The Naked Ape...

"There is something about the way God is that is like the way we are." (Moreland and Rae, Body & Soul, 158). 

There was a popular '60s book entitled, The Naked Ape, about the similarities of man to the beast. He just looks at how we're alike without recognizing the vast contrast:  viva la difference!   "Where is the one who makes us smarter than the animals..." (Job 18:3, NLT). "Do you think we are mere animals?  Do you think we are stupid?" (Job 18:3, NLT).  People are brainwashed with the Big Lie that we are animals, and thus can do or live according to our own morals and mores or ethics.  Consequently, believing we are animals, is it any wonder we act like them (rampant immorality, and always new inventions of sin)?   They say that "people of faith have a psychological need to believe, but they have behavioral and psychological needs not to believe--it might upset their lifestyle!

But man is distinct from the beast:  he's programmed or hard-wired to be like God in image and likeness in order to relate to God and fellowship and worship Him.  We were not made to be complete in our relationships with the beasts--Adam found no suitable helpmate before Eve.  God made man to be in communion with Him and to glorify Him while enjoying the ride!  We are "naked" in the sense that we are self-conscious, not that we evolved into wearing clothes because we had no fur coat to keep warm!  Chihuahuas have less hair and no desire to wear clothes.  Why is it that it was after Adam and Eve ate of the proverbial apple that they put on aprons of fig leaves?  They became self-conscious and knew good and evil for starters. Why is it that young children are unaware of their nakedness? They are innocent!  Man is a sinner and is the only creature that is--animals aren't accountable for their deeds! '

Man is hard-wired for many things since he's in God's image:

To worship God (if he doesn't he'll find something or someone to worship, even if it's himself!); to work (man fulfills himself in his labors and makes himself in God's image); to communicate and relate to others (animals communicate but don't argue, or communicate about the communication; only man can know God in the sense of having the mind to fathom, the heart to love, the will to obey)--note that God is abstract and animals are incapable of this type of reasoning; to be rational with a sense to reason with (you cannot reason with beasts!); to know right and wrong, good and evil (we alone have a conscience to feel guilt!); man is not a creature of instinct like the beast because we can control our passions and channel them to what's responsible (beasts are merely animals in heat avoiding pain and discomfort and seeking pleasure and are mainly sex, shelter, and food-driven); we're creative and want to accomplish tasks; while we're also self-critical; we can plan and forecast the future within reason;  we have a learning curve that passes on to the next generation and increases in knowledge; we alone appreciate beauty, design, and harmony of nature, especially in art and music; man alone has imagination, and man is called Homo sapien because he's the wise man;  we're drawn to be moral and principle-driven, and we're temperamental and emotional and express it in complex manners.

When you see all the differences between man and beast we have to wonder when did hominids become human?  There are more to differ than to compare--we are in contrast to beasts not just better beasts.  Even Darwin scoffed at the idea we should trust the convictions of a monkey!  And when did hominids acquire human rights?   But most of all, man is hard-wired for dignity (extrinsic from God), purpose (in God), and meaning (in God)!  In fact, "Unless you assume a God, the question of life's purpose is meaningless (Bertrand Russell, atheist).  In sum, we must ask why man alone has the concept of eternity in his heart and seeks after God and isn't oblivious to Him.  We seek fulfillment in life and to live for something above and beyond, bigger than ourselves.    

In sum, a man realizes his potential in being like God expressing virtue and abstract behavior: good sportsmanship, good faith, altruism, bravery, integrity, justice, decency, unselfishness, et cetera.  Soli Deo Gloria! 

Has Evolution Become A Religion?

Science has become the universal language and in the modernist worldview, it was said that science could answer all our problems and be the panacea to man's plight. Carl Sagan, 1981 recipient of the Humanist of the Year award, has announced that evolution has become a sort of religion.  Science, itself, is a universal language.  Evolution, itself, has become the faith of secular academia.  In China, you can criticize Darwin, but not the government; while in America you can criticize the government, but not Darwin!  Even Darwin criticized himself (one chapter in his book was entitled, "Difficulties with the Theory").  The evolutionist always has the comeback:  "You must assume, that, somehow by faith, it happened (abiogenesis) or it was there (the primordial soup)!"

The Achilles' heel of evolution is the origin of life and man still hasn't been able to produce life in a mock primordial soup.  Darwin, himself, scoffed at the idea of spontaneous generation, and yet this is what evolution logically leads to.  Darwin had no idea that he was just giving justification for communism and social Darwinism or the survival of the fittest.  His main theory, the origin of species by means of natural selection, depends on the survival of the fittest, but he cannot posit any arrival of the fittest--where did life come from?  It is scientific fact that life only comes from life, unless you believe that the impossible happened and spontaneous generation or abiogenesis occurred, contrary to the laws of nature, though Louis Pasteur disproved the possibility in 1860.

The whole Secular Humanist worldview depends on evolution because they deny God and not only that, they are anti-God and are militant atheists, not letting any divine foot in the door of academia, which they see as pushing religion.  It is obvious that the complexity of life was no fluke of nature and reveals a grand Designer, who was engaged in His creation and not a bystander or just a first cause or unmoved mover.

Evolution depends upon a series of contingent events and an astronomical chance event--like believing a Boeing 747 could be assembled by a tornado going through a junkyard (even if the cosmos was filled with them)--it just won't happen, and this is called "junkyard mentality."  According to Sir Fred Hoyle, famed British mathematician and astronomer said that the odds of life occurring by chance is the same as a blind man solving Rubiks Cube (it would take 1.35 trillion years!), or of throwing a six on a die five million times in a row!  The laws of probability are against evolution. In the book The Intelligent Universe, Hoyle postulates that life could not have arisen by chance, period. In his own words, life couldn't have arisen by chance--it is pure faith based on no evidence.  They believe that we Christians believe in the impossible, but evolution is impossible too, either way, one must take the step of faith and become a believer.

Now getting back to Darwin, himself; he said, that, if his theory were true it would be demonstrated in the fossil record--well no transitional forms have been found, but only fully formed species. Before you can have a limb, you must have a bad limb, and no missing links (and there should be millions, because there are 11 million species of life on earth).  Evolution posits that there was a primordial soup that had perfect conditions for life to form--but where did this soup come from?  A problem that Darwin couldn't have known about is that of DNA, or the metabolic motor that is necessary for life and can only be created by life--this begs the question, of where did the first DNA come from?  The only logical conclusion is that life was created since it couldn't have an infinite regress of life coming from life, ad infinitum.

The whole concept of evolution denies the scientific principle of entropy (the Second Law of Thermodynamics), which posits that things go from complex to simple or from order to disorder and chaos, not the other way around.  Things are not evolving for the better, but the worst!  We are running out of usable energy, though the total amount of energy is fixed.  Man is devolving, not evolving!  I've heard it said that in nursery school they say a princess kissing a frog to become a prince is a fairy tale; while in college it is science!

Why does academia embrace this theory dogmatically, and those who don't tow the line are ostracized and lose credibility? There is no academic freedom to explore the real evidence and alternate viewpoints and theories.  It is apparent that evidence to support evolution scientifically is hard to come by, and it is faith not supported by good science, and according to Dr. Karl Popper, it would not qualify to be a scientific theory at all by today's standards of science--yet it was first a working hypothesis, then it was championed as a theory, then finally, now it is touted as unquestioned, scientific fact.

The problem is that students in the schools actually believe science has disproved creation and that evolution has been proved! Everything eventually runs out of steam or energy, and the universe will someday fade away in heat death.  The whole theory rests on the premise that time plus chance plus space equals any possibility, or that given enough time anything can happen!  Do you believe that monkeys typing away for eternity could ever produce something intelligible?  Something that's impossible doesn't happen, no matter how much time is allotted. Evolution is unproven, regardless of what they say, and unprovable!  What it is is a "time-honored, scientific tenet of faith."  Students are brainwashed into acceptance, because creation science is not even taught in the public school system, but seen as a religion and a violation of the First Amendment.  One reason I propose for its prevalence in academia is that it grants a scientific basis for communism and socialism, and the university elite subscribes to these philosophies, and they must tow the party line.

They have no answer to the cosmos having a beginning or Big Bang if you will.  The Cambrian explosion is the Big Bang of evolution and it is evidence to the contrary because species are fully formed.  There is tremendous peer pressure and desire for tenure to keep on believing in an impossible scheme--this is the only alternative to accepting God as the Creator, and they don't want to go there at all.  The forbidden word to evolutionists is "purpose" or "design," because that implies a Designer or that the cosmos and life have meaning behind them--this concept, known as teleology is anathema to evolutionists and you might say is a dirty word.   But all evidence suggests the Anthropic Principle or that earth was perfectly designed for man.  One author has termed earth as the visited and privileged planet.

Either God created life or it evolved--there's no other possibility!  We have seen that evolution is an impossibility, but people would rather believe it than accept God, because it is convenient and suits their sexual mores.  It is just morally comfortable to accept the tenet of evolution and it takes a leap of faith and a devoted life of faith, as though it were a faith or religion itself, and it is.  It takes more faith, however, to believe in evolution without sufficient evidence, than to believe in God or suspend judgment completely.  Believing you're an animal ultimately leads to acting like one!   Soli Deo Gloria!

The Rise Of Scientism

Scientism is defined as the act of harnessing science for unscientific endeavors or academic disciplines. It's when one thinks the only reliable truth is from science.

Some secularist scientists believe all our problems can be scientifically resolved and that science has the answers to our dilemmas if given enough time. Excuse me: Science does not have all the answers! Scientism, by definition, is when you make statements that science has no right to make, or are out of its domain or sphere of knowledge. One notable example is humanist astronomer Carl Sagan saying that "the cosmos is all there is or ever was or ever will be!" This is a metaphysical statement that scientists have no authority to answer.

History, by its very nature, is nonrepeatable, and no one was there at creation or the Big Bang so we have no eyewitnesses to verify the evidence. It's speculation, not science--history is not science, because you need to be able to control variables and have laboratory conditions, as well as repeatability and measurability.

Science is not a source of ethical, metaphysical, or philosophical truth. This is why evolution is out of its realm of knowledge--no one saw life begin and all attempts at creating life in the lab have failed. There is no final conflict between science and the Bible, in fact, it was Christianity that made science possible by promoting an orderly and law-abiding cosmos. The first scientists, such as Sir Francis Bacon, were Christians, and you don't have to deny your faith to be a good scientist--the majority of astronomers today are not atheists at all. Galileo and Copernicus were Christians and they were among the earliest of scientists.

Eastern religions never would've given birth to science, since they believe reality is an illusion called Maya. Christians affirm a Lawgiver, orderly and predictable laws and consequences for violation. Christians believe all truth is God's truth, and that includes scientific truth, and that it all meets at the top as Aquinas said. The Bible has never been proven to be in scientific error, and the scientific statements it does make are accurate: for instance, the water cycle was described long before we figured it out.

Scientism is when scientists hijack their views in the name of science to make philosophical, ethical, and metaphysical claims that it doesn't have any right to make. Several Nobel scientists have written a book called Cosmos, Bios & Theos, and have agreed that God is necessary to explain the complexities behind creation; we are not some fluke of nature!

To show the vanity of putting faith in science, the French Academy of Science published a brochure listing fifty-one "scientific facts" that controverted the Bible--today none of the so-called facts are believed! The Bible doesn't need correction, just faith in its self-attestation--if it appealed to some outside source for authority and legitimacy, then it couldn't be the Word of God, as it needed a higher authority for verification. What we say is that you don't have to defend a caged lion, it will take care of itself--and so the Bible can prove itself, it just needs to be read or reread. When they ask you to prove it, you tell them, "No way! You prove it, just try reading it--it will prove itself!"

In sum, all science can do is discover the know-how and learn by the scientific method, whereas to find the know-why you need religion or philosophy--don't confuse the two domains! It is a sad commentary on our society that science has become a religion. Faith in science is still faith, and is no different than putting faith in God or religion--you just have different presuppositions as your starting point and all knowledge begins in faith. Soli Deo Gloria!

Why Is Evolution Untenable?

They say they have found the missing link; actually, there are thousands of missing links and of the 11 million forms of life on earth there are none--no half pig and half sheep or half horse and a half cow or half ape half human. I say that the missing ling link between great ape and man is one who is building a chapel because animals are oblivious to God and don't have the necessary equipment to know Him or worship Him. They simply don't have the mind to know Him, the will to obey nor the affections to love Him.

I'm not saying animals don't have intellect, will or feelings--I'm saying only on a limited scale. Man is the crown of God's creation in His image and the only one of the creatures that God said He breathed into him the breath of life and he became a living being. Some apes and chimps are smarter than the dumbest humans intellectually (so this cannot be the distinguishing trait), but they still aren't able to know God and have eternal life and worship God in Spirit and Truth. There are things that distinguish man from beast: thinking in the abstract and imagination, ability to analyze and criticize self, self-consciousness, and embarrassment, knowing good and evil, desire to know God, loss of innocence, awareness of eternity and death, and a conscience to guide instead of instinct.

We can adduce what man has that animals don't by a sort of algorithm. The point of this is that if we say a man is an animal then it logically follows that it is morally right to experiment on humans like the Nazis did; if we say animals are people too, then we must extend rights to them and not eat them or experiment on them.

BUT NOTE:  Animals are not capable of sinning or of worshiping God so this is what separates man who alone is bad enough to need salvation since he defies God and does not obey in his rebellion and stubbornness. ANIMALS ARE OBLIVIOUS TO GOD; NO ANIMAL EVER BUILT A CHAPEL OR PRAYED.

The Achilles' heel of evolution is that they cannot explain the precise origin of life.  Experiments of life fail to succeed without rigging the system in a way it couldn't have been in primordial times.   They presume a primordial soup that gave rise to simple life but doesn't know where it came from.   Soli Deo Gloria!