The Theory's Guide to the Idiots of Evolution

In 1831, the young naturalist Charles Darwin sailed to the Galapagos Islands on the H.M.S. Beagle. He returned with a theory that shocked the world. In the early 1800s, genetics was basically limited to the understanding that "A tall pea plant and a short pea plant usually make a tall pea plant, but we don't know why" -Gregor Mendel. The mainstream scientific community held the misconception that reproduction did not change the descendant creature. But Darwin's observations put an end to this idea. Darwin noted that in the dryer seasons, the majority of the finch population on the islands of Galapagos had strong, thick beaks for cracking open dried-out nuts and the like. In the wet season, the average beak was generally finer and more adept to eating green vegetation. Our young naturalist supposed that perhaps the two different kinds of finch were not actually different species, but that perhaps there was but one strain of finch that adapted to changing environment. Kudos, Charley! You hit the nail on the head! Natural selection or microevolution exists due to the doctrine of "survival of the fittest". The better equipped an organism is, the more likely it is to survive and pass on its genes. The weaker genes are "naturally selected" out of the gene "pool", thus giving this phenomenon the name of "natural selection." Darwin had no concept of genes or DNA. He saw adaptation and assumed that this was a random process that was basically infinite in its abilities. Maybe, he thought, these finches and the eagles we have back home both descended from the same kind of bird-like-thing, but they have slowly adapted to become what they are today! Then the young man had a brainstorm. Or, shall we say, a braintornado. What if all the animals we see today descended from the same basic life form over millions and millions of years of adaptation! Why, this even explains away the need for God! I ought to write a book! And The Origin of Species was born, and with it the simple theory of universal ancestry and adaptation or MACROEVOLUTION. Darwin knew that he had no evidence as of yet from fossils to support his theory, but he was confident that fossils would be forthcoming as the science of paleontology grew. Unfortunately for Darwin and his theory, the study of genetics was on the forefront of scientific inquiry. And genetics showed that a "simple cell" was not simple at all. Deoxyribonucleic Acid (DNA) defined each and every organism, and although some variation in DNA was possible, it was very limited. The natural selection Darwin had observed was the "cutting out" of inconvenient sections of the DNA that led to unfavorable traits. And cutting out bad parts cannot lead to Darwinian evolution. If a car factory does nothing but "remove bad parts", it will have rather light cars, but it will never spontaneously produce airplanes! Now, changes do occur in DNA. They are called mutations. Random copying errors. The scientific community latched on to this idea and proposed that perhaps beneficial mutations occurred that gave a particular organism its evolutionary edge. Then, natural selection kicked in and made sure that only this mutation would survive to the next generation: thus substantiating evolution! But we have yet to find a case of mutations acting in concert with natural selection to turn T Rex into a toucan or a monkey into me. And we also have yet to find a record of anything half-way to becoming something else set in the stone of the fossil record. Sorry, Charley. In Him, David S. MacMillan III

Is the Roman Catholic Church Pharisaical?

The Merriam-Webster Dictionary defines "pharisaical" as follows:

"Marked by hypocritical censorious self-righteousness."

But we all know what the key word is: "hypocritical". Today's society enjoys labeling as "pharisaical" anyone who is caught saying one thing but doing another. This is apparent whenever some famous televangelist has an affair or when a politician exploits his religious affirmations for personal gain. Pharisees definitely have the reputation of being hypocrites; in fact, Christ labeled the teachers of the law as such on numerous occasions. But just because some Pharisees are hypocrites does not mean that all hypocrites are Pharisees. And it certainly does not mean that all Pharisees are hypocrites. What is a Pharisee, anyway? The word used in the NT comes from a Jewish root word: parash. It is not surprising that the word has nothing to do with hypocrisy (after all, the Pharisees would not have named themselves "hypocrites"). Rather, "parash" means "to separate, distinguish, or scatter abroad." This came from the separation that the high-and-mighty Pharisees had from the common Israelite. In Romans, Paul explains that the Law was created to show man his sin, and thereby his inability to get to God and his need for salvation. The Pharisees should have known this; Psalm 19 says that the Law of God exists to convert the soul. However, they deliberately distanced themselves and the Law from the common people and used it to control. Romans says that the works of the law can never justify a man. However, a close study of the actions of the Pharisees will show that they controlled the people by dictating what the law was and why one needed to follow it. This earned them many rebukes from Christ. John the Baptist even called them a "brood of vipers." So how does this relate to the Roman Catholic Church? In the same way that the Pharisees took the Law and made themselves its figurehead, the hierarchical system of the Roman Catholic Church has trapped the doctrine of Grace in a web of sacraments and ritual. The Pharisees told the people, "You must obey the Law, so do what we tell you." The RCC says, "Salvation is by grace through faith, but in order to get that grace you must obey us and follow all our rituals. Jesus said that the traditions of man make the Word of God useless. This goes for both Law and Grace. The Roman Catholic Church promises that we can obtain grace by doing what they tell us to do. But God's Word says that there is but ONE Mediator between God and man: Jesus Christ. In Him, David S. MacMillan III

TeenPact 2006

Ahhhh . . . blogging again. As most of you know, I was at TeenPact 2006 State Class this past week. Everyone who was there agreed that it was the greatest TeenPact experience they had ever had. TeenPact is a one-week intensive government and civics training class. Students arrive on Monday afternoon and launch into the Capitol firsthand. TeenPact participants are introduced to the legislative process in several ways, the most notable being the mock legislature run by the staff according to the rules and regulations of the State legislature. Students bring bills and debate them in a parliamentary forum with strict operating guidelines. Freedom can also mean power. This year, the TeenPact alumni put their heads together and submitted a House Floor Resolution "respectfully impeaching" the Speaker of the House (a staff member) and instituting one of the alumni in his place. At first, the staff denied that the resolution was actually binding. But after a concerted effort on the part of the students and the aid of several friendly staff, the majority finally won over and put Michael Brantingham, a 4th-year TeenPacter, behind the gavel. Victory at last! Unfortunately, this all happened the day before TeenPact ended. So Michael only held the gavel for about ten minutes; not long enough to have any fun. Next year, we will try to set everything up the first day so that the students will be in control for the duration. And you never know: maybe I will be the new Speaker. . . . At night, many of the students stayed at Cedarmore Baptist Camp in Baghdad. Through evening praise-and-worship, lecture sessions, and the TeenPact official sport (Ultimate Frisbee!), the TeenPacters grew closer to the Lord and closer to each other. I would definitely advise everyone who reads my blog to attend TeenPact next year. The program is open to 14-18 year-olds. To find out more, go to www.TeenPact.com!

---

I have a ton of things to do this week, including school work, office work, Student Leadership Council duties, and writing an article for the second edition of Regenerate Our Culture. For those of you who have not yet checked out this awesome effort, I would advise you to do so now! Thanks to all my readers! I will be coming out with a few more articles in the next few days dealing with some very critical issues . . . keep checking back in! In Him, David S. MacMillan III

Regenerate Our Culture has just launched!

In my last post, I mentioned the new blog action, Regenerate Our Culture. This has just launched! Click on the link to check it out! In Him, David S. MacMillan III

In Absentia: TeenPact!

This week, I will be attending my state's TeenPact Youth Leadership Camp. TeenPact has been a great part of my government curriculum, and I would encourage all homeschooled teens, civics-minded or not, to attend. But more on that later.

There is a new blog action on the horizon! In just a few days (see above), Regenerate Our Culture will be launching! This admirable drive by such notables as Tim Sweetman and Alex King is a culmination of the blogability of 15 top bloggers. I am honored to be a part of this team. I will start writing for this group during their second issue on Creation and Evolution. Check out the goals of Regenerate Our Culture here! In the meantime: State Capitol, here I come! In Him, David S. MacMillan III

His Word is Exalted Above His Name

Forever, O LORD, Your Word is settled in heaven. (Psalm 119:89)

In a world of knowledge, rampant with scientific inquiry, is it possible to really believe that the ancient Scriptures are reliable? Many would say no. In the first chapter of Matthew, a genealogy is given that traces Christ's lineage from Abraham to Joseph. In verses 8 and 9, the text reads

Asa the father of Jehoshaphat, Jehoshaphat the father of Jehoram, Jehoram the father of Uzziah, Uzziah the father of Jotham,

. . . and so on. When we delve into the Old Testament, however, we find a disturbing inconsistency. It turns out that Jehosaphat indeed was the father of Jehoram, but that Jehoram's son was Ahaziah. And Ahaziah was not the only person left out. The line of the kings given in II Chronicles 21-25 has Jehoram, the father of Ahaziah, the father of Joash, the father of Ahaziah, the father of Uzziah. Many clergy have explained this apparent contradiction in this wise: the three kings that were left out of the record were notorious for giving honor to Baal rather than God. As a result, the Jews omitted them from the line of kings, and this record was what Matthew had as he wrote the Gospel of Matthew. This approach, however well-meant, ignores the fact that God divinely inspired Matthew to write his book. I Peter 1:21 tells us that Scripture came about as God spoke through man not the other way around. II Timothy 3:16 says that "All Scripture is given by inspiration of God." How, then, could the Bible be God-breathed if it omits names from a vital record? We recently received a book entitled "The Chronology of the Old Testament" from Answers In Genesis. This book explains why it was that these three names were left out in the God-inspired genealogy of Christ. If you look closely at II Chronicles 21-23, you realize that King Jehoshaphat married his son Jehoram to a queen named Athalia. The king did this in a fateful attempt to reconcile the broken nation of Israel; Athalia was the daughter of Ahab and Jezebel. This attempt was direct disobedience to God's instructions to shun the house of Omri and Ahab. As a result, Jehoram's son Ahaziah only had half of the royal bloodline of David. The other half was from the house of Jezebel, Omri, and Ahab. It was crucial that Christ's bloodline be pure, so Ahaziah had no place in Christ's lineage. Ahaziah further compounded matters by marrying again into the house of Ahab. His wife Zibia bore Joash, who now only had 25% of the Davidian line. There is no way that he would be included. But with Joash, explained the Chronology of the Old Testament, things began to look up. He married Jehoaddan, a "daughter of Jerusalem". This brought the concentration of the pure blood of David's line back up to around 60% in their son, Ahaziah. This was not enough to get him entered on the record of Christ's ancestors, but it was a step in the right direction. Thankfully, Ahaziah married again into the house of David by taking another "daughter of Jerusalem", Jecoliah. Their son Uzziah now was over 80% Davidian; plenty of the right bloodline to gain entry. This is what the Chronology of the Old Testament says. And it makes a certain degree of sense. But my family was not absolutely sure, so we decided to take a closer look. My mom suggested that I look up the meaning of Queen Athalia's name in our hardbound copy of Strong's Concordance. So, I did. Athalia: Restrained by God. Wow, I thought to myself. Just as the right of entry into Christ's lineage was removed from the line of kings, the name of the offending party is "Restrained by God." I wondered what the other names in this colossal dinner party meant.

• Jehoram, the king who was 100% Davidian: Raised up by God.
• Ahaziah, the first king who was omitted from the lineage: God has held back.
• Joash, the kind with only 25% of the Godly bloodline: God has burned [out].
• Jehoaddan, the first queen on the way back to the pure bloodline: God is delighted.
• Amaziah, the king who was 60% Davidian: God has increased.
• Jecoliah, the queen whose son was the first person to get back in the Matthew lineage: God will overcome.
• Uzziah, the first king who was back in "synch": The Strength of God.
• Jerusah, the wife of Uzziah whose son was 90+% Davidian: God has possessed.
• Jotham, the son of Uzziah who was 90+% Davidian: God lives on.

A rose by any other name. . . . Truly God's Word is forever settled in heaven! In Him, David S. MacMillan III

The Law of the Lord . . . WORKS!

Today at the office, I had the opportunity to share the Gospel with one of my attorney's clients. The Way of the Master program has a great outline on how to share your faith in a few quick steps, so I ran them through in my brain and started in. The system used by Way of the Master is based on a variation of the popular acrostic, "WWJD". They have changed it just slightly; instead of "What Would Jesus Do?" the question is now "What Did Jesus Do?". I like it better that way myself. The first letter of "WDJD" stands for the casual question, "Would you consider yourself to be a good person?" Rarely will anyone be offended if you ask them this, as it affords them an opportunity to talk about themselves. Everyone enjoys doing that. The man I was speaking with, John (not his real name), told me that he was a pretty good fellow overall. "At least," he laughed, "I'm not a criminal or anything." So I moved on to the second letter in WDJD. "Do you think you have kept the Ten Commandments?" God's Word makes it very clear that the convicting power of the Law is necessary to show a person their need for salvation. I was punctuating my equilibrium with an occasional "Mind if I ask you another question?" and "I'm not trying to offend you or anything." I walked through three of the Commandments: No lying, no stealing, and no adultery. When I came to adultery (John had confessed flippantly to the first two) he assured me that he had never cheated on his wife or anything like that. I reminded him that Jesus said "If you look on a woman with lust, you have already committed adultery with her in your heart." He now grudgingly assented that he "sorta" had commited adultery, but "not really." I could sense that John had a pretty good idea that he was not perfect. So I moved on to the third letter in WDJD, "Judgement". I asked him, "If God JUDGED you by the Ten Commandments on the day of Judgement, do you think you would be innocent or guilty?" Generally, people will half-heartedly assent that they would probably be guilty, and then you can ask them whether they think they would go to heaven or hell. Once you have surmounted their philosophical obstacles and they have admitted that they are currently hellbound, then you can move on to the final letter: "Does this concern you?" Only then is it appropriate to share the good News of Jesus' death and ressurection with them. But John did not answer the question about whether he would be innocent or guilty. Rather, he told me that all his sins had already been forgiven. Okay, I thought. I guessed that perhaps John was already a Christian, but I wanted to make sure. I asked him how it was that all his sins against God had been so easily forgiven. He informed me that it was his priest who had forgiven all his sins. "I'm Catholic, ya know." This literally blew me away. Whenever I think about witnessing to someone who has been deluded by the Roman Catholic Apostacy, I immediately attack the Pope and perhaps the Mass, then I move on to prayers to saints and Mariolatry. But suddenly I realized why Catholics had been deceived! It is still the Law that convicts people of their sin, and it is their sin that drives them to the cross. And once people realize that no human being, including themselves and their priest, can forgive sins, they know that they must turn to Jesus for repentance. I realized all this in the blink of an eye, and as I assimilated it I asked him why on earth did his priest have the authority to absolve him of his sins? After all, I thought, the Psalmist said that "Against God only have I sinned" after he had taken another man's wife and ordered the murder of the man he had thus robbed, because it was God's Holy Law he had violated first. John thought for a moment, obviously puzzled. Apparently, it had never occurred to him to question why the priest could go between him and God when he could not. After a moment, he shrugged his shoulders and said, "I suppose he is closer to God than I am, so-" he trailed off as he tried to justify going to a priest for absolution when he had always heard how much God loved him. I told him that the Bible says that only God has the authority to forgive sins. The Roman Catholic Apostacy teaches that the Bible is the lowest authority and that the traditions and doctrines of "THE CHURCH" have more power than Scripture. So John quickly questioned whether the Bible could really be depended on when he had his very own priest telling him what the truth was. Unfortunately, John had to leave then. But he thanked me for speaking with him and said that we would continue the conversation at a later time. So pray for "John". Pray that the spiritual blinders that the Devil has placed on him will be removed, and that the Truth I was able to convery to him will implant deeply in his heart. And start evangelizing too! It is as easy as "WDJD!" I would encourage all of you to watch the videos that the Way of the Master has. You can watch them streaming at www.LivingWaters.com, but if you do not have a broadband internet connection, leave a comment indicating that and I will upload a few of the videos to the web so that you can download them for easier viewing. In Him, David S. MacMillan III

Jobs, School, and Whatnot

As most of my readers know, I am getting my associate's degree this as a certified paralegal through OakBrook College of Law. I just completed my second quarter a few weeks ago, and so my mother suggested that I make up a resume and send it out to a few different law offices in the hopes that one of them could use a blogger-on-his-way-to-paralegal. So, Thursday before last I typed up my resume with some help from Mom (she used to work in a job bank and is an expert at this kind of work) and addressed it to 6 or 7 different offices. I threw on the first polo I could find and headed into the job-hunting world. The first place I entered was the office of "R. Mitchell Berryman, Atty". As soon as I walked in and handed Mr. Berryman my resume, he told me that he had been without a secretary for three weeks and needed one right away, so could I interview right then? As you might expect, I was rather shocked. But I told him that my mom had a few errands to run with me but I would be back in a few minutes for the interview. Needless to say, I moved fast. To make a long story short, Mr. Berryman is a strong Christian and granted me the on-the-spot interview because the shirt I had randomly picked said "God Reigns". 30 minutes later, I walked out of his office with instructions to start work the next Monday afternoon! So now I am employed part-time as a secretary and legal assistant in the firm of Mitchell Berryman. I have great hours (1-4 PM, Monday-Thursday), and my employer attends the same church that my family used to attend years ago! Of course, this amazing opportunity has its downsides as well. As you all noticed, I was absent from the blogosphere last week. Since I was in my second week of my third quarter in my paralegal course and in my first week at my job, my day went from 6 AM to 10 PM without that many breaks. This has been my first real chance to relax and contact all my friends in cyberspace. This next week should be a bit better as I will have about an hour on the computer regularly in the evenings. So expect to see plenty of hurried but powerful blogposts! On another note, I will be moving this blog over to WordPress pretty soon. I am slowly customizing a decent template I found and will transfer over as soon as I can get it all set up correctly ... which may be a while due to the lack of time I have at the moment. Until next time, In Him, David S. MacMillan III

But Israel isn't Really God-ordained, is it?

"Israel is controlled by a bunch of atheists. There is no reason why America should support that country!" I really never had a real good rejoiner for that one. At least, not until now. Read this excerpt from the epilogue of The Third Millenium:

In the Torah, Moses wrote (Leviticus 26:18 and elsewhere) that in the furture, whenever Israel sins greatly as a nation God will allow calamity to come their way. he will howver give them time to repent. If they, as a nation, do not repent after their warning period, then the remainder of their punishment will be multiplied by seven.

Over 600 years before the birth of Jesus, God used Ezekiel, a contemporary of Daniel, to show Israel her sin. In Ezekiel 4:3-6, God told the prophet to lie on his side for 430 days to signify the 430 years Israel would spend in exile for her sins. ANother contemporary of Daniel's and Ezekiel's, the prophet Jeremiah, predicted that the first 70 years of the 430 years would be a Babylonian exile (Jer. 25:11). That was Israel's warning period.

Sure enough, as predicted, Nebuchadnezzar came along and transported the Jews from Jerusalem to Babylon in 606 B.C. Then, 70 years later, Cyrus the Great of Persia conquered Babylon in 536 B.C. and said he would pay for the millions of Jews to go back to Jerusalem. But the Jews refused. Only 50,000 devout Israelites went back. The rest didn't want to interrupt thier businesses in Babylon.

This obviously made God angry, so take 430 years of exile, subtract 70 years of warning, and multiply the remaining 360 years times 7, as Moses instructed in the Torah. You will get 2,520 prophetic years of 360 days each (the Jews measured prophetic years with 360 days) = 907,200 days from the day Cyrus made his decree to return to Jerusalem, which comes out to May 14, 1948, the day Israel became a nation.

So never let anyone tell you that Israel should not be supported! In Him, David S. MacMillan III