September 18, 2015

From Jim McGuiggan... PLAYING POKER in LIFE

PLAYING POKER in LIFE

  But how does "adventure" in the Lord Jesus show itself? Is it all missionary work in the wild parts of the planet? Is it laying one's life on the line in some forbidding area of the world or living in poverty with the homeless in some chaotic urban location? Sometimes this is the description of adventure in the kingdom of God.   
     There are men and women, girls and boys who ford raging rivers, climb mountains, trek their way through forests and live for months or years in strange circumstances with people whose language and customs they don't understand and have to learn. There are young people out there, far from home, digging wells and building shelters for the homeless and helpless and those in need of clean water that's free of merciless parasites—and they do it all in the name of the Lord Jesus. There are those who die after decades of teaching, far from home and with nothing but the clothes on their backs, a couple of Bibles [their own and one in a foreign language] and a beat-up writing pad, attended by a mere handful of converts.
     But it cannot be that everyone in the Lord Jesus is called to such a life of adventure and devotion. Millions come to God in Christ with the paths of their lives pretty well fixed, married with children perhaps or with precarious health or gifted as students and teachers, or people gifted in business or economic ways, men and women who can make money, employ people, support lovely ventures or people gifted as administrators, builders, architects, construction workers, scientists, government officials, teachers, medical experts and such. All of them gifted by God and expected to express their devotion to him in any of these ways. None of these may carry Bibles or the storied truth to hard-to-get-to parts of the earth but every one of them lay what they can do at the feet of the Lord Jesus. That too is engaging in the adventure
     Whatever their gifts, they're all used out of the same spirit and with the same heart—it's all kingdom work! Parents parenting, children respecting and loving, friends truly befriending, lovers—young and old—loving in honor. What they have in the various and often changing stages of their lives they give to God. They all share the same vision and all give what they have to give to and for God and his creative and redemptive purpose.
There’s a notion abroad among Christians—it’s as popular as it is false—that God’s various non-miraculous gifts are given to Christians only when they become Christians. We seem to forget that God gives these gifts to non-Christians also. The capacity for love, for love of music, love of numbers [as in mathematics], love of literature and words, the creative arts like painting, photography and sculpture. Keep the list going; you know exactly what I mean. 
     The idea that Christians are bereft of God’s good gifts of administration, rational thinking, practical thinking and such before they become Christians is silly. God doesn’t gift people with these by magic! You want magic? Go to the movies. Non-Christians are as gifted in these areas as Christians; such gifts are given by God to the human family and he hands them out in the “natural” way—DNA, neurons and everything else that comes together to make up a healthy human.
     Such gifts can be suppressed or they can be refined and augmented; they can be used to honor God and bless his human family or they can be used for sheer self-service and self-glorification. Whether we use them for self-service or not God can achieve much of his own purpose through their use and whether or not we use them in a selfish way it doesn’t alter the truth that God has gifted us with them that all may benefit and be benefited in his name.
     The Christian would probably say—should say, I think—that God is center, life is a challenge, the challenge sounds out in the middle of a world of human weakness and alienation [the biblical Fall should enter here] and the challenge differs in form and intensity for each person, each family or people depending on their circumstances and environment.
[Take a long look at Genesis 8:21 as a general description of humans and yet note in 9:1-11 what God expects of humans and how grandly he thinks of them! Weak or not, sinful or not, when it comes to humans God is "all in".]
     With the card game Poker as a very limited metaphor, Christians just have to play the hand they've got, don't you think? Sometimes the game seems stacked against you and you’re sure you can't “win”. The good news is that "winning" means no more than playing out the hand you have. It doesn't mean you have to beat “the other guy”. If they have a better hand, then they have to play it well. "Winning" is to be faithful to the hand you've got. When you rise from the table the "owner" greets you with a smile and blesses you for a job well done. It's an "all in" move that gets his pleasure. 
     Right now so many are shoving their chips across the table in an act of trust and saying, "All in." No turning back, no sulking away from the table, no refusing to have anything to do with the game unless they get a great hand, like four aces or a royal flush. 
     When I was a kid I'd hang around "the toss" where the men would gamble on Friday night ["pay night"]. One guy I'll never forget was called "Blackout" [a nickname—never knew his real name]. He'd turn up, watch for a while and then start betting for or against heads or tails. It didn't matter which.  He'd cover everyone's bet until his own money was "all in". Up would go the coins, down they'd come and he'd know where he stood. I saw him clean up more than once. He’d gather up all his winnings [now doubled], button his jacket and leave. I also saw him cleaned out. One toss and his entire pay packet was wiped out. He'd stand for a moment looking thoughtful, then button his coat and walk off without a word. No looking pitiful, no pleading for a handout—nothing like that. Just buttoned his coat and walked away—broke.
     I'm going to take it he was married and so I know his family must have carried the burden when he walked in “skinned”—I'm not approving of his risking his pay and making it tough on his family when he lost but I always admired him and thought about him and thought it must be great to be able to live like that. 
If somehow I'd got hold of a few pennies or maybe a shilling [a quarter] and lost it, I'd go around with the sad look hoping someone would take pity on me and give me, maybe, tuppence, for another start. Not him! When I thought about him—as I did at least once every Friday when I squeezed my way through the crowd of men to get to a place where I could look at Blackout—I didn’t think of the wrong of the situation; I thought only of what struck me as his heroic way—all in!—and how he gallantly took the rough with the smooth. I wanted to be like him! He reminded me of a couple of lines from Kipling’s poem: IF 
             If you can make a heap of all your winnings
             And risk them at one turn of pitch and toss and lose
             And start again at your beginnings
             And never breathe a word about your loss…
     Let me drop the metaphor but not the willingness to risk everything involved in the manner of Blackout and people like him [yes, yes, I do recognize other aspects of the situation] and say that I greatly admire those who say yes to God and “play the game” and rejoice in the sense of adventure. 
     Parents and children, young lovers and friends, accomplished artists, business people, men and women of wealth, power and integrity, ditch-diggers and salespersons, homemakers and nurses, single mothers and fathers, preachers and teachers—gallant people in various parts of the world living out the “ordinary” or the “usual” but living it out with that all in spirit, pleased when things go their way but buttoning their coats and heading on home if the wished-for doesn't come their way.
     Here’s to all you who in God’s name embrace the adventure in the circumstances in which you find yourself! Carrying the pain and the worry and the disappointment and seeing them as elements in the adventure in a chaotic world. You, who carry your own limitations, well aware of them, frustrated by them, wishing they were gone but refusing to walk away from "the game". God bless you, God bless you, God bless you. 

Spending Time with Jim McGuiggan

From Jim McGuiggan... It Was A Very Good Year

It Was A Very Good Year

Five hundred and twenty years before the Christ came to us was a very good year though it didn't begin well. God was ruling the mid-Eastern world through Darius I Hystaspes though it's true that the Greeks refused to accept that "fact" but in Judea the Jews had little choice. A small contingent of Jews had come back to Palestine under the protection of Cyrus the Great (about 538). But they ran into trouble from local enemies and the work of rebuilding the temple ceased under Cambyses (named Artaxerxes in the book of Ezra, see chapter 4) who later went mad and committed suicide. The building of the temp[le was forgotten until Darius' second year (November 520).
The harassed returnees were badly depressed so for eighteen years the temple continued in ruins (Ezra 4:23-24). But they weren't so depressed that they were unable to build their own houses while the house of God was left untouched. All this was perfectly understandable but in the year 520 God thought he had "understood" enough and raised up Haggai and Zechariah the prophets (Ezra 5:1) to tell the Jews to get their minds back on God and to show it by building him a house (Ezra 5:2; Haggai 1:1-3).
Depressed or not, the Jewish community while ignoring the temple had been working hard to feather their own nests. To their dismay the crops failed as the result of a drought, inflation made their money worthless so the basics of life were hard to come by. They were eating little, wearing old clothes and counting their dwindling cash resources (Haggai 1:5-6). However they explained it they didn't catch on that God was trying to get their attention (Haggai 1:9-11 and compare Amos 4) and that's when God told Haggai and Zechariah to speak a few words to them and put the drought and the consequent inflation in perspective. These harsh realities were not merely physical, climatic and economic, they were theological!
Within three weeks Zerubbabel the civil leader, Joshua the high priest and the whole community were working on the temple (1:1,14-15).
About four weeks into the work (Haggai 2:1) the prophet has a message for the leader. It's true the temple building was under way but the old leading men were not impressed and it seemed to be discouraging both Zerubbabel and a significant number of others. As boys the old men had seen the temple of Solomon and this pathetic little temple was hardly worth bothering with. Those who hadn't seen it would have some sense of where the foundations and walls had been by such ruins as had been left visible (2:3). Add the moaning of the old ones and the gloom that hung over the community for numerous other reasons and the need for assurance becomes clear.
Zerubbabel and Joshua (most likely) are present with the gathered people somewhere near the temple area where everyone can look at the outline of it while the prophet speaks (2:4). He assures them all that this temple, which is the continuation of the former glorious temple (2:3) will one day be more glorious than its former condition (2:9). The Lord says that all the gold and silver of the world is his, implying that is not what makes a temple glorious (2:8). What matters is that the Spirit of the Lord dwells in the people (2:5).
Two months later the prophet is back with another message (2:10-19). The point of the message has to be hunted for and it is given on the basis of a priestly decision. The oracle does seem to suggest that what you build is only pure if you are pure. God wasn't especially anxious for them to build a physical temple but was more interested in abiding in them. If now they are building the temple as a "lucky shrine" then the temple is no better than their motives. If they seek him rather than his gifts; if they seek him to please him rather than have him as "drought insurance" they will be blessed.
Later that day the prophet gets another word for the leader of the community, David's descendant, that the turmoil that is developing among the nations is not to concern him or the new community (2:20-23). In the midst of it all he is to remember that this is the work of God and that God will preserve the house of David and keep his royal covenant (see Psalm 89).
Spending Time with Jim McGuiggan

From Jim McGuiggan... Life In The Big Paneled Houses

Life In The Big Paneled Houses

The Judeans had begun to build the temple but local opposition and shrewd politics brought a letter from the office of Cambyses ordering public building to stop. (He's named Ahauserus and Artaxerxes-in Ezra 4:6-7 and he reigned from 530-522.) There's good reason to believe that the local critics had lied about the kind of building the Jews were building because king Cyrus the Great (father of Cambyses) had explicitly allowed Israel to rebuild the house of the Lord (Ezra 1:1-4). They probably made out that a fortress was being built though the truth is some temples were only a little less that a fortress. At a later date these local opponents will try to stop Nehemiah building my spreading the word he was declaring himself king (Nehemiah 6:5-7). In any case the Jews quit building--the temple that is.
But they went ahead and built their houses. Finished them too with panels (Haggai 1:4). God wasn't jealous of their houses, he didn't care if they'd been situated in Acapulco but he was jealous of where their hearts were situated and when the temple lay untouched for something like twelve years he spoke his piece (Haggai 1:2-4).
But it wasn't just how long the temple lay in ruins that troubled God because he was never particularly impressed with temples (see 2 Samuel 7:5-7); it was their continued excusing of themselves. "Oh, the work on the temple should be renewed, there's no doubt about that; but not right now," they said (1:2). And while they put it off they died a little each day. On the surface their delay makes sense but God must have known things that we don't so he spoke to them about it; besides, the Persian court was in an uproar that God had started (Haggai 2:6-7 and 20-23). At first God spoke to them through crop failure and the resultant inflation (1:6-7) but that didn't register so he called Haggai and Zechariah to have a word with them.
It's a bit ironic that they lived in the paneled houses but had little to eat. They had fine houses but their money was devalued. We need more than the house of our dreams, don't we? God knew he was what they needed so when he called them to build him a house (1:8) he wasn't sulking. He says he made life hard for them (it wasn't just "bad luck") to get them to turn to him (1:9-11).
What's life in the big paneled house when God sits homeless on the hill? And where did they get their houses? God built them for them; and they leave him sitting in the ruins of his? You understand it wasn't their building he wanted. He wanted their hearts and wanted them to show it by the building.
But when God calls us to worship it isn't self-centred or vanity. He's worthy of all our worship of course but we need to worship him more than he feels the need of our worship. Life in the big paneled house without a place to draw us together in worship and prayer and confession--that's life taking a nose-dive.
Spending Time with Jim McGuiggan

Human Embryonic Stem Cells and Drug Testing by Eric Lyons, M.Min.

http://apologeticspress.org/APContent.aspx?category=7&article=332

Human Embryonic Stem Cells and Drug Testing

by Eric Lyons, M.Min.


Imagine walking into a laboratory and seeing thousands of one-month-old babies being forced to ingest experimental drugs. Scientists are testing a new kind of heart medicine on group A. Group B is taking a drug that scientists hope will slow the progress of Parkinson’s disease. Group C is given both experimental drugs. Researchers are especially focusing on the children’s livers in hopes that the drugs prove to be non-toxic. While there, several of the babies in Group A flat-line after scientists gave them a third dose of the experimental heart medicine. No effort is taken to revive the children. Instead, scientists immediately begin taking them away to inspect the heart and liver of each child. Afterward, the bodies of the children are thrown into a furnace, consumed, and forgotten.
Though you may think that such a scenario occurs only in sci-fi movies, consider that Scientific American recently reported how “[t]hree of Europe’s top drugmakers have backed a new public-private scheme to use stem cells for safety testing of experimental medicines” (Hirschler, 2007). Three drug companies and the British government have given a combined $2.1 million to start a non-profit British company called Stem Cells for Safer Medicines. “By working across academic and industrial laboratories, the project aims to develop effective ways of using human embryonic stem cells to screen for potentially dangerous side effects of new drugs before they go into clinical trials” (Hirschler, 2007, emp. added). Alok Jha, science correspondent for The Guardian, noted how Stem Cells for Safer Medicines is “aimed at turning human embryonic stem cells into liver tissue” that “could then be used early during drug development to weed out harmful compounds” (2007). What’s more, “[t]he research could also help reduce the number of animals used to test drugs” (Jha).
Although PETA must be ecstatic with Britain’s new company, the Creator of life is not. Human life is precious (cf. Genesis 9:6). Humans are the only creatures made in the image of God (Genesis 1:26-27). Willfully terminating the lives of humans who are in embryonic stages (whether in utero or ex utero) is murder. Regardless of man’s reasons (e.g., to cure diseases, to make drugs safer, to save animals, etc.), the destruction of innocent human life is wrong. God hates “hands that shed innocent blood” (Proverbs 6:17). What could be more innocent than a human in the embryonic stage of life (cf. Matthew 18:3)?

REFERENCES

Hirschler, Ben (2007), “Glaxo, Astra, Roche Back Stem Cells for Drug Tests,” Science News, October 2, [On-line], URL: http://www.sciam.com/article.cfm?alias=glaxo-astra-roche-back-st& chanId=sa003&modsrc=reuters_box.
Jha, Alok (2007), “Stem Cell Bank for Drug Testing May Cut Animal Experiments,” The Guardian, October 3, [On-line], URL: http://www.guardian.co.uk/science/2007/oct/03/stemcells.animalrights.

Hurrah for Texas by Dave Miller, Ph.D.


http://apologeticspress.org/APContent.aspx?category=7&article=1672

Hurrah for Texas

by Dave Miller, Ph.D.


Culturally critical times, these. The moral and spiritual future of America is on the line. The massive reorientation of American civilization over the last 50 years has clarified the crystallization of two diametrically opposed ideologies. The chasm between these two ideologies is deep and wide. Simply put, the ideological antithesis is between those who embrace the Christian worldview and those who do not.
The social revolution ignited by the post-World War II baby boomer generation in the 1960s has slowly but surely encroached on traditional American values (i.e., those drawn from the Bible). The formidable philosophical shifting has come about one skirmish at a time—a school board decision here, a judge’s decision there; a television program that pushed the envelope of decency and sexual propriety here, a politician promoting relaxed moral stands there. This gradual, steady chipping away at America’s two-century-old foundation has achieved the accumulation of a remarkable number of most unfortunate strides—not the least of which has been the blatant and visible defense of homosexuality in the public arena.
The sleeping giant of the “moral majority” is gradually asserting itself. The shocking, startling series of events that culminated in the legalization of homosexual marriage by the state of Massachusetts (seeMiller, 2004) appears to have prodded citizens into action. The definition of marriage is being hotly debated state-by-state with a view toward enacting amendments to state constitutions. Texas is the latest to step forward on the issue. On Tuesday, November 8, Texans voted overwhelmingly to deny same-sex marriage and reaffirm the biblical definition of marriage (Garrett, 2005). Texas became the 19th state to amend their constitution in an effort to prevent activist judges from rewriting law in order to advance the homosexual agenda.
Americans must wake up to the fact that homosexuality is a watershed issue that will alter the course of the nation. The very fabric of society is at stake. If the slide to the left is not checked, the moral climate will degenerate, and eventually God’s justice will manifest itself in the form of calamity and punishment.

REFERENCES

Garrett, Robert (2005), “Gay-Marriage Ban Coasts,” The Dallas Morning News, November 9, [On-line], URL: http://www.dallasnews.com/sharedcontent/dws/dn/latestnews/stories/ 110905dntexgaymarriage.33aedcc.html.
Miller, Dave (2004), “Massachusetts and Gay Marriages,” [On-line], URL:http://www.apologeticspress.org/articles/2384.

Illegal to Teach American History—in America? by Dave Miller, Ph.D.


http://apologeticspress.org/APContent.aspx?category=7&article=1470

Illegal to Teach American History—in America?

by Dave Miller, Ph.D.


A fifth grade history teacher has been prohibited from using primary American history documents to teach his students. Why? You won't believe it. School principal Patricia Vidmar, with the backing of the Cupertino Union School District (in the San Francisco Bay area suburb of Cupertino, California) instructed social studies teacher Stephen Williams to stop using American historical documents in his classes because they refer to God. The Stevens Creek School teacher was informed that the foundational document of American history—the Declaration of Independence—and others like it, possess religious overtones. In addition to the Declaration of Independence, among the materials rejected by the principal as unsuitable for the classroom are George Washington's journal, John Adams’ diary, Samuel Adams’ The Rights of the Colonists, and William Penn's The Frame of Government of Pennsylvania.
Talk about “political correctness” run amok! The case is simply one more instance among hundreds of the widespread misconception that the constitution and its Framers intended to establish a religionless republic. It further demonstrates the conspiratorial-like agenda of liberal educators, judges, and politicians to sanitize American history by expunging the factuality of America's Christian heritage. Make no mistake, if they get their way—and they have made significant strides in the last fifty years—American civilization will continue its downward spiral into moral depravity and eventual dissolution. The Founders themselves so predicted.
For example, Noah Webster affirmed in 1829: “The Christian religion, in its purity, is the basis, or rather the source of all genuine freedom in government…and I am persuaded that no civil government of a republican form can exist and be durable in which the principles of that religion have not a controlling influence” (as quoted in Snyder, 1990, p. 253). Charles Carroll, one of the signers of theDeclaration of Independence, in a letter to James McHenry on November 4, 1800, claimed: “[W]ithout morals a republic cannot subsist any length of time; they therefore who are decrying the Christian religion, whose morality is so sublime and pure…are undermining the solid foundation of morals, the best security for the duration of free governments” (as quoted in Steiner, 1907, p. 475).
The first president and “father of our country,” George Washington, insisted in 1788:
No country upon earth ever had it more in its power to attain these blessings than United America. Wondrously strange, then, and much to be regretted indeed would it be, were we to neglect the means and to depart from the road which Providence has pointed us to so plainly; I cannot believe it will ever come to pass (1835, 9:391-39).
In his “Inaugural Address” in 1789, Washington further asserted: “The propitious smiles of Heaven can never be expected on a nation that disregards the eternal rules of order and right which Heaven itself has ordained” (American State Papers…, 1833, 1:9-10).
The governor of Connecticut (and signer of the Declaration of Independence), Samuel Huntington, said in 1788: “While the great body of freeholders are acquainted with the duties which they owe to their God, to themselves, and to men, they will remain free. But if ignorance and depravity should prevail, they will inevitably lead to slavery and ruin” (as quoted in Elliot, 1836, 2:200).
Many other great Americans understood the connection between America's survival and her attachment to the God of the Bible. For example, Theodore Roosevelt insisted: “A churchless community, a community where men have abandoned and scoffed at or ignored their religious needs, is a community on the rapid down grade” (n.d.). Supreme Allied Commander during World War II and later U.S. president, Dwight D. Eisenhower, explained: “Without God there could be no American form of government nor an American way of life. Recognition of the Supreme Being is the first—the most basic—expression of Americanism” (as quoted in Claybourn, n.d.).
Even Thomas Jefferson, who is believed to be the principal architect of the Constitution, joined his voice to the symphony of voices that maintained that America's security ultimately resides in its commitment to the one true God—the very God that the California school board seeks to expunge from the classroom: “Can the liberties of a nation be thought secure when we have removed their only firm basis, a conviction in the minds of the people that these liberties are of the gift of God? That they are not to be violated but with his wrath? Indeed I tremble for my country when I reflect that God is just: that his justice cannot sleep forever” (1787, Query XVIII).
In the spirit of the Founding Fathers, who registered their objections to their British oppressors, social studies teacher Williams has filed a discriminatory suit in U.S. District Court in San José, claiming violations of his right to free speech under the First Amendment. Stay tuned.

REFERENCES

American State Papers: Documents Legislative and Executive, of the Congress of the United States(1833), (Washington, DC: Gales and Seaton).
Claybourn, Joshua (no date), “God in the Public Square,” [On-line], URL: http://www.hoosierreview.com/claybourn_files/claybourn7.html
Elliot, Jonathan, ed. (1836), Debates in the Several States Conventions on the Adoption of the Federal Constitution (Washington, DC: Jonathan Elliot).
Jefferson, Thomas (1787), Notes on the State of Virginia, [On-line], URL: http://www.yale.edu/lawweb/avalon/jevifram.htm.
Moore, Jimmy (2004), “Teacher Told Declaration not Allowed in Class Due to 'God’ Reference,” Talon News, [On-line], URL: http://www.gopusa.com/news/2004/december/1202_ca_teacher_declarationp.shtml.
Roosevelt, Theodore (no date), “Nine Reasons Why a Man Should Go to Church,” Theodore Roosevelt Association, [On-line], URL: http://www.theodoreroosevelt.org/life/Church9reasons.htm.
Snyder, K. Alan (1990), Defining Noah Webster: Mind and Morals in the Early Republic (New York: University Press of America).
Steiner, Bernard C. (1907), The Life and Correspondence of James McHenry (Cleveland, OH: The Burrows Brothers).
Washington, George (1835), The Writings of George Washington, ed. Jared Sparks (Boston, MA: Russell, Odiorne, and Metcalf).
Whitcomb, Dan (2004), “Declaration of Independence Banned at Calif. School,” Reuters, [On-line],URL: http://www.reuters.com/printerFriendlyPopup.jhtml?type=topNews&storyID=6911883.

Dawkins’ Indirect Scientific Inference by Kyle Butt, M.A.


http://apologeticspress.org/APContent.aspx?category=9&article=3788

Dawkins’ Indirect Scientific Inference

by Kyle Butt, M.A.


In his latest book, The Greatest Show on Earth, Richard Dawkins declares that “the ‘theory’ of evolution is actually a fact—as incontrovertible a fact as any in science” (2009, p. vii). He wrote the book because he noted that in his previous books he “realized that the evidence for evolution itself was nowhere explicitly set out, and that this was a serious gap” that he “needed to close” (p. vii). In his failed attempt to close that gap, Dawkins delineated the kind of “evidence” that he would be relying upon. He noted that much of the “evidence” for evolution is necessarily not direct, eyewitness evidence. He stated:
Obviously, the vast majority of evolutionary change is invisible to direct eye-witness observation. Most of it happened before we were born, and in any case it is usually too slow to be seen during an individual’s lifetime.... With evolution, as with continental drift, inference after the event is all that is available to us, for the obvious reason that we don’t exist until after the event. But do not for one nanosecond underestimate the power of such inference (p. 16).
Along those same lines, Dawkins wrote: “I shall never again be tempted to give eyewitness testimony an automatic preference over indirect scientific inference” (p. 15).
The important point to notice in this regard is that often the creationist is criticized by the evolutionary community for suggesting that creation at the hand of a supernatural Creator is a scientific idea. We are told that since scientists cannot touch, see, taste, hear, or smell the Creator directly, here and now, then that “hypothesis” simply cannot be considered scientific. Yet such an assessment of Creation is inaccurate. Creation is simply, in the words of Richard Dawkins, “inference after the event” that deserves as much or more credit, according to Dawkins, as “eyewitness testimony” (cf. Butt, 2007).
In fact, the biblical explanation of Creation clearly defines the concept almost exactly as Dawkins has defined acceptable evidence. Romans 1:20 states: “For since the creation of the world His [God’s] invisible attributes are clearly seen, being understood by the things that are made, even His eternal power and Godhead, so that they are without excuse.” A cursory look at the verse shows that (1) people in Paul’s time (as well as our own) were not around to directly observe the act of Creation, (2) the evidence available to Paul’s readers (and modern people) is enough to positively infer the concept of Creation and the existence of a Creator, (3) improper scientific inference from the available evidence would result in a complete misunderstanding of the origin of the Universe.
Dawkins is exactly right that real scientific inference based on indirect observation is an excellent way to arrive at facts and knowledge. Sadly, he is woefully incorrect in his assessment that such inferences substantiate evolution. The fact of the matter is, all properly formulated scientific inferences based on factual scientific evidence establish the conclusion that a supernatural Creator designed our amazing Universe.

REFERENCES

Butt, Kyle (2007), “Indirect Observation,” http://www.apologeticspress.org/articles/3243.
Dawkins, Richard (2009), The Greatest Show on Earth (New York: Free Press).

Dead Teen Understood Implications of Evolution by Kyle Butt, M.A.


http://apologeticspress.org/APContent.aspx?category=9&article=2308

Dead Teen Understood Implications of Evolution

by Kyle Butt, M.A.


It is the bitter truth that the theory of evolution implies that no moral absolutes hold sway over the human populace. If it is true that humans evolved from non-living, primordial slime, then any sense of moral obligation must simply be a subjective outworking of the physical neurons firing in the brain. Theoretically, atheistic scientists and philosophers admit this truth. On a pragmatic level, however, when a person or group of people actually allow the theoretical idea to influence their actions, the brutality of evolution’s immorality is brought to light, and its absurdity is manifested.
For instance, recently in Finland an 18-year-old young man named Pekka Eric Auvinen marched into his school, shot and killed seven of his schoolmates and the headmistress. He then turned the gun on himself and committed suicide. When such gruesome carnage occurs, the question that naturally arises is, “Why?” What would drive a young man like Auvinen to commit such horrific atrocities? In Auvinen’s case, the answer is clear.
Auvinen explained the philosophy that led him to commit this dastardly mass murder. On a Web site message board post from before the slaying, he explained that he was a self-avowed “cynical existentialist, anti-human humanist, anti-social social-Darwinist, realistic idealist and god-like atheist.” He went on to state: “I, as a natural selector, will eliminate all who I see unfit, disgraces of human race and failures of natural selection” (“Teen Dead...,” 2007, emp. added). There you have it. The reason he murdered eight innocent people is because he was an atheistic evolutionist who devalued human life and believed that he had the right to destroy any living being who he considered to be less fit than himself.
As much as evolutionists would love to distance themselves from such disgusting displays of immorality, the logical implications of their godlessness tie them indubitably to Auvinen’s actions. The only thing that separates Auvinen from other atheists is that he acted out the logical implication of his atheistic belief. It is high time atheism’s immorality is recognized, repudiated, and exposed for the reprehensible fruit it bears.

REFERENCES

“Teen Dead Who Opened Fire on Finnish Classmates, Police Say” (2007), [On-line], URL:http://www.cnn.com/2007/WORLD/europe/11/07/school.shooting/index.html.

Decisive Designs: God's Stallion of the Sea by Taylor Reeves

http://apologeticspress.org/APContent.aspx?category=9&article=1374

Decisive Designs: God's Stallion of the Sea

by Taylor Reeves


There is a tremendous variety of life in the world. Few of us can identify all of the birds that soar above us, the flowers and grasses that spring forth from the fertile ground, or the 850,000 identified species of insects (the largest single group of extant organisms). The creatures in the seas, however, have fascinated us perhaps more than any other living creatures. Fifteen hundred years before Christ was born, Moses recorded that God had created the oceans and seas with “an abundance of living creatures” (Genesis 1:20). We had no idea just how accurate that statement was until the science of oceanography (and, more specifically, the science of marine biology) came into its own. Once we developed not just the desire to study the Earth’s oceans and seas, but also the technology to master them, it became apparent to us that most of the world’s species of animals live in the water, not on dry land. And many of them certainly rank among the most intriguing!
The oceans teem with extraordinary and wondrous organisms that variously fill us with awe, engulf us with terror, or leave us struggling to find adequate terms to describe their innate beauty. From the largest creature ever to inhabit the Earth (the blue whale—which has a heart the size of a small car!), to the tiniest zooplankton, we often find ourselves filled with astonishment at the extraordinary niches they inhabit, the amazing tasks they perform, and the intricate design they exhibit.
For example, squids manufacture and expel ink. Various species of eels generate electricity. Octopi use undulating tentacles to ensnare prey. Eagle rays dip their wing-like pectoral fins into the mud while using suction to pull out clams. Some mussels produce powerful chemicals that “drill” out holes in hard coral for a habitation. Dolphins use sonar to communicate. And so on (see Macquitty, 2000, pp. 10,25,29,33).
Sea Horse IllustrationCan you imagine a fish that looks like a horse—but swims like a submarine? God apparently did—and then created the “stallion of the sea”—the superb sea horse. These peculiar “horses,” however, do not gallop gracefully through a flowering valley, drink from a long wooden trough, or journey across the dusty, remote trails under a magnificent, vibrant sunset. Rather, these horses stylishly swim within the kelp-filled meadows of the sea.
The head of a chess piece, the tail of a monkey, a rigid body that seems to be carved from wood, eyes like a chameleon, and a father who becomes pregnant—all of these describe the unique sea horse, which, oddly enough, does not resemble a fish in any way (see Parker, p. 22). There are about 35 identified species of “ocean equines,” the largest of which easily can grow to be a foot in length. They live in tepid, shallow seacoasts, and forcefully resist strong currents by grasping tightly to objects. They grip so tightly with their prehensile tails that it is difficult to get them to let go (“Sea Horse,” 1991, p. 342). While sea horses are fish, they have skin, rather than the typical scales. That skin, which is tightly yet carefully stretched over numerous sharp, bony plates, produces growths to match surrounding vegetation. Although the sea horse does not possess teeth or a stomach, it “inhales” small, tough crustaceans and sluggish pieces of floating matter through its elongated, pipe-like snout.
For fish like these, which subsist in weeds and eat plankton, being able to maintain a fixed position, and blend in with their environment, are essential survival skills. Sea horses swim uprightly, propelled by a strong, waving dorsal fin. The small pectoral fins help steer the direction of the animal as it gallantly glides through the waving waters. It has a tapering, muscular, grasping tail that conceals itself in the jungle-like underwater world of seaweed and grasses (Parker, 2000, p. 22). The fins move fast, but the sea horse does not—because it does not have to! What it needs is the ability to perform fast turns, and to move upward and downward quickly. Interestingly, the motion of its fins is perfect for both tasks.
One of the general aspects of nature is that it is the responsibility of the female to produce the young, feed them as they grow, and prepare them to survive on their own. Different creatures handle this task in different ways, but in the case of the sea horse, the female seems to have better things to do than give birth and nurture babies, because these jobs are turned over to the male (Harris, 1991, p. 91). The sea horse exhibits extraordinary design, in that it is the only known animal where the male actually becomes pregnant and gives birth to the offspring. One could say that it performs “double duty!” First, the male produces the sperm necessary to fertilize the egg—just as occurs in most other species. But, second, the male also banks the zygote that will become the embryo, and that eventually will produce the neonate.
During mating, the pair produces unique musical sounds, and then, at the end of the ritual, the female deposits her fertilized eggs in the male’s specialized pouch. Normally, the mating ritual lasts for three days. This ceremony includes color changes, dancing, and grasping random objects. For the two weeks that follow, the male carefully aerates, nourishes, and protects the eggs. When the embryos are mature, the tiny sea horses are born—ready to swim!
God is so creative! He thought up millions of different types of animals, insects, and other living creatures. And as a “finishing touch,” He created one that had the capability to do “double duty” as both mother and father. What decisive design!
As the patriarch Job remarked in the great long ago, “Speak to the earth, and it will teach you; and the fish of the sea will explain to you” (Job 12:8). What, exactly, do the fish “explain”? They speak eloquently of the Creator Whose handiwork is all around us. From the highest reaches of the sky, to the lowest depths of the ocean, the unbiased eye can see the evidence that points unfailingly to God’s existence.

REFERENCES

Harris, Bill (1991), Nature’s Curious Creatures (New York: Smithmark).
Macquitty, Miranda (2000), Ocean (New York: Dorling Kindersley).
Parker, Steve (2000), Fish (New York: Dorling Kindersley).
“Sea Horse—Hippocampus” (1991), Reader’s Digest Nature in America (New York: Readers Digest).

Decisive Designs: The Mallee’s Tongue: Terrific Temperature-Telling Talent by Nathaniel Nelson


http://apologeticspress.org/APContent.aspx?category=9&article=1480

Decisive Designs: The Mallee’s Tongue: Terrific Temperature-Telling Talent

by Nathaniel Nelson


The modern inventions and innovations of man can be seen in almost every facet of our lives. The thermometer is one fine example of human ingenuity. Parents are familiar with taking their children’s temperature (sometimes quite frequently). Insert a thermometer, and voilà! Several seconds later, the temperature is displayed as a bar of mercury (or electronically), and one can read the temperature with ease. Even as we give homage to these fascinating devices, on occasion we tend to remain blind to the equally fascinating design that has been imprinted on the Earth and its creatures by the Great Designer. Take the mallee fowl, for example. Before man ever even thought of creating the simplest of contraptions, this bird was assessing temperature for its unborn babies. As the apostle Paul put it: “God has chosen the weak things of the world to put to shame the things which are mighty” (1 Corinthians 1:27). Man’s conceptions may be mighty, but God has put them to shame with a bird as simple as the mallee.
The Outback of Australia is home to this magnificent bird. The hot temperatures and dry climate do not deter the mallee, though. During its mating season, the male creates for its partner’s eggs a nest that has an average circumference of 70 feet, and is over three feet in height. In the 1700s, the first white settlers came upon the mallee fowl’s nests and, due to the unbelievable size of these sandy dunes, at first believed that they were aborigine burial grounds (Junor, 1998).
In order to make its nest, the male must first dig out a hole in early winter. Over the course of the winter, the mallee will begin to place sticks and other brush inside the hole, forming a canopy of litter across the top. As spring begins, the mallee fowl will cover the debris with a layer of sand to allow for fermentation of the litter beneath the surface. The nest will remain in this state until mating season (autumn). At this point, the nest has been thoroughly warmed by the decomposed waste. The male makes a hole in the top of the mound, where the female then lays a single egg. About a week later, the male will make another hole and the female will lay another egg. This process goes on until there are about eighteen eggs in the nest.
But building a nest is only half the battle. The other half involves temperature maintenance in the mound. This job, once again, is left to the male mallee. Several times a day, the male inserts his beak into the pile of debris and sand. He proceeds to stick out his tongue, which is such a good thermometer that it can measure a temperature change as small as 1/10 of a degree! After assessing the temperature, the male can act accordingly. If the nest is too hot, he removes some of the sand covering the nest. If the nest is too cold, the male adds sticks to produce more heat, and sand to insulate the mound from the surroundings. The temperature must be kept at exactly 33 degrees Celsius, and must be maintained to within one degree in order for the unborn chicks to survive while still in the nest.
This scenario gives rise to important questions: (1) How did the mallee fowl “know” to pile sticks and other debris inside the nest in order to moderate the temperature? (2) Why (and how) did such a temperature-evaluating device arise (in the form of a tongue)? Tough questions—the answers to which lie in the intricate design of this amazing bird that is attributable to the Great Designer.

REFERENCE

Junor, Lloyd (1998), “The Mallee Fowl,” Whimpey’s Little Desert Tour, [On-line], URL: http://www.aussieoutback.com.au/showcase/whimpy/lowan.html.