New Direction

Well it's been a long time since I've written anything on the Cultural Deceptions blog - I suppose the last two years have been some of the craziest, busiest, but also best of my life. I got my license, my first car, started college, began work in an actual professional career, and have seen God's blessing in my life in ways I never imagined. It pains me that beginning college classes has forced blogging to the back burner for now, but at the same time, perhaps I am more prepared for critical writing and argumentation now that my education is really heating up.

I see I have a number of followers, and we passed the 4,000 hit mark a while back. Obviously there is still a need for truth in our confusing culture. And while this blog might be a small and insignificant source of truth, I feel the need to continue. Please read "Carrying Concealed," an argument I have taken up recently, and which I was able to devote and entire semester to perfecting.

I believe "Carrying Concealed" is a fair heads-up to the direction I am going to be taking this blog. I no longer feel the need to write further on the Creation-Evolution debate, in part because I have grown tired of it. You could read the dozens of posts I hammered out years back, as well as a thousand more I could write over the next year and still not see the truth. My advice is this: if you still doubt, get off your computer and go on a walk. Better yet, visit a state park or watch a sunset. Then try to replicate the beauty you see. If, like me, your attempts are less than this supposed random world full of accidents, give some credit to the fact that our world is beautiful, and must have a designer.

With the recent events in our government, I feel the need to write on legal and political issues. From now on, this blog is a politically dangerous place. I'm tired of people who won't say it like it is. So I'm going to share my ideas, and I invite you to share yours. I'll probably get called a racist or a bigot, or whatever. Who cares? So this is just a heads up. Political writings are on their way. Until then, keep searching for truth "as for hidden treasure."

Carrying Concealed

October 16, 1991 is a day that will live on in Dr. Suzanne Gratia’s mind for decades to come. Gratia was eating lunch with her elderly parents at Luby’s Café in Copperas Cove, Texas. Suddenly their meal was interrupted by a loud crash from the front of the building. At first it appeared the pickup truck, driven by George Hennard, had crashed through the front window of the café by accident. When Hennard jumped out of his truck and began systematically executing customers with his Glock-19 handgun, Gratia realized the crash was no accident. Not long before, she had made the decision to leave her .38 Smith & Wesson handgun in her car, as carrying it into a public place would have been illegal. It is a choice she will forever regret. Her father and mother, as well as twenty one others, would never step foot outside the café again (Gun ownership, 1992). Gratia was a normal American citizen who led a normal life in a normal part of town. However, in an instant she was forced into a life-or-death situation in which she could not rely on any external entity to protect herself or the ones she loved. It is in light of circumstances like these that people realize the importance of being able to defend themselves and others with lethal force. For Suzanne Gratia, this would have meant carrying a concealed handgun.

According to North Dakota Century Code (2001) “A firearm or dangerous weapon is concealed if it is carried in such a manner as to not be discernible by the ordinary observation of a passerby.” In recent years, state lawmakers have instituted permit systems which regulate the type of people who are allowed to carry concealed weapons. While only two states (Illinois and Wisconsin) currently prohibit the carrying of concealed handguns completely, not every state is on the same level in their concealed carry permit system. Currently thirty seven states have “Shall Issue” laws, which are defined by legislative analysts Cleary and Shapiro (1999) as “licensing systems — often referred to as presumptive right-to-carry laws [which] require authorities to provide a license to any applicant who meets specified criteria” (p. 1). Among the more restrictive policies are the “May Issue” or “discretionary permit” laws. Employed by eight US states, these laws are defined by the same source as “systems [which] allow legal authorities to grant licenses to carry concealed firearms to grant licenses to carry concealed firearms to citizens who establish a compelling need for doing so” (p. 1). Alaska, Arizona, and Vermont, on the other hand, allow citizens to carry without a permit.

Because of the life-and-death nature of concealed handgun policy, the topic has become very emotionally charged. Proponents of gun control claim that gun ownership negatively affects communities and should therefore be outlawed. The UNICEF (2001) believes that the idea that firearms protect people and are thus necessary tools is a “destructive message.” Others claim that guns are a necessary part of our daily life in a world full of people who would like to kill us. The NRA-ILA (2008) said, “Self-defense is a fundamental right. The constitutions of the U.S. and 44 states, common law, and the laws of all 50 states recognize the right to use arms in self-defense” (para. 1). Ever since Florida passed its famous Shall Issue law in 1987, a landslide of states have adopted similar programs. The number of states with these laws has gone from eight to thirty seven. Despite this progress, and correlating reductions in violent crime, many US citizens still live in states where their right to carry is infringed. While anti-gun rhetoric continues to surface in the American culture, carrying a concealed weapon for use in self defense is a constitutionally sound practice under the Second Amendment of the United States Constitution (1791) which states, “A well regulated militia, being necessary to the security of a free state, the right of the people to keep and bear arms shall not be infringed.” Therefore, because concealed carry’s protection under the Second Amendment, its ability to reduce violent crime, and its usefulness in self defense, every state government in the United States should institute its own Shall Issue legislation.

While policy makers often focus their attention primarily on the positive or negative effects of concealed handguns to determine their legality, it is important to not lose track of the constitutional principles the United States was built on. The Second Amendment was crafted to guarantee the independence and freedom through gun ownership and gun carrying. However, the purpose of the Second Amendment has been the subject of much debate because of the specific wording it uses; particularly the mentioning of state militias. According to Jacobs (2002) gun control supporters have based their argument on the first clause of the Second Amendment, which they believe supports their claim that state governments need only guarantee the right to keep and bear arms to members of an organized militia. Furthermore, because state militias have been dismantled with the creation of the National Guard, some argue that the second amendment is not relevant to our modern nation. Despite the controversy, much can be learned about intentions behind the Second Amendment by examining similar legal writings of the same time period.

There are several important documents crafted near the time of the Second Amendment which express the political climate of the time in clearer words. One writing is the New Hampshire Ratification Document (1788) which stated, “congress shall never disarm any citizen, unless such as are or have been in actual rebellion.” Also insightful is the Vermont Constitution (1777) claiming “that the people have a right to bear arms for the defense of themselves and the State.” Because both of these writings were crafted within fourteen years of the Second Amendment, they represent quite accurately the political climate which gave birth to the Second Amendment. Halbrook (2010) a celebrated Supreme Court attorney at law with over thirty years of experience, took a new approach to the issue. He examined the legal actions of lawmakers who sought to give African Americans the right to keep and bear arms in the wake of the Civil War. He concluded that the Second Amendment has been historically recognized by the American government as pertaining to an individual right. Despite the questionable wording of the Second Amendment, equivalent writings of the time reflect the idea that keeping and bearing arms is an individual right, not a collective right limited to state militias.

Though the Constitution guarantees the right to gun ownership and carrying to United States citizens, concealing a lethal weapon is a type of “bearing arms” which is not specifically mentioned by the Constitution. It follows that an extensive analysis of concealed carry’s effect on violent crime should decide whether or not it is a reasonable type of gun-bearing and should thus be considered part of the second amendment rights. One way to examine concealed carry’s effect on crime is to compare the crime rates of states and cities that have passed “shall issue” laws and those that have not. The Federal Bureau of Investigation (2010) records that in 2008, 503.8 out of every 100,000 residents of California (a May Issue sate) were victims of violent crime. In the same year, California’s “Shall Issue” neighbor, Arizona, had a violent crime rate of 447.0 out of 100,000. Considering Arizona’s immense problems with numerous drug cartels and gangs in recent years, this is a significant accomplishment. In 1998, Lott, a senior research scientist with a long-time interest in the gun rights debate, published one of the most complete and well known pieces of research regarding this subject. In “More Guns Less Crime,” Lott claimed that increases in concealed carry permits cause reductions in violent crime. In one example, he used Florida’s murder rate between 1978 and 1988 to demonstrate how increases in concealed carry permits after the 1983 adoption of a Shall Issue law decreased crime levels significantly. Of this trend, Lott said, “the available evidence indicates that the murder rate began to drop when the law was adopted, and the size of the drop corresponded with the number of concealed handgun permits outstanding” (p. 107). In numerous cases all over the USA, the adoptions of Shall Issue law and increases in concealed carry have served to decrease crime.

Since Lott’s bold claim, many supporters of gun control have sought to discredit his research. However, even the most skeptical reviews of Lott’s data, such as one study done by Marvell and Kovandzic (2003), are only able to claim that increases in permits did not cause any significant change in violent crime when controlling for other factors. In fact, the National Center for Policy Analysis (2010) said, “despite all the attacks by gun-control advocates, no one has ever been able to refute Lott's simple, startling conclusion that more guns mean less crime” (para. 2). The idea that concealed carry increases violence in our society has been disproven by research. Instead, it seems that concealed carry reduces violent crime and should therefore be considered a reasonable practice.

Not only do concealed weapons serve as crime deterrent, but they are also essential tools for self defense. Stories from all over the United States show this to be true, as evidenced by two stories posted by the NRA-ILA, (2010). Rob Pierce, a resident of Pennsylvania, found himself at gunpoint while walking to a restaurant. His two captors forced him into a dark ally, and were preparing to kill him when Pierce, a licensed firearm owner, drew his concealed .357 revolver, shooting one of the thugs. Both criminals quickly escaped the scene and are now behind bars. Jason Moore, from the state of Washington, arrived home one night to find two men in his house. He drew his legally carried .45 pistol and shot one of the men, who was armed. He then held both criminals captive until police arrived. These two stories, as well as thousands of others on the NRA-ILA website testify to the widespread use of concealed handguns in self defense. In fact, many experts, such as Kleck, (1997) estimate that guns are used more than 2.5 million times a year in self defense. The staggering extent to which guns are used by citizens to protect themselves, their families, and friends from violence has secured guns an irreplaceable role in self defense.

Although handguns have been proven to be useful in self defense, many members of society favor non-lethal forms of self defense, such as stun guns, chemical sprays, and Tasers. Indeed, some may argue that, with these modern alternatives, guns are no longer necessary for safety, and should be eliminated and replaced. However, these devices offer far less stopping power and are completely useless in some situations. Stun guns are non-lethal devices which immobilize an attacker using tremendous voltage at low amperage (Abbot, 2006). However, as pointed out by Abbot, an accomplished self defense expert, “The biggest downside to a stun gun is that you must be close enough to your attacker to touch him. This will mean, consequently, that he will be close enough to reach out and grab you as well” (para. 4). An attacker with a knife or gun would pose a serious problem to someone equipped only with a stun gun. Although they can be used from a greater distance, chemical sprays are only effective in certain situations. Abbot warns that attackers can avoid the irritating spray, and that even when aimed correctly, a breeze can force the spray back into the face of the user. Perhaps the most effective non-lethal defense mechanism is the Taser. These devices work in much the same way as a stun gun, but instead of requiring direct contact with the attacker, they fire electrical probes at the attacker from a distance. However, the leading brand, Taser International (2010) gives its Tasers an effective range of only fifteen feet. Additionally, Tasers can only fire one shot before they must be reloaded. If the defender misses the first shot, or is attacked my multiple people, the Taser offers little hope of survival. Although these three devices have their places in self defense, they cannot be relied upon in extreme situations and therefore cannot replace handguns.

Not everyone embraces the idea of concealed handguns becoming a norm in the United States. It is a common fear among gun control proponents that giving more citizens the right to carry arms will cause common every-day disputes to turn deadly (Kovandzic, Marvell, & Vieraitis, 2005). Liberal journalists often scare the public by painting a grim picture of guns in the American society. According to Nagourney (2003) of the New York Times, “People with guns in their homes are almost twice as likely to be killed by guns as people who do not keep them at home” (para. 1). It is understandable that casual readers could be alarmed by this statistic. However, these fears would be ungrounded, since people who choose to keep guns often do so because they live in a dangerous area. These people are not killed by their decision to own firearms, but by the pre-existing conditions under which they chose to buy them. Nagourney goes on to say, “…people with guns are 16 times as likely to commit suicide using guns” (para. 2). At first, it seems that this statistic should also cast a negative light on guns. The fact is that gun owners and non-gun owners alike commit suicide. The availability of guns does not cause suicide, but is simply the means of choice for people who have already made the decision to take their own lives. The Florida Department of Agriculture and Consumer Services (2010) reported that out of 1,858,018 licenses issued between October 1, 1987 and September 13, 2010, only 168 (less than one hundredth of one percent) have been revoked because of a crime committed by the permit holder involving a firearm. Although some people who obtain concealed weapons permits will use their handguns with ill intent, the vast majority of citizens who carry a concealed handgun just want to live in peace and safety, and for this, they need not be feared.

Yet another objection to shall issue legislation is the idea that more people carrying guns will mean more accidental injuries and deaths related to firearms. The Children’s Defense Fund (2009) found that one hundred and fifty four young people age one through twenty died from gun accidents in 2006. The organization claims that “the daily news is a grim reminder of the devastating impact caused by our deadly romance with guns and violence” (p. 1). Although shall issue laws would in theory put more guns in the hands of citizens, Reynolds and Burnett (2003), both lead researchers at the National Center for Policy Analysis, report that between 1982 and 2002, twenty two states adopted right to carry laws. During this same amount of time, they reported, the number of privately owned guns doubled, and accidental firearms deaths decreased. Though Kovandzic and Marvell (2003) are doubtful that concealed carry has any effect on crime, they recognize that many citizens who live where concealed carry is restricted still carry handguns illegally. One benefit of Shall Issue laws is that they “eliminate arbitrary decisions on gun permit applications and encourage gun safety training” (para. 56). People who fear for their lives are not likely to refrain from carrying an unlicensed concealed weapon simply because it is illegal. Making concealed carry permits an individual right, while requiring safety training for permit holders has in fact helped make America safer.

Concealed carry should be allowed and welcomed by all state governments. It is protected under the constitution, valuable to states by its effect on crime, and essential to individuals seeking to defend themselves. If the state governments of Alabama, California, Delaware, Hawaii, Illinois, Maryland, Massachusetts, New Jersey, New York, Rhode Island, Vermont, and Wisconsin fail to pass Shall Issue legislation, or if current Shall Issue states allow their laws to be overturned, the consequences could be sever. Violent, armed criminals who frequent these places are given a tremendous advantage over their victims, who have been forced to use inferior weapons in their defense. Their only hope is to trust their lives to an overworked police force which seems to always be minutes away when seconds count. This future must not become a reality. Just ask Suzanne Gratia. One might expect her to blame gun activists for the tragic death of her parents. Instead Gratia (1991) said “I blame [the death of my parents on] those legislators who deny me the right to defend myself” (Gun ownership, 1992, p. 13).

References

Abbot, B. (2006). Be prepared – the pros and cons of non-lethal self-defense weapons. Retrieved

November 3, 2010 from http://thephantomwriters.com/free_content/db/a/be-prepared-for-self-defense.shtml.

Children’s Defense Fund. (2009). Protect children, not guns 2009 (pamphlet). Washington, DC: Children’s

Defense Fund. This pamphlet gives statistical information regarding children shot, wounded, and killed by guns in the United States and calls for tighter gun control to help solve the issue. The CDF is a non-profit child-advocacy program designed to give children the best opportunities to succeed in life. They have been working to promote local, state, and federal pro-child policies for over thirty five years.

Cleary, J. & Shapiro, E. (1999). The effects of “shall issue” concealed-carry licensing laws: A literature

review. Retrieved November 3, 2010 from http://www.house.leg.state.mn.us/hrd/pubs/concarry.pdf. This Information brief reviews studies on the effecs of “shall issue” laws and offers working definitions of both “shall issue” and “may issue” laws. Cleary and Shapiro are legislative analysists at the Minnesota House of Representatives Department of Research with twenty, and thirteen years of experience, respectively.

Federal Bureau of Investigation. (2010). Crime in the United States: By state, 2008. Retrieved

November 3, 2010 from http://www2.fbi.gov/ucr/cius2008/data/table_05.html. This report gives statistical information on violent crime levels in all fifty states during 2008. Since 1908, The Federal Bureau of Investigation has been the nation’s foremost authority in crime and criminal behavior.

Florida Department of Agriculture and Consumer Services: Department of Licensing. (2010).

Concealed weapon/firearm summary report. Retrieved November 3, 2010 from http://licgweb.doacs.state.fl.us/stats/cw_monthly.html. This fact sheet reports on the number of Florida residents who have applied for Concealed Carry permits, those who hold them, and those who’s licenses have been revoked. The FDACS is a government agency responsible for issuing all licenses and permits in Florida. Their facts are official state records.

Halbrook, S. P. (2010). Heller, the second amendment, and reconstruction: Protecting all freemen or

only militiamen? Santa Clara Law Review, 5, 1073-1094. Retrieved November 3, 2010 from http://www.stephenhalbrook.com/law_review_articles/heller_2nd_amendment.pdf. This article clarifies the purpose of the Second Amendment as an amendment guaranteeing the right of all US citizens to bear arms. Halbrook is a renowned attorney at law, a Professor of Philosophy at George Masson University, and an author. He acquired his J.D. in 1978, as well as a Ph.D. in Philosophy and a B.S. in Business. He has prevailed in four supreme court cases, as well as a multitude of federal and state-level cases.

Jacobs, J. B. (2002, December 15). Right to bear arms decision would improve gun control. USA Today.

Retrieved November 3, 2010 from http://www.usatoday.com/news/opinion/editorials/2002-12-15-jacobs_x.htm. This article discusses the ongoing debate between gun control and gun rights activists and calls for the supreme court to define the second amendment as pertaining to an individual right. Jacobs is the Warren E. Burger Professor of Law and the director of the Center for Research in Crime and Justice at New York University Law School. He is also the author of “Can Gun Control Work?”

Kleck, G. (1997). Guns and Self Defense. Retrieved November 22, 2010 from

http://www.pulpless.com/gunclock/kleck2.html. In this article, Kleck discusses the importance of private gun ownership in America, showing that defensive gun use is common, and that gun ownership has an important role in deterring potential crime. Kleck is a Professor at the School of Criminal Justice and Criminology at the University of Florida. He is well known for his expertise in the gun rights debate, and has Authored several books, including Point Blank: Guns and Violence in America, and Targeting Guns: Firearms and Their Control.

Kovandzic, T. V., & Marvell, T. B. (2003). Right to carry concealed handguns and violent crime: Crime

control through gun control? Criminology and Public Policy, 2(3), 363-396. doi: 10.1177/1088767905279972. This article reports on Marvell and Kovandzic’s research on Florida’s 1983 RTC law. It concludes that the law’s effect on crime was not significant when controlling for other factors. Dr. Kovandzic is a faculty member in the School of Economic, Political and Policy Sciences (previously, Social Sciences) at UT-Dallas. He teaches courses on research methods, statistics, gun control, extent and measurement of crime, and crime patterns. His primary areas of research interest are gun control, crime policy, and deterrence/incapacitation. Thomas B. Marvell is an attorney-sociologist and is director of Justec Research in Williamsburg, VA.

Kovandzic, T. V., Marvell, T. B., & Vieraitis, L. M. (2005) The impact of "shall-issue" concealed handgun

laws on violent crime rates: Evidence from panel data for large urban cities. Homicide Studies, 9(4), 292-323. doi: 10.1177/1088767905279972. This article addresses concerns by gun control proponents that shall issue laws will cause an increase of violence. It studies violent crime rates in all large US cities over the course of twenty years and concludes that shall issue laws have no effect on violent crime. Vieraitis is a professor at the University of Texas. She holds a Ph.D. in criminology and a BA. in Psychology.

Lott, J. R. (1998). More guns less crime: Understanding gun control laws. Chicago, University of Chicago

Press. This book documents Lott’s research on the effects of concealed carry on crime rates across the nation using mathematical regression models. John Lott is an American senior research scientist at the University of Maryland, College Park. He holds a Ph.D. in economics, and has published over 90 peer-reviewed articles in academic journals. He is best known for his role in the gun-rights debate, and has written five books including Freedomnomics, and The Bias Against Guns.

Nagourney, E. (2003, May 27). Vital signs: Cause and effect; linking guns and gun violence. New York

Times. Retrieved November 3, 2010 from http://www.nytimes.com/2003/05/27/health/vital-signs-cause-and-effect-linking-guns-and-gun-violence.html

New Hampshire Ratification Document. (1788). Provision XII. Retrieved November 3, 2010 from

http://www.usconstitution.net/rat_nh.html. In this document New Hampshire officially accepts the United States Constitution, thereby enacting it across the nation. It also propose twelve alterations to the constitution, one of which declared that the government should never take arms away from the citizens.

North Dakota Century Code. (2001). Chapter 62.1-04; Concealed Weapons. Retrieved November 3, 2010

from http://www.legis.nd.gov/cencode/t621c04.pdf. This state code gives legal definitions of concealed weapons, provides information on where they are allowed to be carried, and lists penalties for non-compliance.

NRA-ILA. (2008). Right-to-carry summery. Retrieved November 3, 2010 from

http://www.nraila.org/Issues/FactSheets/Read.aspx?id=239. This article summarizes the NRA’s beliefs about concealed carry laws and their effects on crime. With nearly 4 million members, the National Rifle Association Institute for Legislative Action is a conservative organization dedicated to preserving the second amendment rights of all Americans. Their lawyers lobby for the rights of US citizens in all fifty state legislatures as well as congress.

NRA-ILA. (2010) The armed citizen. Retrieved November 22, 2010 from

http://www.nraila.org/armedcitizen/Default.aspx. This online collection of real-life stories from thousands of law-abiding citizens who have used guns in self defense testifies to the importance of gun ownership in the American society.

Reynolds, M. & Burnett, S. (2003). No smoking guns: How to answer objections to right-to-carry laws. In

Cothran, H. (Ed.) Gun control: Opposing viewpoints (pp. 116-117). Farmington Hills, MI: Greenhaven Press. This article addresses five key objections to concealed carry, including the idea that concealed carry will cause more accidental gun deaths. Reynolds was a professor emeritus at Texas A&M and former director of the Criminal Justice Center at the National Center for Policy Analysis headquartered in Dallas, TX. Burnett is the lead analyst of the National Center for Policy Analysis' E-Team with a longtime interest in the gun control debate.

Gun ownership has new champion: Killeen massacre survivor – Suzanne Gratia; Killeen, Texas. (1992,

June). Shooting Industry, 6, 12-13. Retrieved November 3, 2010 from

http://findarticles.com/p/articles/mi_m3197/is_n6_v37/ai_12634747/?tag=content;col1

Taser International, Inc. (2010). Retrieved November 3, 2010 from

http://www.itaser.com/product_tour.html

UNICEF. (2001). No guns, please; we are children (pamphlet). New York: UNICEF Division of

Communication. This pamphlet explains the negative cultural impact of guns and their influences on children around the world. The UNICEF is an international organization which works in 190 countries to promote children’s rights. They use their tremendous influence to pressure policymakers and leaders to protect children and give them a better future.

United States Constitution, (1791). Amendment II. This amendment to the United States constitution

guarantees the right of Americans to legally possess firearms.

Vermont Constitution, (1777). Part 1, Article XV. Retrieved November 3, 2010 from

http://avalon.law.yale.edu/18th_century/vt01.asp. This article from the Constitution of Vermont guarantees the right of its citizens to possess firearms for their own protection, and that of the state.

Homosexuality

Intolerance, or Love?
Christians are so often called intolerant. In a culture that has accepted the muddled postmodern idea of ethics, to condemn any belief or behavior can be hazardous, and is now reserved for the select few who refuse to act like they do not know the truth. I want you to be one of them. As you probably know, the controversy over gay and lesbian rights has now infiltrated the Church, and the ELCA Lutheran Church is now saying there is nothing wrong with homosexuality. But the Bible says something very different:

“Do not lie with a man as one lies with a woman; that is detestable” (Leviticus 18:22).

“They exchanged the truth of God for a lie, and worshiped and served created things rather than the Creator - who is forever praised. Amen. Because of this, God gave them over to shameful lusts. Even their women exchanged natural relations for unnatural ones. In the same way the men also abandoned natural relations with women and were inflamed with lust for one another. Men committed indecent acts with other men, and received in themselves the due penalty for their perversion” (Romans 1:25-27).

The Bible is the Truth

Both the old and new testament give us the same message: homosexuality is indecent, a perversion, unnatural, even detestable. Clearly, this is not the politically correct ideology popular today. There is today, and will continue to be for perhaps as long as the world exists, much question as to the correct interpretation of these and similar texts. The fact is, nothing is impossible to justify. You may argue about the interpretation of the Bible as long as you wish. I simply do not care. Anyone who reads the Bible to find truth will be convinced that God is against homosexual behavior. But anyone who decides what “truth” is convenient for him/her, will only try to twist the words of God into their own beliefs when reading the Bible. If the Bible says that Homosexuality is wrong, and one of the primary beliefs of Christianity is the Divine inspiration of the Bible, how are Christians to blame for intolerance?

The Reason for Homosexuality
Some argue that God created homosexuals the way they are. But Romans 1:25 tells us the very reason for Homosexuality. “They exchanged the truth of God for a lie, and worshiped and served created things… Because of this, God gave them over to shameful lusts”. What is the truth of God? Homosexuality is wrong. And the Lie? Homosexuality is natural. We have been plagued with Homosexual lust as a society because we are exchanging God’s truth for a lie.

A Christian’s Response
If God does not tolerate homosexuality, then how should Christians respond? God says there is a “due penalty for [homosexual] perversion”. As Christians, then the best thing we can do is to warn gay and lesbian people of the consequences of their behavior, and help them overcome their condition. This is not done out of hatred or “intolerance” but out of love. There are those, of course, who look down on homosexuals. This is entirely wrong, and very much outside the will of God. Christians should love the homosexual, but hate the perversion, just as Jesus would have. But while we love the gay/lesbian person, we cannot simply back down, or be silent about the moral authority of the Bible. God has given us the truth, and he has given us the power to love people a way the world cannot explain, so let’s use it!

Abortion

Criteria for Life
Abortion is a tricky subject to argue about, because people who have no problem with it often can twist words to meet their agenda, For example, They can say a fetus is only alive when it can survive on it's own outside the womb. Anyone who has taken a basic Biology course should know the four criteria of life to be, 1: The organism must contain DNA. 2: The organism must be able to sense changes in its Internal or External Enviroment and respond to those changes. 3: The organism must have a system of breaking down proteins to create energy. 4: The organism must be able to reproduce. These criterion say nothing about surviving outside of the womb. Are fish any less alive because they can't survive outside of water? Or are We any less alive because we can't survive without Oxygen to breathe?

Self-Centered Culture
The basic problem, however, has less to do with their logic about what constitutes life, and more to do with their attitude towards life itself. We live in a culture that is often times very self-centered. The people who advocate abortion think that it is more important for people to satisfy their own selfish desires than to sacrifice their lives for the sake of others, like Jesus did. The fundamental problem is that a lot of people in our society choose to turn away from God, who is the source of Love, and seek their own pleasure and their own will instead of His. This was what Adam did in the garden, and it's what you and I do every time that we sin. When a whole culture turns its back on God and seeks its own selfish desires, it starts to do things like promote abortion. Our culture thinks that it is OK for a woman to kill her child if the woman thinks that it will make her life easier.

Ancient Man

Where Did Cavemen Originate?
Cavemen have been the ever popular target of scientists, (not to mention cartoonists and advertisers) for decades. The Idea of simpleminded, brutish, cave dwellers, (who wield wooden clubs, grunt constantly and pick insects out of each other’s dreads) is so popular that I doubt many people even consider how we got such an idea of ancient mankind. Cavemen did exist, but the idea that they, and other ancient civilizations were anything less than fully human is a deception spread by evolutionists.

Archeology
When archeologists dig down and find an ancient city, they expect it to be simpler than modern cities. And when they find a city below this ancient city, they expect it to be even simpler, (following me Ok?). But as archeologists discover more and more of humanity’s past, they are discovering that this is often not the case. The ancient Mayans were masters of astronomy and mathematics. They had the solar year calculated to be 365.2420 days long. Only just recently have we discovered it to be .0002 days longer than this. In Mesopotamia, a ceramic jar, dating back to 2500 B.C. contained a device that, when filled with grape juice, produced an electric current of 1.5 volts. The ancient Phoenicians visited West Virginia, and left inscriptions on giant stones, as far back as 3000 years ago. Stonehenge, the Pyramids, the Great Wall of China, evolutionists call these findings “mysteries”. But are they? You see, if we are to believe that Mankind has evolved, we should see a gradual increase in technology in all of earth’s cultures, throughout the years. This is because man’s achievements would have always been limited by his mental capacity. But the only way to explain the mysteries of archeology is to admit that man was not limited by his mental capacity at any point in known history.

Limitations of Advancement
Obviously not all cultures were equally advanced, but this is not because of mental limitations, but factors such as quality of life, the availability of food and water, natural resources, perverted religion, and the population of people pursuing advancement, have been shown to keep innovations in a standstill. Take for instance, the middle ages. During the middle ages, quality of life was at rock bottom. People were more concerned with staying alive than inventing the electric toaster. Also, corrupt religious officials kept Galileo from his research. And the scarcities of food and water in some regions of Africa have (kept tribesmen, who have the potential to be just as drop dead brilliant as me, I’m joking of course) from advancing to higher technology for hundreds of years. What about the cultures that did succeed in advancing to amassing heights? One word, extinction. Like the Romans, (who by the end of their empire, had paved roads, international mail, and advanced government) other empires disappeared, and their inventions with them.

The Modern Technology Boom
So what about today? Does the 21st century mess this idea up? Japan is already developing the 4th generation of cell phones, and computers that used to take up an entire room can now fit into your pocket. Believe it or not, I believe that all this, (and more) could have been achieved by mankind in the first hundred years after creation. We have no reason to believe that it did, but it could have. The reason technology has blown through the roof in present times is because of global communication. It weren’t for global communication mankind would not have been able to work together and share ideas. And because of global communication, extinction is no longer a problem, (unless all humans die simultaneously, which I think we would all agree, would be a problem). In the end, there is no historical evidence of any mental evolution of the human race. Even in the days when people lived in caves, mankind was created in the image of God, and shows every evidence of being just as intelligent as modern man.

Evolution: Winning a Defensive Battle

Things have Changed...
Evolution has changed through the years. Back in Darwin’s time, it was thought that macro evolution took place far too slowly to actually see it happen. Darwin originally thought that the little changes we see happening in micro evolution could slowly build up, and over time, cause macro evolution. Unfortunately, this would mean that intermediate links between species would have existed for generations before they were fully evolved into one of the species we see today. Darwin assumed that as people began to dig for fossils, they would find tons of these “links”. Read the words of Dr David Raup, an expert on the fossil record. “Well, we are now about 120 years after Darwin, and knowledge of the fossil record has been greatly expanded… ironically, we have even fewer examples of evolutionary transition than we had in Darwin’s time. By this I mean that some of the classic cases of Darwinian change in the fossil record, such as the evolution of the horse in north America, have had to be discarded or modified as the result of more detailed information.” This lack of intermediate links has driven scientists to create new scenarios.

Neo-Darwinism
The first evolutionary spin-off was Neo-Darwinism. Since we now know that there are limitations on how much change micro evolution can cause to a creature, (see “Micro Evolution Vs. Marco Evolution”), evolutionists had to think up a way for creatures to evolve that had no limitations. Their answer was mutation. The primary assumption in Neo-Darwinism is that mutations can increase the amount of information on a DNA strand, resulting in more complicated species. Although we have never seen this happen, Neo-Darwinists insist that, if given enough time, these increases in information would happen. Since we know that mutations often result in dramatic changes between parent and offspring, neo-Darwinists also believed that their explanation allowed for less intermediate links.

Punctuated equilibrium
The latest theory is really just a new version of neo-Darwinism. It is called Punctuated Equilibrium. As more and more research is done, evolutionists have to deal with the ever growing problem of “missing links”. So few have been found that evolutionists now believe that there is no need to find intermediate links to support their ideas. Instead, there were supposedly periods of time when toxic chemicals and radiation caused massive amounts of mutation. Then, when the radiation and chemicals subsided, whatever creatures were lucky enough to survive with beneficial mutations would live for millions of years without any serious change. Eventually this process would repeat itself, and leave no trace of the evolution that occurred. The problem is that this idea still depends on the fact that mutations can change a creature in a beneficial way, (which is impossible, especially when caused by toxic chemicals and radiation). However, most people accept that it explains the lack of intermediate links in the fossil record.

Excuses, Excuses!
It seems like evolutionists are not able to go out and find evidence to support their ideas, instead, they go out and find evidence that contradicts their ideas, so they continue to modify them. But, if macro evolution has become so void of factual evidence that scientists have to cook up wild stories to try and explain away the lack of evidence, why is it given so much credibility in the scientific community? Punctuated Equilibrium is a theory conceived out of a total lack of evidence, that’s all it has going for it! If there is a lack of evidence for evolution in the fossil record, then wouldn’t it be logical to think that maybe evolution didn’t happen? But most scientists won’t recognize this possibility. Science is the pursuit of knowledge, and if our researchers are dismissing knowledge in order to hang onto a 200 year old hypothesis, then they can no longer be called scientists, and cannot be considered credible.

DNA

The Explanation At Last
I have noticed, in some of our posts, that DNA has been mentioned in connection with evolution, (or against it,) but hasn't been properly explained yet. DNA (Deoxyribonucleic acid) is a nucleic acid found in the cells of all living organisms and some viruses. This Nucleic acid acts as a storage device containing the codes to life, or the amino acids to create life with. DNA is composed of strings made of sugars and phosphates wrapped around each other with 'rungs' of units called nucleotides, creating a shape known as a double helix. The double helix runs in long strands wrapped tightly around itself in a linear unit called a chromosome. There are four different types of nucleotides, Adenine, Guanine, Cytosine, and Thymine. These are grouped into two sets, Adenine and Guanine, and Cytosine and Thymine. Thes are the only possible pairs of nucleotides. So Adenine can't pair with Thymine, and Cytosine doesn't mathc up with Guanine. These pairs then are arranged in various orders determining your eye, hair, or skin color. When somthing evolves, it's a mutation in the DNA itself that causes the creature to have different characteristics. Mutations can be caused by ultraviolet light, radiation, some viruses, or by the organism itself in cellular process such as hyper mutation. I won't go into those processes now, but it is an incredibly complex subject that I will post about later. I have barely scratched the surface here, but you can already see DNA is too complex to have been created by random chance. The first cell created by random chance would have to create its own DNA and proteins, get the cellular sturcture built, and it would have to get it right the first time. If it got it wrong the cell would quickly die. If there is no creator, nobody cna see it die and say something like, "Will maybe if I build it this way it will work better." And these cells can't evolve and make themselves better because they die before the second generation can even be born. Evolutionist say it takes millions of years for something to evolve, not two generations. This is all proof that life was carefully designed and created just a carefully.

Laws That Defy Evolution

Prepare to Defend Your Faith!
Evolution is often thought to be beyond question, and many believe it to be a scientific fact that evolution did produce all life on earth. It might surprise you know that there are multiple scientific laws that fly in the face of macro evolution. As you defend your faith, it will be helpful to know these laws, and to explain them to the opposition. Because in order to be a viable theory, evolution should be consistent with well established laws, and as you will read in this post, it is not.

Biogenesis
In the middle ages, scientists observed that rats and flies were found in the greatest intensity around piles of decaying garbage. Given this fact, they proposed that garbage produced rats and flies! This idea was taken for a fact for hundreds of years. You may have heard of it, its called Spontaneous Generation. Eventually a man named Louis Pasteur rid science of this idiocy, and the Law of Biogenesis was formed. This law says that life only comes from life. Nowhere in known history has this law been broken, which makes sense, considering the complexity of even a single cell. With Macro Evolution, we have regressed back to the middle ages. Only what once was a pile of garbage is now a warm pond, or volcanic vents at the bottom of the sea. The problem is that even in ideal conditions, the odds of forming a single protein, (one of hundreds necessary to life), are so ridiculous, they could never happen given hundreds of trillions of years, let alone a wimpy 6 billion! There is no scientific appeal to Spontaneous Generation beyond the desire to remove God from science, and society.

The First Law of Thermodynamics
It is a proven fact that in any isolated system, energy cannot be created, or destroyed. Imagine a marble rolling up and down the sides of a bowl. At the top of the bowl the marble possesses a certain amount of potential energy, (or potential motion). Gravity acts on the marble and causes it to roll down the side of the bowl. At this point, the marble is losing its potential energy, and gaining kinetic energy, (energy in motion). But once the ball starts rolling up the opposite side of the bowl, it starts losing its speed, (kinetic energy) and gaining potential energy for its next run. Now, you may have caught a problem with this picture. Anyone knows that a marble rolling around in a bowl will eventually stop. This, however, does not mean that energy has been lost. Instead, friction between both the marble and the bowl, and the marble and the air, has taken the marble’s energy and transformed it into heat. So, in the First Law of Thermodynamics, we see that energy cannot be created or destroyed, it can only change form. So, contrary to evolution, the universe could not have been created by a natural process. We know that time, and energy, and matter could not have existed forever, and we also know that natural processes, (like the big bang) cannot create these things, so we are left with one option; to recognize God as the creator of our universe.

The Second Law of Thermodynamics
As I mentioned above, the energy in any system is never created or destroyed, but changes form. It turns out that there is a trend in the way that energy changes form. And this is addressed by our next law. The Second law of thermodynamics says that all potential energy in the universe is slowly changing into non-recoverable, heat energy. So, although we are not losing energy, the useful energy we have is changing into useless heat by processes like friction, and nuclear fusion. Think about it this way. Our petroleum deposits, (which have the potential to cause kinetic energy) are rapidly diminishing, and as we burn this fuel, our engines produce heat, and motion. Even the motion our cars produce is eventually stopped by friction, and this friction produces heat. This heat radiates into space, and is useless. This poses a huge threat to macro evolution’s timeline. Because the older the universe becomes, the more useless heat energy it accumulates, and the less useful energy, (like fuels, or motion) it has left. Our universe shows very little useless energy, and fuel, and motion everywhere. This proves that the universe had a beginning, and shows that that beginning was too recent to defeat the odds of Spontaneous Generation.

They Point to a Creator
As I look back on this post, it becomes apparent how interconnected these laws are. If Macro Evolution were viable, it would be just as interconnected with other corresponding laws. Instead, our scientific laws show how ridiculous the hypothesis of Macro Evolution is, and they point unquestionably, to a supernatural creator.

Socialism

Our Nation is in Danger
Politics is a dangerous subject that I never intended this blog to discuss. However, I feel that our nation is currently headed toward destruction, and in order to turn around, the people of America need to speak out, and take action.

Consequences of Socialism
Obama has been a socialist from the moment he entered the race for president. America didn’t see the danger until it was too late, and now we are stuck with the consequences of America’s choice. These consequences will include nationalized healthcare, government ownership of GM, Banks, and other large companies, Cap and Trade, and more to come. These might not sound all that bad to you, so I will explain why I call them consequences.

Nationalized Healthcare
First, nationalized healthcare is a socialistic ideal that makes healthcare extremely inexpensive, or even free. However, since the government must pay the hospitals, the government also controls who can get help, and to what extent. This makes it hard for older people to receive special treatment, since the government will choose to help younger people who have more life ahead of them. Nationalized healthcare in Europe has resulted in overcrowded hospitals, since it costs relatively nothing to get a checkup, or get a prescription for a sore throat. So, the minor ailments often are over treated, and people who really need help wait days before they can get attention. I heard a story about a woman who got in a car accident, and waited three days in a stretcher in the halls of a hospital in London before anyone even looked at her. Nationalized healthcare costs the government billions of dollars that they don’t have, and forces citizens to pay high taxes so that other people can get treatment that they could otherwise do without.

Corporate Government
Government ownership of large companies increases the power, and role of the government, by making us dependant on their products. Now that the government controls GM, they will undoubtedly start to limit the size, carbon footprint, and power of cars that we buy. This will no doubt sound appealing to the environmentalists, but mankind only produces less than one percent of carbon, and other greenhouse gasses, and we are already an exceptionally clean nation. Earths water and air are cleaner now than they have been in decades. More fuel efficient cars come at the expense of comfort, and safety. And if these companies get into debt, it will be our taxes that bail them out.

Tax on Life
"Cap and trade" is a bill that Obama is trying to pass gives the government control over what we can buy and sell. If this bill passes, your house will have to pass government mandated appraisals, (to make sure your house is “Green”) before you are allowed to sell it. Industries will be taxed heavily for every bit of pollution they create, and will pass this expense on to their customers. No one will be exempt from this rise in living expenses, and it is questionable whether or not future generations will be able to support themselves.

Hidden Motivation?
Does Obama really think all these changes will help? His solutions to our problems only create new, worse problems. If you doubt this, don’t take my word for it, do your own research. Obama’s nation that he is creating is not a nation that will last. He is spending billions of dollars that we don’t have on quick fixes. Don’t think I am trying to be offensive, but I don’t think Obama is dumb enough to think he is helping America. If you notice, there is a trend in his bills; they all give him more power. Is Obama a power hungry lunatic? I am not accusing him, but I don’t think it is an impossibility. I think we need to be careful how much power we are giving to our president, because if we wait too long to take action, it might be too late. This is the fourth of July, and I am proud to be an American. Our nation is the most beautiful, powerful, and free nation on the face of the world and I want my kids to grow up as free as I am.

Micro Vs. Macro Evolution

Totally Different Things
There are two different types of evolution, one is micro evolution, the other, macro evolution. They both rely on the fact that creatures have the ability to change. This change can hinder them, or help them become better suited for their environment. The main difference between the two types of evolution is the way that the change takes place, and the amount of change that is able to take place.

Micro Evolution
According to this theory, changes are caused by existing DNA being combined in different ways as a result of cross breeding. This allows plants and animals to adapt each generation to fit their environment as it changes. Of course, these changes are limited, although creatures are able to develop certain characteristics, they will never have the information in their DNA to turn into a different type of creature. The offspring of two dogs will always be a dog since there was no information contributed concerning another creature. The few, and not so common, changes that are not pre-programed into the DNA of a creature are mutations, there have never been any that have caused a gain of information.

Macro Evolution
This hypothesis relies on beneficial mutations, which, over time change a creature into a more advanced type of creature. Although there are examples of mutations, they have never caused a increase in information, and without more complicated genes, a creature would never evolve into a more complicated animal. Instead, almost all mutations, (with the exception of frame shifts) cause a loss of information, any significant losses are almost always deadly. One of my favorite books sums up mutations perfectly. It shows a cartoon of a man, sitting back in his arm chair, chucking rocks at his TV and saying something like, “maybe this next rock will mutate this analog TV into a wide-screen, HD TV”. We all know how ridiculous this is. But if you think a TV is a delicate, complex piece of equipment, try studying the DNA for a day or so. What are the usual outcomes of mutations? Experiments done on fruit flies exposed to radiation over the course of many generations have yielded fruit flies with wrinkled wings, no wings, blind eyes, and other hindrances that would work against natural selection. Out of all the fruit flies, not one was found with a mutation that made it more fit to survive in any way, or make it classified as a different species.

My Conspiracy Theory
Many people get confused over the two different types of evolution. Evolution scientists often take advantage of people because of this. They will find an excellent example of micro evolution, and then tell you that it is the type of evolution that could over time transform a creature into a different type of creature. The truth is, It's not! Micro evolution is outward change; it never produces new DNA, it just combines DNA in different ways. Macro evolution is upward change; it depends on mutations having the ability to produce new, and better DNA. But no matter how far outward you go, you will never go up. in fact, the only vertical change that has been proven to happen is downward change, because mutations can cause a loss of information. We see this in dog breeding, we now have dogs like the poodle who are so different, they are virtually a different type of animal all together. this is not evidence for macro evolution, but rather against it, the poodle has lost information through destructive mutations throughout its genealogy that have rendered it less able to survive, (I knew there was something wrong with those animals). The funny thing is, scientists should know all this stuff. why would they then tell us that we are observing small amounts of macro evolution when they know we are only observing micro evolution? Its because they are pushing an agenda; that science can explain everything without the need of supernatural intervention. And these agendas are what make scientists overlook the problems in their theory, and make evolution into a "blind faith" oriented religion.

Morality

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.

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.

Presuppositions
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.

Observation
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.

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.
Theory
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.

Jesus Freaks

Persecution is Happening
Our culture has accepted the idea that religious persecution has been getting less and less common since way back in the early A.D.’s around Nero’s reign. Everyone is familiar with the coliseum and the holocaust, but few realize the extent of persecution going on today. There are 52 nations in which it is illegal to be a Christian, or to gather together to pray and teach. In fact, there is much more persecution done to Christians now than ever before. Here is the story of

More Love to Thee
North Korea. 1950’s
For years, Pastor Kim and 27 of his flock of Korean saints had lived in hand dug tunnels beneath the earth. Then, as communists were building a road, they discovered the Christians living under ground. The officials brought them out before a crowd of 30,000 in the village of Gok San for public trial and execution. They were told, “Deny Christ or you will die.” But they refused. At this point the head communist officer ordered four children from the group sized and had them prepared for hanging. With ropes tied around their small necks, the officer again commanded the parents to deny Christ. Not one of the believers would deny their faith. They told the children, “We will see you soon in heaven.” The children died quietly. The officer then called for a steam roller to be brought in. He forced the Christians to lie on the ground in its path. As its engine revved, they were given one last chance to recant their faith in Jesus. Again they refused. As the steam roller began to inch forward, the Christians began to sing a song they had often sung together. As their bones and bodies were crushed under the pressure of the massive rollers, their lips uttered the words:

“More love to thee, O Christ, more love to thee. Thee alone I seek, more love to thee. Let sorrow do it’s work, more love to thee. Then shall my latest breath whisper Thy praise. This be the parting cry my heart shall raise; More love, O Christ, to thee.”

The execution was reported in the North Korean press as an act of suppressing superstition.
(Reference: “Jesus Freaks” by DC Talk & Voice of the Martyrs pp. 125.)

A Testimony to Christ
These people were Jesus freaks. Ordinary people who experienced something so powerful, and so life changing, that they were able to stand up against communists, and die a terrible death with peace and even joy. Throughout history, persecutors have been amazed by the love and joy of Christians even in such horrific circumstances. This is a testimony to something greater than human strength, not a mental disorder, not a false hope of eternal life, but the power of God in someone’s life. Christian persecution is alive and well. This particular story was from the 1950’s but I assure you nothing has changed since then. Click on the link below for more information on recent occurrences.
http://www.persecution.com/public/newsroom.aspx?clickfrom=bWFpbl9tZW51