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.

Evolution, The Religion Of Fools. In One Picture.

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

I was on one of my hikes out in the desert when I came upon this scene way out in the middle of nowhere that caused me to marvel (you can click on it to enlarge it in a new window):

I state for the record that I did not assemble this or see it assembled.  It was there when I walked a route that I walked for the very first time.  It simply stands as a brute fact.  It is what it is.  The only question is how it came to be the way you see it.

Somehow, in some amazing demonstration of the power of evolutionary forces, a strong wind managed to lift one rock atop another.  And then, without knocking that rock over off its new evolutionary perch, the wind managed to stack two rocks side-by-side on top of the second rock.  Amazingly – and the miracle of evolution is clearly on display here – a fifth rock, and then a sixth rock and a seventh rock and then ultimately an eighth rock, were all successively and successfully stacked one atop the other by this marvelous Darwinian breeze.

Now, maybe you believe that.  Or maybe you’re not what the Bible labels “the fool” (Psalm 14:1) and you immediately realize what a total pile – LITERALLY – of abject idiocy the notion  that this rock pile just happened all by itself clearly is.

I truly did marvel when I saw this pile of rocks and contemplated the implications.  Because I was very well immediately aware that SOMEBODY had very clearly put this together from the determination of a mind to create something where without a mind and a decision to create there would have been nothing.  And everybody who isn’t a complete fool clearly knows that somebody assembled this monument; it didn’t just “happen,” it didn’t “evolve” by some random natural process.  And as I shall shortly demonstrate with something called “science,” I don’t care how many billion years you want to wave at this monument to claim that it happened by itself.  The longer you want to think it took, the worse the fool you are.  This is a one-to-one, apples-to-apples, direct comparison: the rock pile did not happen by random, chaotic chance, everyone knows, because it is simply too complex of a structure to have happened all by itself.  And the whole universe is SO much more complex that it is beyond foolish to claim that it happened by itself when we all know that something as simple as this stupid rock pile couldn’t have happened by ITSELF.

And this principle is true throughout any legitimate science.  I was watching a documentary on Julius Caesar and his defeat of the Gallic chieftain Vercingetorix at the Battle of Alesia in 52BC.  Archeologists were able to fully discover the fortifications at Alesia by flying overhead and doing detailed photography of the area.  And what they did was look for lines that were simply too symmetrical or too straight for nature alone to have been able to produce.  Because they were demonstrating something called “common sense” that every evolutionist and atheist has none of whatsoever.

It’s stupid enough to claim that something that nature cannot produce was somehow produced by nature, such as the straight, symmetrical lines revealing ancient Roman fortifications or the rock altar I photographed.  But it is a level of stupidity beyond “dumb and dumber” to say that while nature cannot produce symmetry or design, it can somehow produce the infinitely GREATER complexity of the people who produce the things that even fools understand that nature cannot produce.  Think about it; the atheist, the secular humanist believes that obviously nature cannot produce the simplest kind of order or symmetry, but these same fools believe as an act of RELIGIOUS FAITH AND NOTHING ELSE that nature can produce infinitely MORE complex order and symmetry in the so-called “evolution of life” that is GOOGOLPLEXIANS of times more complex.  If nature cannot even produce so much as a straight line or a simple pile of rocks, please do not insult your own intelligence by claiming it somehow produced the Mona Lisa.

I’ve got another one for you to riddle me.  There’s just an awful lot more to reality than the eye can see.  Things are vastly more complex than they appear.  Science itself has taught us that.  See, according to science, we’re a collection of particles, right?  Atoms, molecules.  There are 70 trillion cells in a human body consisting of about 7*10²⁷ atoms (that’s a 7 followed by 27 zeros!).  Atoms are by definition mostly made up of empty space.  And so for one thing, we’re not solid.  Truth to tell, we’re actually FAR more water (about 60%) than anything else.  So then why are we solid?  You’ve got theories, but we don’t really know.  “We are spirits in a material world” is as plausible as anything “scientific.”  And then what about this one: given that we’re a collection of particles, how or why are we a whole?  How can this collection of particles consisting of atoms numbering in the 7 followed by 27 zeroes be one thing?  And what about this notion of “I”: “I” am one thing!  How can “I” be an “I’, let alone one thing as opposed to many different parts?  What about this notion of consciousness and individuality?  How does science explain that?  Have you ever heard a scientist attempt to explain these things to you?

You see, just as we can know BY SCIENCE that we CANNOT see everything with our physical senses – such as atoms, particles and molecules – we can also know that there is a realm beyond science, beyond the physical.  We can know that just as there is a realm smaller than our senses, that there is also a realm bigger than our senses.  There must be a realm that is beyond science, beyond the physical, a realm that has been called “supernatural,” but is surely metaphysical, above and beyond the physical.

That’s why the Bible uses the word “fool” to describe such people who deny God and the supernatural.  It’s frankly beyond merely idiotic.

Atheists and evolutionists mock religious people for believing that a transcendent, personal, omnipotent God can do all things.  But what do THEY believe in?  The too-idiotic-to-even-qualify-as-“fairy-tale” notion that if something sits around for long enough, a MIRACLE will somehow happen.  And no, boys and girls, time doesn’t possess magic power.  All time does is sit there and do nothing.

If I were to employ the evolutionists’ argument back at them, it would go like this: I promise that I will refute evolution and prove that it is bogus.  In 4.5 billion years.  Because all they do is turn that very same argument upside down and claim that something somehow happened that long ago when no one can even begin to prove that it did.  It’s an assertion, nothing more.

Which invites the question as to the nature of ALL of “nature.”  We don’t just have the problem of explaining how the pile of rocks somehow got assembled into that neat little monument.  We have the problem of the origin of the individual rocks themselves according to the Big Bang theory of cosmology held by nearly all physicists today: all matter, all time, all energy and all space suddenly exploded into existence at some finite point of time in the past very much as if Someone had declared, “Let there be light.”  It’s as Robert Jastrow described it in God and the Astronomers: “For the scientist who has lived by faith in the power of reason, the story ends like a bad dream. He has scaled the mountains of ignorance; he is about to conquer the highest peak; as he pulls himself over the final rock, he is greeted by a band of theologians who have been sitting there for centuries.”  Those rocks in that picture did not always exist; they came into being because they were caused to exist by something (or of course Someone).  And it happened in a manner that confirms the account of the Book of Genesis chapter one.  Jastrow – one of the great scientific minds of the 20th century – also stated: “Astronomers now find they have painted themselves into a corner because they have proven, by their own methods, that the world began abruptly in an act of creation to which you can trace the seeds of every star, every planet, every living thing in this cosmos and on the earth. And they have found that all this happened as a product of forces they cannot hope to discover. That there are what I or anyone would call supernatural forces at work is now, I think, a scientifically proven fact.”  And after that “Let there be light” declaration that same  Somebody somehow – and we weren’t there to see Who or how any more than we saw who assembled the pile of rocks in the above picture – stacked a pile of rocks on top of one another to assemble our planet, our solar system, our galaxy, all living things.   And the fact that we are here as a result is very properly indeed the result of “supernatural forces” and properly called a MIRACLE.

Atheists and evolutionists once confidently declared that there were a septillion (that’s a one followed by 24 zeros) planets capable of life.  These arrogant, ostensibly knowledgeable fools were so wrong it is unreal.  Every single time they send taxpayer-funded prayers to the heavens in the form of enormously  powerful radio communications, satellites, unmanned spacecraft like Voyager, etc., it amounts to perennially unanswered prayers to their god or gods.  Just as I contemplated the pile of rocks on the trail and ask the question, ‘How did this get here?  Could it just have happened?’, we must likewise contemplate the brute fact of the universe that we observe: the nature of the fine tuning of the universe is mindboggling when you consider it.  How did the fact of universe and the fact of life get happen?  Did Someone create it – which is the prima facie conclusion of any creature possessing common sense – or did it just assemble itself the way we know that pile of rocks in the picture above could never have assembled itself?  When you realize how many things had to happen in precise sequence and with infinite precision for us to be here at all – rather than residents from those septillion planets visiting us or contacting us the way we’re trying to contact “them” – it should occur to you to question why we are here at all.  How did just the right sort of solar system to contain the planet that contains the rocks that yielded all the necessary building blocks for life get here?  How did just the right sort of moon that orbits the planet in just the right way to result in a planet that contains the rocks get here?  How did just the right sort of star with just the right characteristics to result in just the right sort of solar system and just the right moon result in just the right planet to contain those rocks get here?  And I mean, I can go on and on and on.  Because the level of complexity within the system of the universe is so far beyond mind-boggling that it is obviously the result of supernatural mind determining to create.

Do you see my point here?  When you can’t even so much as glance at a simple pile of what, seven rocks arranged one atop the other, what kind of fool do you have to believe to think that ALL of the many INFINITELY MORE COMPLEX systems and sub-systems that compose the universe all around that rock pile got here by chance without an Intelligent Designer?

When you start to think about the system of the universe and the billions of sub-systems and the trillions of sub-processes within the system, you have to mock the fool who believes that all that we see around us just somehow happened by chance.  Because that fool is in all actuality a far worse fool than the fool who would look at the stack of rocks above and conclude that it happened by chance.

Look at that picture above again and consider the complexity of those seven rocks piled one atop the other and realize that it is far too complex a system to have happened by any act of random nature.  And then go look at yourself in the mirror and ask yourself if you are not vastly more complex than that system which you obviously know was intelligently designed.

And then keep reading to comprehend just how appalling the case for godless evolution truly is and the foolish idiocy you have to believe in order to deny the reality of God.

Allow me to give you the flavor of what actual hard SCIENCE really says about the possibility of life happening by chance:

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.

“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.

There’s just not enough time literally in the whole universe.  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???

How long did it take whoever built that rock pile to complete the job?  I’m guessing a few minutes.  Because our Creator God gave that person a miraculous mind and a fearfully and wonderfully made body to think about creating it and then an amazing body to actually make it happen.  But the simple scientific FACT of the matter is that, no matter how long you want to claim the universe is, it STILL wasn’t anywhere NEAR enough time in the universe even times a million billion trillion to “evolve” the simplest cell there is apart from that Creator.

If you don’t believe that rock pile assembled itself by purely natural processes without any Intelligence, but you believe that everything else – including humanity – got here the very way you deny that that rock pile got here, the Bible is truly right to call you “fool.”

You should begin to understand that “evolution” is the most fanciful fairy tale there IS.  When we talk about evolution, we’re talking about something that not only didn’t happen, but COULDN’T even POSSIBLY have happened.  At least if you accept actual SCIENCE rather than the atheistic philosophical nonsense masquerading as “science.”

You need to comprehend this: legitimate science can’t even begin to explain how just the proteins necessary for the simplest bacteria cell evolved by chance.  And that the fool who postulates that “evolution” created the magnificent human mind that is so much more sophisticated and miraculous than any supercomputer ever designed is someone who seems to lack so much as that bacteria cell for a brain.  Because we’re no longer talking about the simplest bacteria cell the origins of which science can’t begin to explain or even explain away; we’re talking about a brain jam-packed with billions of infinitely more complex cells in infinitely more complex arrays.

And the human brain has an apparently very clear purpose: to allow a soul the ability to freely interact with its body.  But that of course, is denied by evolutionists:

“Biology is the study of complicated things that give the appearance of having been designed for a purpose.” [Richard Dawkins, The Blind Watchmaker, 1996, p. 1]

There is absolutely no question to even a fool like Richard Dawkins that life very much has “the appearance of having been designed for a purpose.”  But being a fool, he proceeds to simply dismiss the fact that the Bible declares in Romans chapter 1 and verse 18-23: “The wrath of God is being revealed from heaven against all the godlessness and wickedness of people, who suppress the truth by their wickedness, since what may be known about God is plain to them, because God has made it plain to them.  For since the creation of the world God’s invisible qualities–his eternal power and divine nature–have been clearly seen, being understood from what has been made, so that people are without excuse.  For although they knew God, they neither glorified him as God nor gave thanks to him, but their thinking became futile and their foolish hearts were darkened.  Although they claimed to be wise, they became fools and exchanged the glory of the immortal God for images made to look like a mortal human being and birds and animals and reptiles.”

Yes, all complicated things were very self-evidently designed for a purpose.  And that Designer is God.  Don’t be a fool and deny the obvious.  It is OBVIOUS to even Richard Dawkins that the universe was “designed” for “a purpose.”  The prima facie case is obvious and if you want to claim that there is no Creator you must prove beyond any reasonable doubt that there is NOT a Creator, rather than telling a bunch of fanciful atheist fairy tales to describe how things happened the way the most primitive cave men told stories about how we have wind because the trees are moving and swaying and creating the ensuing wind by their actions.  The burden of proof necessarily falls upon the unbeliever; but they have performed a bait-and-switch by the most disingenuous means.

You’ve got your pseudo-scientists who claim that this amounts to some argument about “science” versus religion.  I call them “pseudo-scientists” because if you understand the history of science, these people are very clearly speaking out of complete ignorance – and legitimate scientists never speak out of such ignorance.  The so-called “science” these pseudo-scientist ideologues embrace is every bit as “religious” as any serpent-handling Pentecostal who ever lived.

Please realize what junk “science” becomes when it becomes an ideological tool.  The fact of the matter is – as I have documented before – is that modern science founded upon the scientific method uniquely came from and depended upon the Judeo-Christian worldview.  It is a simple historically verifiable fact that: 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.  That the discoverer of every single modern branch of science was a publicly confessed Christian.  I say it again, not only was the first true scientist in the modern sense who discovered the scientific method a publicly confessing Christian, but so were the discovers of every single major branch of modern science. And that is because the very 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

You can’t use physical science to arrive at or derive the laws of logic; they are self-evident only within highly particular worldviews that are uniquely based on the presuppositional and foundational belief in the supernatural and the divine.  We today have the denunciation of “Western logic” by the postmodern movement.  Because Western logic is based upon the reality of “either/or.”  And the moment you allow Western logic profoundly powerful “either/or” arguments such as the Kalam Cosmological Argument begin to pour in and drown the godless fire of atheist thought.  Our Western laws of logic were derived from Greek thought, which was highly DUALISTIC.  There were the gods and there were men.  There were the non-material abstract and yet substantial Forms and there was the material world of change.  You cannot accept the laws of logic and not accept the distinction between the material and immateraial world and the existence of the immaterial world which bequeathed us with the Form of logic that we aspire toward without being a pathologically dishonest hypocrite and an intellectual parasite.  And as you contemplate the existence of “truth,” recognize that either our minds and our brains were created by a Truth-Knowing Being to know truth, or they are the result of a entirely random and unguided process and therefore no reason whatsoever to assert the capacity to possess “truth.”  And in the same way, when it comes to the rise of science, any notion of genuine science pitted against genuine religion is a total fraud and fabrication.  Modern science uniquely arose out of Judeo-Christian presuppositions from a geographical place and a philosophical worldview called Christendom.  It arose out of no other worldview and never could have arisen out of any materialistic worldview.  Science was allowed to rise because Judeo-Christian-worldview inspired men – ALL publicly professing Christians – believed that there was an orderly universe that was created to operate on orderly principles and that we as image-bearers of the Creator possessed the mental faculties to marvel at the work of the Creator and “thinking God’s thoughts after Him” – as Isaac Newton, the greatest scientist who ever lived, declared.

Atheistic evolutionists are frauds and thieves who usurped an entire foundation upon which logic and science originated.  True logic and true science mock these people, because true logic and true science come uniquely from a worldview that they reject.  Their feet are firmly planted in midair.  But these people are such complete fools that they walk like idiots without a foundation toward nothing.

This ideology-masquerading-as-“science” also amounts to a bait-and-switch regarding science as “testable” or “falsifiable” versus “creationism” which is NOT testable.  Charles Darwin gave as the standard of “testable” evolutionary “science” this definition:

“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.  But I can find no such case.” — Charles Darwin, Origin of the Species, p. 158

But a brilliant lawyer exposed that “falsifiability” standard for the total fraud that it is merely by replacing a couple of words in the otherwise exact same definition:

“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.”

And she then proceeded to ask, “Would the Darwin believers take that standard as a scientific test for God?”  Would they accept the burden of proving that “God could not possibly have created” us???

Let’s consider the human brain and its implications on the foolish theory of evolution.  Are you a meat puppet mindlessly and soullessly dancing to the tune of random evolutionary forces?  Atheist-ideologue pseudo-science declares yes, you are:

“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

Is whatever thought that is floating around in your head merely determined by how your random brain atoms randomly arranged themselves?  Or do you think rational thoughts because you are the rational, thinking image of a rational thinking God according to Genesis 1:26-27 who said “Come, let us reason together” (Isaiah 1:18).

Which are you?

I can go on literally all day citing evidence that scientists and atheist/secular humanist philosophers claim that human free will is nothing more than some philosophically useless illusion, and that you are nothing but a meat puppet entirely conditioned by your DNA and your environment.  Both atheistic-ideologue pseudo-science and the atheistic philosophy based on that atheistic-ideologue pseudo-science readily dismiss the notion of anything legitimately called genuine free human will.  It is nothing more than an illusion, so please go back to your pasture, all ye mindless and soulless herd animals, and chew your cud until slaughter-time.

As Richard Dawkins asserted in his atheist tome The Blind Watchmaker, “DNA neither cares nor knows. DNA just is. And we dance to its music.”  And YOU neither know nor care and you dance to the music the way a puppet jerked around by strings uncontrollably dances to whatever random notion randomly enters your randomly-generated skull.

If we are in fact created in the image of an invisible Creator God, then we are NOT meat puppets, for the God who created us in His image is no meat puppet.  If there is no God and we are products of mindless, soulless evolution, then we are and can be nothing else and nothing more than meat puppets.

If it is a fact that you are nothing but a herd-animal meat-puppet with no mind and no soul, there is necessarily another terrifying truth: you have no moral responsibility.  And the worst people in the history of the world by any “moral” standard have no moral responsibility, either.  And this terrifying fact is necessarily true both on an individual level and on a societal level.

On the individual level, if free will is an illusion, as any materialistic system science or philosophy asserts, then how can you hold someone criminally or morally responsible for their actions that result from no free will of the person who is committing them?

Further, if Darwinism is true, then Social Darwinism is necessarily entailed: if natural selection is your process for evolving into better creatures, in which the fittest members of a species survive, and both inferior members of species and inferior species themselves must perish to give way to the stronger, then why should it not be so in how we govern the world?  Why shouldn’t we help evolution by eradicating the unfit so that the more fit can better survive in a world of finite and scarce resources?  Adolf Hitler understood that under any consistent Darwinian view, there were the predators and there were the victims – and he made his Germany a predator.  Maybe you want to argue that it is false that big fish eat the smaller fish or that lions eat the gazelles.  But you’re wrong because they really do.  Nazi Germany was without any question THE most “scientific” society on earth during the time leading up to World War II, and a consistent Darwinism was precisely their philosophy: if Darwinism is in fact “science,” then have the damn courage to embrace the crystal clear implications of that science and embrace some form of Nazism or Stalinism which both embraced evolution and thus made horror such as has never before been seen possible.

A guiding philosophy of Nazism was completely and fundamentally compatible with any “science” of Darwinism that had the decency to be consistent: they called it “lebensunwertes leben,” or life unworthy to be lived.  And they killed off all members of society that were not sufficiently fit to be adequate Darwinists.  And if you are an evolutionist and you do not think the precise same way, you are either a coward and a hypocrite for not having the courage to be consistent and live out your view or you are tantamount to a slack-jawed idiot for not having the ability to logically comprehend the ramifications of your own worldview.

You can mock that above link between godless Darwinism and Nazism all you want, evolutionist.  But first I ask you to explain how your teacher Charles Darwin – the full title of whose book was, “On the Origin of Species by Means of Natural Selection, or the Preservation of Favoured Races in the Struggle for Life” – precludes you from believing yourself to belong to a “favoured” master race and then possessing the justification to wipe out all the other races you compete with “in the struggle for life.”  And I’ll explain how my Teacher Jesus of Nazareth precludes me from doing so.

Adolf Hitler made the mindless German crowds who supported him 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 an inherently and implicitly and intrinsically Darwinian argument.  And that fact is not altered now as intellectual frauds like Richard Dawkins go back and rewrite history to expunge the incredibly tragic results of Darwinism being applied to the actual world and society.  Modern Darwinists want to use their hypocritical and self-contradictory 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.”

And Adolf Hitler clearly stated in his Mein Kampf that:

“The objection may very well be raised that such phenomena in world history [the necessity of intolerance] arise for the most part from specifically Jewish modes of thought, in fact, that this type of intolerance and fanaticism positively embodies the Jewish nature” [Hitler, Mein Kampf, p. 454].

Friedrich Nietzsche – a patron saint of Nazism – had prior to Hitler correctly pointed out the fact that:

“Christianity, sprung from Jewish roots and comprehensible only as a growth on this soil, represents the counter-movement to any morality of breeding, of race, of privilege: it is the anti-Aryan religion par excellence” [Nietzsche, “The Twilight of the Idols”].

That same Darwinian theme of Judaism and Christianity thwarting Darwinian supremacy would be echoed more than a century later by the historian who wrote the book on Christian martyr Dietrich Bonhoeffer, who would die in the death camps:

Regarding Hitler’s hatred of Christianity, Metaxas further writes, “Hitler’s attitude toward Christianity was that it was a great heap of mystical out-of-date nonsense. But what annoyed Hitler was not that it was nonsense, but that it was nonsense that did not help him get ahead. According to Hitler, Christianity preached “meekness and flabbiness,” and this was simply not useful to the National Socialist ideology, which preached “ruthlessness and strength.” In time, he felt that the churches would change their ideology. He would see to it.”

And so, a good Nazi was a Gottglaubiger.  Rather than putting “Christian” on personnel forms they wrote down “Gottlaubig” – representing a “vague pseudo-philosophical religiosity” – to indicate that, while they were not “godless communists,” they were most certainly not “Christian.”  And unlike Christians and Jews with their weak and insipid morality, they were Nazis who were willing to grab the Darwinian bull by the horns and do whatever was necessary, no matter how morally heinous.  Just as any true Darwinist would do if he or she had the courage of conviction.

Hitler used the word “Christian” in his some of his speeches before deluded crowds of Germans many of whom had long-since largely abandoned true religion under the profound influence of a generation of profoundly anti-religious and in particular anti-Jewish and anti-Christian German scholars such as the well-known Friedrich Delitzsch who wrote:

“the Old Testament was full of deceptions of all kinds – a veritable hodge-podge of erroneous, incredible, undependable figures, including those of Biblical chronology…. in short, a book full of intentional and unintentional deceptions (in part, self-deceptions), a very dangerous book in the use of which the greatest care is necessary.”

But to his inner circle Hitler said very different things than what he said publicly.

Hitler described to them that “after difficult inner struggles I had freed myself of my remaining childhood religious conceptions. I feel as refreshed now as a foal on a meadow” (Ernst Helmreich, “The German Churches Under Hitler,” p. 285).

Joseph Goebbels was one of Hitler’s inner circle to whom Hitler revealed his true beliefs:

“The Fuhrer is a man totally attuned to antiquity. He hates Christianity, because it has crippled all that is noble in humanity. According to Schopenhauer, Christianity and syphilis have made humanity unhappy and unfree. What a difference between the benevolent, smiling Zeus and the pain-wracked, crucified Christ. The ancient peoples’ view of God was also much nobler and more humane than the Christians’. What a difference between a gloomy cathedral and a light, airy ancient temple. He describes life in ancient Rome: clarity, greatness, monumentality. The most wonderful republic in history. We would feel no disappointment, he believes, if we were now suddenly to be transported to this old, eternal city.”

Goebbels also notes in a diary entry in 1939 a conversation in which Hitler had “expressed his revulsion against Christianity. He wished that the time were ripe for him to be able to openly express that. Christianity had corrupted and infected the entire world of antiquity.” [Elke Frölich. 1997-2008. Die Tagebücher von Joseph Goebbels. Munich: K. G. Sauer. Teil I, v. 6, p. 272].

Hitler also said, “Our epoch will certainly see the end of the disease of Christianity.” [Hitler’s Table Talk, Enigma Books; 3rd edition October 1, 2000, p. 343].

Author Konrad Heiden quoted Hitler as stating, “We do not want any other god than Germany itself. It is essential to have fanatical faith and hope and love in and for Germany.” [Heiden, Konrad A History of National Socialism, A.A. Knopf, 1935, p. 100].

Albert Speer – another Nazi who worked extremely closely with Hitler – reports in his memoirs of a similar statement made by Hitler:

“You see, it’s been our misfortune to have the wrong religion. Why didn’t we have the religion of the Japanese, who regard sacrifice for the Fatherland as the highest good? The Mohammedan religion too would have been much more compatible to us than Christianity. Why did it have to be Christianity with its meekness and flabbiness?” [Albert Speer. 1971. Inside the Third Reich Translated by Richard Winston, Clara Winston, Eugene Davidson. New York: Macmillan. p 143; Reprinted in 1997. Inside the Third Reich: Memoirs. New York: Simon and Schuster. p. 96. ISBN 0-684-82949-5].

Adolf Hitler sounds like an atheist to me.  He certainly rabidly abandoned Judeo-Christianity as few other human beings ever have.  And while the Nazis were cynically willing to exploit Christianity or anything else they could twist to manipulate people into following them, it was put in the form of “Almighty God has created the German people to be a race of supermen” kind of garbage.  But think about that for a second: created by WHO and by WHAT PROCESS?  Certainly NOT created by the “Jewish God” of the Old Testament of the Christian Bible; and certainly NOT created according to the creation account in the “Jewish Bible’s” book of Genesis.  So WHO created and by WHAT process?  By Darwinian evolution, of course.  God threw His random evolutionary dice and His throw came up Nazi snake eyes.  And Hitler would tell you that lie and any other lie he needed to tell you to twist your mind into following him.

Proto-Nazi atheist and secular humanist philosophers such as Friedrich Nietzsche and Friedrich Delitzsch gave way to full-blown Nazis such as Martin Heidegger and Ezra Pound.  And the toxic atheistic and secular humanistic evolutionist ideas of these toxic men had toxic consequences.

Furthermore, the most brutal form of human government that ever existed was communism otherwise known as “state atheism.”  Every single officially state atheist society has been a violent and vicious opponent of human dignity and human freedom.  Every single one.

Political and economic Marxim was based on the following atheist/secular humanist premise:

Religious distress is at the same time the expression of real distress and the protest against real distress. Religion is the sigh of the oppressed creature, the heart of a heartless world, just as it is the spirit of a spiritless situation. It is the opium of the people. The abolition of religion as the illusory happiness of the people is required for their real happiness. The demand to give up the illusion about its condition is the demand to give up a condition which needs illusions.

And the result of atheism/secular humanism being allowed to dominate was a boot stomping on hundreds of millions of human faces since its rise.  It is the most murderous system of thought ever devised by man, with well over 110 million human beings murdered by their own atheist governments just during peacetime alone.  The continual bait and switch of these purveyors which the Word of God according to Colossians 2:8 warn us about –

“Don’t let anyone capture you with empty philosophies and high-sounding nonsense that come from human thinking and from the spiritual forces of this world, rather than from Christ”

– continue to bear murderous fruit.  They seize upon the imperfect results of imperfect political system that depend upon an imperfect pursuit of a religious worldview, and replace it with a demonic system in which the Government BECOMES God and proceeds to crush everything and every one that gets in its way.

Nazism and Stalinism have one thing in common: godless socialism.  The intent of these movements was to replace God with Government in which Government became the Savior and the people were encouraged if not viciously driven away from embracing any worldview that had a place for a Creator God in it.

And today we have people every bit as wicked and every bit as willing to commit acts of incredible vicious genocide as Hitler or Stalin or Mao (socialists all) – and I’m not talking about insane jihadist Muslims such as fill the ranks of Islamic State.  No, I’m talking about leftist environmentalists who have top access to leftist politicians.  Listen to some of their quotes:

“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]

Realize the left today would murder people on a scale that would even shock Adolf Hitler, if they could just get the power they wanted.

You don’t even so much as qualify as a cow to these people.  I mean, in their own words, you don’t even make it to the level of a slug.  At least we merit equal status to a cancer tumor.  I don’t think even the Jews under Hitler got that little respect.

These rabid leftists evolutionists believe that earth randomly evolved.  And in order to protect the result of random evolution they believe they must wipe out somewhere between half and 95% of all randomly evolved homo sapiens.  You can bet none of these people are going to volunteer to walk into the gas chambers first, mind you.

Realize “the absurdity of life without God.”  Realize that apart from God, there is and can be no true meaning, purpose or value in your existence.  And that is precisely how the state atheists and the secular humanists treat you the moment they get power over you: like a farm animal that can be slaughtered and should be slaughtered.  And simple factual history proves it.  It’s happened before and it will very likely happen again.  The ideology might change, but the evolutionary/Darwinian worldview that underlies it guarantees the same contempt for the dignity of the human spirit that we’ve seen before.

Whatever you are, what you are not is either morally intelligent or in any way wise.  Rather, as Romans 1:22 puts it, “Professing yourself to be wise, you became a FOOL.”  A fool so captured by empty philosophies and high-sounding nonsense, as Colossians 2:8 points out, that you abandoned the real world for an atheist fairy tale in order to childishly ignore the authority of God and thereby ignore His moral commands.

Unbelief does not come from intellectual causes or objective analysis of the data or any form of legitimate science.  In fact science exists BECAUSE of the Judeo-Christian worldview and it arose in Christendom based on the Judeo-Christian worldview and the Judeo-Christian worldview alone.  Rather, unbelief is a moral collapse by which wicked people do not seek God because they refuse to be responsible to Him and acknowledge that He alone is sovereign and He is the Creator and they the creatures.  They resent any limitation on their ability to do as they please, or, according to their meat-puppet, herd-animal doctrine, whatever random string of atoms masquerading as a thought or a desire compels them or stimulates them to mindlessly act out.  They resent any limitations to their mindless DNA-puppet-dangling animalistic autonomy.  They refuse to honor any moral boundaries that they despise and so they therefore refuse to acknowledge the Boundary Maker.

What they do is not wise, it is not intelligent, it is not moral and it is not “science.”

So if you want to think of me as being an idiot for believing in God, that’s just fine; provided you realize that YOU are the idiot of all idiots and frankly THE most idiotic idiot who ever lived in comparison to people like me.

I mean, please don’t sneer condescendingly at me for believing in God given the fact that evolution is a fairy tale for fools.

A theologian, commenting on Romans chapter one, wrote:

“Truth quietly remains what it is amid all the clamor and he shouting against it and in the end judges every man.” [R.C.H. Lenski, St. Paul’s Epistle to the Romans, p. 93]

If there is no God, then there is no “truth” anymore than there is a “creation,” because “truth” is however the hell the molecules in our brains randomly arranged themselves to believe.  If the human mind is mrely a randomly-generated product of natural selection, then the ideas in our minds were selected purely for their survival value and NOT for their truth-value.  And so your “truth” – whatever the hell that is – is by definition of evolution no less random than mine.   Evolutionary epistemology commits suicide.  If Darwin’s theory of natural selection is true, “the human mind serves evolutionary success, not truth,” as John Gray expressed it.  But consider the ramification and the ensuing contradiction of Darwinism: if Darwin’s theory is true, then it “serves evolutionary success, not truth.” In other words, if Darwin’s theory is true, then it is not true.  It has been a simple game for philosophers to devise all sorts of scenarios which demonstrate that something might facilitate “evolutionary success” and yet be patently false beliefs.  I can document prominient politicians and even journalists such as Walter Lippmann – who said that “The common interests very largely elude public opinion entirely and can be managed only by a specialized class whose personal interests reach beyond the locality” – to document that people have been inspired to take actions that others deemed the best course based entirely on propaganda or lies.  Lets let smart people deceive stupid people into policies for their won good, they say.  We just saw that that described as being the mindset behind ObamaCare from one of its chief architects.  There is absolutely no connection whatsoever between something that could be an “evolutionary success” and “truth.”  And in fact history is replete with examples demonstrating that “truth” has frequently been done away with to pave the way for something that has been passed off as being for the people’s own good.  This is an epistemological box that evolution simply cannot climb out of no matter how many billions of years of fervent, fanatical faith in random evolutionary processes they want to throw at the abandonment of truth inherent in their theory.

And unless you can patiently exlain to me how Hitler and Stalin were somehow bad atheists, and unless you can establish whatever the hell “evolutionary morality” is, then it stands as a simple FACT that the murderer is no different from the martyr and the rapist is no more praiseworthy or blameworthy than then humanitarian since none of us are truly free to be truly responsible for our actions.  And in fact if evolution is true, then rape is actually PRAISEWORTHY as we “dance to DNA’s music.”

Question: 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!”

Rape is merely one more horrible, demonic thing that evolution justifies, if not necessitates, in the same vein that it justifies/necessitates social Darwinism, Nazism, Stalinism and every OTHER horrible “-ism.”  And all under the guise of “science.”

If this were anything resembling true science evolution and atheism and secular humanism would have been thrown onto the ash-heap of failed ideas.  But we’re NOT talking about anything resembling legitimate science; we’re talking about a fanatical religious movement masquerading as science.

That was one of the powerful realizations I had years ago as I considered the FACT that if there is no God, then all things are equally possible, and there ARE no boundaries and no morals and that everything I believe is right and everything I believe is wrong are nothing but mere arbitrary constructs of a constantly evolving culture.  And I am NOT the kind of thing that dances to the music of DNA or follows some constantly-shifting morality like some mindless farm animal as Hollywood tells me what is right and wrong this morning; I am a human being created in the image of a rational, moral God Who will one day hold me accountable for what I did in this world that He created and placed me in.

Unlike the animals, who see it get dark when I watch a beautiful sunset, I have eternity in my heart.  Which means I can contemplate my existence after I die and leave this earth.

I am NOT an evolutionary meat-puppet farm animal; I can know the truth.  And the truth can set me free.

I believe in God as the reason we have a universe containing life in it because it’s every bit as obvious and every bit as self-explanatory as it is for me to believe that those rocks in that pile didn’t happen by themselves.  God designed us to be free and to be accountable to the nature that He imbued in us as His image bearers.  And He created a world in which to place us.

I am free because God set me free.  And when I look upon the stars at night and contemplate their wonder, I give praise and honor to the God who is so much bigger than the universe that He created.  I thank Him for giving me a place within His vast and beautiful creation.  And I glorify Him for loving me as I look up in divine awe searching for His face.

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.

 

Gutless RINO ‘Republicans’ Join Soulless Liberal Democrats In Demagoguing Climate Change No Matter How Idiotic It Is

Democrats probably LOVE to say, “Republican Arnold Schwarzenegger.”  And why wouldn’t they?  The man is a turd.

That said, this turd – who emerged from elite liberal Hollywood – became “Governator,” was very quickly broken by Democrats, and went from calling Democrats “gurly men” to bending over for the gurly men.

Arnold stands for homosexual marriage, the culture of abortion, the Dr. Mengele-like exploitation of embryos in the name of “science,” and pretty much every OTHER liberal wedge issue.

You can understand the contempt Turdzenegger has for the institution of marriage between a man and a woman given the contempt he displayed toward his own “marriage.”

Which means calling him a “Republican” is kind of like calling ubersocialist Barack Obama a “Republican.”  Give me a break.

But the disgraced turd who is so unfaithful and so hypocritical that he not only cheated on his wife, but cheated on the woman whom he was cheating on his wife with is back.  You know, like his “I’ll be back” line that he said in pretty much every movie he ever appeared in.

So now he’s pimping another leftwing cultural issue hoping that he’ll be a media darling again: he’s pimping “climate change.”

In a Los Angeles Times Op-Ed Arnold Turdzeneger wrote:

Schwarzenegger: California’s silent disaster
The National Climate Assessment presents a sobering vision of the world that awaits us if we don’t act.
April 08, 2013|By Arnold Schwarzenegger

I will always remember the day I woke to the news that more than 2,000 fires were burning in California. I thought I must not have heard correctly. Two thousand fires? How could that be?

In the end, the state’s brave firefighters, joined by contingents from out of state, won the battle. But not before 11 emergency declarations were issued and more than 400,000 acres burned. Countless lives and livelihoods were ruined.

Today, there’s a new disaster looming, and although it’s not as riveting or dramatic as walls of flames and billowing black smoke, it needs our immediate attention. The draft National Climate Assessment, now being circulated for comment and scheduled for release this year by the U.S. Global Change Research Program, presents a sobering vision of the world that awaits us if we don’t act.

This team of top climate scientists has concluded that our region of the country is hotter than it has ever been and that it will get hotter — because of humans. The last decade was the hottest the Southwestern U.S. has experienced — on average 2 degrees warmer than it had been historically. The scientists project a further increase over the next 50 years of 6 to 9 degrees if we do nothing.

Already we are seeing the effects of a warmer climate: droughts and heat waves that threaten lives, and, yes, fires.

This shift could spell disaster for California, long the nation’s agricultural powerhouse. The state produces more than half of the fruits, nuts and vegetables grown in the U.S., with an output of $43.5 billion last year. Californians don’t rely just on the food produced by the state’s farms; they rely on the revenue and the jobs too. Agriculture employs more than 1.5 million people in California.

This report spells out many other negative effects that rising temperatures will cause in California. Over the last 100 years, sea levels have risen about 7 inches, and the San Francisco Bay Area is already feeling the effects. A sewage system there was flooded with saltwater, and the 101 Freeway has seen flooding. This isn’t a distant threat.

Now, we are facing another rise in sea level of 1 to 4 feet. A rise of just 16 inches would be enough to endanger roads, highways and airports in San Francisco and Oakland. It could contaminate crucial groundwater in Los Angeles.

Heat is already the leading cause of weather-related deaths, and the expected temperature increase will mean longer and hotter heat waves, like the one that killed 164 Californians during a blistering week in 2006.

That’s the bad news contained in the National Climate Assessment. The good news is we can do something to prevent these dire outcomes.

The report should be a wake-up call for leaders in Washington to overcome gridlock and start working on solutions. For models of how to proceed, they need only look to California and other states and cities that have begun to move forward in a bipartisan way.

The first step for policymakers — and for ordinary citizens too — is to understand the situation we face, which means carefully reading the National Climate Assessment. It may not be as gripping to look at or have the provocative appeal of a raging wildfire or another act of God, but the knowledge in this report is crucial to understanding how to change, to adapt, to prevent and to prepare for future disasters.

Climate change.  Global warming.  Whatever these pathological liars will label it next.  It’s killing us.  We’re all going to die.

First of all, if you think the Los Angeles Times would have published Turdzenegger’s screed if he had said global warming was an idiotic myth, you’re a breathtaking idiot.  Nope, the ONLY way Turdzenegger can get back in the public’s good graces is by trying to preach the liberal line.  And of course to get his lines LEFT rather than right.

But the day that Turdzenegger said “Heat is already the leading cause of weather-related deaths” turned out to be a uberCOLD Spring day in California.  As Turdzenegger screamed that it was just getting hotter and hotter, I looked at my thermometer: it was in the forties.  By 11:00 AM, it was 51 degrees Fahrenheit.

Here’s what it was like in much of the rest of the nation – and note that the story is describing the actual climate on the VERY SAME DAY that Turdzenegger was writing his please-please-please don’t shun me piece:

Temperature suddenly plunges 55 degrees in Colorado: ‘It’s just brutal’
By Erin McClam and John Newland, NBC News
4/09/2013

Blizzard warnings were in effect Tuesday in Colorado, where the temperature plunged more than 50 degrees in less than 24 hours and the wind chill approached zero. Forecasters also expect hurricane-force blasts of frigid air in Utah and heavy snow in the Dakotas.

The culprit is a deep dip in the jet stream that swung west and pulled arctic air far into the country. As it collides with warm, moist air from the Gulf of Mexico, strong storms and tornadoes are possible in the Great Plains and Texas.

“It’s just brutal to be outside,” said Eric Fisher, a meteorologist for The Weather Channel.

Full coverage from Weather.com

In Denver, the temperature plummeted from 71 degrees at 2 p.m. Monday to 16 degrees at 7 a.m. Tuesday, with a wind chill of 1. More than 300 flights had been canceled into and out of Denver since Monday night.

Forecasters said Denver could get as much as 11 inches of snow and South Dakota more than a foot, with snow stretching as far north and east as Minnesota and Nebraska. In Utah, wind gusts of 75 mph were possible, The Weather Channel reported.

The calendar may say spring, but April is the second-snowiest month of the year in Denver. The city has averaged 9 inches in April since 1882, second only to the 11.5 inches it gets in an average March, according to the National Weather Service.

The weather pattern threatened to bring damaging wind, large hail and perhaps tornadoes to parts of Texas, Oklahoma, Nebraska and Iowa, and weaker storms later in the day in the Ohio Valley.

“We’re looking at the gamut today for severe weather,” Weather Channel meteorologist Kevin Roth said.

As the system moves east, severe storms are possible Wednesday across a boomerang-shaped swath of the country from the Texas Gulf Coast north through Indiana and into western Pennsylvania.

Severe storms could move into Georgia, West Virginia and the Carolinas on Thursday.

This story was originally published on Tue Apr 9, 2013 4:59 AM EDT

This is a common event.  Oh, yeah.  All the time.  Pretty much every damn year.  You can count on it.  Every year.  Including this year right here in our capitol.

Remember when global warming idiots brazenly said that “snow is starting to disappear from our lives”???  Seriously, do you remember this crap?  What’s that?  You idiots DON’T remember this?  We are at a point of global stupidity when these fools can be wrong a thousand times and still win the argument with an intellectually moronic and morally idiotic culture.

The Arctic ice returns to normal, in contradiction to the liberal demagogues.  But the liberal lies go on and on.  And on, of course.

That’s what “global warming” really proves, of course: that liberals are abject liars who will stop at nothing.

When we get the most snow in a hundred years, why is it?  Because it’s so damn hot it’s actually cold.

I’ve repeatedly described “climate change” events that preached global warming that had to be canceled because it was way too damn cold to have the event.

I’ve explained that in contrast to what the global warming alarmists keep screeching, global temperatures are PLUNGING.  And while we’ve dumped more CO2 into the global atmosphere in the last ten years than during ANY time in history, there is no correlating rise in temperature to show for it.

I’ve pointed out that the shenanigans that the left have pulled off in the name of “climate change” has been bogus fraud after fraud after fraud.  It turns out that if you actually factor in the environmental, CO2-spewing costs to the environment of producing and disposing of the batteries for the electric cars, they are actually FAR more polluting than the gas-guzzlers.

I’ve pointed out how the “scientists” keep being wrong in their hyping over global warming.  As well as how they have repeatedly warped legitimate science to hype it.  As in they’ve done it and gotten caught doing it over and over and over again.  Which of course very much includes the abject scientific fraud that is Obama.  That’s right, I said Obama is a fraud and a liar.  As well as the vile tactics that liberals will go to to ignore “science” so they can hype a blatantly false message.

Global Warming is a pseudo-scientific fraud.  Period.

I’ve pointed out the tragic tendency of liberals to believe whatever “science” tells them – no matter how monstrous the message they are asked to believe.

Which is why the left wants to murder hundreds of millions of precious human babies in the global abortion mills by depriving humans of their humanity while giving “Mother Earth” the status that they deny to actual human beings.

I’ve explained that there is NO scientific reason to embrace “global warming” by whatever name the libturds want to call it.  I’ve pointed out that legitimate science actually documents the fact that – in utter disproof of “man-cased global warming,” the temperatures in the pre-industrial world were considerably WARMER than they are now.

I’ve also written about what the TRUE monstrous agenda of the left is – over global warming and pretty much everything else.  Just read the quotes near the bottom of the article to see how profoundly demonic and anti-human the global warming lobby truly is.

I’ve explained that “global warming” and sky-high gasoline prices go hand in glove.  Oh, yes, and energy prices, too.

In just one article, I documented a number of facts that refute anthropogenic global warming:

I’ve written numerous articles on the legitimate issues casting doubt on global warming. Consider facts such as: 1) the history of planet earth is a history of climate change and huge swings in climate; 2) we have seen even larger episodes of “global warming” on the planets in our solar system – none of which have SUVs driving around on them – than we see on our own planet earth; 3) the “science” of global warming has been warped with mind-boggling acts of fraud and shocking manipulation of data; 4) not only is there no “consensus” about “global warming” but in fact increasing numbers of scientists are outright hostile about “‘decarbonizing’ the world’s economy”; and 5) in spite of all evidence to the contrary, the United Nations is demanding $76 TRILLION in what amounts to pure socialist redistributionism to “save the planet” from “climate change.”

I just learned that the Old Kingdom of Egypt began as a result of an enormous climate shift in which Northern Africa went from a verdant and fertile land to a desert while the Nile began to bloom (4000 BC) and collapsed as a result of massive climate change in which the Nile transformed from lush farmland into dust. And nobody was driving SUVs, were they??? Just as nobody is driving SUVs on Mars.

The fact of the matter is that it was never anything more than a completely artificial and arbitrary decision to blame manmade CO2 – which constitutes such a tiny infinitesimal fraction of the actual global warming gasses it is unreal – for all of our current climate change. When manmade CO2 very obviously never had ANYTHING WHATSOEVER to do with all the myriad episodes of climate change that have characterized the history of planet earth from time immemorial ever before.

But liberals swear up and down that we must spend at least $76 trillion to fight the manmade CO2 bogeyman regardless.

Again, what caused the collapse of the Old Kingdom in Egypt?  “Climate change.”  Either because those damned pharaohs were driving around in pollution-spewing SUVs and pickup trucks, or in complete refutation of everything liberals are trying to say now.  And the fact remains that the Roman Empire was able to become great at a time when temperatures were considerably warmer than they are now.  In complete refutation of everything liberals are trying to say now about the horrendous danger of global warming.

And, again, where are the reports of the SUVs and pickup trucks being found by the millions on MARS?

“Evidence that CO2 is not the principle driver of warming on this planet is provided by the simultaneous warming of other planets and moons in our solar system, despite the fact that they obviously have no anthropogenic emissions of greenhouse gases. Mars, Triton, Pluto and Jupiter all show global warming, pointing to the Sun as the dominating influence in determining climate throughout the solar system.”

History refutes them.  Which is why “history” is such an unimportant subject to the left and why they always want to rewrite history.

And it doesn’t matter how many jobs these leftists destroy.  They talk about caring about the poor, but they don’t give a damn about actual people.

The actual major polluters get a complete pass from the left.  China, India and Russia can go on polluting; it’s only the WEST that must stop.  Why is that, if there’s an actual crisis?

The fact is that the true agenda of the left – whether about “global warming” or anything else – is the worship of Satan rather than the God of the Bible and Marxist redistributionism.  And liberal progressive “science” was at the heart of the last Holocaust, just as it is at the heart of the present one.

For the record, I DO believe that the climate is changing.  I believe what legitimate science has actually already proven: that changes in the sun trigger changes in our climate, and all the liberals who say that human beings can control the earth’s climate have redistributed bovine feces into their skulls.

What is interesting is that Jesus and the prophets in the Bible were the ones who talked about crazy climate changes in the last days.  Liberals have hijacked an issue that proves that we are in the last days as they strive to bring the very last days that the Bible described to come to pass.

Snow A Real Damper For Global Warming, But True Believers Are Insulated In A Leftwing Cocoon Of Lies

I got a response to an article I wrote titled “Global Warming ‘Scientists’ Admit Purging Their Raw Data” from someone referring to himself as “Mechanical Engineer.”  Here’s how he lectured me:

The data that was thrown out was not the only data that was collected around the world.

Take some time and rather than read some idiot’s opinion, do your own research. If you have any intelligence, there is only one conclusion – the atmospher [sic] is geating [sic] warmer. WAKE UP AMERICA. Scientist [sic] are scientist, not lying politicians and not ignorant columnist [sic].

Corporations do not care about you or the environment, so the last thing they would want is for the people to have knowledge.

“The ten warmest years on record have all occured [sic] since 1995″

For starters, you can visit NOAA (National Oceanic and Atmopsheric [sic] Administration). I’m trying to teach you to fish!! let’s see if you starve America ?!!!

And here is my response:

Mechanical Mind,

You might be great at teaching people to fish. If so, please stick with it. You’re sure not good at teaching people to think.  All you can do is recite the pseudo-scientific propaganda that someone poured into your head.

Your “science” is ideology, and whenever the science gets in the way of your ideology, so much the worse for your “science.”

We went from “global warming” to “climate change” because we clearly WEREN’T warming, and “climate change” provided the left with the rhetorical device to entirely deny their previous arguments and to essentially actually argue that it’s so damn cold because it’s so damn hot. And it was “justified” “scientifically” by “researchers” who were saying to one another stuff like:

“I’ve just completed Mike’s Nature trick of adding in the real temps to each series for the last 20 years (ie from 1981 onwards) and from 1961 for Keith’s to hide the decline.”

Then you find out that the “trick” of “hiding the decline” was even more insidious than merely camouflaging the fact that it’s not getting warmer, but rather the very heart of their case in terms of proxy reconstructions of data.

So much for your “Scientist are scientist [sic], not lying politicians and not ignorant columnist [sic]” remark.

And with all due respect for your “science” and your sneering contempt to conceal the fact that you have been disproven time and time again, it is all complete BULLCRAP:

In 2000, global warmers shrilly assured us that “Children just aren’t going to know what snow is.”

The problem with that “scientific” prediction based on the “fact” of global warming is that it turned out to be completely FALSE:

Ski resorts’ woe: Too much snow
Fierce storms that closed roads on key weekends prevented many potential visitors from driving to the slopes this season
May 21, 2011 | Hugo Martin

California ski operators often complain that they don’t have enough snow. This year, they’re complaining that they had too much.

Mountain resorts saw a 12% decline in skiers and snowboarders this season compared with the previous one, with attendance falling to about 7.1 million, according to the California Ski Industry Assn., the nonprofit trade group for the state’s major winter sports areas.

Your mantra that “corporations do not care about you or the environment” reveals your real problem: you are a socialist. You might be some hybrid consisting in part fascist, part Marxist, and pure distilled fool.

Socialists do not care about you, the environment, or anything but their total power and control over the masses. And they use naked indoctrination to GET that control.

As for the mainstream media that have bought the global warming lie hook, line and sinker – because pseudo-scientists like YOU taught them how to “fish” – I pointed out in a comment just yesterday:

A Soviet correspondent once said of the American mainstream media, “I have the greatest admiration for your propaganda. Propaganda in the West is carried out by experts who have had the best training in the world — in the field of advertizing — and have mastered the techniques with exceptional proficiency … Yours are subtle and persuasive; ours are crude and obvious … I think that the fundamental difference between our worlds, with respect to propaganda, is quite simple. You tend to believe yours … and we tend to disbelieve ours.”

And it is a rather easy thing to document that those “experts” are entirely leftwing:

Walter Lippmann – who shaped progressive “journalism,” said, “The common interests very largely elude public opinion entirely and can be managed only by a specialized class whose personal interests reach beyond the locality.” He referred to democracy as “the manufacture of consent” and said citizens “are mentally children.” He said:

“In the absence of institutions and education by which the environment is so successfully reported that the realities of public life stand out very sharply against self-centered opinion, the common interests very largely elude public opinion entirely, and can be managed only by a specialized class…”

Meanwhile his progressive pal Edward Bernays said things like:

“The conscious and intelligent manipulation of the organized habits and opinions of the masses is an important element in democratic society. Those who manipulate this unseen mechanism of society constitute an invisible government which is the true ruling power of our country.”

It is the LEFT that wants to erect an elite class that rules the lives of the rest of the people. By whatever means necessary, including propaganda and lies. It is the LEFT that wants to erect a giant omnipotent state that replaces God. It is the LEFT that wants to create a world in which everyone has to come to THEM to get the basic essentials for existence and thus control those existences.

It is the left that is telling all the lies.

For the record, mechanically clueless, you just parroted one of those lies that were passed from global warming alarmist “scientists” to their parrots in the mainstream media which has since been entirely refuted. It is a LIE that “the ten warmest years on record have all occured [sic] since 1995.” And thank God for the “idiots” – as you would have called them – who forced the correction after “science” bowed down before leftist ideology.

1934 is now the hottest, and 3 others from the 1930’s are in the top 10. Furthermore, only 3 (not 9) took place since 1995 (1998, 1999, and 2006). The years 2000, 2002, 2003, 2004 are now below the year 1900 and no longer even in the top 20.

Sorry, Mr. Sneering Ignorant Liberal, but your “facts” just got flushed down the toilet with the rest of the fecal matter.

I am increasingly alarmed by the stupidity and ignorance that is coming out of our university system.

The power of the university used to be to teach students how to think.  Students learned a diverse range of subjects that not only broadened their academic range, but forced them to apply what they learned and forced them to research and express their ideas about what they had learned.

It was too tempting for liberals – who progressively purged conservatives from academia via tactics that were frankly Stalinist.  So nowadays professors simply tell students what to think, require them to fill their minds with blatant propaganda, and then force them to spit that propaganda back out in order to get the approval of a decent grade.

It’s just no wonder that we end up with minds and thinking like “Mechanical Engineer’s.”

Jesus, The Glorious Conqueror Of Death, Also Conquered Circular Reasoning And Pseudo-History

I wrote an article on “liberal religion,” and how said religion was utterly empty of any meaning.  And pointed out that the total lack of liberalism to stand for anything outside of itself was the reason it is going the way of the Dodo bird.  And why militant Islam is growing in the void created by the emptiness of Western secular humanism.

Somone responded to that article by sneering:

“The only true religion is the Napkin Religion. It says so right here on this napkin.”

Sound like anyone you know?

Obviously this is a rather pathetic way of accusing me of circular reasoning.  The claim is being made, however poorly, that I believe the Bible because the Bible tells me to believe the Bible.

Aside from St Peter’s words –

“Know this first of all, that in the last days mockers will come with their mocking, following after their own lusts, and saying, “Where is the promise of His coming? For ever since the fathers fell asleep, all continues just as it was from the beginning of creation.”  For when they maintain this, it escapes their notice that by the word of God the heavens existed long ago and the earth was formed out of water and by water, through which the world at that time was destroyed, being flooded with water.  But by His word the present heavens and earth are being reserved for fire, kept for the day of judgment and destruction of ungodly men” (2 Peter 3:3-7)

– Here was my response:

Actually it doesn’t.

We know more about Jesus’ death than virtually anyone else in humany history. And history has had this record to contemplate  for 2,000 years.

As a result of something amazing that happened, Jesus’ disciples went from cowardly men who only wanted to hide to bold proclaimers that they had seen Him alive even at the direct risk to their own lives. These one-time cowards then proceeded to go all over the known world, with all but one dying as martyrs testifying that Jesus was the glorious living Savior just as Jesus Himself had proclaimed Himself to be.

Look into the “Lord, Liar or Lunatic” argument. Was Jesus a cynical liar from hell? Or was Jesus mentally deranged? Or was He whom He said He was? Lord and God? It is a FACT that Jesus gave the most sublime moral teaching the world has evern heard. Even Gandhi would testify to this truth about Christ:

In the cross of Christ, Gandhi found the supreme example of satyagraha: Christ was the ‘Prince of satyagrahis’. “It was the New Testament”, wrote Gandhi [on page 92 of his autobiography], which really awakened me to the value of passive resistance. When I read in the Sermon on the Mount such passages such as, ‘Resist not him that is evil: he who smiteth thee on thy right cheek turn to him the other also, and love your enemies, pray for them that persecute you, that ye may be the sons of your Father which is in heaven’, I was overjoyed.”

Do you believe that the greatest moral teaching ever heard in this world came from a demonic liar or a deranged lunatic? I don’t.

Another question: given that the disciples of Jesus were in a unique position to KNOW FOR CERTAIN that Jesus was who He claimed, and that He truly rose from the dead; and given that they basically all died testifying to His Resurrection, let me ask you this: how many people do you know who would WILLINGLY DIE FOR SOMETHING YOU KNEW FOR CERTAIN WAS A COMPLETE LIE???

Muslim terrorists die for lies that they sincerely believe to be true. But the disciples were uniquely able to know for certain whether Jesus was standing before them or not, whether He could speak to them or not, whether they could touch Him or not. And they went out and proclaimed the Resurrection until they were killed for proclaiming it.

History also records that Christians in the hundreds of thousands or even in the millions died during the persecutions of the Roman emperors. History clearly records as reported by the BBC (when again, these first Christians were in a unique position of being able to verify the truth, to actually talk to actual witnesses of the Resurrection):

Christians were first, and horribly, targeted for persecution as a group by the emperor Nero in 64 AD. A colossal fire broke out at Rome, and destroyed much of the city. Rumours abounded that Nero himself was responsible. He certainly took advantage of the resulting devastation of the city, building a lavish private palace on part of the site of the fire.

Perhaps to divert attention from the rumours, Nero ordered that Christians should be rounded up and killed. Some were torn apart by dogs, others burnt alive as human torches.

Over the next hundred years or so, Christians were sporadically persecuted. It was not until the mid-third century that emperors initiated intensive persecutions.

Which means the persecutions against Christianity actually went from terrible to even worse. And while Islam grew by the spread of violence and threat of death, Christianity flourished under the reality of some of the worst and most murderous persecutions in human history.

The book of Hebrews recites some of the great past martyrs of God’s Word, and says that which we also proclaim of these martyrs soon to come:

“They were stoned, they were sawn in two, they were tempted, they were put to death with the sword; they went about in sheepskins, in goatskins, being destitute, afflicted, ill-treated, men of whom the world was not worthy, wandering in deserts and mountains and caves and holes in the ground” (Hebrews 11:37-38).

And yet, because of the ROCK of Jesus’ testimony to the truth, Christianity flourished in spite of the worst efforts of the devil to stop it. It triumphed over the Roman Empire. It has triumphed over the world, with 2.3 billion followers today, according to the statistics that I show in my article above.

And with all that said, all I have to do is look at my calender. When I see it is “2011,” I know that it is 2011 Anno Domini, “In the year of our Lord 2011.” Because the very calender that you look at every single day testifies to the power of Jesus. And while some peoples maintain separate calenders, they have to know the one that testifies to Jesus Christ.

None of this is stuff I have to depend on my Bible to know: they are all documented facts of history. I put the record of history together, and then I read my Bible, and I see that the Bible teaches the Truth that Jesus came to testify to (see John 18:37).

Good luck with your worship of napkins. I’ll stick with my Jesus who confirmed who He was in human history by rising from the dead, just as He told His disciples He would do, just as His disciples proclaimed, and just as the Word of God teaches.

The bottom line is that 1) virtually all of the basic claims of Christianity are testified to in the works of ancient historians and 2) the Bible itself has been proven over and over again to be reliable history.  And while a devout  Jew has other reasons for affirming the reliability of Scripture, I myself begin with the Resurrection of Jesus from the dead, and the transformed lives of the witnesses of His Resurrection from the dead, and then proceed to believe the testimony of the risen Christ about just Whose Word the Bible is.

The fellow proceeds to post back, saying:

“documented facts of history” Ludicrous…actually, just plain silly. It’s sad really, as you seem so lucid but for these self-corroborating delusions. Not a crumb of proof. Not a scintilla of documentation.

The holy napkins are just as likely to be true as your ancient books and prehistoric god-man.

I’m happy for you that you have found something that works for you, but the venom and vitriol you direct at others compelled me to respond.

If you really want to come off as erudite, you might want to spend a few minutes with a sixth-grade science book. Study the part about the scientific method, and someday you might come to understand why reality has such a strong “liberal” bias.

Or just ignore my advice and continue to scream obscenities in your empirical darkness. Everyone needs a hobby, I guess.

I’m left wondering just which of my “documented facts of history” aren’t documented facts of history.  It’s not 2011 AD?  Or what evidence there possibly is to make such an assertion that what I say in that response above isn’t true.  “Not a scintilla of documentation”???  The life and the teaching of Christ.  The record of the very well historically attested lives and martydoms of Jesus’ disciples.  The history of the early Christian church and the intense persecution it not only survived but thrived under – until Rome itself embraced the faith it had tried and failed to destroy for three centuries.  The calender that has dominated both Western Civilization and the entire world that was the result of this demonstrable triumph of Christianity.  Nope; not a scintilla of documentation.  One begins to wonder about the point of offering substantial arguments to someone who refuses to even acknowledge that you offered any argument at all.

And yet this sneering liberal who merely dismissively waves his hand in contempt at the clear record of history thinks he is the “objective” one.

This liberal (both secular and theological) doesn’t seem to need to acknowledge arguments.  He doesn’t need to present any facts.  His opinions are all he needs for his self-contained bubble.  But this particular liberal proceeds to offer an assertion that the “scientific method” somehow proves his secular humanist liberal worldview to be the correct one.

That assertion runs into one small problem: it entirely lacks the virtue of having any truth whatsoever to justify it.  He depends on a pure myth that somehow science erupted entirely free of Christianity, and that science somehow proceeded to replace, correct and refute Christianity.

So what is there to say about the assertion that if I just knew anything at all about the “scientific method” I would see the light?  I respond to this drive-by claim as follows:

I wish you yourself would study the “scientific method” without the bias that consumes you.

I write an article titled, “The Intolerance Of Academia Creating Modern-Day “Galileos” I end that article pointing out:

106 of the first 108 colleges in America were founded as religious Christian institutions. It was these colleges that shaped the minds of our founding fathers, who in turn produced the foundational principles and values that enabled this country to become the greatest nation in the history of the world. And in a similar but even earlier vein, the first universities in Western Europe were founded under the aegis of the Church, and emerged from the monasteries. The scientific method itself emerged from the mind of a publicly-confessed Christian: Roger Bacon joined the Franciscan Order in 1247, and argued that a more accurate experimental knowledge of nature would be of great value in confirming the Christian faith. Sir Isaac Newton – almost universally regarded as the greatest scientist who ever lived – actually wrote more on Christian theology than he did on science. And the founders of every single major branch of science were confessing Christians.

The fact is that science arose only once in human history – and it arose in Europe under the civilization then called “Christendom.” Christianity provided the essential 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 made the universe and the 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 yet today, amazingly, against all history and against all truth, we are assured that science must be officially and completely atheist in order to have any legitimacy, and that God – or even the possibility of God (or even a far more intellectually neutral “Intelligent Designer” – must be purged from every element and aspect of “science.”

Tragically, genuine science has been perverted and undermined by ideologues who are attempting to impose their atheistic worldviews upon society and remake the scientific enterprise in their own image. And in their efforts, they are using the very worst and most oppressive of tactics to destroy, intimidate, and silence their opposition. Such academics cite Galileo (another confessing Christian, by the way) and the largely propagandized tale of his persecution by the Church as an example of religion being hostile to science. But how is their own behavior any different from the worst intellectual intolerance exhibited by the Church? In their overarching zeal to persecute and expunge any meaningful sign of God from the ranks of academia, they have themselves become even worse than their caricature of religion which they so despise.

The facts are that the universities from which the scientific method came themselves came from Christianity. The facts are that the “scientific method” that you point to actually came from Christians who were thinking and reasoning out of a uniquely Christian world view. We wouldn’t HAVE a scientific method if it weren’t for Christianity; nor would we have virtually any significant branch of science had it not been all those Christians who laid the foundation. Versus you, who have as your foundation your feet planted firmly in midair.

I have written before why this is: science is limited. It must necessarily depend on something greater than itself to have any foundation or offer any valid conclusion.

It’s actually funny that you speak the way you do. I offer fact after fact. You express your useless opinions, and like a fool ignore the facts.

Then you speak of “my venom and vitriol,” but again, the record of academia today – with the above article being merely one of many I can cite (here’s just one example) – is one of people who think like me being rabidly attacked and persecuted and fired by people who think just like you.

Now begone. I won’t continue to argue with someone who spews worthless opinions in a drive-by attack. Two such comments were enough.

Why do I block him?  Am I disinterested in having debate?  Well, when someone doesn’t even bother to respond to your argument, and proceeds to offer assertions in place of facts, there is little point to a “debate.”

I point out:

Mark Twain said, “A lie can get halfway around the world before the truth can put it’s boots on.”

One of the problems with lies versus the truth is that any fool with an opinion can tell a lie. And tell it very quickly. But it takes knowledge and careful argument to present the truth and refute the lies.

I don’t have any intention of spending all my time on my blog. But if I allowed liberals to post these 3-4 sentence fact-free dismissals, and then worked on refuting them, I would end up spending ALL my time on my blog.

The book of Proverbs chapter 26 verses 4-5 teaches that one needs to respond to a fool, lest the fool become wise in his own esteem. In the same breath, it teaches that if one spends too much time arguing with a fool, others won’t be able to tell the difference between the fool and the one trying to correct the fool.

I try to strike a balance.

And I do.

The fellow posts back to my spam file to inform me that boy did he ever wipe the floor with me, and that just as my hobby is whatever he wants to imagine it, his hobby is “destroying Christians” or somesuch.  I’ll let you be the judge as to whose arguments prevail, and whose are rather trivial assertions with no basis in fact.  I don’t doubt for a second that unbelievers will see whatever they want to see.  The question is, as Jesus Himself asked, is what do YOU think about Jesus?  Who do YOU say He is?

I thought the above discussion was illustrative due to a) the facts I present and b) the galling absence of facts or truth or even the perception of the need for them by my attacker.  It’s interesting that secular humanists only see the Christian’s need to win the argument, but never feel that their worldview should ever be questioned or need to be defended.

There is an interesting story that illustrates how the world thinks when it comes to Jesus and the Bible that I heard in a sermon on John 15:18-16:4:

 When missionaries were first going to inland Africa, the wife of an African chief visited a missionary station.  Hanging outside the missionary’s cabin, on a tree, was a little mirror.  The chief’s wife had never seen her hardened features and hideous paintings on her face.  (She was want we would call “one ugly momma!)” She gazed at her own terrifying countenance and then jumped back in horror, exclaiming, “who is that horrible person inside the tree?” 

“Oh,” the missionary explained, “it is not the tree.  The glass is reflecting your own face.” 

She wouldn’t believe it until she was holding the mirror in her hand.  When she understood, she said to the missionary, “I must have the glass.  How much will you sell it for?”  The missionary really didn’t want to sell his only mirror, but the African insisted so strongly that the missionary didn’t want to cause trouble, and so finally capitulated and sold the mirror. 

The chief’s wife took the mirror, exclaiming, “I will never have it making faces at me again!”  And with that she threw it down, breaking it to pieces.

And the fact of the matter is that people hate to see what they really are and hate God’s Word because it reveals their true selves.  The mirror never changes.  Every human being must choose how he or she will react when we take a good look at Jesus as revealed in God’s Word.  Either we will repent of our sin and turn to him, or we will reject and hate him.

Given that communism is state atheism, and given that state atheism has been documented to be responsible for more than 100 million murders during the 20th century alone and during peacetime alone, one would think that secular humanists and atheists should also have to give an account for why what they believe should be accepted as true.  But in our elite mainstream media culture, that challenge is never given.  Meanwhile, the Bible and the historic resurrection of Jesus Christ from the dead stand like twin anvils no matter who pounds on it or for how many centuries successive generations of unbelievers continue pounding.

Jesus conquered death.  We know more about that death (in which Jesus gave His life to take the blame for our sins) than any other death in antiquity.  And people have had two millennia to examine that perfect life and the details and results produced by that death.

We also know that more people celebrate that death than have ever celebrated the life of any other human being who ever lived.  Because of the testimonies of the witnesses to that death – and the glorious Resurrection that followed – which was sealed in the blood of these martyrs – Christianity stands confirmed by history.  The tomb of every other great religious leader is venerated by the followers of those religions.

We have stories like this one that fittingly came out on the day that Christians celebrate the Ressurection of Jesus Christ from the dead:

NEW DELHI (Reuters) – Indian spiritual guru Sri Sathya Sai Baba, revered by millions of followers as a living god, died Sunday in a hospital in southern India. He was 86.

Sai Baba, who was admitted to hospital in his hometown of Puttaparti a month ago, died of multiple organ failure, media said.

His followers, estimated to number six million, included top Indian politicians, business tycoons and Bollywoods stars.

Soon we will be able to visit Sri Sathya Sai Baba’s tomb, just as we can go and see the tomb of the prophet Muhammad.  The same is true of Buddha, and Confucious, and everyone else.  The tomb of Jesus alone is empty.

And because of Jesus’ life, and death, and glorious Resurrection to resurrection life as the firstfruits of all who call upon His name, the world changed.  And, myths and lies aside, the very science that secular humanists point to as a replacement for the ultimate Truth of the Christian Life is itself  a powerful testimony to the incredible change that Christianity brought to the world.

A sermon by John Piper points out that ultimately – and I believe one day very soon – the scoffers will receive all the proof that they have always demanded.  But by the time they receive the evidence their refusal to believe demands, it will already be too late.  And their eternal destiny will already be decided.

I pray you don’t share their fate.

Maranatha, my glorious King of kings.

The Three Fingers Pointing Back At Atheists When Atheists Point A Finger At Christians About Evil And Judgment

You’ve probably heard that expression, “When you point a finger at me, three fingers are pointing back at you.”  Let’s work with that today.

I recently wrote an article with the deliberately provocative title, “Atheist Country Japan Smashed By Tsunami.”

It generated quite a few cross postings to atheist blogs and forums.

One recent example attacked Christians as being “happy” that Japan was stricken by disaster, and, in linking to my blog, said:

Of course, maybe it’s because of all teh gay [sic] in Japan, or because the Japanese are all atheists. Or maybe it’s because they worship demons.

…

What a nasty, horrible God is the one in which they believe. What nasty, horrible sentiments they have expressed in the wake of so much suffering by their fellow human beings. What a nasty, cynical thing they do to promote their own religion by using this tragedy and other recent catastrophic events to “win converts” for Jesus.

Naming them charlatans and hypocrites does not do justice to the utter lack of compassion that resides in their hearts.

And the blogger cites my blog as an example of a fundamentalist who argues that God struck Japan “because the Japanese are all atheists.”

Well, first thing, did I actually even say that?  I quote myself from that article:

But is Japan’s unbelief the reason why Japan just got hit with an awful tsunami?

My answer is, “How on earth should I know?”

I cite passages of Scripture that clearly indicate that a disaster does not necessarily mean that God is judging someone, such as Luke 13:1-5.  I could have just as easily also cited passages such as John 9:1-3 about Jesus’ distinction between suffering and sin.  I could have cited 2 Peter 3:9, describing God’s patience with sinners rather than His haste to judge.  These passages aren’t at all out of tune with what I was saying.  And I actually DO single out by name for criticism men like Pat Robertson and Jerry Falwell who have immediately pronounced the wrath of God following some disaster.

I begin my article saying, “That headline is a deliberate provoker.  But please let me explain why I used that headline before you erupt one way or another.”  Then I proceed to state two undisputed facts: that Japan is atheist, and that Japan got hit by a disaster.  I urge someone to actually read the article and reflect on the possibilities.  But Boomantribune is an example of most of the atheists who cross-posted or commented to my article by NOT being someone who wanted to read or reflect; he or she is someone who refused to look beneath atheist ideology and immediately began demonizing the other side to “win converts” for his religion of atheism.  [And let’s get this straight: atheism IS a religion.  “Religion” does not need to depend upon belief in God, or Buddhism would not qualify as a religion.  The courts have ruled that atheism is a religion, and it is a simple fact that atheism has every component that any religious system has].

You can’t have a valid argument with someone like Boomantribune, I have learned.  They are either too ignorant, or too dishonest, or both to accurately represent the other side’s position or arguments.  They create straw men and then demolish claims that Christians like me aren’t even making.

Boomantribune viciously attacks me as harboring the “nasty, horrible sentiments they have expressed in the wake of so much suffering by their fellow human beings.”  But I end my article on Japan by saying:

You need that gift of divine grace.  I need that gift of divine grace.  And the people of Japan desperately need it today.

I pray for those who are in Japan.  I pray for their deliverance from both the tsunami and from their unbelief.  And I will join with many other Christians who will send relief to the Japanese people, with prayers that they will look not at me, but at the Jesus who changed my heart and my life, and inspired me to give to others.

It is also a simple fact that religious people are FAR more giving than atheists:

In the US, anyway, they don’t. Here’s just one study, done in 2003: The differences in charity between secular and religious people are dramatic. Religious people are 25 percentage points more likely than secularists to donate money (91 percent to 66 percent) and 23 points more likely to volunteer time (67 percent to 44 percent). And, consistent with the findings of other writers, these data show that practicing a religion is more important than the actual religion itself in predicting charitable behavior. For example, among those who attend worship services regularly, 92 percent of Protestants give charitably, compared with 91 percent of Catholics, 91 percent of Jews, and 89 percent from other religions…Note that neither political ideology nor income is responsible for much of the charitable differences between secular and religious people. For example, religious liberals are 19 points more likely than secular liberals to give to charity, while religious conservatives are 28 points more likely than secular conservatives to do so…The average annual giving among the religious is $2,210, whereas it is $642 among the secular. Similarly, religious people volunteer an average of 12 times per year, while secular people volunteer an average of 5.8 times.

And this is “secular” people who aren’t particularly religious.  A lot of people rarely ever go to church, but still believe in God (basically 90% of Americans belive in God).  Since the evidence is rather straightforward that the more religious one is, the more giving one is, it is justified to conclude that atheists who are less religious than the merely “secular” are even LESS giving.

And, guess what?  My church has already taken its first of several offerings for Japan, and I have already given – and plan to give again.

I would also point out a couple of historical facts:

Christians actually began the first hospitals.

More hospitals have been founded by Christians than by followers of every other religion – including atheism – combined.

That said:

Atheist doctors are more than twice as likely to pull the plug on someone than a doctor who believes in God.

So just who is being “horrible” here?

Here’s another example of an atheist attack on me that backfired, followed by the dishonest atheist “cutting and running” from his own attack:

For what it’s worth, I have never withdrawn a single post:

Also, unlike too many blogs – particularly leftwing blogs, in my experience – I don’t delete anything. When the Daily Kos hatefully attacked Sarah Palin and her daughter Bristol and claimed that Bristol Palin had been impregnated by her own father with a baby, and that Sarah Palin faked being pregnant – only to have that hateful and vile lie blown away by Bristol giving birth to a child of her own – they scrubbed it like nothing had happened.

I’m not that despicable. Every single article I have ever written remains on my blog. And with all due respect, I think that gives me more credibility, not less: I don’t hit and run and then scrub the evidence of my lies.

If I post something that turns out to be wrong, I don’t destroy the evidence; I stand up and take responsibility for my words.  I apologize and correct the record.  As I did in the case above.

That, by the way, is the first finger, the finger of moral dishonesty pointing back at these atheists. 

That’s not the way the other side plays.  History is replete with atheist regimes (e.g. ANY of the officially state atheist communist regimes) destroying the record and any debate; history is replete with atheist-warped “science” making one claim after another that turned out to be entirely false.  As examples, consider Java Man, Nebraska Man, Piltdown Man, Peking Man and the various other hoaxes that the “scientific community rushed to embrace in their rush to falsify theism.  In some cases “scientists” created an entire community – or even an entire race of people – around totally bogus evidence in “It takes a village” style.  There was the bogus notion of “uniformitarianism” by which the “scientific community” ridiculed creationists for decades until it was proven wrong by Eugene Shoemaker who documented that the theory of “catastrophism” that they had advanced for millennia had been correct all along.  And then all of a sudden the same evolutionary theory that had depended upon uniformitarianism suddenly morphed into a theory that depended upon catastrophism. It morphed so that it was equally true with both polar opposites.

Then there’s this:

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

The whole way they sold evolution was a lie.

There is NEVER an admission of guilt or an acknowledgment of error by these people.  They simply suppress or destroy the evidence, or “morph” their argument, or anything but acknowledge that just maybe they should be open-minded and question their presuppositions.

There is the extremely rare admission:

For the scientist who has lived by faith in the power of reason, the story ends like a bad dream. He has scaled the mountains of ignorance; he is about to conquer the highest peak; as he pulls himself over the final rock, he is greeted by a band of theologians who have been sitting there for centuries. -Robert Jastrow, God and the Astronomers

But those are extremely rare, indeed.  The rest of the atheist-assuming “scientific community” is all about saying, “Move on, folks.  Nothing to see here.  Why don’t you look at our new sleight-of-hand display over in this corner instead?”

Phillip Johnson, in a very good article, points out how the “bait-and-switch” works:

Supporting the paradigm may even require what in other contexts would be called deception. As Niles Eldredge candidly admitted, “We paleontologists have said that the history of life supports [the story of gradual adaptive change], all the while knowing it does not.”[ 1] Eldredge explained that this pattern of misrepresentation occurred because of “the certainty so characteristic of evolutionary ranks since the late 1940s, the utter assurance not only that natural selection operates in nature, but that we know precisely how it works.” This certainty produced a degree of dogmatism that Eldredge says resulted in the relegation to the “lunatic fringe” of paleontologists who reported that “they saw something out of kilter between contemporary evolutionary theory, on the one hand, and patterns of change in the fossil record on the other.”[ 2] Under the circumstances, prudent paleontologists understandably swallowed their doubts and supported the ruling ideology. To abandon the paradigm would be to abandon the scientific community; to ignore the paradigm and just gather the facts would be to earn the demeaning label of “stamp collector.”

[…]

Naturalistic philosophy has worked out a strategy to prevent this problem from arising: it labels naturalism as science and theism as religion. The former is then classified as knowledge, and the latter as mere belief. The distinction is of critical importance, because only knowledge can be objectively valid for everyone; belief is valid only for the believer, and should never be passed off as knowledge. The student who thinks that 2 and 2 make 5, or that water is not made up of hydrogen and oxygen, or that the theory of evolution is not true, is not expressing a minority viewpoint. He or she is ignorant, and the job of education is to cure that ignorance and to replace it with knowledge. Students in the public schools are thus to be taught at an early age that “evolution is a fact,” and as time goes by they will gradually learn that evolution means naturalism.

In short, the proposition that God was in any way involved in our creation is effectively outlawed, and implicitly negated. This is because naturalistic evolution is by definition in the category of scientific knowledge. What contradicts knowledge is implicitly false, or imaginary. That is why it is possible for scientific naturalists in good faith to claim on the one hand that their science says nothing about God, and on the other to claim that they have said everything that can be said about God. In naturalistic philosophy both propositions are at bottom the same. All that needs to be said about God is that there is nothing to be said of God, because on that subject we can have no knowledge.

I stand behind a tradition that has stood like an anvil while being pounded by one generation of unbelievers after another.  That tradition remains constant because it is founded upon the unchanging Word of God.  My adversaries constantly change and morph their positions, all the while just as constantly claiming that their latest current iteration is correct.

That is the second finger of intellectual dishonesty which so thoroughly characterizes atheism and anything atheism seems to contaminate with its assumptions.

Lastly, there is the finger of ethical dishonesty that is the ocean that the “walking fish” of atheism swims in.  [Btw, when I see that fish riding a bicycle I’ll buy their “walking fish” concept].

Basically, for all the “moral outrage” of atheists who want to denounce Christians for their God’s “evil judgments,” atheism itself has absolutely no moral foundation to do so whatsoever.  And the bottom line is that they are people who attack the five-thousand year tradition of Scripture with their feet firmly planted in midair.

William Lane Craig provides a devastating existential ethical refutation of atheism in an article I posted entitled, “The Absurdity of Life without God.”

To put it simply, William Lane Craig demolishes any shred of a claim that atheism can offer any ultimate meaning, any ultimate value, or any ultimate purpose whatsoever.  And so atheism denounces Christianity and religion from the foundation of an entirely empty and profoundly worthless worldview.  Everyone should read this incredibly powerful article.  I guarantee you will learn something, whatever your perspective on religion.

The thing I would say is that atheists denounce God and Christians from some moral sort of moral posture.  Which comes from what, exactly?  Darwinism, or more precisely, social Darwinism?  The survival of the fittest?  A foundation that comes from the “secure” footing of a random, meaningless, purposeless, valueless and entirely accidental existence?

As atheists tee off on God and at Christians for being “nasty” and “horrible,” what is their foundation from which to judge?

First of all, what precisely would make one a “nasty” or “horrible” atheist? 

Joseph Stalin was an atheist:

“God’s not unjust, he doesn’t actually exist. We’ve been deceived. If God existed, he’d have made the world more just… I’ll lend you a book and you’ll see.”

Mao Tse Tung was an atheist:

“Our God is none other than the masses of the Chinese people. If they stand up and dig together with us, why can’t these two mountains be cleared away?”  [Mao Tse Tung, Little Red Book, “Self-Reliance and Arduous Struggle chapter 21”].

Hitler was an atheist:

Hitler described to them that “after difficult inner struggles I had freed myself of my remaining childhood religious conceptions. I feel as refreshed now as a foal on a meadow” (Ernst Helmreich, “The German Churches Under Hitler,” p. 285).

Joseph Goebbels, a top member of Hitler’s inner circle, noted in his personal diary, dated 8 April 1941 that “The Führer is a man totally attuned to antiquity. He hates Christianity, because it has crippled all that is noble in humanity.”  Now, one may easily lie to others, but why lie to your own private diary?

Goebbels also notes in a diary entry in 1939 a conversation in which Hitler had “expressed his revulsion against Christianity. He wished that the time were ripe for him to be able to openly express that. Christianity had corrupted and infected the entire world of antiquity.”

Hitler also said, “Our epoch will certainly see the end of the disease of Christianity.” [Hitler’s Table Talk, Enigma Books; 3rd edition October 1, 2000, p. 343].

Albert Speer, another Nazi in Hitler’s intimate inner circle, stated that Hitler said, “You see, it’s been our misfortune to have the wrong religion… Why did it have to be Christianity with its meekness and flabbiness?”

Konrad Heiden quoted Hitler as stating, “We do not want any other god than Germany itself.” [Heiden, Konrad A History of National Socialism, A.A. Knopf, 1935, p. 100].

Now, Adolf Hitler, Joseph Stalin and Chairman Mao were terrible, despicable, evil people.  But what made them ” bad atheists,” precisely?

When Mao infamously expressed this attitude –

“The atom bomb is nothing to be afraid of,” Mao told Nehru, “China has many people. . . . The deaths of ten or twenty million people is nothing to be afraid of.” A witness said Nehru showed shock. Later, speaking in Moscow, Mao displayed yet more generosity: he boasted that he was willing to lose 300 million people, half of China’s population.” [Annie Dillard, “The Wreck of Time” in Harper’s from January 1998].

– or when Joseph Stalin was similarly quoted as having said:

“One death is a tragedy; one million is a statistic.”

– were these men who were responsible for some 100 million deaths of their own people during peacetime expressing anything that violated some principle of Darwinian evolution, or the morality that derives from the ethic of survival of the fittest?

Mao put his disregard for human life and the lives of his own people to terrible work:

LEE EDWARDS, CHAIRMAN, VICTIMS OF COMMUNISM MEMORIAL FOUNDATION: In 1959 to 1961 was the so-called “great leap forward” which was actually a gigantic leap backwards in which he tried to collectivize and communize agriculture.

And they came to him after the first year and they said, “Chairman, five million people have died of famine.” He said, “No matter, keep going.” In the second year, they came back and they said, “Ten million Chinese have died.” He said, “No matter, continue.” The third year, 20 million Chinese have died. And he said finally, “Well, perhaps this is not the best idea that I’ve ever had.”

CHANG: When he was told that, you know, his people were dying of starvation, Mao said, “Educate the peasants to eat less. Thus they can benefit – they can fertilize the land.”

Did that somehow disqualify him from being an atheist?  How?  Based on what foundation?

Let me simply point out that the most evil human beings in human history and the most murderous and oppressive political regimes in human history have the strange tendency to be atheist.  It would seem to me that these atheists should frankly do a lot less talking smack and a lot more shutting the hell up.  But two verses from Scripture illustrate why they don’t: 1) The fool says in his heart, ‘There is no God'” (Psalm 14:1) and 2) “A fool does not delight in understanding, But only in revealing his own mind” (Proverbs 18:2).

Let’s talk about “evil” for a few moments.  I have already begun addressing the “third finger” that points back at atheists when they denounce Christians or God.  But the idea of “evil” makes that “finger” the middle one.

Christians talk about evil.  A lot of people do.  Even atheists routinely do.  But what is their foundation for evil?  What is “evil”?  Most give answers such as, “Murder or rape is evil.”  But those would at best only qualify as examples of evil – not a definition that would allow us to make moral judgments.  Christians have an actual answer.  They point out that “evil” is a perversion from the way things ought to be.  But what “oughtness” is there in a random, purposeless, meaningless and valueless universe that was spat out by nothing more than pure chance?

Let’s just say at this point that the atheists are right in what is in reality a straw man attack of God?  So what?  I ask “so what?” because even if what they were saying were somehow true, by what standard would either God or Christians be “nasty” or “horrible”?  What is the objective, transcendent standard that stands above me, that stands above every Christian on the planet, that stands above the entire human race across time and space and holds it accountable, such that if Christians or even God do X or say Y, or believe Z they are “nasty” or “horrible”?

It turns out that they don’t have one.  And in fact, their very worldview goes so far as to literally deny the very possibility of one.  At best – and I would argue at worst – we are trapped in a world in which might makes right, and the most powerful dictator gets to make the rules.  Because there is nothing above man that judges man and says, “This is the way, walk in it.”  There is only other men – and men disagree with one another’s standards – leaving us with pure moral relativism. 

And if moral relativism is true, then the atheists STILL lose.  It would be a tie, given that atheists have no more claim to being “good” than any other human being or group of human beings, no matter how despicable and murderous they might be.  But they would lose because there are a lot fewer atheists (137 million) than there are, say, Christians (2.3 billion).  And it only remains for Christians to disregard their superior moral and ethical system just long enough to rise up and annihilate all the smart-mouthed atheists, and then say afterward, “Boy, we sure feel guilty for having done THAT.  Let’s pray for forgiveness!”  And the only possible defense atheists would have would be to abandon their “survival of the fittest” mentality and embrace superior Christian morality and cry out, “Thou shalt not kill!”

Even if Christians don’t wipe out the atheists physically, most would readily agree that the Christian worldview is still far stronger than the atheist one.  Dinesh D’Souza makes a great argument to illustrate this on pages 15-16 of What’s So Great About Christianity that shows why religion is clearly the best team.  He says to imagine two communities – one filled with your bitter, cynical atheists who believe that morality just happened to evolve and could have evolved very differently; and one filled with Bible-believing Christians who embrace that life and their lives have a purpose in the plan of a righteous God who put His moral standards in our hearts. And he basically asks, “Which community is going to survive and thrive?”

As a Christian, I don’t have all the answers (although I can certainly answer the question immediately above).  I am a human being and my mind cannot contain the infinite plan of an infinitely complex and holy God.  But I have placed my trust in a God who made the world and who has a plan for His creation which He is bringing to fruition.  And that worldview doesn’t just give me explanatory powers that atheism by its very nature entirely lacks, but it gives me a strength that I never had before.  Even when evil and disaster and suffering befall me beyond my ability to comprehend, I can say with Job – the master of suffering:

“But as for me, I know that my Redeemer lives, and he will stand upon the earth at last.  And after my body has decayed, yet in my body I will see God!  I will see him for myself. Yes, I will see him with my own eyes. I am overwhelmed at the thought!”  Job 19:25-27 (NLT).

Sanctimonious Hypocrite Obama Caught Red-Handed Altering Science Document

When Obama took office, he self-righteously proclaimed:

WASHINGTON – From tiny embryonic cells to the large-scale physics of global warming, President Barack Obama urged researchers on Monday to follow science and not ideology as he abolished contentious Bush-era restraints on stem-cell research. “Our government has forced what I believe is a false choice between sound science and moral values,” Obama declared as he signed documents changing U.S. science policy and removing what some researchers have said were shackles on their work.

“It is about ensuring that scientific data is never distorted or concealed to serve a political agenda — and that we make scientific decisions based on facts, not ideology,” Obama said.

Researchers said the new president’s message was clear: Science, which once propelled men to the moon, again matters in American life.

Lah dee dah, you Liar-in-Chief.

A few words about embryonic stem cells:

Despite the propaganda trumpeting the benefits that embryonic stem cells will bring to thousands of people suffering from Parkinson’s disease, Alzheimer’s, and other crippling injuries and maladies, not one cure using human embryonic stem cells has been found during the more than 20 years scientists have been studying them.

On the other hand, hundreds of cures have already been effected using adult stem cells, and each week brings news of more cures or ameliorizations of injuries and diseases. Do No Harm: The Coalition of Americans for Research Ethics publishes frequent studies showing the failure of embryonic stem cell research to offer any cures — despite the vast sums poured into such research and the claims made by “leading” researchers — and the successes of adult stem cell research and research using morally obtained pluripotential stem cells.

A few years ago, the state of Californian pissed away $3 billion in embryonic stem cell research, because intelligent investors didn’t want to waste any of their own money.  What happened?  It was a total failure:

Supporters of the California Stem Cell Research and Cures Initiative, passed in 2004, held out hopes of imminent medical miracles that were being held up only by President Bush’s policy of not allowing federal funding of embryonic stem cell research (ESCR) beyond existing stem cell lines and which involved the destruction of embryos created for that purpose.

Five years later, ESCR has failed to deliver and backers of Prop 71 are admitting failure. The California Institute for Regenerative Medicine, the state agency created to, as some have put it, restore science to its rightful place, is diverting funds from ESCR to research that has produced actual therapies and treatments: adult stem cell research. It not only has treated real people with real results; it also does not come with the moral baggage ESCR does.

Bottom line.  It was Great Satan OBAMA who was following ideology and not science.  Not Bush.  Bush was right; it was OBAMA who was pursuing ideology and calling it “science.”

As for global warming, let me just say “Climategate.”  In a fitting capstone of years of fraud, we have in the very words of climate “scientists” admissions of falsifying data, of deliberately concealing evidence and destroying data, of knowingly using “tricks” to manipulate data and produce deceptive results, and of engaging in a corrupt pattern of destroying scientific opponents by any means necessary.

There is so much evidence proving that global warming, climate change, or whatever the propagandists are calling it these days, is a complete and utter fraud, that I’ve got more than fifty articles dealing with the subject.

Again, it was OBAMA who was pursuing ideology rather than science.

Another example of Obama totally perverting science and academia has been his incredible deception over his stimulus package.  Obama literally created an entire new “understanding” of economics by claiming that his stimulus had “created or saved” jobs.  But:

Harvard economics Professor Gregory Mankiw said, “there is no way to measure how many jobs are saved.” Allan Meltzer, professor of political economy at Carnegie Mellon University said “One can search economic textbooks forever without finding a concept called ‘jobs saved.’ It doesn’t exist for good reason: how can anyone know that his or her job has been saved?”

And the massive lies Obama told to impose his ObamaCare on the American people have simply been stunning.

The facts don’t matter.  Truth doesn’t matter.  Reality doesn’t matter.  Only naked partisan ideology matters.

But the case against Obama as a massive hypocrite, liar and fraud is more slam dunk than that.  Obama has been caught clearly doing the very thing he so pompously demonized his predecessor for doing:

Govt’s handling of science on oil spill questioned
The oil spill that damaged the Gulf of Mexico’s reefs and wetlands is also threatening to stain the Obama administration’s reputation for relying on science to guide policy.
By DINA CAPPIELLO
Associated Press
Originally published Wednesday, November 10, 2010 at 6:08 AM

WASHINGTON — The oil spill that damaged the Gulf of Mexico’s reefs and wetlands is also threatening to stain the Obama administration’s reputation for relying on science to guide policy.

Academics, environmentalists and federal investigators have accused the administration since the April spill of downplaying scientific findings, misrepresenting data and most recently misconstruing the opinions of experts it solicited.

[…]

The latest complaint from scientists comes in a report by the Interior Department’s inspector general, which concluded that the White House edited a drilling safety report in a way that made it falsely appear that scientists and experts supported the administration’s six-month ban on new deep-water drilling. The AP obtained the report early Wednesday.

The inspector general said the editing changes by the White House resulted “in the implication that the moratorium recommendation had been peer reviewed.” But it hadn’t been. Outside scientists were asked only to review new safety measures for offshore drilling.

“There are really only a few people that know what they are talking about” on offshore drilling,” said Ford Brett, managing director of Petroskills, a Tulsa, Okla.-based petroleum training organization. “The people who make this policy do not … so don’t misrepresent me and use me for cover,” said Brett, one of seven experts who reviewed the report.

[…]

Last month, staff for the presidential oil spill commission said that the White House’s budget office delayed publication of a scientific report that forecast how much oil could reach the Gulf’s shores. Federal scientists initially used a volume of oil that did not account for the administration’s various cleanup efforts, but the government ultimately cited smaller amounts of oil.

The same report said that President Barack Obama’s energy adviser, Carol Browner, mischaracterized on national TV a government analysis about where the oil went, saying it showed most of the oil was “gone.” The report said it could still be there. It also said that Browner and the head of the National Oceanic and Atmospheric Administration, Jane Lubchenco, contributed to the public’s perception the report was more exact than it was by emphasizing peer review.

[…]

All seven experts asked to review the Interior Department’s work expressed concern about the change made by the White House, saying that it differed in important ways from the draft they had approved.

“We believe the report does not justify the moratorium as written, and that the moratorium as changed will not contribute measurably to increased safety and will have immediate and long-term economic effects,” the scientists wrote earlier this year to Louisiana Gov. Bobby Jindal and Sens. Mary Landrieu and David Vitter. “The secretary should be free to recommend whatever he thinks is correct, but he should not be free to use our names to justify his political decisions.”

Those complaints were similar to those of other scientists.

“Their estimates always seemed to be biased to the best case,” said Joseph Montoya, a biology professor at Georgia Tech. “A number of scientists have experienced a strong push back.”

The inspector general’s report said the administration did not violate federal rules because the executive summary did not say the experts approved of the moratorium and because the department publicly clarified what the experts said and had offered a formal apology.

—

Associated Press writers Seth Borenstein in Washington and Harry R. Weber in New Orleans contributed reporting.

If Barack Obama were to shoot someone dead on live television before an audience of hundreds of millions, there would be armies of “journalists” who would desperately try to change the story, change the facts, or somehow argue “Bush did it.”

Fortunately, a majority of the American people are finally coming to realize what a disgrace to the truth Barack Obama truly is.