buy prednisone

Archive for » August, 2008 «

August 20th, 2008 | Author:

There are two issues here:

First our founding fathers never considered the classroom as a godless environment.

George Washington:
“What students would learn in American schools above all is the religion of Jesus Christ.”

Second, that Creationist or ID thought is not religion clothed in the guise of science.  In fact the Creationist/ID view of lifes origins is becomming more and more the logical view in explaining the complexities of scientific evidence.  It is being kept out of the schools by threat and intimidation, by rule of the courts and not by the rule of reason.  We as citizens and parents must speak out against this attempt to use strong arm tactics to govern our childrens educational futures.

August 12th, 2008 | Author:

A famous Benjamin Franklin quote goes: “We must all hang together, or most assuredly we shall all hang separately.”

One of the true tragedies amongst Christian believers regarding creationist beliefs is that we have in fact hung separately. Differences in belief and doctrine’s have ostracized and fragmented the family of God. If we are to stay the onslaught of materialistic atheism in our schools and in our society we have to hang together. We have to get committed to making a godly change in our society or those that are more committed will continue to erode the moral fiber of our nation.

We need to go to school board meetings, town hall meetings, write our congressmen and generally make a presence in our communities.  In short we need to get involved. Over the course of the next few months there will be new functionality on this site to help to organize town meetings and other groups to pull the Christian community together.

August 12th, 2008 | Author:

The fall of man had far reaching effects.  One of those being that mankind, that was created perfect, was now fallen and imperfect.  Part of that imperfection has to be genetic and the study of “genetic irregularities” may be insightful in understanding the implications genetically of that fall. When one looks at even the most basic cell there is an amazing orchestration of processes constantly at work. The complexity and integration of these processes is still far beyond the reach of modern science. But yet in this marvelous machine occasional errors crop up, inconsistencies in the genetic replication process. Evolutionists have taken these flaws in living things (genetic copy errors) and tried to turn them into a creative force (the formulation of new living beings), a job they are not well suited for. Man will stay in this fallen state until the Lord returns and we will not be bound by this imperfect environment any longer, for we will be like Him for we shall see Him “as He is”.

Another one of the aspects of genetics that makes this so interesting is what could be called “Genetic Resiliency”, or the ability of the species to stay a species. Regardless of the genetic copying problems and the many mutations undergone, species seem to want to stay basically the same over time. As David Berlinski states in the “Icons of Evolution” video “we should have far more… plasticity” genetically if Darwin’s ideas are true.  The Creationist understands that God created life “after its kind” and would expect this resiliency. It is this impervious nature of species to change that makes the many mistakes in genetic reproduction such an interesting topic. On the one hand an imperviousness to change and on the other a partially broken mechanism.  The future of genetic research will provide some very interesting information.


August 11th, 2008 | Author:

The Problem

Christianity has set itself between two untenable positions regarding the origin of things. On the one hand much mainstream Christianity postulates that God created everything via evolution. This indefensible position begs the question and merely attempts to make everyone (creationists and evolutionists alike) happy. There is virtually no scriptural or scientific backing for this position. On the other hand is the concept of a “young universe”, that postulates that everything began 4,000 to 6,000 years ago and that the age of fossil records and carbon dating are all erroneous. This position ends up with the T-Rex in the garden with Adam (maybe even on the arc) and must ultimately close a blind eye to scientific evidence. The result is that neither of the prominent positions gives Christianity a leg to stand on when it comes to creation’s beginnings. The ultimate reason for both of these theories failing is that the Word of God is given second billing to theology and the traditional teachings of the church.

August 11th, 2008 | Author:

Its survival of the fittest and Darwinism is not adapting well to the modern environment. Competition was not as intense 150 years ago, resources were scarce (not much was known about the complex nature of life) but there were fewer theories struggling for the limited natural resources available. Not much was known about the living cell in Darwin’s day, it was in effect, a “black box”, something that could not be looked into like we can today with our high powered microscopes and was considered simplistic to today’s standards. DNA was not discovered until 10 years after Darwin’s Origin was written and it was not until the 1950’s that a correct understanding of its function was known. Since then there has been an explosion of information about the living cell; the voluminous information stored in the DNA, cell replication and specialization, etc., etc. All of this knowledge makes it harder for Darwinism to compete as a plausible explanation for how life began. Darwinist explanations require randomness and multi-celled organisms require a front loaded plan in order for a cell to replicate and specialize to form various organs in the new living being. Evolution does not do “front loading” and so these ideas are antithetical by nature and the pressure on Darwinism just gets worse as the scientific knowledge increases, how can it possibly survive?

If the scope of Darwin’s work was to show evolution as a means of species adapting to their environment or slight genetic changes within species leading to rare genetic enhancements, there would be no issues at all, since “evolution” does a good job with those types of things.  But Darwin sought to explain the Origin of Species, and this we are finding out Darwinian Evolution can not help us with.  Mike Behe showed the “Edge of Evolution” and that genetic changes coupled with natural selection have a very limited scope in providing positive mutation withing a species.  He also demonstrated that “Irreducible Complexity” provides a wall that genetic adaptation cannot hurdle.

We are finding out that the “simplest” cell is complex beyond our wildest imaginations.  That life at the cellular level is a source of wonder and amazement, that even with 50 years of research has just begun to be tapped.  All of the “just so” stories of evolution can not begin to explain amazing machines that function withing these microscopic entities. 

August 11th, 2008 | Author:

Michael Behe

One of the men who has brought an awareness of life’s biological complexities to the forefront of modern thinking is Michael Behe. His “Darwin’s Black Box” set off a firestorm of controversy in the scientific community that will be felt for many years to come.


{iframe width=”120″ height=”240″ frameborder=”1″ scrolling=”no” }{/iframe}

Darwin’s Black Box – Life at the molecular level

Behe’s book Darwin’s Black Box has opened the eyes of many in the scientific community and elsewhere to the tremendous sophistication of even the most basic functions within a cell. It has also open almost a war about the adequacy of evolution as an explanation of the origin of life. This book sets forth in a logical manner the why of life at the biochemical level and that it could not have “evolved”. His primary tenant is that there are systems that are irreducibly complex, meaning that they are an enclosed system with all the functionality contained therein required to sustain life. Because they are irreducibly complex they, by definition, could not have evolved, for each function of this system is necessary to sustain life and therefore could not have been added from a less complex system. It?s a great book and a good read, from a very learned man in his field.


{iframe width=”120″ height=”240″ frameborder=”1″ scrolling=”no” }{/iframe}

The Edge of Evolution – The Search for the Limits of Darwinism


The second book by Behe is long on statistics.  It goes to the most basic of life forms in extent today, single celled parasites (and in particular malaria) and does the math to see how far Darwinian evolution (that is genetic mutation and natural selection) will take us. He was wise in selecting these tiny organisms since due to the shortness of their reproductive cycle (days not years), the amount of them (literally trillions) and their minimalist genetic structure Darwinian evolution has as much opportunity in a few years with these one celled organisms as it has had in millions of years for higher organisms to do its magic.

So what has Darwinian evolution been able to do? Here’s an example from the edge regarding HIV: “the best current estimate is that a person infected with HIV is burdened with a total of 1 to 10 billion virus particles…. So over the course of 10 years a single person will produce more than a thousand generations of HIV… since there are approximately fifty million people worldwide infected with the virus the math points to a total of about 1020 copies of the virus having been produced in the past several decades.” And exactly what has all that evolution of HIV wrought? Very little.   … the virus has been a complete stick-in-the-mud… there have been no significant basic biochemical changes in the virus at all.“

So the “edge of evolution” is measurably small compared to the vastness of complexity seen in nature. The more knowledge we gain the smaller the contribution Darwinian evolution brings to the table.

What Behe Did NOT Say (the bigger picture..)

The subject of life at the level of the organism is briefly alluded to by Behe in the closing chapters of “The Edge”, but the principals set forth in these two books have monumental impact when applied to the subject of entire living organisms. In fact the life cycle of each species of animal is an irreducibly complex system itself composed of irreducibly complex systems. This phenomenon of “Cascading Irreducable Complex Systems”, where an organelle within a cell is dependent on the cell, which is dependent on the organ, which is dependent on the organism, brings a level of complexity which no answer can be found from Darwin.  One of the reasons the ancient conundrum “what came first the chicken or the egg” cannot be solved is the question itself is in error. While the chicken and her egg may contribute to the ingredients on the breakfast table, it is the chicken and the rooster and the egg that provides the possibility of future chickens. This cycle of life for the chicken is an irreducibly complex system and another unanswered issue in the evolutionist’s list. The idea of replication by cell division produces a great enough dilemma, as anyone who has sat in a biology class and watched in wonder a film of a cell splitting can attest to. But to even speculate how a system of reproduction could “evolve” that requires the contribution of two sets of genetic materials (male and female) which then goes through a transformation process that is awe inspiring even to modern science, is truly “impossible” using the processes evolutionary theory provides, and has been widely avoided by evolutionists. The alleged evolutionary precursor to the chicken (the supposed original egg layer) didn’t have some alternate form of carrying on its species until the egg laying process “evolved”. It did not through “selection” adopt the egg method of reproduction. The cycle of life of each species is irreducibly complex in both its means and its process and each aspect of this complex process is required if the species is to continue.

August 11th, 2008 | Author:

Much of the effort in Intelligent Design is aimed at demonstrating that it can and does have a place in scientific investigation. William A. Dembski does this in his book The Design Inference. But for the Creationist any rational discussion of the subject of Intelligent Design in the Universe must start with the Word of God. And the statement in Genesis 1:11: “And God said, Let the earth bring forth grass, the herb yielding seed, and the fruit tree yielding fruit after his kind, whose seed is in itself“, cannot be overemphasized,. Both the phrase “after his (its) kind and “whose seed is in itself” point to two important aspects of life and two major problems for evolutionary theory. The types or genus of living things are after their kind (see Paul Nelson’s article in Signs of Intelligence) Also the means for that life to continue is contained in the life itself and this for the evolutionist brings up the problem of beginnings. In order for natural selection to work and for the possibility for evolution to explain the complexity of life on this planet, there must be an initial living organism that could change (through selection and genetic mutation) and propagate itself. Nor must this “primitive” organism just have life, but it must be able to replicate itself. Cells from the “most primitive” organisms to the most complex replicate themselves through the same amazing process, that being cell division or mitosis. This incredible process is common to and required by every living organism known to man, including those speculated about by Darwin that were the basis for all other life. It would be more probable for a bus involved in a auto accident to be split into two mini vans than for this form of cell replication to have occurred by chance and yet it is postulated as fact by the evolutionists. This imaginary first cell of the Darwinian’s must have already had the capability to divide or it could never replicate itself. And if it did not do so by the means we know life to replicate itself today, it could not be the precursor to the life we see around us.

And even this level of complexity is not enough, but if natural selection is to “work it’s magic” this living thing must be able to adapt (or mutate). It must be inherently more complex than that which is able to sustain and replicate its own life. If not there is no method for it to change or “evolve”. For the evolutionist this life had to have just “showed up on the scene” pre-constructed and ready to go without the intervention of outside intelligence. Intelligent design is calling these monumental assumptions into question as good science, postulating they might be more accurately classified as religion.

As many have pointed out the knowledge of the mechanics of life in Darwin’s time was exceedingly crude. Microscopes could not even see into the cell to understand its workings. Darwin’s observations on natural selection were on a much broader scale, observing entire living organisms. With the increase in our understanding of the underpinnings of life Darwin’s observations become less and less adequate in explaining the ultimate origin of life, as we know it. We now know that even the most basic organisms are incredibly complex machines. The genetic code within living organisms contains data, so much data that Bill Gates referred to it as “far more advanced than any software we’ve ever created” in his book “The Road Ahead” and even the evolutionist Richard Dawkins referred to it as having as much information as “1,000 Encyclopedia Britannica’s” in his book the Blind Watchmaker. Every form of life in extent today uses the same complex system, with the same voluminous informational content. There are no vestiges of another “simpler” form that gave rise to the life in evidence now. Intelligent Design rightly recognizes that complex data alludes to a designer while the evolutionists are unsuccessfully looking for their answers in an alleged “primordial soup”. In the book Signs of Intelligence, a compilation of fascinating articles, Stephen Meyer shows the statistical dilemma resulting from this line of thinking.


Category: Overview  | Leave a Comment
August 11th, 2008 | Author:

Intelligent Design

For the invisible things of him from the creation of the world are clearly seen, being understood by the things that are made, even his eternal power and Godhead; so that they are without excuse: Romans 1:20

God’s handiwork, His magnificent design, is clearly seen in His creation. For the Creationist this is self evident. But Intelligent Design and Creationism are not equivalent. Intelligent Design is a scientific methodology that detects and analyzes design in the universe. As a scientific methodology it does not, nor does it require the postulating of the identity of the designer, it merely identifies that design has occurred. This distinction is in keeping with the tenants of science.

One of the greatest things the Intelligent Design movement has brought to science is a “common sense” approach to the analysis of scientific data. For instance if one saw leaves and twigs scattered on the ground one would assume they had ben blown there by the wind or some other natural phenomena. But if those same leaves and twigs, etc. were sitting on a tree branch in a circular shape with a hollowed out center one would immediately conclude a bird had plied its skills in making a nest. It is common sense to understand that such things do not organize themselves in nature, since it has never been seen to occur. So we naturally suspect the bird. Intelligent Design asks the question “Why not apply the same deductive reasoning on the bird itself?” Are there aspects of the existence of the bird that lie outside the laws of chance in nature that would indicate the design of an outside intelligence? The answer to this question is yes, and Intelligent Design shows why this explanation is a better fit with the scientific evidence.

Category: Overview  | Leave a Comment
August 09th, 2008 | Author:

Creationism is a broad “blanket” term covering a number of distinct beliefs, all of which agree that the Book of Genesis gives an account of the origins of the material world.  Some believe the Genesis record is “Symbolic” or “figurative” and some take a “literal” approach.  What is meant by literally is usually that they have the proper understanding of exactly what the Bible says.  Amongst the most literal of the literalists is the Young earth proponents who believe that the earth was created in six days (see elsewhere for a discussion of the problem with the “6 days of creation” argument.)  This idea lumps the first two verses of Genesis into the first “day of creation” assuming that God originally created the heavens and earth “without form and void” and then proceeded to do further creative work to the world in the balance of day one and the other “days of creation”.   They attest that since the earth was created in six literal days and we can trace lineage figures in the Bible since Adam, that the earth is thousands (not millions or billions) of years old.  In doing so they disagree with carbon dating findings and place the fossil record of dinosaurs and other extinct species in the time prior to the flood of Noah.

Phillip Johnson has made a valid and important point in showing that the creationist fight is not amongst believers, regardless of their dating of the origin of things, but with the evolutionary materialists and the evolutionary creationists (same thing.)  But truth is truth and so some time is spent here disscussing issues with the young earth concepts and authors.  It is done however with the attidude of lively discussion anoungst the household of believers and not to cause division within the Body of Christ.

August 09th, 2008 | Author:

The simple truth from the scriptures is “In the beginning God created the heavens and the earth”. The majority of Americans believe this to be true, in fact 75% of Americans consider themselves Christian (of one type or another).  A recent Gallop poll (2008) showed only 14% of Americans believe that God had no play in man’s creation.  But despite these overwhelming statistics the schools that our children attend teach  materialistic atheism.  Our universities and science labs are so godless that to mention God and science in the same sentence amounts to vocational suicide.

Hey we are all after the same thing, we all believe we are honestly searching for answers to important questions, why all the animosity and hostility?  In The God Delusion Richard Dawkins says some pretty nasty things, among these that God is “…petty, unjust, unforgiving, control freak; a vindictive, bloodthirsty, ethnic cleanser; a misogynistic, homophobic, racist, infanticidal, genocidal, filicidal, pestilential, megalomaniacal, sadomasochistic, capriciously malevent bully.” So this is Darwinism at its most vehemently evil point.  And this book is a best seller!

As surely as there is a God and He sent His son to give us life more than abundant, there is a thief, the devil, who wants to rob it from us.  And he has been doing a pretty good job, with all the technology, etc. available in this time our quality of life (time for family and friends, expendable wealth…) has gone down.

 But the natural man receiveth not the things of the Spirit of God: for they are foolishness unto him:

neither can he know them, because they are spiritually discerned.

1 Corinthians 2:14

 The materialistic mind (those in science without a knowledge of God) CANNOT know or understand spiritual matters.  All they can see is natural causes, so naturally (forgive the pun) thoses are the only causes that make sense to them. This is the real issue with naturalistic materialsm.  So when some materialist cals you a knuckle draggin, religious, son of a @#&@%*#%… just smile, they can not help themselves; they are blind to the greatest most majestic part of life, shut off from the true wonder of nature.  But we are not and that is what we will be exploring here.