish sort of should-and-shouldn’t evangelism plays particularly well these days among those who are looking for something to believe that carries no obligation to sit in a church pew. Nature has left us no scripture, so Gore can preach it as he feels it. Faith, brother. Don’t even pretend to understand. Anyway, humans, except for the rare enlightened ones like Al Gore, are alien trespassers in nature.

Let’s not dispute the earth’s temperature. It’s warmer than it used to be. As an Iowa farm boy, I learned about the soil we tilled. Most of Iowa is flat, graded smooth by glaciers. The rocks we plowed up in the fields, or plowed around if they were big, were rounded in shape. The glacier tumbled them as it scraped along, and it ground their corners off.

The North American ice sheets reached their largest expanse about 18,000 years ago and then began to recede. Within 5000 years they had pulled back considerably but still reached south as far as central Ohio. After another thousand years, however, the U.S. was largely ice-free.

Needless to say, there have been no glaciers reported in Iowa as long as anyone can remember. It’s warmer now. And if it would just warm up a bit more, fewer Iowans would need to trot off to Florida, Texas, and Arizona during deepest winter.

The long absence of farm-belt glaciers confirms an inconvenient truth that Gore chooses to ignore. The warming of our planet started thousands of years before SUVs began adding their spew to the greenhouse. Indeed, the whole greenhouse theory of global warming goes wobbly if you just change one small assumption.

Logic and chemistry say all CO2 is the same, whether it blows out of a Porsche tailpipe or is exhaled from Al Gore’s lungs or wafts off my compost pile or the rotting of dead plants in the Atchafalaya swamp.

“Wrong,” say the greenhouse theorists. They maintain that man’s contribution to the greenhouse is different from nature’s, and that only man’s exhaustings count.

Let’s review the greenhouse theory of global warming. Our planet would be one more icy rock hurtling through space at an intolerable temperature were it not for our atmosphere. This thin layer of gases — about 95 percent of the molecules live within the lowest 15 miles — readily allows the sun’s heat in but resists its reradiation into space. Result: The earth is warmed.

The atmosphere is primarily composed of nitrogen (78 percent), oxygen (21 percent), argon (0.93 percent), and CO2 (0.04 percent). Many other gases are present in trace amounts. The lower atmosphere also contains varying amounts of water vapor, up to four percent by volume.

Nitrogen and oxygen are not greenhouse gases and have no warming influence. The greenhouse gases included in the Kyoto Protocol are each rated for warming potency. CO2, the warming gas that has activated Al Gore, has low warming potency, but its relatively high concentration makes it responsible for 72 percent of Kyoto warming. Methane (CH4, a.k.a. natural gas) is 21 times more potent than CO2, but because of its low concentration, it contributes only seven percent of that warming. Nitrous oxide (N2O), mostly of nature’s creation, is 310 times more potent than CO2. Again, low concentration keeps its warming effect down to 19 percent.

Now for an inconvenient truth about CO2 sources — nature generates about 30 times as much of it as does man. Yet the warming worriers are unconcerned about nature’s outpouring. They — and Al Gore — are alarmed only about anthropogenic CO2, that 3.2 percent caused by humans.

They like to point fingers at the U.S., which generated about 23 percent of the world’s anthropogenic CO2 in 2003, the latest figures from the Energy Information Administration. But this finger-pointing ignores yet another inconvenient truth about CO2. In fact, it’s a minor contributor to the greenhouse effect when water vapor is taken into consideration. All the greenhouse gases together, including CO2 and methane, produce less than two percent of the greenhouse effect, according to Richard S. Lindzen of the Massachusetts Institute of Technology. Lindzen, by the way, is described by one source as “the most renowned climatologist in all the world.”

When water vapor is put in that perspective, then anthropogenic CO2 produces less than 0.1 of one percent of the greenhouse effect.

If everyone knows that water vapor is the dominant greenhouse gas, why do Al Gore and so many others focus on CO2? Call it the politics of the possible. Water vapor is almost entirely natural. It’s beyond the reach of man’s screwdriver. But when the delegates of 189 countries met at Kyoto in December 1997 to discuss global climate change, they could hardly vote to do nothing. So instead, they agreed that the developed countries of the world would reduce emissions of six man-made greenhouse gases. At the top of the list is CO2, a trivial influence on global warming compared with water vapor, but unquestionably man’s largest contribution.

In deciding that it couldn’t reduce water vapor, Kyoto really decided that it couldn’t reduce global warning. But that’s an inconvenient truth that wouldn’t make much of a movie.

Do you understand the bait and switch?  “Global warming” – redubbed “climate change” as too many lies were discovered to call it “global warming” any longer – was always and remains always about POLITICS rather than “science.”

CO2 is responsible for less than 0.1 percent of our “global warming” gasses.  That is simply a fact of science.  Moreover, CO2 is a gas that is actually fundamentally necessary for the existence of life.  It is NOT a pollutant; LIBERALISM is a pollutant.

I read a book titled, Unstoppable Global Warming Every 1500 Years that just blew the “anthropocentric global warming” garbage right out of the water.  Every single measurement science has taken, ice core samples, sea core samples, sediment samples, tree ring samples, fossil records, pollen records, records of human descriptions of climate throughout history, you name it, has over and over and over again conclusively documented that there is a recurring PATTERN of climate change.  In fact legitimate science has discovered that there have been 600 natural 1,500 year climate cycles over the past 1 million years.  What we’re seeing now is absolutely NOTHING new; in fact the warming period that the Roman Empire flourished under was warmer than our temperatures now.  Without there being so much as a single SUV to blame it on.  I wrote an article titled, “What the Science REALLY Says About Global Warming” to summarize what I learned.

I always bring this up – you know, “facts,” to people who believe in human-caused global warming.  I point out the “600 natural, 1,500 year climate cycles over the past million years” thing.  I bring up the fact that if humans are the cause of global warming/climate change on earth they must also be the cause of the same thing happening in the other planets of our solar system.  I point out that Michael Mann’s famous – I submit INFAMOUS – “hockey stick graph” that was frankly proven to be a fraud years ago nevertheless had temperatures skyrocketing into the future.  Whereas in actuality we have had ZERO global warming for the last sixteen freaking years.  I’ve seen and documented many outright frauds committed in the name of “science.”  What does it take for even our biggest idiots to realize these people are just WRONG???  And they invariably just look at me with these empty, vacuous eyes that other than size are identical with COW eyes.  I am looking through a set of glazed lenses directly into a brain with a completely synapse-free environment.

The human beings who believe they can stop climate change with the power of human government are morally, spiritually and intellectually the equivalents of the fools who built the Tower of Babel to get to where God was.  It is a stupid, futile endeavor that will fail to the extent that the people pushing it even have any intention whatsoever to actually DO anything about it versus just seize trillions of dollars – $76 trillion, to be specific – so that they can “reward their friends and punish their enemies” via a massive totalitarian government takeover of everyone and everything that interferes with their socialist (i.e., crony capitalist fascist) agenda.

If you believe that the United Nations with $76 trillion of Other People’s Money will stop global warming, you are an idiot.  And if you have seventeen freaking PhDs and you think the United Nations with $76 trillion of Other People’s Money will stop global warming you are an even BIGGER idiot – because at some damn point in your educational process you should have actually learned something and finally figured something out and finally learned how to get a damned clue.

It’s biblical, again: “always learning and never able to arrive at a knowledge of the truth.” — 2 Timothy 3:7

What we are seeing from the ideological left – and that very much includes the entire movement behind “climate change” – is a rabid, fascist intolerance that has come to be the ESSENCE of the left and everything the left touches.  You talk about “journalism” (see more here) which today is another word for “propaganda” thanks to the left; you talk about unhinged, doctrinaire bias and intellectual discrimination in our universities (see more here) where you find a level of ideological “purity” that is “statistically impossible” apart from rabid purges of any pro-conservative thought whatsoever.

And so:

SAN ANTONIO — Some of the world’s pre-eminent experts on bias discovered an unexpected form of it at their annual meeting.

Discrimination is always high on the agenda at the Society for Personality and Social Psychology’s conference, where psychologists discuss their research on racial prejudice, homophobia, sexism, stereotype threat and unconscious bias against minorities. But the most talked-about speech at this year’s meeting, which ended Jan. 30, involved a new “outgroup.”

It was identified by Jonathan Haidt, a social psychologist at the University of Virginia who studies the intuitive foundations of morality and ideology. He polled his audience at the San Antonio Convention Center, starting by asking how many considered themselves politically liberal. A sea of hands appeared, and Dr. Haidt estimated that liberals made up 80 percent of the 1,000 psychologists in the ballroom. When he asked for centrists and libertarians, he spotted fewer than three dozen hands. And then, when he asked for conservatives, he counted a grand total of three.

“This is a statistically impossible lack of diversity,” Dr. Haidt concluded, noting polls showing that 40 percent of Americans are conservative and 20 percent are liberal. In his speech and in an interview, Dr. Haidt argued that social psychologists are a “tribal-moral community” united by “sacred values” that hinder research and damage their credibility — and blind them to the hostile climate they’ve created for non-liberals.

“Anywhere in the world that social psychologists see women or minorities underrepresented by a factor of two or three, our minds jump to discrimination as the explanation,” said Dr. Haidt, who called himself a longtime liberal turned centrist. “But when we find out that conservatives are underrepresented among us by a factor of more than 100, suddenly everyone finds it quite easy to generate alternate explanations.”

For the official damn record, THAT is what happened to “climate change scientists.”

And so let’s consider the “science” of “climate change” and the “scientists” who have fabricated the “consensus” that we keep hearing about:

A climate change researcher has claimed that scientists are confusing their role as impartial observers with green activism after his paper challenging predictions about the speed of global warming was rejected because it was seen as “less than helpful.”

Professor Lennart Bengtsson says recent McCarthy-style pressure from fellow academics forced him to resign from his post on a climate sceptic think-tank.

The research fellow from the University of Reading believes a paper he co-authored was deliberately suppressed from publicatoin in a leading journal because of an intolerance of dissenting views about climate change by scientists who peer-reviewed the work.

“The problem we have now in the scientific community is that some scientists are mixing up their scientific role with that of climate activist,” he told the Times.

Professor Bengtsson claims a scientist advised that the paper, which challenged findings that global temperature would increase by 4.5C if greenhouse gases were to double, should not be published in a respected journal because it was “less than helpful.”

The unnamed scientist, who was asked to peer review Professor Bengtsson’s paper, said in his comments: “Actually it is harmful as it opens the door for oversimplified claims of ‘errors’ and worse from the climate sceptics side.”

The paper, co-authored with four other scientists, challenged the findings of the UN’s Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change (IPCC) but was rejected by Environmental Research Letters published by the Institute of Physics, one of the most highly regarded journals in the area.

Professor Bengtsson said he accepted emissions would increase the global temperature but questioned the rate at which this would take place and suggested more work needed to be done to determine this.

However he said it was unacceptable that a paper was rejected on the basis it might advance the argument of climate sceptics, as he suggested scientists were losing their impartial role.

He added: “It is an indication of how science is gradually being influenced by political views.”

We are routinely finding that climatologists who are in ANY way, shape or form skeptical of the garbage that is the global warming alarmist industry are intimidated, threatened, purged and at LEAST find themselves marginalized and excluded from funding.

I am beyond SICK of rabid fascists imposing themselves on every sphere across the board, be it “science,” “morality,” “religion,” you name it – these people have perverted it and distorted it and have created a system that rewards themselves and their allies while punishing everyone who won’t knuckle under to them.

This climate change is a pile of crap driven by biased ideologues who are FAR more “politician” or “bureaucrat” than they have EVER been “scientists.”

I’ll close with this point about how truly morally idiotic progressive liberalism has become as epitomized in Nancy Pelosi’s shrill rant, “I’m trying to save the planet!  I’m trying to save the planet!”

By their own count (as opposed to young earth Creationism’s most radical interpretation based on Usher’s Chronology) Earth is over 4.5 BILLION years old.  Anyone who isn’t a complete fool knows that planet Earth has been around a very long time and will continue to be around for a very long time.  But liberals, being irrational, believe they need to save it.  And because of that liberals, being truly demonically evil, also believe that in order to “save the planet” humans need to be treated like a cancer and exterminated:

“My three main goals would be to reduce human population to about 100 million worldwide, destroy the industrial infrastructure and see wilderness, with it’s full complement of species, returning throughout the world.” – Dave Foreman, co-founder of Earth First!

“Mankind is the most dangerous, destructive, selfish and unethical animal on the earth.”
– Michael Fox, vice-president of The Humane Society

“Human beings, as a species, have no more value than slugs.”
– John Davis, editor of Earth First! Journal

“Humans on the Earth behave in some ways like a pathogenic micro-organism, or like the cells of a tumor.”
– Sir James Lovelock, Healing Gaia

“The Earth has cancer and the cancer is Man.”
– Club of Rome, Mankind at the Turning Point

“A reasonable estimate for an industrialized world society at the present North American material standard of living would be 1 billion. At the more frugal European standard of living, 2 to 3 billion would be possible.”
– United Nations, Global Biodiversity Assessment

“A cancer is an uncontrolled multiplication of cells; the population explosion is an uncontrolled multiplication of people. We must shift our efforts from the treatment of the symptoms to the cutting out of the cancer. The operation will demand many apparently brutal and heartless decisions.”
– Prof Paul Ehrlich, The Population Bomb

“A total population of 250-300 million people, a 95% decline from present levels, would be ideal.”
– Ted Turner, founder of CNN and major UN donor [and major DEMOCRAT PARTY DONOR]

Of course, for liberals, “saving the planet” is always done at the expense of OTHER people.  So they demand the right to spend Other People’s Money and they demand the right to exterminate Other People.

Liberals have murdered fifty-five million babies.  And like the Islamic fascists talking about the Jews murdered in the Holocaust, if you bring up the 55 million they’ve murdered in their abortion mills they say, “Not enough!”

Let me say it again: Earth has been around for over 4.5 billion years and it will be around for a long time to come.  And you are a true idiot indeed if you believe somebody’s SUV is going to kill the Earth.

Real scientists – rather than the pseudo-scientist whores who have prostituted themselves for their pimp Sugar Daddy “Climate Change” – have documented that we’ve had over 600 climate change cycles over the past one million years.  And since a billion is a thousand million, and the Earth is 4.5 billion years old, by that count we’ve had 2,700,000 cycles of climate change.

But Barack Obama, Nancy Pelosi, Harry Reid and every liberal are vowing that we’re not going to have 2,700,001 cycles on their watch.  Not even if they have to spend $76 trillion of Other People’s Money to do it.

I suppose they have a slightly better chance of succeeding at stopping climate change than they would have of stopping the sun from going down at night.  But not by much.

Earth doesn’t need “saving.”

Do you know what DOES need saving?  The republic.

Unlike planet Earth, which has been around for a very long time and won’t be going away anytime soon, nations and even civilizations have come and gone with dismaying frequency.

Ours is in jeopardy.

The United States of America is the oldest nation on earth, in terms of the antiquity of its Constitution which birthed it.  Many nations came before America; many nations have risen and collapsed since our republic was formed.

As we speak, liberals are murdering America with crushing debt that we cannot possibly repay and which will ultimately cause our certain collapse.

In 2012 – thanks almost ENTIRELY to liberals and their morally insane fascist policies – the U.S. fiscal gap (our assets minus our unfunded liabilities) was $222 TRILLION according to the Congressional Budget Office.

That gap is growing by a rapidly accelerating pace as the cumulative weight of our interest on our debt piles higher and higher.  In 2012, it grew by $11 trillion.  It will continue to grow by a more and more insane figure every single year until America implodes.  So we’re probably close to a true “national debt” of nearing $250 trillion today.

Currently, we’re able to get away with this madness because as a result of American dominance in the aftermath of World War II the United States is the world’s “reserve currency,” with most commodities being bought and sold entirely in U.S. dollars.  That will end soon; it simply has to.  And America will financially collapse overnight in a manner that will make the Great Depression seem like a sunny day on a lovely beach.

What needs “saving”?

Liberals aren’t “saving the planet.”  They are destroying America.  And their destruction will bear terrible, lethal fruit very soon.