Friday, November 27, 2015


Here is how I responded to an atheist accusing me of bias:

You are right. I am governed by my presuppositions and biases. I just find it hard to believe:

1.     That everything jumped into existence uncaused out of nothing.
2.     That proteins and DNA simply self-constructed.
3.     That Darwinian gradualism can account for new organs.
4.     That the cell with all of its incredible machinery just appeared.
5.     That life is just a matter of materials coming together.
6.     That we don't have freewill.
7.     That consciousness is just a product of matter.
8.     That the Laws of science were produced by a big explosion
9.     That our universe is just one out of an infinite number of universes - a devise to explain fine-tuning.
10. That morality is just something we invent.
11.  That logic and reason just happened without a design and a grand purpose.

Sorry, I just don’t and can’t share your faith!

Thursday, November 26, 2015


Irreducible complexity is a theory that argues in favor of an intelligent Designer by showing that random mutation and natural selection are unable to account for new organs or structures. Evolution must take place step-by-step and each step must confer a survival advantage. However, to confer this advantage, many new genes must be simultaneously in place to produce any beneficial structure. Richard Kleiss provides the example of blood clotting as an irreducibly complex process:

  • Bleeding must be stopped. While the scab is forming…the blood below is making a completely different kind of clot out of blood platelets and protein…Your body increases the flow of blood enriched with white blood cells. These cells not only search out and kill germs, but clean the wound of damaged cellular tissues. Skins cells start to increase the rate at which they make new cells in order to bridge the cut with new skin. Underneath…cells called fibroblasts fill the wound to strengthen the tender new tissue, and then contract to pull the wound closed. Finally, blood vessels and nerves complete their repairs as the fibroblasts position themselves along the lines of stress to prevent further damage.” (A Closer Look at the Evidence)
Without any one of these processes, any cut could cause death. In fact, any structure is irreducibly complex. Atheist Richard Dawkins admits that:

  • The creationists are right that, if genuinely irreducible complexity could be properly demonstrated, it would wreck Darwin’s theory. (The God Delusion, 125)
Darwin himself said as much:

  • “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. But I can find no such case.”
Is there any evidence that new organs arise through “slight modifications?” Casey Luskin cites the late biologist, Lynn Margulis, member of the National Academy of Sciences: "new mutations don't create new species; they create offspring that are impaired.” She further explained in a 2011 interview:

  • [N]eo-Darwinists say that new species emerge when mutations occur and modify an organism. I was taught over and over again that the accumulation of random mutations led to evolutionary change-led to new species. I believed it until I looked for evidence.
Is there any evidence? Apparently none! John C. Lennox quotes several evolutionists to this effect:

  • John Maynard Smith, E. Szathmary: “There is no theoretical reason that would permit us to expect that evolutionary lines would increase in complexity with time; there is also no empirical evidence that this happens.” (God’s Undertaker: Has Science Buried God, 107)
  • Siegfried Scherer: “In the whole experimentally accessible domain of microevolution (including research in artificial breeding and in species formation), all variations have certainly remained within the confines of basic types.” ()
  • Cell biologist E.J. Ambrose of the University of London argued that it is unlikely that fewer than five genes could ever be involved in the formation of even the simplest new structure, previously unknown in the organism. He then points out that only one in 1,000 mutations is non-deleterious, so that the chance of five non-deleterious mutations [the minimum necessary for any new function] occurring is 1 in a million billion replications.
This means that every organism will probably die before it adds a new organ! But evolutionists assure us that, eventually, they will come up with a solution.


The once great USA is becoming a modern-day Tower of Babel. The common glue that had once held us together as a nation has been systematically attacked.  Instead of a common Babelian language – it had been removed and the people separated into their own ethnic groups - which had held together the people of Babel, now, it is the Constitution and the First Amendment that are in jeopardy.

My wife and I like to see the 5th Avenue, NYC Christmas displays. However, these have been replaced by allegedly inoffensive Santas and snowflakes, leaving us offended.

Today, my wife wanted Thanksgiving to be a special day in observance of our shared history, which had once united Americans. However, as hard as she tried to find programming on TV which would retell the story, she could only find references to turkeys, stuffing, and cranberries. Likewise, Christmas has succumbed to superficialities of gifts and Christmas trees. (Subsequently, she did find on CBN an inspiring account of the Indian Squanto and his pivotal role in the first Thanksgiving.)

However, the effects of the eradication of our common glue can be seen in many areas of life. The hatred is bubbling to the surface like inflammable methane gas from septic tanks. Meanwhile, the culture wars are being pursued relentlessly. For example, the ACLU brought charges against Jones County, NC commissioners for praying to Jesus before each meeting.

  • According to the [ACLU], the prayers “are explicitly sectarian and favor only one religion, Christianity”…The ACLU’s field office in Raleigh sent a letter to Jones County commissioners April 3, writing the commissioners’ invocation prayer “should not demonstrate a preference for one particular sect or creed.”
“Jesus” has become the one unutterable word in a country whose Declaration of Independence recognizes that the God of the Bible is the one and only source for our “unalienable rights.”

The ACLU charge is based on the erroneous assumption that by eliminating religion from the public sphere, it would now become neutral, assessable, and pleasing to all. This, of course, is highly disingenuous. By eliminating God, another religion quickly and automatically fills the void. If God and faith can no longer be invoked, then only the opposite beliefs – atheism, secular humanism, multi-culturalism, materialism, naturalism, moral relativism, and permissiveness – are allowed to dominate the public arena. Ironically, by appealing to a distorted understanding of the “separation between church and state” – the “establishment clause”- secularism and atheism have now become our state established, sanctioned and supported religion! However, this remains an unspoken secret among the elite – that they equally violate the “separation clause” by establishing the religion of secularism.

More recently, The American Family Association reported on November 10 that:

  • The Office for Civil Rights in President Barack Obama's Department of Education (DOE) has determined that a Chicago area high school must leave the choice to openly use the girls' locker room up to a 15 year-old student who has male genitalia, but self-identifies as a girl.
Why should this one boy’s choice to be a girl undermine the rights of everyone else?

Here is a statement from a spokesperson at the DOE:

  • "Unfortunately, Township High School District 211 is not following the law because the district continues to deny a female student the right to use the girls' locker room."
Why coerce the entire school district (and subsequently the nation) to conform to federal guidelines? It seems apparent that they are guided by a new religion that requires the elimination of any sexual distinctions and sexual taboos and the promotion of any and every sexual choice, no matter how self-destructive. And they are determined to impose their religious values on the rest of the nation. Meanwhile, they justify these intrusions on the basis of “equality” and “fairness.”

However, there is nothing fair about:

  1. The Fed militantly and unnecessarily imposing their values/religion on everyone else.
  1. Placing the choice of one above the valid desires of everyone and calling it “equality.”
  1. Making the entire school conform to the choice of one and arguing that this is fair and just.
Democracy should respect diversity instead of needlessly imposing one religion and practice upon all. Consistent with this, it should respect the decisions of local governments. However, the thrust of modern secularism is to impose a single secular religion at the expense of traditional values.

Those who were building the Tower of Babel had a similar quest – to undertake a common goal of a common religion to forge unity:

  • They said to each other, "Come, let's make bricks and bake them thoroughly." They used brick instead of stone, and tar for mortar.  Then they said, "Come, let us build ourselves a city, with a tower that reaches to the heavens, so that we may make a name for ourselves and not be scattered over the face of the whole earth." (Genesis 11:3-4)
They didn’t want to be scattered, and therefore wanted to build “a tower that reaches to the heavens.” This would give them unity and solidarity, a common faith “that reaches to the heavens.” This would give them “a name [significance and worthiness] for ourselves.”

Ironically, it was this very endeavor, the imposition of uniformity, which brought about the very thing that they had feared – dispersion.

I ask secularists if there is anything that we can learn from the past – principles that had once made this nation into a great civilization. They uniformly answer, “No!” Instead, they have placed their faith in their ideals and values. However, these have been tried by almost every revolutionary movement and have been found wanting and at the cost of millions of lives.

Wednesday, November 25, 2015


The Teleological argument – the argument from Design - for the existence of God is the most common theistic argument. We find thousands of examples of teleology (purpose): life, consciousness, freewill, the fine-tuning of the laws of the universe (gravity, etc.), the cell, and the genetic code, all of which defy any natural explanation.

The argument goes something like this: Intelligent design requires an intelligent Designer!

Against the many evidences of teleology or design, the atheistic naturalist has countered with "dysteleology." The naturalist believes that natural processes can explain all of the evidences of design. Dysteleology contends that there are many examples that defy intelligent, purposeful design like barren mountainsides, bad design (my bad back), and evil design (earthquakes, bacteria, tsunamis). As intimidating as these examples are, they are little more than mere distractions. Let me try to illustrate.

Imagine that you are part of a space probe to find any evidences of intelligent design on Mars. For a month you battle against the inhospitable Martian weather, and you find absolutely no evidence of intelligent design among the endless rocks and mountainsides. However, on the last day of the probe, you move a rock aside to find a tiny entranceway into the mountainside. There, you find a room containing what looks like book shelves. Upon closer inspection, you find rectangular objects, bound and containing pages upon which you find symbols. They are so regular, you understandably conclude that this is a form of Martian writing.

You run to tell your captain of your find, and he responds:

·       "Don't get excited about your finding. This can't prove the existence of intelligent life in the face of all the evidence against intelligent design that we've found during our one month search. In short, we have so much more evidence against intelligent design, that what you've found is of no consequence in comparison."

I hope that this reasoning sounds ridiculous It is! All the evidence that failed to show intelligent design doesn't negate the one piece of evidence in favor of intelligent design. That one piece of evidence must still be naturally explained! Similarly, if you find just one witness who saw John Wilkes Booth shoot Lincoln, this witness shouldn't be invalidated by a thousand who didn't see anything! The testimony of the one witness remains valid even in the face of a million who saw nothing. So too the evidence for intelligent design continues to speak even in the face of many things that fail to show signs of design!

The dysteleology argument for non-design faces other challenges. For one thing, it is difficult to impossible to prove that anything is purposeless and lacks intelligent design. For example, let’s take the human eye. Richard Kleiss was written that:

·       In order for our eyes to see, many chemical and electrical must take place in the proper sequence. Even more importantly, these reactions must happen almost simultaneously for us to see what is happening, while it is still happening… Biologists have found that the eye’s photochemistry is so fast that the first reaction in the sequence takes place in approximately 1/5,000,000,000 of a second. This is 500,000 times faster than our best film capabilities. (A Closer Look at the Evidence)

However, this marvel hasn’t stopped naturalists from pointing to a problem with a blind spot in the eye, claiming that a designer God wouldn’t have created such an imperfection. However, to convincingly make the claim that the eye doesn’t represent intelligent design, they have to demonstrate:

  1. That this “blind spot” is truly faulty and impedes vision. (I’m fine with it!)
  2. That this “blind spot” could have been eliminated with a better design.
  3. That the “better design” wouldn’t have come with its own set of prohibitive costs.
Of course, they cannot do this. Besides, dismissing the incredible design found in the eye is nothing short of callous. It would be like a caveman walking past an airplane taking off without batting an eye. However, the eye is a far greater marvel. Kleiss also writes:

·       Our eye processes 1.5 million bits of information simultaneously… They receive light images traveling 186,000 miles per second through the iris, which opens or closes to let in just the right amount of light. These images travel through a lens, made of transparent cells… The retina covers less than one square inch of surface, yet this square inch contains approximately 137 million light-sensitive receptor cells… Finally, the image is sent at the rate of 300 miles per hour to the brain for processing.

It is also ironic that naturalist can only resort to using God to disprove God. The number one argument of dysteleology is the problem of needless suffering, a repudiation of design.

Apart from the problem of determining that suffering is needless, the naturalist faces an even more formidable problem. He has to prove that there is something the matter with needless suffering. However, in order to do this, he needs to establish that there is an objective good which needless suffering violates. However, the naturalist can only offer his own subjective feelings about what is right and wrong. Logically, he can say no more than:

·       I don’t like what seems to me to be needless suffering. I can’t think of a good reason for it. Therefore, there cannot be a God.

If you are not laughing, be sure that God is!


According to Jesus’ teachings, it might appear that we should receive all of the Syrian refugees:

  • Love your enemies and pray for those who persecute you, that you may be sons of your Father in heaven. He causes his sun to rise on the evil and the good, and sends rain on the righteous and the unrighteous. If you love those who love you, what reward will you get? Are not even the tax collectors doing that? And if you greet only your brothers, what are you doing more than others? Do not even pagans do that? Be perfect, therefore, as your heavenly Father is perfect. (Matthew 5:44-48)
According to Jesus, it would seem that, even if a large percentage of refugees might radicalize, we are to love our enemies. How then can we Christians justify keeping them out of their nations?

Perhaps a distinction is necessary. There are different spheres of responsibility, which Jesus hinted at when He distinguished rendering to God what is God’s and to Caesar what belongs to Caesar. Consequently, it is possible to fulfill our obligation to God even as we rendered unto Caesar what is due to Caesar and uphold their responsibility to maintain safety and justice.

But how does this distinction pertain to the refugee question? Paul’s teachings reflected those of Jesus:

  • Bless those who persecute you; bless and do not curse. Rejoice with those who rejoice; mourn with those who mourn. Live in harmony with one another. Do not be proud, but be willing to associate with people of low position. Do not be conceited. Do not repay anyone evil for evil. Be careful to do what is right in the eyes of everybody. If it is possible, as far as it depends on you, live at peace with everyone. Do not take revenge, my friends, but leave room for God's wrath, for it is written: "It is mine to avenge; I will repay," says the Lord. On the contrary: "If your enemy is hungry, feed him; if he is thirsty, give him something to drink. In doing this, you will heap burning coals on his head." Do not be overcome by evil, but overcome evil with good. (Romans 12:14-21)
Clearly, there is a sharp distinction between what we should be doing and what God does. While we are to love our enemies and not seek revenge, God will do the avenging. He will repay evil with what it deserves. What a blessing this is! We can love others and leave questions of justice and punishment to God and His righteous wrath.

However, this wrath is not merely reserved for the final judgment. Instead, God has ordained government – the civil authorities – to execute His wrath, as Paul explains in the next verses:

  • Everyone must submit himself to the governing authorities, for there is no authority except that which God has established. The authorities that exist have been established by God. Consequently, he who rebels against the authority is rebelling against what God has instituted, and those who do so will bring judgment on themselves… For he is God's servant to do you good. But if you do wrong, be afraid, for he does not bear the sword for nothing. He is God's servant, an agent of wrath to bring punishment on the wrongdoer. Therefore, it is necessary to submit to the authorities, not only because of possible punishment but also because of conscience. (Romans 13:1-5)
The courts and penal system are not supposed to exercise love and forgiveness. This would undermine the entire justice system, the welfare of society, and even God’s just intentions to bring His wrath on evildoers. Instead, it is the justice system that allows us to live lives of love and forgiveness. It bears the sword so that we are freed from this responsibility.

In light of this necessary distinction, how then do we understand Jesus’ love teachings? His teachings were not intended to correct the Mosaic justice system. In fact, He never even spoke against the oppressive Roman rule. He never suggested that the Romans should give to whomever asks or that they should turn the other cheek. He understood that this wasn’t the role of government.

When Jesus did teach about the responsibility of government, it was church government, and it too wasn’t always indulgent:

  • “If he [the unrepentant] refuses to listen to them, tell it to the church; and if he refuses to listen even to the church, treat him as you would a pagan or a tax collector. I tell you the truth, whatever you bind on earth will be bound in heaven, and whatever you loose on earth will be loosed in heaven.” (Matthew 18:17-18)
While, on a personal level, we are to love even our enemies, church government was entrusted with a slightly different calling. The Church could punish by excommunication, even when the church consisted with only two others. However, this too was an expression of love – tough love! (This is a truth echoed in the Epistles, 1 Cor. 5; 1 Tim.1:20.) Yes, we are to give, but to give with discernment!

Although we personally might decide to endure some abuse for the sake of the Gospel, Jesus’ teachings suggest that we need not. We are free to bring our grievances to the Church or to the justice system, especially when the abuse might be expressed towards others, even our families.

Jesus never suggested that we should subject others to abuse. Instead, His teachings implied the legitimacy of protecting our household and community (Matthew 24:42-44).

Being as “wise as serpents but as gentle as doves,” we should extend ourselves to those in need. However, we should expect our government to fulfill their mandated task of protecting and providing peace and justice, as theologian Michael Brown has written:

  • The government should major on security; the Church should major on compassion. I don’t mean that the government should be harsh or that the Church should be foolish, but it is not the primary job of the government to care for the needs of refugees and it is not the primary job of the Church to provide national security. The government should do its very best to shut the doors on any potential terrorists, even if that means slowing down the process of absorbing refugees.

  • [Government] must assiduously work against the plague of radical Islam, even if the vast majority of Muslim refugees are not radicals.
Brown might be minimizing the problem of the refugees. It appears that the Islamic communities of Western Europe have become so radicalized that they have appropriated for themselves 100s or maybe 1000s of “no-go-zones,” mini-Caliphates, even transforming their host nations into rape capitals, despite the alleged majority of moderate Muslims.

Nevertheless, we must treat with courage and love those Muslims who are already residing in our nations, demonstrating to them the mercy of Jesus.

But we also have to be knowledgeable about the dangers. We are to be children of the light, exemplars of a wisdom that should nourish our neighbors and not subject them to rape and beheadings:

  • The teaching of the wise is a fountain of life, turning a man from the snares of death. (Proverbs 13:14)
  • The wise in heart are called discerning, and pleasant words promote instruction. Understanding is a fountain of life to those who have it, but folly brings punishment to fools. A wise man's heart guides his mouth, and his lips promote instruction. (Proverbs 16:21-23)
With wisdom, we can be a blessing to our community and glorify the Lord. Instead, by placing our community in jeopardy by insisting on the re-settlement of dangerous refugees in our community, we potentially bring disrepute upon our faith.