"Minions of the Devil"

"You're nothing but a minion of the devil!" Strange words, coming from a biology professor at a 'Christian' college.

A few days ago I received a mailing from Dordt College. The leaflet's message was very positive and apparently conservative; every page mentioned God in one way or another. Their point? Taken from their website, http://www.dordt.edu/, "Ours is a community where faith and life and learning are not separate ... they're one." Since many Christian schools teach evolutionism and liberal ideology, I decided to see whether Dordt had a strong stance on the authority of Scripture. I left a message with one of their professors. Yesterday, the professor called back. He introduced himself as the top biology teacher at Dordt (I didn't get his name). I asked what the school taught about origins. He asked me to explain, so I asked specifically what the school's position was on the origin of life. "We teach that God created everything but we don't assume when or how," he replied. I wanted more details so I asked whether they taught the earth was thousands or billions of years old. After explaining that he was not a geology professor, he assured me that "of course, the earth is much more than thousands!" I did not agree, but kept it to myself. He began asking me questions about my beliefs about origins. As the conversation went on, it soon became apparent that the college teaches what sadly is prevalent in the mainstream Christian world today: 'God did it, but instead of looking to His Word for answers we will teach whatever the secular scientific consortium tells us.' I politely but firmly defended a Biblical interpretation of Genesis as he continued to question me. The professor avowed his support of the 'framework theory', which apparently ignores Genesis 1 and loosely interprets Genesis 2. He said that "if you just read Genesis 2, you would have a much different story than if you have the bias given by Genesis 1," implying, of course, that any "bias" is negative. I pointed out that if I only had the first chapter of my science textbook, I would have a very different idea of physics than if I read the whole book. He indicated that he had left a six-day interpretation of Genesis because of scientific 'evidence'. I replied that as "all Scripture is given by inspiration of God," it is and should be its own best interpretation guide. He countered by exclaiming that I was "making an idol" of the Bible. Not my interpretation of the Bible, but the Bible itself. I was somewhat taken aback. After all, isn't that what we are supposed to do? I quoted John 1: "In the beginning was the Word, and the Word was with God, and the Word was God." Also, Psalm 138:2: "For You have magnified Your Word above all Your name." I said that making an idol of Scripture sounded like a good idea to me, as it is the living Word of God! He replied that I was "just making an idol of the Bible," and went on. He quoted almost every evolutionist stock answer in the book: from "it doesn't matter how God did it as long as we get the right message" to "the Bible isn't a science textbook." He finally asked me how old I thought the earth was, and laughed when I gave an age of 6-7 thousand years, due to the genealogies and a plain reading of Genesis 1-11. He then attacked the validity of Scripture by saying that the genealogies are full of errors. He called my position "historically bankrupt," declaring that hardly anyone in history supported six days of creation. I politely contradicted him, pointing out that Sir Isaac Newton, Galileo, and Jesus all believed in a young earth; after all, Jesus said "at the beginning of creation He made them male and female." I had told him earlier that I planned to go into a legal field, so he asked why the creation-evolution issue was important to me. I explained that the foundations of morality and sin lie in Genesis, and that unless it can be trusted there is no rhyme or reason to anything I might do in law. "Besides," I said, "my entire faith hinges on the fact that there was no death before sin." I quoted Romans when it says that "through one man, Adam, sin entered the world, and death through sin." He hastily asserted that "obviously, he is speaking of spiritual death and separation from God!" But, I told him, Paul had just said that if Christ did not conquer the same death that "entered by Adam's sin" by physically raising from the dead, our faith is in vain and we are of all men "most miserable." So unless I believe that there was no death, physical or otherwise, before sin, I cannot believe I am heaven-bound. Rather than considering God's Word for what it says, the biologist again struck at Scripture by asking whether I believed Adam and the animals ate before the Fall. I knew what was coming, and sure enough he played what he thought was his trump card against God's Word: plants died before the Fall so it proves death before sin (and, therefore, apparently proves Paul wrong). I pointed out the concept of nephesh chayil life; that just as "the life of the flesh is in the blood" and that God "breathes the breath of life into life," that as plants have neither blood nor breath, it follows that plants are not alive in a biblical sense and cannot really die. He cut me off and quickly told me that the entire biological system is built around the 'fact' that plants are alive and can die. Which is patently false: as Dr. Lisle of Answers In Genesis pointed out when speaking with progressive creationist Hugh Ross, plants are really nothing more than complex biological machines. But rather than argue from a scientific basis I just said that "God apparently does not rely on scientific models to determine truth." By this time the professor was getting rather agitated. He told me my life was a waste and that my view was "junk science and junk theology." "If you know so much about it, I suppose you don't need to come to college." "The only point of Genesis," he said, "is to show that we are depraved and need a Savior, and that we should respect God's creation. When you stand before God, if you get there, He will ask you what you did with His creation and all you will be able to say is that you argued over a six-day creation viewpoint. You won't have anything to say!" I refrained from replying that I believe upholding the authority of God's Word and making sure it is believed from cover to cover bears eternal fruit. He declared that debate on origins was a lie from the devil, and that for talking about origins I was "just one of the devil's minions." Then he calmed down and informed me that he had just been "professing", and that as a 'professor' that is what he teaches at the college. This really sold Dordt well. After all, if upholding God's Word and being ready to give an answer is "the work of the devil" according to the teachings of this college, I will definitely not be applying there. What struck me about this conversation was that he had the boldness to say that upholding the authority of Scripture is equivalent to the work of the devil. This puts me in mind of Isaiah 5:20, "Woe to those who call evil good, and good evil; who put darkness for light, and light for darkness." The reason that we defend a plain-sense interpretation of Scripture is this; Christ told us to preach the Good News of His redemption: that all men are depraved and in need of a Savior, and that He is that Savior. In order to do this, we must tell why we are depraved, that God created the world perfect but man fell into sin and so brought death and suffering into the world. If we do not teach the first part of God's Word, telling everyone why mankind needs a Savior, they will have no reason to believe us when we tell them Who that Savior is. As Jesus told Nicodemus in John 3:12, "If I have told you earthly things and you do not believe, how will you believe if I tell you heavenly things?"

In Him,

David S. MacMillan III


All religions okay . . . except one!

At the Tulsa Zoo in Tulsa, Oklahoma, displays include a myriad of religious symbols. But one religion is anathema. The displays include Native American mysticism in the shape of a globe saying "The Earth is our Mother, the Sky is our Father" and statues of the Indian god Ganesha. An elaborate painting of the Pueblo rain god Tlaloc heralds South American deities and beliefs. But when local leaders asked the Tulsa Zoo board of directors to include the Genesis account of Creation as one of their displays, they were turned down. Why? They didn't want to include "religious symbols." After several petitions went out, the board finally voted to allow the display at left to be placed in the zoo (click image to enlarge). Sadly, however, what a local news poll confirmed as a 25% minority has convinced the board members to overturn the decision and block this display. The reason is that scientific creationism is believed by the majority of Americans. Its ideas are sound and it is founded in good scientific inquiry. A display suggesting this view might influence visitors away from Evolutionism. Without the theory of evolution, we might just be accountable to a Supreme Being for our actions . . . an idea that the board members at the Tulsa Zoo obviously find horrific. Dan Hicks, the Tulsa mayor, is spearheading the campaign to get this display okayed for the zoo. He and others have set up an online petition for this issue. I encourage all of my readers to sign this; it will only take a few moments and it is well worth your time. Imagine what a victory it would be to end this censorship! Sign the petition at www.CREATEzoo.org. As I write this, there are well over 200 signatures so far. We must make this number balloon! I will be counting the number of clicks on the above link to find out how many of you are going! In Him, D3


The Kingdom of Antichrist

Prophetic scriptures speak of a coming Antichrist. In Daniel 9, it is the "prince who is to come" who will make a global treaty at the end of time but break will it after three and a half years. In 2 Thessalonians 2, he is the "man of sin", the "son of perdition" who will sit in the Jewish temple and declare himself God. This chapter also tells us that this world leader will be "consumed in the brightness of the Lord's Coming." Both Revelation and Daniel speak of a symbolic beast who will micromanage the entire global system through his ten-section government. He will go out to resist the Glorious Appearing of Jesus Christ but will be destroyed. When Jesus came the first time, His appearance was heralded by hundreds of distinct prophecies. You have all heard the statistics; for one man to fulfill just 48 prophecies would require odds of 1 in 10 to the 157th power: literally astronomical. Likewise, the Lord gave us hundreds of prophecies telling us about His second coming. Many of these scriptures speak distinctly about the government of the Antichrist; its attributes, symbols, and ideals. It is doubtful that we will be able to tell who the Antichrist actually is before he signs a specific seven-year treaty with Israel, but I am certain that we will be able to know the identity of his government. In the popular Left Behind series, the Antichrist takes over the United Nations and transforms it into his own "Global Community" centered out of a rebuilt Babylon. Many books, fiction and nonfiction, have been written on this subject. Daniel 2 makes the first direct reference to the final global kingdom. The king of Babylon is given a prophetic dream that is interpreted by the prophet Daniel. The young man tells the king that the statute he saw in the dream represents the worldly global governments, starting with a head of gold, Babylon, a silver chest representing Media/Persia, and stomach and thighs of bronze that herald Greece under Alexander the Great. The legs of iron came next; Daniel told the king that this worldwide empire would break in pieces, crushing the known world. This was fulfilled by the collapse of the Holy Roman Empire that threw Europe into the Dark Ages. The last kingdom is the toes of the statue; ten toes of iron mixed with clay. The iron, the prophet says, is part of the iron of Rome, and though the clay will try to adhere to the iron, it will not mix. This is the final government that will be crushed by the Second Coming of Christ; a government of 10 sections in two parts. Revelation says that the headquarters of the Antichrist will be centered in "Mystery Babylon; the city of seven hills." The city of Rome, especially the Vatican, has been known for over 2000 years as "the city of seven hills". Revelation was written by a Roman exile John, which explains why he had to use symbolic language to allow his letters to go through. In the last days of the Holy Roman Empire, it was divided into two sections, the Roman Empire of Northwest Europe and the Byzantine Empire of Southern Europe and parts of the Middle East. This is shown at right. Currently, the European Union is finallizing the inclusion of Turkey and surrounding areas into their union. The current layout of this empire is shown at left (countries currently lobbying for inclusion are shown in red and those already in are shown in yellow). Daniel said, "As you saw iron mixed with ceramic clay, they will mingle with the seed of men; but they will not adhere to one another, just as iron does not mix with clay." The motto of the European Union, taken straight from their site, is "United in Diversity." The European Union meets in a portable building, shown at the right. Looks deceptively like the unfinished Tower of Babel, does it not? That is the image they are trying to present. They call it "The Tower of Euro­babel." I will have more on the European Union/Revived Holy Roman Empire later. In Him, D3

To Time the Impossible Time

Imagine, momentarily, that your life began only one month ago. Any memories you hold were digitally implanted after scientists accelerated through your childhood with budding technology. Now imagine that life started just days ago. Minutes ago. Moments ago. What if you had never actually begun reading this article, and the memories of even the beginning of this sentence were given you milliseconds ago? The fact is that we mortals cannot experience the true passage of time. We are conscious of only this infinitesimal blip of time; time that turns life into memory at the astonishing rate of sixty seconds per minute. Although we cannot know with certainty that anything but this timeslot of consciousness exists, most of us have faith that it is so. You may think that you cannot fathom life as an instant, but in fact you cannot truly fathom otherwise. What would it be like to experience "multiple times"? I often attempt to comprehend the "imponderables" of God's nature: His omnipresence, His ability to communicate directly to all of us simultaneously, and most of all His eternity. How could any being see all of time from the beginning to the end? How could such a "time-less" or "extra-chronological" state even exist? Is such a dimension part of eternity? We live with memories of the past in a infinitesimal point of the present. The future we cannot know. Perhaps God "remembers" both the past and the future. We cannot cognize His attributes. But a glimpse may be gained by imagining that He is conscious of all "times", not just the individual "times" that we can feel. It does not concern us practically how the Divine eternity operates. Revelation tells us that time will still be a real part of our existence with God, for "the tree of life . . . yields its fruit every month." (Revelation 22:2) But our curiosity and our interests in the things and ways of God compel us to at least attempt to understand His nature.
"But, beloved, do not forget this one thing, that with the Lord one day is as a thousand years, and a thousand years as one day. The Lord is not slack concerning His promise, as some count slackness, but is longsuffering toward us, not willing that any should perish but that all should come to repentance." (2 Peter 3:1-9)
As I read over that passage, something struck me. I had always read it as "slack concerning His promises." But it says "promise", singular. Peter is speaking of Christ's promise to return . . . a promise that is as true today as it was 2000 years ago. Maranatha! Come quickly, Lord Jesus! In Him, D3


David Barton at Worldview Weekend

While at Worldview Weekend, we had the privilege of hearing David Barton speak on the political situation facing evangelical Christians today. Mr. Barton, shown at left, is the president of Wallbuilders, a conservative organization dedicated to presenting America's forgotten Christian heritage. As the author of numerous works on original intent and the Founding Fathers, Mr. Barton has been asked for advice on several occasions by Federal judges and such entities as the American Center for Law and Justice. It was an awesome opportunity to hear him speak. The most amazing thing about Mr. Barton's presentation was his grasp on simple facts. His Powerpoint presentation served to allow us to keep up with him as he rapidly gave thousands of bits of information ranging from the quotes of our Founders to modern statistics. I must say that I would hate to be involved in a debate of any kind with him! One of the interesting points made was that there was a 80% increase in Evangelical voting in 2004. This resulted in 90% of new freshman senators and Congressmen being pro-life. Bush has been able to appoint many conservative judges to federal positions, including one in and one pending on the U.S. Supreme Court. So things are looking up. Mr. Barton ended with this verse. It obviously refers to Jerusalem, but our God is the same yesterday, today, and forever.
How the faithful city has become a harlot! It was full of justice; Righteousness lodged in it, But now murderers. Your silver has become dross, Your wine mixed with water. Your princes are rebellious, And companions of thieves; Everyone loves bribes, And follows after rewards. They do not defend the fatherless, Nor does the cause of the widow come before them. Isaiah 1:21-23
Sounds like America to me.
Therefore the Lord says, The LORD of hosts, the Mighty One of Israel, “Ah, I will rid Myself of My adversaries, And take vengeance on My enemies. I will turn My hand against you, And thoroughly purge away your dross, And take away all your alloy. I will restore your judges as at the first, And your lawyers as at the beginning. Afterward you shall be called the city of righteousness, the faithful city.” Isaiah 1:24-26
So there is hope. Lord, let us be those righteous judges and lawyers You will use to restore this nation! This reminds me of a new song by the popular contemporary band, Casting Crowns. The song is entitled "While You Were Sleeping", and it deals with the real point of the old hymn, "Little Town of Bethlehem. Bethlehem missed it! They were sound asleep when the Creator of the Universe was born in their stable! Jerusalem did the same. They missed the triumphal entry of Christ and hanged Him as a madman. Will we do the same? Will America wake up in time to even notice Christ's Second return? Click the "play" button below to listen to an excerpt from this powerful song, and click here to read the lyrics (beware of popups at the site!). Click here to purchase the song from Casting Crowns. In Him, D3


Kansas Approves Criticisms of Evolution

Yesterday, a Kansas school board voted to allow criticisms of Darwinian evolution in the public schools. They also changed the working definition of "science" by removing a presupposition of naturalism. As may be expected, the scientific and religious worlds are either inflamed or excited over this decision. Hundreds of journalists and humanists are calling this a "slap in the face of freedom" or "another ruthless attempt to push religious dogma on our innocent children." Others call it a "step toward effective scientific inquiry" or "a victory for science."
I explained in my last post that the scientific method, both in an empirical/industrial setting and in a forensic/historical setting operates in this way: a natural phenomenon or a "piece of the past" is observed/discovered and a conjecture is made as to how it operates or, in the case of historical inquiry, how it got there. Studies are arranged to test the hypothetical conjecture. These may include controlled experiments with a range of careful variance in an industrial setting and observations of similar natural processes or occurences in the forensic setting. These tests either lend support or detriment to the hypothesis. I have no argument with teaching Darwinian evolution in Biology class. It is real empirical science. The observation is genetic variance in species and direct speciation. The conjecture is that mutations (observed phenomenon) and natural selection (another observed phenomenon) combine to produce uphill progress in the broad spectrum of life on this planet. Just because the proponents of this scientific theory cannot bring up any tests or observations of natural processes that support it does not make it non-scientific. But it would be academic folly in the greatest degree to teach Natural History in a Biology class. Biology is the study of natural processes. Period, end of sentence. Natural History is a forensic scientific study of the echoes of our past. Biological observations can be used as the "tests" in conjectures made concerning Earth's history. But since "Natural History" has by its very nature never been observed, it is useless to use it as the "test" in a biological study. In other words, it is one thing to present Darwinian evolution as a theoretical biological process. It is quite another to assure students that life on earth came about through it. Since Biology and Natural Science are two different branches of scientific inquiry, it only makes sense that different rules should be applied. If we teach evolution in Biology 1, we should present it as a scientific theory similar to General Relativity or any other theory, with the observations, the theory itself, and all tests that either support it or attack it. Just because science cannot find any supporting experiments or tests does not mean that unsupporting evidence must be suppressed. We all know the reasons behind this, however. The biological hypothesis of evolution serves as the backbone of the forensic hypothesis of evolution. To question the "natural process" of evolution casts doubt on what the schools teach as fact in Natural History class. To question the historical hypothesis of evolution is to allow evolutionist Richard Lewontin's "Divine Foot in the door." More later. In Him, D3


What Kind of Evidence?

In my joint-owned blog, The Truth About Macroevolution, there has been an ongoing war in the comments that I have decided to address in an additional comment and a full-length post on that site. I decided to post my article here as well. So here goes!
I will start with a rather novel and even startling admission. There is no evidence for creation. Well, there you have it. The plain statement. However, we have to admit something else as well. There is no evidence for evolution, either. That is right, there is no creation evidence and no evolution evidence. All we have is . . . evidence. We must understand that both creationism and evolutionism are forensic models of history. Creationists and evolutionists both have the same evidences at their disposal; the same fossils, the same rocks, the same trees, and the same strata layers. The question is which model best fits the existing evidence. Both sides are usually able to cram whatever forensic evidence that exists into their model. An excellent example of this is found in an old Father Brown mystery. A detective believed that the ragged man he has captured is the murderer of one Lord Falconry and determined to test his theory. He set up a machine to monitor the man's pulse. Then, he wrote "hawk", "eagle", and "falcon" on a chalkboard. When he wrote "falcon", the prisoner's pulse leapt. When he added an "r" to the end, the man's pulse skyrocketed. Proof enough! A machine cannot lie, can it? True. However, as Father Brown pointed out, a machine cannot tell the truth, either. The man did get excited when "Falconr" was written on the board, but not because he had killed Lord Falconry. In fact, he was Lord Falconroy, but did not want to tell the officer because of a scandal he was involved in. Why was he ragged? He had just left a masquerade party. So you see that the way you interpret evidence depends on your preconceived model, not whether the evidence is "creation" evidence or "evolution" evidence. When I found out that a T. Rex bone had been found with still-bloody soft tissue inside, I was sure that this proved dinosaurs lived recently. However, the long-age establishment had a way to fit this seemingly inexplicable evidence into their model. They explained that the bones "fell" into a primordial stew which quickly transformed the blood vessels and stretchy tissue into a nanopolymer with identical properties. This mineral nanopolymer, then, retained its properties for millions of years, not the actual tissue. That is quite a preposterous explanation, to be sure. My point is that any forensic evidence can be form-fitted to match a particular model. The question is which model best fits the existing evidence with the least "massaging" of the data. We can also test things we see around us to determine whether a particular interpretation of forensic evidence matches reality. These tests or observations yield "empirical" evidence, which unlike forensic evidence is much more repeatable and testable. For example, creation scientists interpret the Grand Canyon as forensic evidence for a huge flood that deposited millions of layers quickly, then receded from land, carving out the canyon. Evolutionists see it as millions of years of gradual mineral deposition followed by millions of years of gradual erosion by the Colorado River. We can take a look at Mt. St. Helens to determine which model best fits. When the mountain exploded, the fast-moving ash and rock deposited and carved out a massive canyon with thousands of layers . . . in a few hours. Even though this is not repeatable, it was directly observable. This makes it empirical evidence instead of forensic evidence. If you want something even more empirical, try putting clay, silt, gravel, sand, and mud into a jar along with lots of water and shaking it. Global Flood on a kitchen-sized scale! You will find that lots of churning water yields lots of layer in a little bit of time. So we have forensic evidence: The Grand Canyon. Decayed radioisotopes. Bleeding T. Rex fossils. These are the remnants of the earth's past. We have models. Catastrophism. Gradualism. Young-earth. Long-age. Creationism. Evolutionism. And we have supplementary empirical evidence. Observations like Mt. St. Helens on the one hand and observations of gradual erosion by the Colorado River on the other. We cannot prove that evolution or creation are true. All we can do is collect forensic evidence and show with empirical evidence how and why the forensic evidence fits best in our model. So in this discussion, asking for or giving "evidence" is rather pointless until we know exactly what we are asking for. The forensic evidences in this discussion are fossils, strata layers, and life itself. The model we are focusing on in this site: evolutionism. So you, the defender of evolution, need to come up with empirical evidence that shows why and how specific forensic evidences fit evolutionism. An example of this would be. . . . Forensic evidence: Simple and complex life. Model: "Life evolved from simple to complex through natural selection and mutations." Empirical evidence: Some example of natural selections and mutations producing a positive, uphill change in an organism from simple to complex. We, the attackers of evolutionism, need to come up with empirical evidence that shows why and how specific forensic evidences are incompatible with evolutionism. For starters on our side, I will show: Forensic evidence: Dinosaur and human footprints in the same strata layer side-by-side. Model: Humans and dinosaurs walked or ran side-by-side along mineral-laden sand as the waters rose in the global flood. Empirical evidence: Today, we can see that strata-like layers often result from mineral-rich sand that is quickly flooded. Footprints are made by walking in sand or mud. Obviously, that is not supposed to be the ultimate death-knell for evolution. Rather, the combination of empirical and forensic evidence lend support to the model that humans and dinosaurs lived simultaneously during a large flood. Hopefully my lengthy discourse here has cleared up some confusion and defined exactly what we need. So what do you think? In Him, D3


Worldview Weekend

Our family returned late Sunday night from the Worldview Weekend Seminar in Sevierville, TN. It was simply incredible! I'd say that the most notable thing about the whole experience was . . . the traffic! Larry Dalton, a concert pianist who played several amazing pieces for us, summed it up this way when he was tricked into wearing a tuxedo:
"Look, I'd change into jeans and a T-shirt if I could get back to my hotel. But I'm an hour away; that is, three miles.
Sevierville borders on Gatlinburg, the mega-entertainment town of the Smoky Mountains. As a result, incoming traffic is normally backed up through all the surrounding towns and highways. A trip of 3 miles may very well take over 30 minutes. Ken Ham gave his signature presentation on the current AiG slogan: "We're taking them back!" He blogged about the seminar as well. The President of Worldview Weekend, Brannon Howse, spoke about his new book One Nation Under Man?, and Kerby Anderson, who spoke on the subject of Intelligent Design and how it relates to Creationism. Other speakers included Woodrow Kroll, Dr. Erwin Lutzer, and David Barton. Mr. Barton, president of Wallbuilders, gave an amazing presentation. This man has memorized hundreds of thousands of statistics and quotes. The presentations I saw will give me fuel for quite a few posts. Al Denson, a popular Christian singer, gave a concert Saturday evening. During it, he asked for a member of the audience that was under 20 to volunteer. Or, at least he meant to. Instead, he said "over 20". Well, my mom is an excellent singer. She raised her hand. He called her up onto the stage and had her sing with him. She pretty much stole the show (without meaning to, however); after they sang "Amazing Love", he had her sing "I Love You, Lord" by herself with him accompanying her. Needless to say, we were all quite stunned. The sound man taped the concert, so now we have a CD with my mom singing accompanied by Al Denson! More on this amazing seminar later. In Him, David S. MacMillan III


A Very Bad Blogger. . . .

Hey Cyberspace, I looked at my website today and realized that I had not blogged in nearly a month! All of you probably know the reason. Busy, busy, busy. I finished my first quarter finals for my college paralegal course on Thursday, so hopefully I'll have time to get caught up on life in general during the next two weeks while I am on break. But not now. Our family is preparing to head off to a Worldview Weekend seminar in the Smoky Mountains. Speakers/singers will include Ken Ham, David Barton, Woodrow Kroll, Al Denson, Kerby Anderson, Dr. Erwin Lutzer, and Brannon Howse. So I won't be blogging until after I return on Monday. Until then, God bless you and have a great day! In Him, David S. MacMillan III