Is Rick Perry a Knuckle Dragger?

In my last article, I looked at Rick Perry's big problem with the secular media - he takes his Christian faith too seriously. In this article, I look at why the media considers him deficient in natural intelligence. It goes way beyond being dumber than George W. Bush because Perry attended Texas A&M while Bush attended Yale. Perry is dumb, according to the media, because he believes in creation - proof enough that he is a knuckle dragging Neanderthal right out of the backwoods.

The media had a "gotcha" moment when Perry expressed doubts about evolution to a young boy, and it was caught on tape. He had the nerve to call evolution a "theory," not a fact, and he claimed there were "gaps" in it. Now, mind you, Perry isn't a young earth Biblical creationist as I am, but he does believe God had a hand in shaping this earth. That was enough to cause the famous atheist, Richard Dawkins, to call Perry an "uneducated fool."

Michele Bachmann received that same kind of treatment because she supported a Louisiana law allowing teachers to introduce supplemental textbooks to help students critique and review the scientific theory of evolution. No! Critiquing evolution is off limits, we are told. And how could she support such a thing? But isn't that what scientists are supposed to do?

That kind of intimidation has caused many in the church to dig a hole and crawl in. Or it has caused them to abandon their faith in the Bible as they try to reconcile the Bible to the most recent scientific theory. Shame on them.

Dr. Karl Giberson, a Nazarene author and theistic evolutionist, is an example of a "Christian" who drank the cool aid. In his HuffPost rebuttal to Bachmann, he as much as said scientists are not to be questioned. In other words, have blind faith in evolution or be a heretic. Giberson further stated that it is "disastrous" to allow high school students in Louisiana or elsewhere to critically analyze evolution. Really?

Isn't that what scientists are supposed to do - question and test their theories? Apparently not any more, at least not with evolution. We must meekly accept what we are told by these high priests of the religion called science. Funny, isn't it, that while scientists restrict inquiry, the Bible calls for it. First Thessalonians 5:21 says, "Test all things, hold fast to what is good."

There's a good reason the evolution "cult" refuses to tolerate argument. They can't win - the evidence is stacked against them. Their theory is a house of cards. Even Charles Darwin knew this. Recognizing that the fossil record showed no evidence for his theory, he faulted the "extreme imperfection of the geological record." The fossil record should contain vast numbers of intermediate species (missing links) if this theory of slow change over time were true. What we do find in the fossil record is vast numbers of species appearing complete and fully formed, but we find no intermediaries.

Darwin's excuse was that paleontologists would eventually find the intermediaries in abundance, and he encouraged them to get looking. But they never found any. According to David Raup, geologist at the Field Museum of Natural History in Chicago, since the time of Darwin, "the situation hasn't changed much." Of course not. The evidence for evolution would have been found, if it were true. But there's no evidence for this false theory.

There are no transitional fossils showing animals in the process of evolution - NONE! ZIP! ZERO! This is why the late Stephen Jay Gould of Harvard, the nation's preeminent evolutionist, called the absence of transitional fossils the "trade secret" of paleontology. Indeed, it wasn't the theologians who first opposed Darwin, it was the paleontologists.

I was once a fervent evolutionist myself, totally indoctrinated by the educational system. I majored in zoology as an undergraduate and did post graduate work in the sciences. But it took a bright young girl, whom I later married, and her common sense questions to get me to think critically.

What I discovered from the evidence totally convinced me - evolution is a sham, a farce, a fraud built on theories totally misrepresenting the data. There is no way that the intricacies of even a simple single cell, or even part of a single cell, could ever have happened by chance no matter how many billions of years you give it to try. Even Antony Flew, the most prominent atheist apologist of all, announced that DNA research showed "almost unbelievable complexity," convincing him that "intelligence must have been involved." That intelligence was God. No thinking person could believe otherwise. The awesome design of life must have had a designer.

I became frustrated and angry at the hoaxes and frauds perpetuated as fact and taught in our schools, many of which are still in our children's textbooks - things like "embryology recapitulates phylogeny," or the horse evolution charts, or moths changing color from light to dark because of the amount of soot in the air in England, the Piltdown Man, Nebraska Man, and Java Man. All hoaxes. Who can believe liars and frauds to present the unvarnished truth? Rather, evolutionists are religious fanatics that will go to any extreme to explain their existence apart from God. They might have to admit their accountability to God if they did. Blind chance and billio0ns of years is the only answer they can come up, as totally impossible as that is.

The only answer that makes sense is the one presented in the first verse of the Bible, Genesis 1:1, "In the beginning, God created the heavens and the earth." I take my stand on the Word of the One who was there and gave us his eyewitness account - God.

So, no, it is not the closed minded scientist who have it right. Rick Perry makes immensely more sense by questioning evolution than they do with their blind faith. It won't hurt Perry or Bachmann with the Republican voters either. A Gallup poll showed that "just 8% of Republicans . . . said they believed in evolution without any other intervention." Most Americans can see through this theory of evolution.

Now certainly these articles have not meant to be an endorsement of Rick Perry's candidacy, but a way to point out the folly of the media that have attacked him and the other Christians running for public office. I hope you will see the foolishness of their attacks. If you too want to be opened minded and take a critical look at the evidence, I would recommend checking out the Answers in Genesis website at www.answersingenesis.org or the Institue for Creation Research web site at www.icr.org.

I Don't Believe in Science

A couple of days ago, Howard Dean, head of the Democratic National Committee, made a statement that Republicans don't believe in science any more because they weren't buying into the Global Warming hype. I don't know about Republicans, but I for one don't. I don't believe in science. There, I've said it. And I speak as one who has a Bachelor's Degree in Zoology and post graduate work in Biological Sciences. I once believed everything they said. I swallowed it hook, line, and sinker (much to my embarrassment). But not any more. The truth is, I believe in "real" science. What I don't believe in is the way much of science is practiced today.

Why have I changed my mind about science? Because science has changed. Like much of our modern world, science has bought into the postmodern mindset. That is a mindset that has declared war on truth.

"Truth is whatever you believe."
"There is no absolute truth."
"If there were such a thing as absolute truth, how could we know what it is?"
"People who believe in absolute truth are dangerous."

These are the kinds of assertions that are made by postmodernists, even scientists who have a postmodern mindset. Postmodernists believe that truth is created, not discovered. They think that things like reason, rationality, and confidence in science are cultural biases. Therefore truth isn't the purpose of scientific study any more, the agenda is. Righting the wrongs becomes the goal of science even if it means manipulating the data to bolster the agenda.

The latest example of this is the "Global Warming" hysteria. When the pilfered e-mails were published, it showed our respected scientific community was guilty of hiding conflicting data, secrecy, and the intimidation of any opposing views or research. Now that they have been exposed for their hoax, rather than causing them to slink off into a corner in shame (as they would in any rational world); they become ever more shrill in their insistence that "Global Warming" is definitely real in spite of the evidence we can see and feel around us, and that immediate action must be taken to "save the world."

Anyone familiar with the creation-evolution debate has seen the similarity of the tactics since the days of Darwin- the evolutionists ignore or hide contrary evidence and intimidate the opposition. The movie by Ben Stein, "Expelled - No Intelligence Allowed," humorously documented the outrageous efforts to stifle free debate about the scientific evidence. For years, the evolutionists have presented pure fabrications and hoaxes as evidence for their "theory," and have been reluctant to pull the evidence even when the evidence has been proven false or proven a fabrication. This is why I don't believe in science.

When I look at the evidence, It cries out that this world was shaped by the global flood of Noah's day. You laugh? Think about it. If the global flood actually occurred, what evidence would it leave? Quoting Ken Ham of Answers in Genesis, the evidence would be "billions of dead things buried in rock layers laid down by water." Isn't that what you would expect from a global flood that is reported to have destroyed all that has breath not on the ark? Amazing, that is exactly what we see all around this globe. Yet this obvious explanation for the massive rocks layers laid down by water filled with the fossil record is thrown out.

Why? Because it doesn't fit their atheistic presuppositions. The truth is, it is never a lack of proof that explains why men don't believe. They don't believe because of their wills. To acknowledge a creator God would force them to acknowledge that their creator has the right to demand certain behavior from them, and to judge them for their transgressions. Yet the evidence of God's creative hand is all around us (For documentation, see www.answersingenesis.org). I haven't taken the time to provide that evidence to you, but you can easily find it if you are interested. But be warned, the evidence leads us to God. And the evidence will force you to make a decision about Him. The eternal consequences for that decision you will bear.

Creation Museum

This past week, our family and two other families from church traveled to Covington, Kentucky, to the Answers in Genesis Creation Museum. It would be hard to find words to express just how impressed we were. Not only was it accurate and faithful to the Biblical account of creation from the book of Genesis, but the sheer quality of the exhibits was beyond compare.

The museum was set up around the seven "Cs" of history - creation, corruption, catastrophe, confusion, Christ, cross, and consummation. The walk through the Garden of Eden was fabulous. The dinosaurs were lifelike. The cross section of Noah's ark showed the immense size of this ship. The planetarium showed the vastness of God's created universe. The grounds were a virtual garden paradise. And the petting zoo was a hit with the kids.

Without reservation, we highly recommend the creation museum for anyone, both saved and unsaved. If you are anywhere in the vicinity, it would be worth the side trip to make a visit. Even if you made this your main destination, it is worth the drive. A solid understanding of creation is the bedrock of our faith. You can find information about the Creation Museum at www.answersingenesis.org.

God's Purpose For Marriage

In the last entry, I made the point that God, at creation, was the one who designed marriage. In light of the concerted effort by some in our society to redefine marriage, it is important for us to go back and see what God's original purpose was. So what was God's purpose?

Now certainly, since marriage is such an important human institution, there can be many purposes; and indeed there are. Last time we looked at two of them. God said that it was not good for man to be alone, so He created the woman to be helpmeet, meaning his complement and completer. If God had simply wanted to create companionship for Adam, He could have brought him a dog to roam the fields with or a good buddy to go bowling with. God didn't! But that wasn't God's intention. God wanted to make man complete, so He created the woman.

Also, we looked at the fact that God created us in His image, and especially that it was as male and female He created us. We made the point that together, as male and female, joined in the marriage bond, we more fully reflect the image of God.

But that verse that we looked at, Genesis 1:27-28, also alludes to another important reason for marriage. Reading the verses again, it says, "So God created man in His own image; in the image of God He created him; male and female He created them. Then God blessed them, and God said to them, 'Be fruitful and multiply; fill the earth.'" Interestingly, the first command God gave this couple was to procreate - to join God in the creative process by creating new human life. Marriage is intended to be the fountain from which children and families spring forth.

Malachi 2:15 adds to that. It is another verse that talks about the purpose for marriage. It asks the rhetorical question, "But did He not make them one, having a remnant of the Spirit? And why one? He seeks godly offspring." The first question asks, did God create the man and the woman and unite them together as one in marriage? The obvious answer from Genesis 2:18-25 is, Yes! God created the woman specifically to be man's complementary mate. But why did He do it? that is the question that is answered here. He seeks godly offspring. God intended marriage to be fruitful - as a place where children can be born and can be nurtured with a mother and a father - the full complement of His image. Certainly, sometimes in God's plan a specific couple is childless, but the purpose of marriage is to bear and raise offspring for God. By calling them godly, the verse assumes that the parents, the mother and father, will teach their children about God and train them to love and serve Him. God's desire is for a world to be populated by people trained to worship Him.

Same sex relationships are by definition barren. If same sex couples are allowed to adopt children, the best they can do is model only one half of the image of God. And even saying that, what they really model is rebellion against God's plan for marriage, since His plan was for one woman and for one man to be joined. Same sex marriages can never fulfill God's purpose. In order to fulfill God's plan, the marriage has to conform to God's design.

Battling Over the Definition of Marriage

In Maine, as in most of the country, we are fighting a political battle over the definition of marriage, with those who would redefine marriage wanting to allow the pairing of same sex couples. Whether they will be politically successful or not is yet to be determined; but on another front, they can never be successful, because marriage simply is what it is.

When the framers of the Declaration of Independence were crafting their words, they came up with this beautiful phrase, "We hold these truths to be self-evident." It is self evident that a marriage is between one man and one woman. Anyone who takes time to observe the differences between the sexes should agree. God created the two sexes to be different but mutually complementary. We are created with different bodies to allow procreation. We are created with different emotions, to allow us to better fit different roles. Everything about our design as different sexes shows that we were meant to be joined. We were created male and female to complement one another - to complete one another. This is the way that God designed it to be. Same sex couples can never experience this same complementary relationship

In Genesis 2, according to God's eyewitness account, God looked over His creation, a creation He had deemed very good, and found something that wasn't good. Genesis 2:18 says, "And the Lord God said, 'It is not good that man should be alone; I will make him a helper comparable to him'." A comparable helper (helpmeet in the old King James Version) isn't a subservient term, but rather it means to complete, to fulfill, to compliment. That is what Adam needed, someone to fulfill and complement him - not another someone just like him. So God caused a deep sleep to come over Adam, and God took a piece of his side and formed it into a woman. Then God brought the woman to the man and presented her to Adam as his wife. God's commentary on the situation is found in Genesis 2:24, "Therefore a man shall leave his father and mother and be joined to his wife, and they shall become one flesh." This is what God designed - a marriage between a man and a woman, between a husband and a wife. Is is significant in the story that when God wanted to create a help meet for Adam He created a woman. It was Adam and Eve, not Adam and Steve. And this was for a very good reason.

In Genesis 1:27-28, we read,

"So God created man in His own image; in the image of God He created him; male and female He created them. then God blessed them, and God said to them, 'Be fruitful and multiply; fill the earth and subdue it.'" NKJV

God created man in His own image. But what is significant is this - what God created to be in His image was two sexes. One of the most fascinating things about God's design for marriage is that in marriage we see a picture of the nature and character of God - a picture God placed there by design. This is a picture that can be achieved in no other way than through the union of one man and one woman. But together, we can reflect the tenderness of God through a nursing mother with the strength of God through the husband providing and protecting for his wife. The illustrations are numerous. The two sexes were designed to be joined.

Yes, as individuals we are created in the image of God, but to fully reflect that image, it takes a man and a woman. God's image is expressed when the two halves of humanity complement each other and become one. A male by himself is not fully representative. Neither can a female fully represent the image of God. But when we unite, as husband and wife joined together as one, we represent the full spectrum of God's image. Male and female are made, in themselves, with a lack that can only be completed by the complement of the other. This is a basic lack that is built into the fabric of society by God Himself.

We can see this expressed as well in Ephesians 5. Here we find the lengthiest passage in Scripture dealing with the marriage relationship. After verse after verse talking about how a husband should treat his wife and she him, it concludes this way, "This is a great mystery, but I speak concerning Christ and the church." Ephesians 5:32 NKJV. We would have thought the topic was our earthly marriages, but, NO, says this verse. The topic has been the relationship of Christ to His church - His bride. Our earthly relationships are really but an earthly picture of the spiritual relationship between Christ and His church. When wives submit to their husbands, they are but a picture of how the church submits to her head, Christ. When men sacrifice for their wives, we are but an earthly picture of how Christ sacrificed for His bride, the church, dying on the cross to redeem her. In our most intimate relationship as man and wife, we model that even more intimate relationship between Christ and His bride, the church.

The truth is, marriage was designed by God. He designed it the way He did for a reason. It was not left up to us to redesign marriage to fit our desires. We must simply conform to the plan that He has established.