Jeremiah 9:6

"'You live in the midst of deception; in thier deceit they refuse to acknowledge me', Declares the Lord."

Saturday, June 13, 2009


The Reality of the Law
When was the last time you argued with someone? Most likely it was not too long ago. People argue over all sorts of things, all the time. But regardless of the subject of the argument, one aspect is always the same. Because in order to argue, we must make reference to some sort of moral, or ethical code. We know that an ethical code exists, but how do we explain it? I recently read called “Mere Christianity” by C.S. Lewis, and in it he made the point that we cannot logically explain this phenomenon by natural means. His book inspired me to write this post.

Moral Similarity
One point C.S. Lewis made, was that every culture on earth has had some sort of ethical code. And these ethical codes are all basically the same. C.S. Lewis says, “…but for the present purpose I need only ask the reader to think what a totally different morality would mean. Think of a country where people are admired for running away in battle, or where a man felt proud for double crossing all the people who had been kindest to him. You might just as well try to imagine a country where two and two made five.” The point is, although moral codes are created by the people of a given culture, totally isolated cultures always reference the same concepts of unselfishness, justice, keeping your word, generosity, ect. This similarity must somehow be explained, and the only reasonable explanation is that there is some sort of universal standard, and each culture reflects the ideas of this ethical standard, (although with differing degrees of accuracy).

Personal Decision?
There are instances, in which a given culture’s ethical standards do seem to be different, and even seem to go against what we would consider to be good. C.S. Lewis pointed out that if a certain culture allows some sort of “immoral” behavior that we consider wrong, we instantly seem to conclude that their morality is inferior, and wrong. But how can anything be wrong, if there is no right. For instance, a football player cannot make a foul unless the teams agree on what should be considered fair, and unfair. There will be some of you who will no doubt say that there are no universal morals. But I cannot believe that you actually believe this. You see, as much as you may say that Hitler’s moral standards were just as noble as ours, you don’t mean it, your conscience knows that it is impossible to excuse the killing of innocent people. Is it possible that Hitler knew it was wrong too? Of course! When was the last time you did something even though you knew it was wrong? We do it all the time. Obviously, there is more to morality than a personal decision.

Universal Contract?
Now that we know that all of mankind is effected by the same belief of an ethical standard, the next question is, “what could possibly cause this strange phenomenon”. Some say that morality is universal because “Good” is anything that benefits mankind, whereas “Bad” is anything that harms, or causes pain or suffering. At first this makes sense; killing someone, or taking their money is obviously bad, but rescuing someone, or giving them food and shelter is considered good. Both of these are judged based on how they affect humanity. This is all well and good, but believe it or not, this does not explain morality. You see, benefiting society is a good way to describe moral law, but it is not the reason for the law. If benefiting society is why we have moral laws, then why do we feel obligated to benefit society? Think for an instant, if you could re-create moral law for yourself. If no-one, (not even God, for those of you who are Christians) would condemn you for anything, would you honestly choose to do everything that didn’t come naturally to you? Now there would be some sense in making everyone else do these things that didn’t come naturally, for your own welfare, but if it were all for your welfare, (most people think it is) then why would you feel bad when you cheated someone? Is it just because you broke a universal “niceness” contract? But if this contract is only for your wellness, the only reason to feel bad would be fear that someone else would break the contract and harm you back. This selfish reasoning would be totally acceptable if the universal contract theory was correct, but even this selfishness is looked down on. And I don’t know about you, but when I do something wrong, I feel more than fear, I feel guilt. If morality really is a contract between all of mankind, it seems that our minds refuse to believe this, and instead our conscience is constantly bombarding us with feelings of remorse, and guilt, over offenses that we cannot seem to make ourselves stop doing.

A Better Explanation
Following the reasoning that morality is more than a personal decision, and more than a contract between all of mankind, what is a better explanation? I propose that mankind was not the author of ethical standards. Instead, the morality of our diverse cultures reflect a greater standard set by God himself. When you think about it, who else would have the authority to do this, than the one who created us? We were made in the image of God, and he made many of our aspects reflect himself. This is why we have a conscience. However our sinful nature tells us that we have been distorted from out original image. Our two sides; the sinful nature, and our conscience, are fighting against each other, causing the guilt and remorse over issues we cannot change. We are a badly distorted reflection of God, but we still know what we ought to be like. God wants us to be unselfish, not only to benefit each other, but to glorify him. He also wants us to refrain from behavior that harms ourselves, (such as drunkenness, sexual immorality, and addiction) because these things harm our relationship with God. This is my explanation for morality, I personally think it fits the evidence, and reasoning, the best. If you have one that you think better, please comment on this post.

Jesus Christ
Our situation seems hopeless. The Bible says that God punishes sin with eternal suffering in Hell. And unless we are perfectly sinless, we will never enter heaven. But God has provided a way out. Jesus Christ paid the death penalty for our sin. All we need to do is confess our sin, ask God to forgive us, and believe in Jesus as our personal savior. If you are not sure if you are going to heaven when you die, please consider what I have told you. Your life on earth could be over in an instant, and this could be your last chance to let Christ save you from the punishment your sins deserve.

Wednesday, June 3, 2009

Intelligent Design in Schools

Don’t Get the Wrong Impression
Most people are under the impression that Intelligent design is nothing more than Christianity under a new name. And everyone knows that Christianity is no more than a delusional religion about God, for emotionally crippled people who would rather feel good, than get real and be rational. With this perspective it is no wonder intelligent design is not allowed in schools. Why would people want to harm their children’s intellect over some irrational belief in God? People tend to get rather defensive when people like me talk about intelligent design in schools, but what I want to do is clarify exactly what intelligent design is, and how I want it taught in schools.

Intelligent design is not a religion, it is a scientific hypothesis. The reason most people associate it with religion is because, in order to be valid, me must assume that God exists. But is it not equally religious to assume that God does not exist? The point is, both Intelligent Design, and Macro Evolution are based on presuppositions. But this alone does not make either of them less credible. Every day, we must assume, for instance, that matter exists, and that what we see is not a delusion. We must presuppose that language and numbers are adequate to explain our universe. And we must also presuppose whether or not the existence of God is possible. Both presuppositions are equally viable by themselves. You cannot prove if God exists, or does not exist. What we can do however, is see which presupposition seems to fit the scientific evidence the best. For instance, although we cannot prove that matter exists, we can observe the consistency of physical laws, and can realize that the best explanation for this consistency is not illusions, but physical substance, governed by mathematical laws. In the same way, intelligent design is a theory that starts with the presupposition that God could exist. If you observe the universe with an open mind, I think you will find that this is the most reasonable presupposition.

As you already know, the hypothesis of intelligent design starts with a presupposition. The next step is observation, and our primary observation is the complexity of the universe. I don’t have time to go into detail about the hundreds of complex things that make up our universe. Life for instance, is so complex that we cannot even begin to understand the complex chemical reactions and processes that make it work. But the point is, these things are so complex, that we must find some way to explain this complexity. Our second observation are the geological features that indicate a huge catastrophic event. And a third observation would be the Age of the earth, (which 80% of tests show to be under 10,000 years). The most popular Hypothesis is that macro evolution caused the complexity by a roundabout way involving very gradual change and natural processes. But in forming our hypothesis we take into account that macro evolution has failed in its attempt to explain the universe. And that leads us to the third step, hypothesis.

Our scientific hypothesis is that a supernatural force intervened with nature, and caused the complexity and organization we see in the universe today. Also, we believe that a worldwide flood caused the geological formations that we observe. This explains the complexity and beauty of our universe, as well as why the earth tests to be young, while showing geological features that would take millions of years to form normally. In fact, my personal hypothesis, as well as many other creationists, and because these events fit so perfectly with the Bible, is that the Biblical creation story, as well as the flood story, and all other stories, are legitimate, and should be taken seriously, just like any other history book. So the next step is to ask the question, “is there any evidence to support this idea”. Since both the creation event, and the flood cannot be repeated, we must rely on a method in which we predict what evidence these events would leave behind, and then go out, and see if the evidence is there.
I don’t have nearly enough time to go into all the predictions that intelligent design makes, or explain all the ways that the evidence supports these predictions. That is a topic for another post. The reality is, there is no evidence out there that can’t be explained with Intelligent Design, and in fact, a huge amount of evidence supports it. And an even larger amount of evidence shows that macro evolution is so close to impossible, that it is not even worth consideration. Once again, the rest of the posts on this blog will discuss this in greater detail. Intelligent Design is a valid scientific theory, but it is questionable whether or not macro evolution still is. Science has changed so much from when Darwin visited the Galapagos Islands, and his theory is simply being torn apart. So why is Intelligent Design treated with such scorn in the scientific community? I think it’s because in our present culture, most people have the presupposition that God does not exist, and there is a bad “blind faith” stereotype for people who think God does exist. If you get rid of the stereotype, and give the existence of God a chance in your mind, Intelligent Design suddenly makes sense. But because most scientists are stuck with the idea that so called, “religion” is not for scientists, they don’t give it a chance. And of course, the general public believes whatever scientists say without question.

What is Being Taught?
Today students are taught macro evolution as if it were fact. When students question evolution they are often ridiculed by classmates and teachers alike. Here’s the story of a 4th grader who stood up under this persecution. “Apparently at lunch some of the kids started trying to make him believe evolution (note that this is a 4th grade class) by teasing him about believing creation. His science teacher also joined in this by trying to “prove” evolution and by e-mailing some random biology professor to tell him this. From what I gathered, the teacher at one point told him that, from all the information she had provided him, he “has to believe” evolution. Now for the good news: The kid stood strong on the Word of God. He didn’t compromise and didn’t flinch under the persecution.” This kid was obviously too young to be able to defend his position. This is an example of a teacher taking advantage of a student by superior knowledge and vocabulary. In these situations, students are forced to believe what their teachers tell them unquestioningly. Evolutionary textbooks are full of out of date information, and often go just deep enough into subjects to make them seem like evidence for evolution without discussing the glaring problems with the hypothesis. One example would be the chart that shows horse evolution. this chart arranges the horses from smallest to largest, but bypasses the fact that the horses are found together in the same rock strata, and show no indications of gradual change except in size.What

Should Be Taught?
Intelligent design is more than valid enough to be taught in schools. I have no problem with macro evolution being taught in schools. But it should be taught as the failing theory it is, not like a law. I think it should be taught alongside creation as the naturalistic hypothesis Vs. the supernatural hypothesis, that way students can compare the two side by side, and see which one is really backed by the evidence. Teachers and curriculums should not take sides like they do now, and should recognize the scientific validity of intelligent design. Another problem that needs to be corrected is the out of date, or false information found in text books. I don’t want to teach “religion” in a public school, all I want is for a scientific theory, (and one that I believe is more valid than the evolutionary theory), to be studied in schools as at least an equal to evolution. Ultimately, if schools would give intelligent design a thought, I think everyone would see how well it fits the evidence, and how science makes so much more sense when it’s put into perspective with a supernatural creator. Until our schools allow both theories to be taught honestly for what they are, we are actually violating the true meaning of the first amendment. By this I mean that the state is endorsing one religious idea, (that God does not exist) while preventing discussion of Intelligent Design, (which is no more religious than macro evolution) in schools, by supporting, or denying the validity of the theory that is based on its respective faith assumption. The purpose of the first amendment was never meant to keep “faith assumptions”, (or what is more commonly called religion, or church) out of the government, it was designed to keep the government from controlling, or endorsing one over another. And this is exactly what I see happening all over America.


web page visitor statistics
Laptop Computers