Brought To My Census – Part 1

Article 1, Section 2 of The United States Constitution allows for the enumeration of our citizens every ten years. Specifically, this section says, “The actual Enumeration shall be made within three Years after the first Meeting of the Congress of the United States, and within every subsequent Term of ten Years, in such Manner as they shall by Law direct.” This clause is specifically called out in the section devoted to the House of Representatives – it doesn’t appear in the adjacent section on the Senate. The reason for this is clear – the 435 representatives decreed by the Constitution are apportioned by population within each state. So, the purpose behind the census is that we may apportion the correct number of representatives in the House, and the adjustment is made every ten years. This seems like a fair deal.

So, I was a bit surprised when I received my census form in the mail and read the questions which appeared. Of course, there were the standard questions – “What is your name?”, or “How many people were living or staying in this house, apartment, or mobile home on April 1, 2010?” Those seem perfectly acceptable and within the bounds of what our Constitution requires.

But can someone please tell me why the government thinks it has the right to ask:

· Is this house, apartment, or mobile home: owned with mortgage, owned without mortgage, rented, occupied without rent?
· What is Person 1's race?
· Is Person 1 of Hispanic, Latino or Spanish origin?

In my estimation, those questions are none of the government’s business. Oh, I know why they are asking such things. It has to do with the verification and implementation of special programs designed to divert money to groups of a certain ethnic heritage or financial position.

And that is one of two things - socialism or racism.

Imagine for a minute that I decided to hire some neighborhood kids to do some yard work around my house on a weekend. Would I be within acceptable bounds to ask them what their race is, or what the value of their parent’s house is – because I plan to pay each of them differently, based on their answers? Of course not. There would be a cry of outrage from the community, and I would probably get written up in an article in my local newspaper. But that is exactly what the federal government is doing – diverting tax money unfairly, based on skin color or financial status. Let’s be honest – the government’s questions are not color-blind or fair, and they certainly exceed the power given to them by the United States Constitution.

So, instead of sending it in, I held on to my census form and awaited the promised visit from the hired census worker. I left instructions with my wife and children to hand over the census form should they call - filled out with only my name and the number “5” only. I attached a brief note explaining why I was a “census conscientious objector”. I even told my kids to be nice and offer the worker a cookie and something to drink. But by no means should they provide any other information. Sure enough, just a few days into the census period, we received a visitor. And my daughters gave her only the answers as instructed.

Perhaps this seems like no big deal to many people. But I am genuinely offended at the blatantly racist questions asked on our census form. A business owner is disallowed by law from distributing money unequally based on a person’s race – why is it considered okay for the government to do the same thing? It’s time to bring the government back in line with their original charter. Maybe I should have had my kids attach a copy of the Constitution to the survey, as well…

***********

Unfortunately, this is not the end of our census story. We next began to receive phone calls from the Bureau, with increasing rudeness – detailed in the next installment…

What Is Missing From A Government-Funded Reading Program?

The local paper article I read today was almost too fantastic to believe.

The Colorado state legislature passed an initial proposal to implement a “Pay To Read” program this week. Under this law, over $1 million of taxpayer money would be used to pay low-income children $2 for every book they read. It’s an effort, theoretically, to get children to read and, thus improve their test scores (based on a Harvard study showing a connection between the program and superior test results).

There is so much I could say about this legislation. Such as why our government feels it can use tax money to bribe children to read? Or why the reward is offered only to low-income children? Or the fact that public libraries full of free books are available to kids whose parents are in any income bracket? Or how such a program puts those low-income children on the government dole early in life? Let’s be honest – one of the lessons that many kids will learn is that the government will pay them just to “show up” or do the minimum required when they become adults. And a lot of those kids will go on to live their lives with exactly that expectation – and find themselves part of the welfare spiral.

I’m tempted to write on all of these topics, but the real issue for me was summed up by the bill’s sponsor – Democrat senator Chris Romer from Denver. He believes that researchers at Harvard “cracked the code” for child motivation and then defended his position with this heart-ripping statement - “It's much cheaper to build children than to repair adults."

“It's much cheaper to build children than to repair adults."…

Why do I think that statement is against all that is right and good and godly? Because Mr. Romer has plainly stated the depths which our society has plumbed. That is – that the parent-child relationship is irrevocably broken, and so we have turned to something else to replace it – the government, acting through federal programs. Rather than fix the very root of the issue, we have decided to spend great amounts of money on an inferior solution. The government believes it now has the duty to “build children”.

In Malachi chapter 4, the Bible tells us that a prophet will be sent to “turn the hearts of the fathers to their children, and the hearts of the children to their fathers; or else I will come and strike the land with a curse.” That is the most desirable state for a family to be in. This verse is one of the primary reasons that my wife and I homeschool our children – not because they get a superior one-on-one education, but because it gives us far more hours in a day to turn our hearts toward each other. And it has been a tremendous blessing to our family for these past six years.

The idea of a government paying kids to read because society has given up on good parenting is at the farthest extreme from God’s design. The problem of uninvolved or uncaring parents cannot (and should not) be fixed by a government program. The verse in Malachi tells us that the source of the issue lies in the heart of the individual. And the heart is best changed by one thing – God’s gift of the Holy Spirit actively working in a person’s life.

Worldview Class #2 – Part 11 – Biblical Christian Biology

While teaching a Sunday morning class on the topic of various worldviews, I plan to share some of the more significant findings which our class is learning. The main text for the study is The Battle for Truth by David Noebel. A good deal of this class is also based on personal research.

*********************

The theory of evolution is losing momentum. When I was in high school nearly thirty years ago, I was sometimes ridiculed for questioning this concept in my biology class. Arguing against evolution and in favor of divine creation was deemed by many (my teachers included) as being old-world thought. To them, the science of evolution was settled.

Advancements in scientific understanding have been made since that time, and though many scientists continue to put forth evolution as “fact”, there are many who now see purpose and design in the things they study. They are beginning to question whether or not evolution might only be a “theory” after all.

The Biblical Christian worldview espouses creation as the origin of species. The Christian belief is that the creation story in Genesis is a literal description of how the earth, plants, animals and humans came to be. God created it all, with a purpose in mind, in only six days. The pull of evolutionary theory has been strong in the last few decades, however, with some Christians accepting the concept of theistic evolution. This theory speculates that God started the spark of life in the universe, and then allowed evolution to work over millions of years, creating new species and ultimately resulting in the creation of man. This allows many Christians to breathe a sigh of relief, enabling them to accept scientific preaching about evolution, while still holding on to their concept of a loving God behind all of it.

But theistic evolution cannot be the Biblical Christian viewpoint – because it is neither Biblical, nor Christian. The Bible tells of a six-day account of creation, and a seventh day of rest for God. Many Christians have called into question the real length of a “day” in these opening Bible chapters, saying that perhaps the creation story is an allegory for millions of years. But if creation is a metaphor, then what is the allegorical explanation for God’s seventh day of rest? And why not question the meaning of the word “day” in verses such as 1 Corinthians 15:4 – “that he was buried, that he was raised on the third day according to the Scriptures”? Simply put, many Christians have bowed to the whims of “science” in our modern age. Rather than questioning the theory of evolution, they have tried to make a bad theory fit the Biblical account.

The creation account must be literal for far more important reasons than the simple meaning of words. It is absolutely necessary to believe in Adam and Eve and the perfection of the Garden of Eden for God’s overall plan to have any meaning. The fall of man is critical to the entire Bible story, and most importantly, the story of Jesus Christ. Without Adam’s fall from a perfect, sinless state there would be no need for Jesus Christ to come to earth and accomplish an amazing thing – live a perfectly sinless life. Jesus came to undo everything that was lost by Adam – and he chose to take our sin on himself. The Bible story is clear – there is one man on each side of the story:

“Therefore, just as sin entered the world through one man, and death through sin, and in this way death came to all men, because all sinned…..Consequently, just as the result of one trespass was condemnation for all men, so also the result of one act of righteousness was justification that brings life for all men.” Romans 5:12, 18

It is vitally important that the Christian worldview contain the creation story, as it literally happened in the opening chapters of Genesis. Without it, the whole meaning of God’s plan for salvation is watered down and lost.

Science – real, high-quality science – declares a creation beginning of the universe, much more than an evolutionary one. For example:

1. Scientists are uncovering a design in nature, one that cannot be random. Even prominent evolutionists such as Paul Davies have stated – “Every advance in fundamental physics seems to uncover yet another facet of order.” Such statements are a blow to evolutionary theory.

2. DNA – the structure of DNA is so complex and fundamental to life that evolution has yet to explain how it could have “evolved”. It’s an “all or nothing” type of design. DNA is found in the lowest of life forms – fully functional and operating. Without its design in place from the moment that life began, there would be no continuation of life. Creation uniquely answers the question about how life could come about at the same time as DNA.

3. The inability for science to recreate spontaneous generation is a blow to evolutionary theory. Even non-creation scientists admit that they have been unable to recreate the process of life springing from non-life. Scientific arguments suggest that life and ozone in the earth’s atmosphere must have formed at the same time – a concept that points directly to the viability of creation.

4. The Second Law of Thermodynamics tells us that the amount of useful, constructive energy in the universe is lessening with each moment. But an extrapolation of this law, backwards in time, would suggest that in an infinitely old universe this amount of energy would approach infinity – which violates the First Law of Thermodynamics. Modeling suggests that the universe has a finite existence and just “happened” at some point in the past – again, agreeing with the idea of creation.

5. Gene pool barriers must be crossed in order for one species to evolve into another. For a bird to become a dinosaur, or an ape to become a man, there must be a significant genetic “crossing”. Yet science cannot demonstrate the occurrence of a crossing between species – not in the lab, and not in the fossil record.

6. The fossil record condemns the idea of evolution and supports creation. The sudden appearance of all levels of life in the Cambrian period point to a created world. The lack of transitional forms between species cannot be explained by a rational theory (the theory of punctuated equilibrium, while convenient, has no basis in scientific experimentation). And there is no fossil record supporting the idea of beneficial mutations helping one species along into the formation of another. Again, the overwhelming evidence of fossils points to creation and the Genesis flood.

These specific points will be covered in a future series – “Seven Reasons Why Science Points To Creation”.

In the end, the question of worldview biology comes down to this single question – Where will you put your faith? Both evolution and creation require a measure of faith. In many ways, scientific evolution requires more, because so many things remain unexplained. Creation, on the other hand, is rooted in the one absolute truth that cannot be ignored – THERE IS A GOD.

**********************
Back to the start of this series
-- or --
Back to Worldview Series #1

Worldview Class #2 – Part 10 – New Age Biology

While teaching a Sunday morning class on the topic of various worldviews, I plan to share some of the more significant findings which our class is learning. The main text for the study is The Battle for Truth by David Noebel. A good deal of this class is also based on personal research.

*********************

Cosmic Humanists wants nothing more than for man to fulfill his ultimate purpose of ushering in the New Age (their words, not mine). Consequently, they require a theory of science and the origin of man which allows for a constant self-improvement plan – a spiraling upward of man’s abilities and “consciousness”. The problem that faces this theory is that each individual clearly progresses at a different rate. How do they overcome the possibility that some will progress toward their desired end state more quickly than others?

Their answer lies in the concept of individualism vs. collectivism. Marilyn Ferguson has said, “The proven plasticity of the human brain and human awareness offers the possibility that individual evolution may lead to collective evolution. When one person has unlocked a new capacity its existence is suddenly evident to others, who may then develop the same capacity.” Thus, the “growth” of one person may be enough to drag all others along to the higher state. In all seriousness, I see very little difference between such a society and that of the Borg from Star Trek. The aim of both movements (I know, I know, one is fictional!) is to achieve perfection by adding biological and technological improvements to the species.

So, evolution is fundamental to the New Age movement. But how does the Cosmic Humanist see such a change occurring – as gradual steps over time, or as something else? Like Marxism, the New Ager believes that such collective changes will likely happen in surges. When one individual breaks through with an evolutionary change, society will quickly copy it and bring everyone else along, one step closer to enlightenment. David Spangler describes this - “In this [evolutionary] context, civilizations, like individuals, go through profound changes from time to time which represent discontinuities; that is, a jump or shift is made from one evolutionary condition to another. The New Age is such a shift.”

Once again, the mechanism to achieve this state is the theory of punctuated equilibrium. A surge of biological improvement will quickly be created and adopted within the species. And while this theory is supported by few observations (as well as entirely violating the Second Law of Thermodynamics), the convenience it provides is too tempting to be ignored. As we pointed out in the section on Marxist biology, bad science backed by insubstantial proof is completely trumped by a theory - if that theory allows one to believe whatever they want.

Why is this theory so popular, even though science sees little proof of such a mechanism? For the New Ager, it solves two problems.

1) It promises a shared future divinity

2) It solves the worry of sin – by denying any original fall of Man

The promise of one day becoming gods ourselves is very tempting for some. Indeed, the New Age philosophy says that we are gods today – just imperfect ones. Like Marxism, this worldview is rooted in the desire to deny the existence of a single Creator of everything. Instead, a magical “force” drives the New Age movement along, gaining continual improvement and harmony (perhaps I’ve now moved from Star Trek to Star Wars?).

So, I ask a question. If we are constantly marching toward enlightenment and peace, then why is there still war and disease and starvation and cruelty? Have these things become better over time? I would make the case that they have not. In fact, the world seems to have become a much worse place in which to live than the 1950’s, when the Leave It To Beaver family lifestyle was popular. Cosmic humanists see this world as Paradise, which is slowly being unveiled. Joseph Campbell explained the disconnect between theory and observation of this world by saying, “That is the way it feels, but this is it. This is Eden.” Humans need to “see not the world of solid things, but a world of radiance.”

My advice – be very careful. The pull of New Age thinking is everywhere around us, and the danger in it is that it often lies very close to the truth. To see an example of this, reference Dan Brown’s latest book The Lost Symbol. This book progresses along a fascinating path of science and in some places, Biblical teaching, nearly ending in absolute Christian truth, only to take a final diversion away. It is so close to God’s truth at times – but close is not correct. That is why real truth must be absolute.

**********************
Next: Worldview #2 - Part 11 – Biblical Christian Biology
-- or –
Back to the start of this series
-- or --
Back to Worldview Series #1

Worldview Class #2 – Part 9 – Marxist Biology

While teaching a Sunday morning class on the topic of various worldviews, I plan to share some of the more significant findings which our class is learning. The main text for the study is The Battle for Truth by David Noebel. A good deal of this class is also based on personal research.

*********************

Three events occurred in the year 1859 which were critically interrelated to the subject of humanist thought on biology. Darwin’s Origin of Species was published in that year. Karl Marx and Frederick Engels began publishing their most concerted work on communist thought.

And Louis Pasteur proved that the concept of spontaneous generation was a falsehood (see The Slow Death of Spontaneous Generation (1668-1859)).


In prior posts, I have shown that spontaneous generation – the idea that all things came into existence from nothing – is a critical a priori assumption made by humanists. And yet, even in the face of Pasteur’s very convincing experiment, Engels said, “Pasteur’s attempts in this direction are useless; for those who believe in this possibility [of spontaneous generation], he will never be able to prove their impossibility by these experiments alone…” From my point of view, this is absolute proof that Marxists rely on the concept of faith at least as much as those who are Christians. In fact, it seems that the ability to trust in the “scientific” concept of “something from nothing” requires far more faith than to simply admit the possibility of a God and Creator of all.

When Marx read Darwin’s paper, he believed that he had finally found “the explanation” that he had been looking for as to how everything came into existence. Marxism relies primarily on the concept of atheism, and in the Marxist worldview there is simply no room for God. Thus, any explanation that can be created which denies God altogether is generally acceptable for the Marxist.

But Marx had a big problem with Darwin’s theory. Darwin himself had said, “If it could be demonstrated that any complex organ existed, which could not possibly have been formed by numerous, successive, slight modifications, my theory would absolutely break down.” This Darwinian concept is called gradualism, and is a pivotal element in teaching evolutionary thought. And yet, such a concept rails against the concept of Marxist dialectic – which says that history and society is formed by sudden and rapid changes. Georgi Plekhanov, a renowned Marxist in the early twentieth century said, “Many people confound dialectic with the theory of evolution. Dialectic is, in fact, a theory of evolution. But it differs profoundly from the vulgar [Darwinian] theory of evolution, which is based substantially upon the principle that neither in nature nor in history do sudden changes occur, and that all changes taking place in the world occur gradually.” For a very long time, Marxism struggled under the burden of this disconnect. Darwinian gradualism was generally accepted by the scientific community, but it disagreed fundamentally with the Marxist concept of sudden change.

All of that changed in 1972, when the concept of punctuated equilibrium was proposed. This handy theory completely explained away the annoying differences between Darwinian evolution and Marxist thought. But like many convenient solutions, it was founded on poor assumptions and bad science. Nevertheless, the idea of sudden changes between species is a generally accepted theory in today’s world. The quality of the science takes a back seat to a theory which confirms the Marxist worldview. Said differently – Marxists will believe anything that supports their viewpoint.

Isn’t it interesting that Christians are often the ones who are accused of establishing a conclusion and then finding facts to support it? But scientists who propose theories and then casually label them as facts are the ones who are lauded as “objective and unbiased”. Christians are made to feel that the idea of a God/Creator and the possibility of a young earth are silly, insubstantial science. But Christians should never forget these simple facts:

1. God created science

2. God made the laws of nature to be sensible and reliable

3. God has made these things plain to those who will but open their eyes to see what He has done

Psalm 19:1-3 tells us,

“The heavens declare the glory of God; the skies proclaim the work of his hands. Day after day they pour forth speech; night after night they display knowledge. There is no speech or language where their voice is not heard.”

In a world dominated by humanist thought and worldly thinkers, God has set forth evidence after evidence before us – in the skies of nature and in all of our surroundings – proclaiming his handiwork. Sadly, as foretold in Romans chapter 1, there are still some who will not see it.

**********************
Next: Worldview #2 - Part 10 – New Age Biology
-- or –
Back to the start of this series
-- or --
Back to Worldview Series #1

Time For A Revolution

I think our federal government is revealing its true colors, now more than ever. While many think that the government naturally exists to take care of the people, or that it is basically harmless, news stories seem to indicate that our national leaders has reached a new low in both senselessness and selfishness.

It seems clear to me that it’s all about power and money. Warning: the following news story may make you mad.

A recent article entitled Feds to Convince DC Area Taxpayers to Embrace $4.8 Billion Mileage Tax just goes to show the extremes that our government will go to in order to get our money. I have to admit I laughed at the title when I first read it – I mean, getting people to “embrace” a new tax? But when I read the article, I realized that it is exactly what they are trying to do. It seems that since gas tax revenues are down in Washington, DC – because people are driving less or using vehicles with better fuel economy – the government needs to replace the tax shortfall with a new tax. The idea is to install a GPS device on every vehicle, and the owner will pay a fee for every mile driven. No matter what road you drive on. Even if you’re just pulling the car out of the garage to wash it.

There are many crazy implications in this article. Here are just a few:

· The first thing the planning board is going to do is spend $400,000 of taxpayer money for a study “on how best to sell the public on a controversial per-mile tax proposal”. Note the irony – taxpayer money is being spent on a study to figure out how to get more taxpayer money.

· “The funds will pay for a series of telephone surveys and focus groups with residents and special interest groups with an eye to determining how best to package ideas that have generated significant public opposition when proposed in other areas around the world.” So – they know it’s not a popular idea, which will require them to figure out how to “package” the concept. I think “package” may be a code word for “lie about”?

· The GPS required for each vehicle would record the distance traveled, as well as the time and location of each movement. Can you say “invasion of privacy”?

· The reason for the new tax would be to make up for the current shortfall of $420 million – money that used to come from gasoline taxes. The new plan would raise ten times that amount – as much as $4.8 billion. I can only conclude that the law would not exist to replace revenues, but to increase them dramatically. I wonder where the money goes? Hmmmm….

· The article lists all of the current places where taxes are paid by motorists in the area – federal excise tax, state excise tax, personal property tax, vehicle registration fees, car insurance tax, special commercial vehicle tax, and parking/speeding tickets. Do you still think the government isn’t out to get ALL of our money?

· It also states that “The total of all motorist-related taxes in Virginia exceeds the amount spent on road building and maintenance in the state”. If true, why do they need to establish a new tax? Could it be that the money will be diverted elsewhere?

Can there be any doubt about what is going on here? Our current crop of politicians want more money, ostensibly to keep running the same programs that exist today. But we also can deduce that they want to invoke more and more programs, thus increasing and consolidating their power over us.

I have had enough. Our leaders have departed from what made this country great. They are trying to drag us to a place of mediocrity and dependent status. Never forget these words of our predecessors:

"Any people that would give up liberty for a little temporary safety deserves neither liberty nor safety." - Benjamin Franklin

"Government is not reason; it is not eloquence. It is force. And force, like fire, is a dangerous servant and a fearful master." - George Washington

"We, the people are the rightful masters of both Congress and the courts, not to overthrow the Constitution, but to overthrow men who pervert the Constitution."
- Abraham Lincoln

So where does the money go? One wise writer told us a long time ago where it goes, and also about the fate of those who abuse their God-given power:

"The Lord enters into judgment against the elders and leaders of his people: ‘It is you who have ruined my vineyard; the plunder from the poor is in your houses.’" - Isaiah 3:14

I think it’s time for a little revolution!

Offering Meditation – The Easter Gift

He is risen!

God is good. He has given us so much in this nation – blessings and wonders abound all around us. It is said that our average lifestyle today is better than any king enjoyed two hundred years ago – the comfort and warmth of our homes, the quality and abundance of our food, and the convenience and speed with which we can travel from place to place are far superior to anything known in previous history. Each week, we take a few minutes to reflect on this, and ponder giving something back to God.

We sometimes think of our offering as a “gift”. Where does that idea come from? Is there a book, chapter, and verse to sustain this idea about gifts? Is it Acts 2:38? No, this says the gift of God is the Holy Spirit. What about Romans 6:23? Again, this says that the “gift of God is eternal life”. 2 Corinthians 9:14-15? No, this speaks of the surpassing greatness of God’s gift of grace. So where do we get the idea that we are giving God a gift?

Well, I found the book, chapter, and verse. It’s called Form 1040, Schedule A, Line 16 – “Gifts to Charity”.

This line of our tax forms implies that we have offered a gift. But can you give a gift to someone who already possesses the thing you are giving? All that we “own”, all that we possess – this is a gift from God to us. Was there ever a moment when all of this wasn’t His? In fact, though we sometimes think that God gave us outright ownership of what we have and that we are generously giving it back to Him, in reality God possesses everything.

God has a history of unselfish giving to mankind. Two-thousand years ago, Jesus Christ lived in heaven with God the Father. Yet, God chose to send him to earth as a sacrifice for our sins. Jesus lived, died, and lived again in order to fulfill God’s purpose – to give us one ultimate gift. Eternal life and victory over death – a priceless present. Aren’t you glad you don’t have to report that on Form 1040?

Worldview Class #2 – Part 8 – Secular Humanist Biology

While teaching a Sunday morning class on the topic of various worldviews, I plan to share some of the more significant findings which our class is learning. The main text for the study is The Battle for Truth by David Noebel. A good deal of this class is also based on personal research.
*********************
Much of our world seems to revolve around science. This tendency has increased dramatically over the last hundred years as we gain more knowledge about our surroundings, and as technological leaps have enabled us to witness, measure, and create wonderful things. Indeed, for some, the wonders of science have almost become a cause for worship…

Among the many scientific areas of interest, the field of biology generates a greater intersection of scientific discovery and emotional response than any other. Topics touching how we got here, and whether we were created by God or formed through random chance, are usually accompanied by a passionate belief.

For the secular humanist, the guiding principle behind their opinion on biology is Darwinian evolution – the theory that matter was created from nothing and that man is continually evolving into a more capable being. The Humanist Manifesto I says “Humanism believes that man is a part of nature and that he has emerged as the result of a continuous process,” while the Humanist Manifesto II claims, “Science affirms that the human species is an emergence from natural evolutionary forces.” It is interesting that in the forty year period between these two documents, humanists migrated from “Humanism believes” to “Science affirms”. Is that indeed a fact?

Facts are funny things – they are supposed to be unimpeachable. Yet most objective scientists who take a look at evolutionary science will admit that there are serious flaws.

First, where did it all come from? For matter and energy to become a living, breathing life form after “millions of years”, there had to be a start. That is, where did the original matter and energy come from? To answer that question, evolutionary scientists rely on the concept of spontaneous generation – the creation of something from nothing. Yet with all of our knowledge and advanced lab equipment, science has not been able to duplicate this theory in any fashion – not even on the smallest scale. So, how does “science affirm” this very important piece of evolutionary theory? So far, it has not.

Skipping past this obvious difficulty in the theory so far, evolutionists next claim that natural selection, through the mechanism of beneficial mutations, allows life forms to evolve over time – nature will select those mutations which give the life form a benefit over competing animals and organisms. Again, do science and observation bear this out? In discussing this with a medical friend, his observation is that nature actually appears to frown on mutations. Many fetuses with a genetic mutation do not make it to birth. And those that are born with a mutation typically have a much shorter life expectancy than average. Consider it – when was the last time anyone ever demonstrated a mutation in an animal or a human being that gave an advantage to that being? Could it be that mutations are actually detrimental, and that a living being with no mutations is actually the one most likely to survive (from the Christian perspective, does God’s creation require a mutation to be “improved”?) What does objective science and real observation say about this piece of evolutionary theory? Again, the proof seems to be against this hypothesis.

Finally, evolutionists point to the fossil record as proof that their theory is correct. Carl Sagan went so far as to say that “evolution is a fact, amply demonstrated by the fossil record.” But is this true? If evolution were to be proven by the fossil record, two things would have to occur. First, fossilized organisms need to become increasingly more simple, the farther down one digs into the earth. The most complex organisms should be nearer to the surface, because they “evolved” later in history. Add to this that there needs to be a plausible ancestor relationship that can be constructed between the fossils that are found in these layers. Second, transitional forms need to found in the fossil record – these are the “missing links” that must have occurred between species. You should be able to find a multitude of examples that appear to be somewhere between a fish and a frog, or that are part bird and part-dinosaur. Yet, do fossil discoveries bear this theory out? In fact ,they do not. So, scientists modify their theory to include unprovable new ideas like punctuated equilibrium (where inter-species evolution occurs very quickly, leaving little time for fossils of these “between species forms” to be deposited). How convenient.

But evolutionary science fails to display proof of any of these three theories (spontaneous generation, beneficial mutations, and the fossil record of evolution). That leaves them with an empty, unproven theory – open for debunking.

Evolutionary scientists could recover from this had they not made one far greater mistake at the very outset of their philosophy. Humanism rejects the possibility that a Divine Creator could have existed to create matter, guide genetics, and create all of the species ever needed in just a few hours. Julian Huxley, famous humanist of the twentieth century, spelled this out when he said, “Modern science must rule out special creation or divine guidance.”

To which I respond with a few questions:

1) Is it good science to initially reject the possibility of a supernatural Creator, without any experimentation or proof to make such a sweeping claim?

2) Are the theories of spontaneous generation and beneficial mutations, coupled with the lack of evidence of evolution in the fossil record, the best science that you can come up with? Don’t these theories require a great deal of faith, since the evidence doesn’t support them?

3) If we’re going to rely on faith, why not consider a “theory of creation” instead?

To me, the last question is intriguing. “Good science” is supposed to be objective. Most of us were taught in science class to assume nothing before conducting an experiment. Wrong assumptions lead to incorrect conclusions. By casting aside a very relevant possibility – that of a Divine Creator – humanism is painted into a very dangerous corner. The idea of humanism is built on two shaky foundations – one of Darwinian evolution, and one of atheism. If either of these foundations were ever to crumble, humanism would have its downfall.

I believe that science is beginning to question the reality of the theory of evolution. It seems possible that a new class of objective scientists will rise up to debunk the theory. Will they allow “the theory of creation” into the discussion? Romans 1:20 tells us that, “since the creation of the world God's invisible qualities—his eternal power and divine nature—have been clearly seen, being understood from what has been made, so that men are without excuse”. This tells us that science – real science – can actually prove the existence of God. I can’t wait.

Finally, Romans 1:23 tells us,

“Although they claimed to be wise, they became fools and exchanged the glory of the immortal God for images made to look like mortal man and birds and animals and reptiles.”

Could it be that this scripture, especially the highlighted part, is fulfilled in the common textbook progression below?

**********************
Next: Worldview #2 - Part 9 – Marxist Biology
-- or –
Back to the start of this series
-- or --
Back to Worldview Series #1

Thoughts On Higher Education – Part 3

…continued from Part 2 – Why Not To Work For A Big Company and What To Do About It
**************
A college education is now perceived by most Americans as being necessary to “succeed” in the business world. Indeed, I felt this way when I attended college – there was never a consideration on my part to stop my education at the high school level. As I pointed out in Part 2, though, there are now some very fine alternatives to college – and they don’t cost a fortune, nor do they take place in anti-Christian settings.

As I pondered this concept, two questions came to mind. If I ever feel that my kids cannot achieve their full potential without a college degree, should I reevaluate what I want them to attain in this life? What is it all really about?

A very wise man, one who had vast resources at his disposal to “experiment” with this idea, once endeavored to answer that very question. He devoted himself to study (Ecclesiastes 1:13) and to explore wisdom. He sought out pleasure, and cheered himself with laughter and wine (Eccl. 2:1-3). He took on great architectural projects, and planted vineyards and gardens –massive projects that were a great source of pride (Eccl. 2:4-6). And he amassed great wealth and acquired many possessions with which to delight himself (Eccl. 2:8-9).

For the first time, I noticed that this progression from the Old Testament parallels the typical American dream. Get educated – set yourself up to have some fun – do great things that can be seen by men – gain wealth – and retire to do something that rewards all of your efforts. Incredibly, it’s right there in the Scriptures – a test of the American dream, played out by the wisest man who ever lived.

King Solomon pondered education, toil, possessions, and amusement. What was it that he learned?

“For the wise man, like the fool, will not be long remembered; in days to come both will be forgotten. Like the fool, the wise man too must die!” – Ecclesiastes 2:16

Solomon concluded that even wisdom is not something that lasts, and while being a wise man is not a bad thing, it is not the ultimate goal. So, what is it that we should spend our lives striving for? Bible readers know the answer that is forthcoming. At the very end of the Old Testament book, the ultimate goal of man’s life is revealed:

“Now all has been heard; here is the conclusion of the matter: Fear God and keep his commandments, for this is the whole duty of man.” – Ecclesiastes 12:13

When all that makes up a great life by human standards is considered - a college education, or wealth, or possessions, or wisdom, or great accomplishments – all of these pale in comparison to the one true goal given to mankind. Fear God and keep His commands. I believe this is the lesson that God has been pointing me toward as he placed the burden of writing these articles on my heart. My children are nearing the end of their time under my roof. The time to make decisions about their future quickly approaches. Can they really be happy if their ultimate lot in life is to have a Bible, a little bread, and a prayerful heart (like the famous 1918 Eric Enstrom photograph at the top of the page)? I must deeply consider what the Father wants for them. Whether it necessitates a college degree – or not – there is one principle that must override every other desire.

I want my children to know God and to have an eternal relationship with the Creator of the Universe. God wants that, too.

Because that is what it’s all about.

***************
Back to Part 1 of the Higher Education series

- or -

on to Bonus Material
***************
Other resources:
We’re Losing Our Own Kids
Jeff Myers – How Parents Subsidize the Destruction Of Kids’ Faith
How To Combat Secular Indoctrination

Worldview Class #2 – Part 7 – Biblical Christian Philosophy

While teaching a Sunday morning class at church on the topic of various worldviews, I plan to share some of the more significant findings which our class is learning. The main text for the study is The Battle for Truth by David Noebel. A good deal of this class is also based on personal research.

*********************

We have defined philosophy as the “rational investigation of the principles of knowledge.” Put more clearly – How do we know what we know?

Unlike the humanistic worldviews, Biblical Christian philosophy centers around one very unique belief – there is a God who exists and who is markedly different from the “natural” world. While most humanist viewpoints limit all things to only the natural world, or in the case of the New Age movement, a “non-natural” world ruled by man’s spirit, the Christian worldview opens the door to the “supernatural”.

As we will see in the future sessions on biology, it is “bad science” to eliminate the possibility of God at the outset of a philosophy, simply because one chooses not to believe. A tottering, ever-changing philosophy can be constructed - but is it wise to assume with no evidence to support it, that God does not exist? For this reason, many philosophers have come around to the idea that the Biblical Christian philosophy is the one which makes the most sense. C.E.M. Joad, once a staunch humanist, made this claim late in his life - “I now believe that the balance of reasonable considerations tells heavily in favor of the religious, even of the Christian view of the world.” In discussing philosophy, Sir Francis Bacon said, “A little philosophy inclineth man’s mind to atheism, but depth in philosophy bringeth men’s minds about to religion.”

The universe tells of a Divine Creator. Many scientific principles support the claim of intelligent design far better than that of humanist worldviews – non-spontaneous generation, DNA theory, and the delicate balance maintained between oxygen and carbon dioxide in our atmosphere – all of these tell of something much greater than random events. My favorite scientific principle to discuss is the Second Law of Thermodynamics, which I like to summarize as “Things fall apart”. We all experience this natural tendency toward decay and disorganization in our everyday lives – dust falls on our mantle and picture frames, junk mail piles up on the counter, the garage begins to tend toward disarrangement shortly after we clean and organize it. Such tendency toward disarray is accepted as normal in our minds. So why is it so easy for some philosophies to accept the idea that something so complex as the human body could be created from nothing, though a series of random events? Such a belief radically violates the Second Law of Thermodynamics – and yet scientists stand by it, claiming that anything is possible given enough time.

For the Christian, we live in a world which moves gloriously to God’s principles and laws. Gravity – a law unto itself – works without fail, because God made it so, and because he wants the consistency of such a principle to tell of his constant and unswerving nature. If gravity were random, life would be far more unpleasant, and such a life would not speak of an unvarying Divine presence. God made gravity to be the way it is for a very distinct reason.

Finally, God made our minds to be a reflection of His mind. We are created in His image, making us unique among all of God’s handiwork. As such, He has given us curiosity and the desire to learn and know. Philosophy is not a thing which should be avoided by Christians – quite the opposite. We possess a philosophy which not only explains everything around us – we possess a philosophy which is right. It is unfortunate that our world pushes aside the Biblical Christian viewpoint as being irrelevant, or not belonging in the same class as other humanist philosophies. In fact, the dedicated Christian should be willing and prepared to defend his or her own philosophical viewpoint with anyone. Supernaturalism explains more than simple naturalism. C.S. Lewis summarized the concept brilliantly,

“The Naturalists have been engaged in thinking about Nature. They have not attended to the fact that they were thinking. The moment that one attends to this it is obvious that one’s own thinking cannot be merely a natural event, and that therefore something other than Nature exists. The Supernatural is not remote and abstruse; it is a matter of daily and hourly experience, as intimate as breathing.”

**********************

Next: Worldview #2 - Part 8 – Secular Humanist Biology

-- or –

Back to the start of this series

-- or --

Back to Worldview Series #1

A Debt Burden for Future Generations

One of the life lessons I continually strive to teach my children is this – don’t get into debt. A modest home mortgage is usually acceptable, but I urge them never to make a credit card charge that they can’t pay off at the end of the month, and not to take on student debt loans which will saddle them with debt precisely at a time when they can’t afford it.

Something even worse than taking on excess debt would be to take it on with no intent to pay it back – but instead, to pass the debt burden on to my kids. What kind of parent would do something like that? Hopefully no one you know.

But this is precisely what the government is doing with yet another spending measure. Oh, they will tell you that the Congressional Budget Office claims that the bill will reduce the deficit. But did you know that the House can send the CBO’s study back to them as many times as they need to – and change the assumptions used until the “facts” fit the story they want? It’s true. And you will note that the CBO’s report was due out last week, but the release kept getting delayed until it was finally produced yesterday, with numbers that Nancy Pelosi said she “loved”? What I want to know is this – what did the CBO come back with the first time? This is no different than hiring a crooked accountant to cook the books for a company until it looks profitable – except that the Congress-CBO game is perfectly legal. Such is the system we live in – but no one will talk about this rule.

The graph above shows that we cannot afford the government programs that we already have in place past the year 2035, and this is only taking into account Medicare, Medicaid, and Social Security - three government programs which have been run with poor financial discretion to date (can you say “bankrupt”?). I'm fairly certain that Medicare wasn't sold to the people as a deficit-producing program - but that is exactly what it has become. Add to this the certain deficit that bailout bills and healthcare will accrete, and the conclusion that I draw is that our children will be born into debt slavery. It’s not fair to them – they never had a choice.

Thomas Jefferson suggested a unique approach to the issue of taking on debt. Jefferson believed strongly that any new government debt should be paid off by current taxpayers, so as not to burden the next generation. He favored limiting any government debt terms to nineteen years – precisely to keep the repayment in the generation which enjoyed the benefits. What a brilliant idea! If only we had adhered to that concept after Jefferson proposed it!

Current-generation debt, not next-generation debt…I could live with that. As long as the CBO is obliged to tell the truth.

Aha – What Healthcare is Really About

Yesterday, I made a mental note to write out these words (I guess if I “tweeted”, that would have been my outlet):

“The healthcare bill is no longer about care for Americans or about lowering costs. It has come down to one thing – if it passes, it will be to protect the egos of three arrogant people.”

I pondered the veracity of that, and decided that it is pretty close to complete truth. With all that I read about the bill (which as of this minute STILL has not been published for our review), it seems that the goal has been lost. Still, a part of me thought that the statement above might be a little harsh.

And then Dennis Kucinich, Democrat Congressman from Ohio, changed his mind today and announced his support for the bill. And said these words,

“You do have to be very careful that the potential of President Obama's presidency not be destroyed by this debate. Even though I have many differences with him on policy, there's something much bigger at stake here for America.”

So…..I guess my original statement was true. It’s no longer about healthcare for America– it’s about something much more self-centered. Is that what government was designed for?

Still unsure? Nancy Pelosi revealed the same thinking when she said, “But we have to pass the bill so that you can find out what is in it.”

Why We Have Three Branches of Government

The whole healthcare debate rages on, and we may see the conclusion this week. Debate can be a good thing. It often allows the free exchange of ideas, especially if those ideas are placed accurately into the market of free thinking. Then others can join in and endeavor to understand the issues, make points, and perhaps vote their wishes through an elected, representative government.

So, what exactly is in the 2,700 page healthcare bill? The truth is – no single person knows. President Obama doesn’t know entirely what all those words add up to, nor do Nancy Pelosi or Harry Reid. It was written in a hurry by many, many people, and I don’t see that a great effort has been made to reconcile those pages against each other, or even to boil down what is in there for the purposes of public consumption. The politicians pushing the bill just want a vote on it, and soon. Their vote cannot be made in a wise or knowledgeable way – our senators and representatives cannot know all of the implications or mandates in those 2,400 pages unless they read and study it. None of them has confessed to doing so – so their vote would have to be cast in ignorance. Is that good government?

The issue that bothers me most in this debate is the push being made by the executive branch (the office of the President) to ram this legislation through, with a blatant disregard for balance. While the majority of the American people are now polled as being against the healthcare legislation, the President continues to push for its passage.

He has the right to push for what he believes in - really. But he is also pressing Congress for a “nuclear option” – to pass the bill through the reconciliation process (I won’t cover that process here – suffice it to say the process exists as a little “trickery” to pass legislation with a 50+% vote, accompanied by a promise to change the bill at a later date.) Those future changes promised by the reconciliation process are not guaranteed, hence, the Stupak coalition and the possibility that a distaste for abortion may actually be the death-knell for this bill.

Even more disturbing is a process being discussed called the “Slaughter solution”. Under this scheme, Democratic leaders will pass the bill by simply “deeming” the Senate bill passed in the House - without an actual vote by members of the House. Yes, it’s for real – the Democratic House Rules committee chairwoman is advising on this possibility. Oh, by the way, her name is Louise Slaughter. Ironic, isn’t it?

And this brings me to my point. Our founding fathers designed our current system of government to have three branches – executive, legislative, and judicial. Checks and balances were created between the three to prevent any one branch from “taking over”. It’s a wise system – created by men who saw how a monarch could seize power and govern at his whim. As journalist Bill Whittle recently said,

The modern Tea Party movement is made up of people peacefully protesting tax rates that, taken in total, approach half of all of their income; protesting the takeover by unelected czars of entire sectors of the economy; protesting the drunken orgy of spending not only the present wealth of the nation but the wealth of our children and our children’s children; protesting waste on a scale where a billion dollars – one thousand million dollars – is essentially undetectable, a rounding error… all of that, which its critics decry as mouth breathing paranoia… while the founders, enshrined in the mural surrounding these documents and which these same critics claim to revere – these founders, the greatest minds ever assembled in one place in the history of the world – took their country to war against the greatest military force on the planet because of a one-cent tax on tea.

Think about that! Forget the penny tax! It was never about the tax. It was about the idea of being ruled by people who cared not a whit about your lives but who only saw you as a source of revenue for their own grand ideas.

The why of America – when it’s all said and done – is simply this: we will be governed with our consent, but we will not be ruled.

Does that remind you of anything? For the full text of Whittle’s excellent article, read here.

I am trusting that the founders’ vision will result in a good outcome. If the executive branch twists the arm of the legislative branch to push through harmful, financially unsound, and unpopular legislation, there is always the possibility that the judicial branch will step in to intervene. And ultimately, there is always the possibility of the people of this nation rising up with a little “revolution” on their minds, right?

Thoughts On Higher Education – Part 2

…continued from Part 1 – The Old Model – Why We Used To Get a College Degree

*********************

Recapping Part 1 - The value of working for a big company used to be substantially different – the employment was stable, companies helped fund employee health plans, and pension plans were offered to aid in retirement. Today all three of these benefits are being stripped away by the big companies – they no longer want the added expense. Thus, in a fairly short amount of time, the idea of owning one’s own business has grown extremely attractive. And here is a key point - you don’t need an expensive college degree to hire yourself as the owner of your own business.

To be sure, some professions still require a college degree in order to participate – such as the medical or teaching fields. My oldest child is considering the medical profession, so I’m not off the college hook by any means. But if these fields are not your goal, you may want to reconsider the idea of paying tens of thousands of dollars to obtain a degree from a university. I believe that the day is fast approaching when that little piece of paper called a diploma will mean a lot less than it has in the past.

The second reason that I hesitate to send my kids to a school of higher learning – especially a state school or Ivy League institution – is due to the culture that pervades these places. I went to a state school - so did my wife. I saw the drunkenness, partying, disregard for authority, and even the Marxist thought that pervades many of our universities. I attended a Psychology class where part of the standard curriculum was to show pornography to the class during one entire class lecture, in an effort to expose students to "another viewpoint" (by the way, that was one of the few days in my four year college career that I skipped class). I saw boys and girls openly groping each other in their dorm rooms, with the door open, in an effort to impress others with their exploits.

All of this had an effect on me - most notably, to strengthen my faith and cause me to step out and be "set apart". Sending my kids into such an environment scares me – it should scare any Christian parent. I have little doubt that my children will be able to handle that cultural pressure after they leave our nest - much like I was forced to adapt. But is it absolutely necessary for their development? Must I pay tens of thousands of dollars to an institution trying to undo the very moral character that my wife and I spent eighteen years nurturing in each of our children? Is there a chance that one of them might stumble, and be forever lost and separated from God's kingdom? There is that chance - and that makes the choice about higher education a very important decision.

One more thought strikes me - and it is bound to be unpopular with many. My own vision for my two girls is first and foremost that they grow up to be stay-at-home mothers, raising and homeschooling their own children in an effort to perpetuate a multi-generational vision of God-serving families. "Stay-at-home mom" was the vision that my wife and I had for our own family when we first were married (homeschooling came a little later). We vowed not to let a desire for money overtake that vision. And so, even though she was very close to overtaking me as the biggest moneymaker in the house, my wife quit her job just before our first child was born. We have never regretted that decision, and I am firmly convinced that God has blessed my career and our earnings because of it. Am I saying that women should never have careers or earn money, even after they have children? No, I am not - that is not a Biblical tenet. I'm simply saying it is the vision that I have for my own family. God tells us, "Where there is no vision, the people perish" (Proverbs 29:18). So I’ve chosen a vision. It may not come to pass, and I will be fine if God wills another direction for my girls.

Want another practical viewpoint – from a real, live, potential college student who has decided to pursue a bold path? Check out Miranda Trujillo’s excellent blog post here. When dealing with the idea of higher education, she writes:

College. It prepares you for a career. As I have said before, I want to be a Godly wife and mother someday. My first priority is making sure that I can someday put my kids first - raising, training and educating them with the bulk of my time. So college, first of all, would train me for an occupation that I would neglect once children came into the picture - maybe even before children if the occupation kept me from focusing on my home.

College also takes lots of money. Money that I don't have. So not only would it train me for a career that I wouldn't use for long - it would put me into debt for this training. Debt that might cause me to continue working at the career I don't want in order to pay off the training I needed for the career I don't want... [italics mine]

That last part is brilliant. I pray that my own kids maintain such a perspective, and that they marry others who are this wise.

Finally, what can we do to prepare our children to earn a living – without the necessity of transferring thousands of dollars to a university? The Christian Home Educators of Colorado have devised a solution – it’s called the AME program. AME stands for “Apprenticeship, Mentorship, Entrepreneurship”. This program pairs willing mentors with interested students to explore, learn about, and work in various professions – without the expense of “checking it out” for years in college (where it is still rare to gain exposure to practical, hands-on experience). Moreover, a student can decide to change their profession after some work experience without the expense of tacking on an additional year or two of college. Finally, the program is designed to bring students under the Christian mentorship of professionals – with an eye toward developing them to work for God’s service (something you don’t get in most colleges). Check out their link at AME.

To Part 3 – Ultimately, what is it all really about?

Thoughts On Higher Education – Part 1

It’s hard for me to believe that I am less than two years away from making a decision about college for my oldest child. In all honesty, it doesn’t seem like that long ago that I was receiving my own college degree.

For many years, the question of higher education for my children had a known formula – get a college degree, find a good job with a stable company, earn a comfortable amount of money, and take care of their family above all else.

So why am I suddenly having serious doubts about this plan?

I think the root of my concern is twofold: 1) I believe that the “value” of a traditional college education has been fading over time, and 2) I see many university programs as being fundamentally anti-God. Do I really want to pay thousands of dollars to an institution that would purposefully try to lead my child away from God’s eternal reward? And then place them in a career where they work, not for God’s kingdom, but for man’s - for half of their waking hours?

I truly believe that the value of a college education, seen even from a worldly viewpoint, is quickly eroding. Things are not the same as they were in the world of business twenty years ago, when I graduated with a degree in electrical engineering. To be sure, my university experience taught me much in terms of social skills, working with others, and how to live with another human being in a twelve foot-by-twenty foot space for a year (a skill I'm not anxious to repeat, but I leave that to God). But those lessons can also be learned outside of the college campus – and you don’t have to pay $10,000 a year, or more, for the privilege.

During my four years of university, I also learned how to manipulate thermodynamic equations, take Laplace transforms, and calculate the magnetic field surrounding a charged Gaussian sphere. And yet, in over twenty years of employment for various technical and engineering-driven companies, I have never had to perform a single one of those exercises. To make the point even more plain, I left college with no clue as to how to wire a simple three-way house electrical switch (the kind used at the top and bottom of a stairway), even though I accepted my diploma – in electrical engineering. This is not to say that I’m ungrateful or spiteful of my college education. I'm thankful for how God has blessed me through the education I received. It has served me and my family well for twenty years. God has blessed us tremendously through my career (and He has divinely intervened at least a couple of times…but that is another story).

My degree got me interviews with big companies, even though my practical knowledge was very limited. That model works well when big companies exist to hire college graduates. The model worked like this – you pay your money to a college institution - who gives you a piece of paper after four or five years of modest effort – and that piece of paper becomes your “ticket” to interview for the world of big business.

But this model has less value if the goal is to work in smaller business or, better yet, if you want to run your own business. If business ownership is the goal, then practical knowledge and a grasp of how to manage a startup is what is needed. And fortunately, starting out a career saddled with tens of thousands of dollars in student loan debt is not required to run your own business. That money (the money that the parents and student have saved for a college education) could be directly applied toward a business startup, preferably after a period of industry mentorship and training.

Think about it – if you have $50,000 saved or purposed for higher education, you can: 1) pay it to a university, get a degree, and jump on the big business bandwagon, or 2) spend some time in a mentorship or training program (while likely earning some money) and then use the $50,000 as seed money to get your child started as the owner of their own business….having already been exposed to the career they will pursue. How many of us have wanted to start our own business at one time, but lacked the money to do so? Would it have been a better investment of that money to apply it directly to our dream, instead of indirectly through a university? For some, I'm sure the answer is "Yes".

These are hard words, full of risk, for those of us who face the decision about higher education. But keep this in mind - isn't the ultimate desire for Christian parents to keep their children directed toward a godly purpose? As long as we keep that final goal in mind, and dutifully ask for God's wisdom, we can count on His intervention to make the right decision...and take the right risk.

To Part 2 – Why Not to Work for a Big Company and What To Do About It

*******************************
Related Reading:
Washington Post article – College Costs Rise While Educational Quality Suffers