New Book

A Unique and Revealing Look at America!---The Miracle and Magnificence of America. If you enjoy this site, please consider purchasing my recent book. Click here to get it at Amazon. See here for more information.

Book Banner

Book Facebook

HELP US GET THE WORD OUT: If you "Like" this page, please visit our new Facebook page for The Miracle and Magnificence of America and "Like" it. Thank you!!!

Latest News/Commentary

Latest News/Commentary:

News/Commentary Archives:

News/Commentary Archives:

Tuesday, September 6, 2005

Clearly Creation

Well, I suppose the debate should now end. Evolution is fact, according to the History Channel and recent letter writers to this paper—proven by “fossil remains” and mountains of “research.” There is no more doubt about it than “cancer, kidney function, or volcanoes.” I guess all of us poor, uneducated creationists should pack up our Bibles and slink back to the hills. If we stoop low enough and let our knuckles drag the ground, we can even resemble our “undisputed” ancestors.

Don’t believe it for one minute, folks. It is very easy to make such absolute statements about evolution, but when one examines the evidence, it is easy to see the many weaknesses in the theory.

As I have stated before, the fossil record is full of holes that evolutionists don’t satisfactorily explain. One big hole is the lack of “transitional forms” (fossils that show one kind of animal changing into another) in the geologic column. Dr. Jonathan Sarfati states, “Evolutionists recognize a serious threat to their whole argument—evolution predicts innumerable transitional forms, yet all they have are a handful of debatable ones.” However, anyone watching the recent History Channel special would think that there are many of these types of fossils, especially in the “ancestry” of humans.

There are also numerous “out of place” fossil discoveries which are quite embarrassing to evolutionists. These are fossil finds that contradict evolutionists’ assumptions about the geologic column, such as human footprints that appear at a “time” which is much earlier (millions of years earlier) than evolution allows. A good example of this is the famous fossil footprints at Laetoli, Africa. These are the prints of an upright walking biped, which evolutionists attribute to an extinct primate. University of Chicago’s Dr. Russell Tuttle has shown that these are the same sorts of prints made by habitually barefoot humans.

Another type of “out of place” fossils are “living fossils.” These are plants or animals alive today which are identical to fossilized forms, believed to have lived “millions of years ago.” Examples of these, according to Dr. David Catchpoole, include the coelacanth fish (fossil coelacanths are believed by evolutionists to be 340 million years old), Gingko trees (125 million years), crocodiles (140 million years), horseshoe crabs (200 million years), and the Lingula lamp shell (450 million years).

Jim Scharnagel suggests that a branch of biology referred to as “evo devo” helps explain genetic changes in animals over time. Through a series of genetic “switches” (like a light switch), Mr. Scharnagel implies that one kind of animal can evolve into another.

These switches are actually Hox genes. Dr. David DeWitt says these Hox genes are master control switches that control the body plan. He adds, “These master switches work like circuit breakers and either turn on or turn off an array of other genes.” By manipulating these “switches” scientists in labs have significantly altered the body plan of creatures like flies and shrimp. Dr. DeWitt continues, “The fact that scientists can significantly alter the body plan does not prove macro-evolution nor does it refute creation. Successful macro-evolution requires the addition of NEW information and NEW genes that produce NEW proteins that are found in NEW organs and systems.”

In spite of information like this, many evolutionists love to portray those who believe what the Bible tells us about creation as backward and ignorant. Evolutionists also love to perpetuate the myth that those who practice “true science” must accept evolution and operate under its precepts. They also insist that our young people must be taught evolution if they want any chance of having a career in a field of science.

There are many individuals in all areas of science who accept creation as described in Scripture. I spoke to several locals who were willing to go on record in this divisive issue. Each of the individuals below accepts the biblical account of creation as literal and historically accurate, and, accordingly, rejects “Darwinian evolution.” They also agreed that an evolutionary philosophy was not necessary for them to practice in their respective fields of science or to continue to develop professionally.

Dr. Clayton Cox, a practicing OBGYN physician for 18 years, with a B.S. in biochemistry and an M.D. from Emory University, says, regarding the debate concerning creation/evolution, “there is no debate.” He adds, “I believe the Bible is the inerrant, infallible Word of God.”

Dr. David Barrett, a practicing dentist for 25 years, with a B.S. in biology and a D.D.S. from Emory University, says that, “Life as we know it is much too complicated” to have evolved, adding that, “the human body is an amazing miracle.”

Dr. Frank Lake, a practicing OBGYN physician for 10 years, with a B.S. in biology and an M.D. from the Medical College of Georgia, states that, “One of the tenets or laws of our world is that things move toward disorder unless energy is input to change that (entropy). How, then, can a marvelously complex world go against that very tenet, unless an external source (creator, higher power) had a role in that?”

Local inventor, J.T. King, who, along with his new hearing aid, was recently profiled in a full-page article in The Times, passionately rejects evolution and defends creationism. Mr. King, who has a B.S. in electrical engineering, says that, “If I had bought into the theory of evolution, I would not have been able to come up with the concepts that spurred my technology.”

Even with all that I have presented here, the thing that we all need to consider most when weighing evolution against creation is that, when the theories of man are in conflict with the Words of God, it is most certainly man who is in error.

Copyright 2015, Trevor Grant Thomas
At the Intersection of Politics, Science, Faith, and Reason.
www.trevorgrantthomas.com
Trevor and his wife Michelle are the authors of: Debt Free Living in a Debt Filled World
tthomas@trevorgrantthomas.com

Thursday, June 9, 2005

The Truth About Homosexuality (Updated: 4/24/15)

C.S. Lewis wrote in the mid 1940’s that,

“…you and I, for the last twenty years, have been fed all day long on good solid lies about sex. We have been told, till one is sick of hearing it, that sexual desire is in the same state as any of our other natural desires…Our warped natures, the devils who tempt us, and all the contemporary propaganda for lust, combine to make us feel that the desires we are resisting are so ‘natural,’ so ‘healthy,’ and so reasonable, that it is almost perverse and abnormal to resist them.” 

He went on to discuss another lie which is, “any sexual act to which you are tempted at the moment is also normal and healthy.” Imagine what he would think if he were alive today! These same lies are at the heart of the propaganda currently being put forth by those who wish to justify the practice of homosexuality. (The same lies, of course, continue to be perpetuated in the heterosexual community as well, especially among pornographers and the like.) Same-sex "marriage," high school homosexual clubs, homosexuals in the Boy Scouts, homosexuals adopting—all of these issues have one simple aim in the end: to legitimize, in as many people’s eyes as possible, men having sex with men or women having sex with women.

The Gainesville Times, with Alma Bowen’s May 1 column, contributed to many of the myths about homosexuality. Mrs. Bowen’s use of phrases like “instinctive desires” and “gender identity” give the impression that homosexuality is an “in-born” trait. In other words, she is implying that there is some “gay gene” that exists in homosexuals. There is no science which supports this belief.

Jeffrey Satinover, author of Homosexuality and the Politics of Truth, had some interesting things to say about homosexuality in a recent World magazine interview. Dr. Satinover is a graduate of M.I.T., Harvard, Yale, and the University of Texas Medical School. He has practiced psychiatry since 1986. He currently conducts research at the University of Nice in France and teaches part time at Princeton. Dr. Satinover, based on scientific evidence, has concluded that the idea of “sexual orientation” is fiction. He refers to a 1994 University of Chicago study which states, “…it is patently false that homosexuality is a uniform attribute across individuals, that it is stable over time, and that it can be easily measured.” Dr. Satinover adds that, “Studies across the globe that have now sampled over 100,000 individuals have found the same. We now know that in the majority of both men and women, ‘homosexuality,’ as defined by any scientifically rigorous criteria, spontaneously tends to ‘mutate’ into heterosexuality over the course of a lifetime.”

These facts support the idea of many that homosexuality is not a genetic and unchangeable behavior. This idea is further supported by the fact that there are, of course, many people who have come out of the homosexual lifestyle. Dr. Satinover continues that, homosexuals are “human beings, no different than you or me, who are, of course, sexual beings. Like you and me, their sexuality is broken in a broken world. The notion that ‘homosexuals’ are in effect a ‘different species’ (different genes) is ludicrous beyond belief. There is not the slightest evidence for that as anyone who actually reads the studies (not reports on the studies) knows.”

However, since there is no evidence that homosexuality is “inherited,” many like to refer to homosexual activity as “chosen” behavior. According to Dr. James Dobson this is typically not the case. Dr. Dobson states that, “Homosexuals deeply resent being told that they selected this same-sex inclination in pursuit of sexual excitement or some other motive. It is unfair, and I don’t blame them for being irritated by that assumption. Who among us would knowingly choose a path that would result in alienation from family, rejection by friends, disdain from the heterosexual world, …No, homosexuality is not ‘chosen’ except in rare circumstances.”

(My wording in the paragraph above is poor. What is not "chosen" is the same-sex attraction. Of course, "homosexual activity" is ALWAYS chosen. Likewise, Dr. Dobson's wording is not the best either. As he says, the "same-sex inclination" (attraction) is not "chosen." However, if by "homosexuality" he means those who engage in homosexual acts, then yes, that is ALWAYS a choice.)

If homosexuality isn’t genetically transmitted, and it isn’t typically chosen behavior, what is it? Until 1973 it was classified as a “disorder” by the American Psychiatric Association. That year, by a vote of 5,834 to 3,810, the APA removed the condition of homosexuality from its Diagnostic and Statistical Manual. Even though we are more than 30 years away from this decision, many still hold to the view that homosexuality is a disorder from which individuals can recover. Organizations like Exodus International and National Association for Research and Therapy of Homosexuality (NARTH) exist to help those who desire to come out of the homosexual lifestyle, and to help families who are struggling with this issue.

One other point must be made. Many regard homosexuality as some special class of sin, as if it were worse than others. To engage in name-calling, belittling, threats or acts of violence, or any other hateful acts towards homosexuals grieves the heart of God just as sexual sin does. There is to be no compromise when it comes to the standards that God has given to us, whether we are talking about sex or “loving your neighbor as yourself.” Jesus did say that the latter was of the utmost importance to the Father. C.S. Lewis puts it this way: “…a cold, self-righteous prig who goes regularly to church may be far nearer to hell than a prostitute. But, of course, it is better to be neither.”

Copyright 2015, Trevor Grant Thomas
At the Intersection of Politics, Science, Faith, and Reason.
www.trevorgrantthomas.com
Trevor and his wife Michelle are the authors of: Debt Free Living in a Debt Filled World
tthomas@trevorgrantthomas.com