Why Nutrition Science is Almost Entirely Unreliable

From coffee and eggs to milk and vitamin E, Dr. Vinay Prasad explains why you can trust virtually NOTHING your hear and read on nutrition science, ESPECIALLY what you hear and read from the mainstream media!

Trevor Grant Thomas
At the Intersection of Politics, Science, Faith, and Reason.
www.trevorgrantthomas.com
Trevor is the author of the The Miracle and Magnificence of America
trevorgrantthomas@gmail.com

Debunking Climate Alarmism on "Earth Day!"

John Stossel posted a helpful and informative ~6 minute video this "Earth Day" (see below). Climate scientists from the Heartland Institute help Mr. Stossel debunk four common climate myths perpetuated by today's earth-worshipping left.

Climate alarmists like Rep. Alexandria Ocasio-Cortez say, “The world is going to end in 12 years if we don’t address climate change.”

Really?

In order to get you ready for other scary “facts” you will hear on #EarthDay, 3 scientists address some climate myths: pic.twitter.com/CiQN15X3RY

— John Stossel (@JohnStossel) April 21, 2024

Trevor Grant Thomas
At the Intersection of Politics, Science, Faith, and Reason.
www.trevorgrantthomas.com
Trevor is the author of the The Miracle and Magnificence of America
trevorgrantthomas@gmail.com

Video Lessons on Politics, Science, and the Wuhan Virus

From the Spring of 2020: 

Had a video ever aged so well in modern history? @chrissaccoccia1 pic.twitter.com/BCeiF07PnG

— Mr Smith (@WestwoodParking) June 29, 2021

Here we are over a year later, and virtually everything predicted by this gentleman (Chris Sky) has proven true. In addition, we now have the dreaded--but hardly dangerous--"Indian Variant" (more commonly referred to as the "Delta Variant") of the Wuhan Virus. (What happened to the "Alpha," "Bravo," and "Charlie" variants of the Wuhan Virus? Could these variants have been so inconsequential that we almost completely ignored them?!) Thus, the so-called "experts" are warning of further lockdowns, mask mandates, and the like. Don't fall for it! If we gained ANYTHING from the Wuhan Virus it's that lockdowns and masks do little to nothing to halt or even slow the spread of a virus, and more importantly, we should NEVER surrender our liberties to a godless government in the name of "safety!"

And now some brave physicians are speaking out on the widespread bias employed by many in the scientific community when it came to the Wuhan Virus: 

#BREAKING!!🔥🔥📺

New Scientific Bias Revealed. If Trump was for it, science was against it.

Birx knew her career was over just being next to Trump. pic.twitter.com/NxsxxLaURk

— SCUBA MIKE🤿 (@scuba2024) June 29, 2021

So because "Orange Man Bad" we didn't get the truth from government (and other) scientists on the Wuhan Virus. This is simply another reason why we should NEVER completely defer to the "experts" when it comes to what is good government! 

Trevor Grant Thomas
At the Intersection of Politics, Science, Faith and Reason.
www.TrevorGrantThomas.com 
Trevor is the author of The Miracle and Magnificence of America
tthomas@TrevorGrantThomas.com

"Masking the Science": "We Wished Masks Worked, But They Don't"

One of the best takedowns of the "masks slow (or even stop) the spread of the coronavirus" narrative--sometimes known as "wear your (expletive) mask" narrative--was recently published by two Oregon physicians, Dr. Tim Powell and Dr. John Powell. Their excellent essay entitled "Masking the Science" was published on the blog of Evergreen Family Medicine where Dr. Tim Powell is the CEO and Medical Director. I came across the piece a couple of weeks ago, and linked to it from my site. 

Yesterday (2/8/21) I was dismayed to discover that my link was to a page that no longer existed. It seems their truth-filled essay has been scrubbed from their blog. I can find it nowhere on their site. Also, I can find no explanation on the internet as to why this piece was taken down. However, I can speculate. I imagine that the cancel-culture mask Nazis targeted (and threatened) these good doctors and thier business. Much pressure was then applied--perhaps even by those like-minded as the doctors on masks, but neverthless frightened by the cancel crowd--for the docors to remove their mask-narrative destroying post. What a shame! However, as many have often rightly said, "the internet is forever." 

Using the internet archive "Wayback Machine," one can still find "Masking the Science." In the name of the truth, and to help end the wicked, widespread masking of Americans, and to help end the evil lockdown of America, here is the complete essay (including many the many informative graphics used):

1/25/2021 Masking the Science

We have purposely avoided directly confronting the issue of masks because it is such an emotional and political issue. Like waving a red flag in front of a bull, the topic elicits strong emotions which overwhelms reason. We wear a mask in the hospital and don a N95 mask, gown and gloves when we see a patient known to have COVID-19. Masks are used for source control when patients are admitted with various types of infectious respiratory diseases. After the visit, we dispense of the gown, gloves and change into our regular surgical mask to continue patient rounds. In public, we wear a cloth mask to comply with executive orders and as a courtesy to others who feel afraid and uncomfortable. Like most of you, we rarely wash the mask, we stick it in our pockets, pick it out of the glove compartment or off the floorboard when we need it.

In truth, we wish masks worked. If they did, it would be a cheap, and easy way to control the spread of Covid. The idea that they protect not only their wearer, but also those people around them seems noble. We wished masks worked because citizens are spending billions of dollars on them.

We wish masks worked because most Americans wear them now. Telling them it was unnecessary will not make them happy. We wish masks worked because they have become a symbol for virtue and social responsibility. Anyone who doubts their utility is personally attacked; as though they don’t believe the viral pandemic is real, or don’t care about those who die from it.

We wish masks worked, because they distract from other important Covid related issues such as: school closings, lack of access for non COVID related illness, increased mental illness, elderly dying alone, missed youth experiences, substance abuse, suicides, increased poverty and homelessness, suppression of free speech, censorship of science, disruption of supply chains, government agencies used to oppress small businesses, restriction of religious gatherings, travel disruptions, isolation protocols, modeling over actual data, quarantines, lockdowns, contact tracing, and global harm of the economy that most impacts the working class, vulnerable and poor.

We wish masks worked.

But they don’t.

At least, not the cloth and surgical masks you see in the public arena. They litter the landscape and waterways. They are difficult for people with disabilities and small children. It promotes natural germaphobe tendencies and indoctrinates the young to see their fellow humankind as a sack of germs.

There have been many randomized controlled trials (RCT) and meta-analysis of previous studies that suggest that masks do not work to prevent influenza- like illnesses, or respiratory illness transmitted by droplets and aerosol particles – like Covid. This knowledge was the basis for the WHO and CDC recommending against the public wearing masks in the spring of 2020. It was repeated by authorities and experts at every level.

Dr. Jerome Adams, the Surgeon General tweeted, “Seriously people – STOP BUYING MASKS! They are NOT effective in preventing the general public from catching Coronavirus”

Dr. Anthony Fauci told 60 minutes, “There’s no reason to be walking around with a mask”.

In April, the New England Journal of Medicine wrote: “we know that wearing a mask outside of health care facilities offers little, if any protection from infection”.

What changed? Well, it wasn’t the science.

All studies are not equal. The gold standard of medical evidence comes from randomly controlled studies. Recent observational studies that were used to support mask mandates were poorly designed for confounding factors, carried out in medical environments, and then, impressions were extrapolated to the general public. Studies that evaluated the viral exposure of mice in a cage covered with mask material vs. caged mice without a mask cover does not seem to translate well to a world of humans who use their hands. In contrast, a recent Danish mask study of the general public that was performed in a prospective, randomized fashion did not endorse the current majority narrative and was vigorously criticized and suppressed by some.

A new drug, medical product or procedure would never be approved based on this type of evidence.

Logic argues against mask effectiveness. The size differential between viral particle or droplet size expelled from the human respiratory tract compared to the filter size of surgical or cloth masks is substantial. If you read the fine print on most consumer masks, one will likely read a statement such as this; “not intended for medical purposes and has not been tested to reduce the transmission of disease”.

The best studies are outcome based and measure “patient oriented evidence that matters.” A pharmaceutical company may show their statin drug greatly reduces cholesterol and science can show a correlation between cholesterol and heart disease. So, the obvious premise is that lowering cholesterol reduces risk of heart attacks.

Except it doesn’t. At least not for primary prevention in patients without preexisting vascular disease. It is why you must do the study. Does the intervention work in real world conditions?

In August, Pew Research reported that 85% of Americans said they wore masks in public all or most of the time. If this is so, and if masks are effective, why has the incidence of SARS-Cov-2 increased so rapidly? Why is there not a favorable correlation between mask usage and disease transmission in countries and states with different mask policies?

If masks and lockdowns work, why don’t they work?

The graph below shows the daily number of deaths per million in the UK, France, Spain, Italy and Sweden from March to December. The number to the right reflects the percentage of the population that report wearing a mask in public spaces. Sweden has the lowest number of deaths per million in this comparison despite only 7.7% of the surveyed population reported wearing a mask. For those who argue that Norway, Denmark and Finland have lower mortality rates than Sweden. They would be correct, but these countries also have much lower rates of mask use compared to other European countries (less than 50%). Masks have been oversold as a solution.

Dr. Anders Tegnell, Sweden’s state epidemiologist said, “face masks are an easy solution, and I’m deeply distrustful of easy solutions to complex problems”. He was right. Sweden now (1/23/2021) has fewer deaths per million people (1086) than the United States (1284). In fact, they have a lower death rate than 30 of our states. History is replete with examples when politics or religion meddles with science and adversely impacts solutions. Dr. Martin Kulldorff has argued against widespread public mask mandates from the beginning. He is a professor at Harvard Medical School and a leader in disease surveillance methods and infectious disease outbreaks. He describes the current pandemic policy of COVID lockdowns and mask use this way; “after 300 years, the Age of Enlightenment has ended.”

At this point, many do not need an expert opinion to trust their own intuition and lying eyes that masks are not working. Everyone wants to mitigate the transmission of the virus, but let’s focus on what works.

But, wearing a mask is so easy to do. Can’t you just shut up and wear the damn mask?

Why are we poking this tiger, this mask issue now?

Because there is mass hysteria, and many are blind to it.

Because it’s an irrational and divisive policy when unity is required more than ever.

Because evidence should matter.

Because in 2019, if we saw a father struggling to muzzle a terrified, crying 2-year old child on a plane with a cloth, we would report them to authorities for possible child abuse. In 2021, we kick the whole family off the plane unless the father is successful in his efforts.

Because of a young man with autism who is unable to tolerate a mask on his face is publicly shamed.

Because the masks offer a false sense of security and may adversely impact more important public health mitigation measures.

Because our local high school cross-country teams should not be running the trails wearing masks.

Because the Oregon Board of Medicine suspended the license of a physician who objected to this policy.

Because one of the greatest losses in this pandemic has been the loss of credibility of organizations for whom we held in high regard. Organizations such as the CDC, WHO and Public Health Organizations that need to maintain the trust of the citizens.

Because it is increasingly apparent that the basis for the mask mandate is not medical, but political.

Because fear and panic should not prevail over actual evidence, even when many powerful institutions have expended so much political capital promoting the wrong policy.

We wish masks worked.

We wished we didn’t have to fight about them.

But they don’t.

And we do.

Tim Powell MD

John Powell MD

If you want to see more graphs, we have included them below as well as a video demonstration.

In September 2020, the CDC acknowledged that SARS-Cov-2 could be spread in an aerosolized manner. Masks are ineffective against this mode of transmission. Early in this pandemic, some physicians showed video evidence of how masks might work as a source control for droplet transmission of COVID-19. Unfortunately, this is not the case for aerosolized transmission of viruses as demonstrated in the video below.

I’m Not Wearing a Mask because I Identify as Immune

I keep waiting—and hoping for—the parking lot television or radio interview wanting to know just how I’m dealing with the dreaded Wuhan virus—though, almost certainly they won’t use such language. I have to confess that I’ve frequently been in commercial parking lots during the “shutdown” and the subsequent “re-opening” (though, I consider what’s actually occurred as FAR from a real “re-opening”) of Georgia. And each time it’s been without a mask. Oh, my eager response to the hypothetical interview will be, “I’ve been fine because I identify as immune.”

You see, I don’t need a mask because of the simple fact that I’ve decided that I’m immune to the Wuhan virus and thus not a carrier of the disease. Therefore, I’m not a danger to myself or anyone else. Thus, I can go about all of my normal activities with no mask, no social distancing, and so on.

No, I’ve not been tested for the Wuhan virus, but because of my chosen position on the spectrum of immunology, the results of a test are irrelevant. I’m immune to the Wuhan virus because I feel that way. If you disagree with my position, just who are you to tell me that this is wrong?! After all, if biology doesn’t determine sex, then immunology doesn’t determine infection or contagion.

In other words, just as liberalism has decided that there is a “spectrum” when it comes to sex—or gender, if you prefer—then there must be a similar “spectrum” when it comes to diseases and infection. And if boys are merely allowed to identify as girls—and take trophies, scholarships, etc. from real girls—and if men are allowed to identify as women—and ascend to the level of Secretary of Health of an American state—then why can’t I identify as immune to the Wuhan virus and merely go about my business as normal?

I mean, if the person “leading the fight against COVID-19 in Pennsylvania” rejects the biology that a three year-old can comprehend, why in the world would anyone on the left object to my views on the Wuhan virus, the wearing of masks, social distancing, and the like? In other words, if someone is willing to ignore the real science of biology and sex, why not be willing to ignore the fake—or at least very suspect—science of those promoting the shutdown narrative?

Speaking of science, when it comes to face coverings, the CDC says “Cloth face coverings may slow the spread of the virus (emphasis mine).” Thus, the CDC is not even sure masks work to prevent spreading the virus. Even if they do work, where have all the masks been during flu season? After all, the CDC also recently noted that the mortality ratio of the Wuhan virus pandemic (0.27%) is very similar to the 1957-58 flu pandemic (0.26%).

During the 1957-58 flu pandemic, because there was no widespread lockdown of the U.S., there was no significant impact on the U.S. economy. Also, there was no widespread closure of schools and churches; no nation-wide ban on other large gatherings; and no extensive use of masks, social distancing, or quarantines.

What’s more, a Wuhan virus fatality rate of 0.27% (or 0.26% if you go with this calculation) is over 12 times less than the World Health Organization’s early March estimate of 3.4% and more than seven times lower than Dr. Fauci’s estimate (2%) from late March. Again, according to the CDC, for those under 50 years of age, the Wuhan virus fatality rate is only 0.05%, and it gets lower for younger people.

In my state of Georgia, there’s been only one recorded death from the Wuhan virus of a person younger than 22 years old. In that case, the individual is listed as having a “chronic condition.” Additionally, as Hans Bader recently reported,

No child has been found to have passed coronavirus to an adult, a review of the evidence in partnership with the Royal College of Pediatrics has found.

Major studies into the impact of COVID-19 on young children suggest they “do not play a significant role” in spreading the virus and are less likely to become infected than adults

While experts insist that more evidence is needed, they note there has not been a single case of a child under 10 transmitting the virus, even in contact tracing carried out by the World Health Organisation (WHO).

Furthermore, The Spectator (UK) recently noted that, in Iceland, an analysis of Wuhan virus tests on 36,500 people by “a company called deCODE Genetics, in association with the country’s directorate of health and the national university hospital,” was performed. The analysis revealed that, “The tests identified 1801 cases of people suffering from the disease – and ten deaths. Each case was carefully tracked. In not a single case could the researchers find evidence of a child passing on the disease to their parents.”

In the U.S. from birth to age 24, there have been a total of 88 deaths from the Wuhan virus. Of these 88, there were 12 deaths that were under the age of 15. This flu season, the U.S. has seen 176 pediatric deaths alone. In the 2018-2019 flu season there were 144 pediatric deaths. In the 2017-2018 flu season there were 188 pediatric flu deaths. So, when it comes to mortality, the data reveal that children are in far more danger from influenza than from the Wuhan virus.

So, children are in relatively little danger from the Wuhan virus, and they are not passing the virus on to adults. Remind me again why the schools are shut down? Maybe it’s because schools are choosing to identify as Blockbuster Video stores.

Like the foolish and destructive notion that a man can simply decide that he is a woman (or vice versa), and all must accept and acquiesce to such evil, across the U.S., democrats—and like-minded never-Trumpers—continue to heap destruction upon the American economy by insisting that all Americans be subjected to a national shutdown. Many state and city leaders are foolishly saying that they will not fully reopen until there’s a vaccine. Leftist pundits ignorantly insist that “none of us are safe until all of us are safe.” Some (the Chinese?) are saying that “social distancing” in the U.S. must continue for years more.

Such thinking is not data driven, and it is not rooted in science, but scientism. Even more than the Wuhan virus, the shutdown is destroying lives and livelihoods. Perhaps the quickest way for this shutdown garbage to end is for fewer Americans to identify as democrats.

Copyright 2020, Trevor Grant Thomas
At the Intersection of Politics, Science, Faith, and Reason.
www.trevorgrantthomas.com
Trevor is the author of the The Miracle and Magnificence of America
tthomas@trevorgrantthomas.com

How do Liberals Flunk Science? Let Us Count the Ways.

With most of the U.S. currently in the grip of significant cold, and given the proper goading from President Trump, liberals again felt led to lecture us on the difference between weather and climate. Of course, it’s lost on most leftists how they so often fail to apply the same standards to themselves. Whether blizzards, hurricanes, wild fires, tornadoes, record heat, record cold, and so on, with religious-like devotion, liberals almost never fail to link dramatic weather events to their apocalyptic climate narrative.

One of the easiest jobs in the world has to be that of climate doomsayer. No matter the weather, the climate kooks can scream “man-made global warming!” and the faithful will follow with a hearty, “AMEN!” In spite of the folly and the pseudo science behind the man-made global warming movement, time and again the modern left insists that it is conservatives—especially Christian conservatives—who have abandoned science and reason.

Last year, The New York Times went as far as to blame evangelicals for our “post-truth society.” The New York Times lamenting a “post-truth society” is like Satan complaining about sin. In other words, few organizations or individuals in the history of humanity have waged a more enthusiastic war on the truth than has “the newspaper of record.”

Because all sound science—yes, there are plenty of scientific charlatans—always points one to the truth, it is little surprise that those so often opposed to the truth frequently find themselves at odds with what sound science reveals. For those unsure of where they stand on the spectrum of understanding what real science and scientists have revealed, let me take a moment to chronicle some actual “settled science.”

First of all—back when Adam took his first homeschool anatomy course—science long ago revealed there are only two sexes—male and female. There is no such thing as a “gender spectrum.” Any sentient adult telling you that such nonsense exists should have his or her grown-up card revoked and be required to repeat kindergarten at an approved location. What’s more, contrary to LGBT propaganda, basic biology is not “transphobic.”

Unlike the modern left’s practice of using a fake problem—man-made climate change—to explain real weather-related catastrophes, tolerating the very real transgender madness of the modern left has led to all sorts of very real human-related catastrophes. Men using women’s restrooms and locker rooms, men competing against (and taking trophies from) women, women occupying the front lines of our military, and so on, are all the direct result of the fake science preached and produced by liberalism.

Just as settled as is the science of who is a male and who is a female is the science of life in the womb. Life in the womb for a child is as well documented as anything in science. With ultrasound and Doppler machines, as well as other technology, one can monitor the life of a baby in the womb from very near the beginning until birth.

Moments after conception (hardly a serious biologist in the world would argue that life does not begin at conception), the resulting single cell contains all 46 chromosomes necessary to grow into an adult human being. Within 48 hours of conception, the mother’s body starts producing a hormone to let her know that she is pregnant. In the beginning of the third week, the baby’s heart begins to beat with a blood type that is often different from its mother’s.

During week five, eyes, legs, and hands have begun to develop. By week six, brain waves are detectable. Week eight has every organ in place, bones begin to replace cartilage, and the baby can begin to hear. By week 12, the baby is nearing the end of the first trimester. She has all the necessary parts to experience pain, including her nerves, spinal cord, and thalamus. She can grasp objects placed in her hand and has fingerprints, a skeletal structure, and circulation.

By week 15, she has an adult’s taste buds. Week 20, the earliest stage at which liberals used to conduct partial-birth abortions, the child can recognize her mother’s voice. She is within one or two weeks of the stage where babies can routinely be saved outside the womb. In spite of all of this, to justify the slaughter of tens of millions of unborn children, abortion apologists have regularly ignored the indisputable science of life in the womb.

Recently, liberals have gone so far as to launch a massive billboard campaign that refers to abortion as “sacred,” “a blessing,” and even “life-saving.” Abortion is so far from the concept of “life-saving” that it’s not too difficult—especially among the government educated—to find individuals who advocate infanticide. We shouldn’t be surprised by this when the last U.S. President—elected twice—basically advocated the same.

And why the devotion to killing the most innocent and defenseless among us? The will to do whatever one wants sexually without the consequences is a powerful force, and those corrupted by liberalism will go to almost any length—including fake science—in order to keep abortion popular and legal.

Speaking of a liberal’s libido, real science does no favors for the homosexual agenda either. As Obama's Senior Advisor Valerie Jarrett learned in 2010, even well-established liberals can draw the ire of the homosexual community by simply implying that homosexuality is not innate (meaning genetic), but is rather a “lifestyle choice.” (Of course, Jarrett quickly back-tracked and apologized.) We’ve been told for decades now that homosexuality is a genetic and unchangeable behavior—that people are “born gay.”

In 1993, when the journal Science published a study by Dean Hamer (et al) which strongly suggested there was a gene for homosexuality, an eager and complicit media celebrated. National Public Radio trumpeted the findings. Newsweek’s cover asked, “Gay Gene?” The Wall Street Journal announced, “Research Points Toward a Gay Gene…” The New York Times noted, “Report Suggests Homosexuality Is Linked to Genes.”

However, noted psychiatrist, physicist, and author (Homosexuality and the Politics of Truth) Jeffrey Satinover concluded that “the Hamer study is seriously flawed.” Many genetic researchers also quickly took issue with Hamer’s study. However, the myth grew. Today, it is commonplace for liberals in the media, Hollywood, and like-minded politicians again to ignore the real science and continue to perpetuate the falsehood that homosexuality is strictly genetic.

Dr. Satinover notes that, “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.” What science does reveal is that homosexuality is a rather unhealthy and dangerous lifestyle.

And much to the dismay of many on the modern left, homosexual sex doesn’t produce babies—because, you know, science. Thus, we now have fools declaring same-sex couples “infertile” and demanding that health insurance companies foot the bill to remedy this. So along with paying for abortions and “gender reassignment” surgery, liberals want us to foot the bill so that two men can have a baby.

As they foolishly declare their “belief in science,” liberals such as Hillary Clinton and Elizabeth Warren remind us that what liberals are devoted to is not science but scientism. And because of this, their policies will always, ultimately, fail.

(See this column at American Thinker.)

Copyright 2017, Trevor Grant Thomas
At the Intersection of Politics, Science, Faith, and Reason.
www.trevorgrantthomas.com
Trevor is the author of The Miracle and Magnificence of America
tthomas@trevorgrantthomas.com

The Stunning Deceit and Ignorance of the “Champions of Science”

Time and again the American left—led by the mainstream media, Hollywood elite, and the Democrat Party—lectures us about the ignorance of conservatives, Christians, and anyone else who isn’t devoted to a “progressive” (amazing how regressive is “progressivism”) worldview. With their talk shows, columns, commercials, movies, sitcoms, roundtables, protests, Facebook posts, tweets, and the like, liberals unashamedly, repeatedly, and without hesitation (and often without much thought) denigrate those with whom they disagree. Yet, time and again, as they preach their philosophy and live out their “faith,” it is liberals who are stubbornly hindered by the facts of science and morality.

Examples abound, but a recent case in point is President Obama’s final address to the U.S. military. After attempting to disguise his foreign policy failures with the accomplishments of our “remarkable Special Forces,” and rightfully touting the love, patriotism, and sacrifice of our Gold Star families, Obama declared,

Our Navy is the largest and most lethal in the world, on track to surpass 300 ships. Our Air Force, with its precision and reach, is unmatched. Our Marine Corps is the world's only truly expeditionary force. Our Coast Guard is the finest in the world. And we're also the best because this military has come to welcome the talents of more of our fellow Americans. Service members can now serve the country they love without hiding who they are…And Joe Biden and I know that women are at least as strong as men. We're stronger for it. It's one of the reasons that our military stands apart as the most respected institution in our nation by a mile. (Emphasis mine.)

In his lust to promote liberal dogma on sex and sexuality, tragically, President Obama has often used the U.S. military as a tool to practice and promote his perverse social re-engineering. I try to avoid using “stupid” when it comes to my criticism of liberals and liberalism, but the first sentence highlighted above leaves me no choice. There’s no other way to describe the statement—especially when discussing our military—“women are as least as strong as men.”

I suppose one could argue Obama meant it in a non-physical, “fighting spirit” sort-of sense, but that does not fly with his recent efforts and the efforts of his administration when it comes to the role of women in the military. In January of 2013, after Obama’s Joint Chiefs of Staff gave him the unanimous decision that he almost certainly expected when it comes to American women and U.S. military combat operations, the long-held Combat Exclusion Policy was lifted and U.S. women became eligible for front-line combat operations.

In December of 2015, in what The New York Times hailed as “a historic transformation of the American military,” Secretary of Defense Ashton Carter announced that the Pentagon would open all combat jobs to women. Carter proudly and foolishly announced,

There will be no exceptions. They’ll be allowed to drive tanks, fire mortars and lead infantry soldiers into combat. They’ll be able to serve as Army Rangers and Green Berets, Navy SEALs, Marine Corps infantry, Air Force parajumpers and everything else that was previously open only to men.

As Iraq veteran, Harvard Law School graduate, and Bronze Star winner David French noted a few months prior to Secretary Carter’s announcement, such thinking is intellectually corrupt and “idiotic.” As I noted last year, comparing male and female athletes, “in spite of the efforts of liberals, there will never be ‘gender equality’ when it comes to [men and women], because human genders are not—and will never be—equal. Men are bigger, faster, and stronger than women…What’s more, as most anyone not devoted to a liberal worldview who’s observed human beings for at least 15 minutes was already aware, men are naturally more physically aggressive than are women.” As Psychology Today points out:

The fact that males are more aggressive and more violent is reflected by their anatomy itself; in many animals species they are heavier, more muscular, better armed with means of attack and defense. In humans, for example, the arms of men are, on average, 75 percent more muscular than those of women; and the top of a male body is 90 percent stronger that the top of a female body [Bohannon, 1997; Abe et al., 2003, apud Goetz, 2010, p. 16]. Also, men are taller, they have denser and heavier bones, their jaw is more massive, their reaction time is shorter, their visual acuity is better, their muscle/fat ratio is greater, their heart is bulkier, their percentage of hemoglobin is higher, their skin is thicker, their lungs bigger, their resistance to dehydration is higher etc. In other words, from all points of view, men are more suited for battle than women, and these skills are native.

What’s more, “The average man is stronger than 99.9% of women (Lassek & Gaulin, 2009). Men also have about 65% greater lower body strength (Lassek and Gaulin, 2009, Mayhew and Salm, 1990), over 45% higher vertical leap, and over 22% faster sprint times (Mayhew & Salm, 1990).” And as Mike Fredenburg points out,

Men’s blood carries 10 to 12 percent more oxygen per liter than does women’s…Pound for pound, men have thicker skulls, bigger, stronger necks, hearts that are 17 percent larger, and bones that are both bigger and denser…When confronted with immediate danger, studies suggest men are “more likely than women to take action.” Women are far more likely to experience motion sickness and vertigo. In the Navy women go on sick call 60 to 70 percent more frequently. For the kind of violent events and situations found on the battlefield, women are far more likely to develop post-traumatic stress disorder and experience the symptoms for a longer duration than men. Despite the gender-specific ability to handle the pain of childbirth, “study after study” conclusively shows that men have a much higher overall tolerance for pain than women.

Of course, none of this information is new, and did anyone at the highest levels of our government and military really need rigorous academic research to understand such? But this is what happens when liberalism corrupts.

The Boy Scouts of America has been similarly corrupted, and the ignorance is just as stunning. Three and a half years ago, in June of 2013, when the Boy Scouts of America decided to allow young homosexuals into their ranks, I warned:

[H]ow long will it be before the Boy Scouts are again in court? This time it will be a couple (probably same-sex) who wants their young girl—who has decided that she wants to be a boy—in the name of “tolerance” to be able to join the Boy Scouts. However, the fight won’t last 23 years in this case. After all, the next moral compromise will be easier than the previous one.

Two years later, in May of 2015, I was none too surprised to note that it was the Girl Scouts of America who were the first to capitulate to the transgender wing of the LGBT agenda. However, as I feared, the Boy Scouts (Cub Scouts) are now in the national news because they have kicked a New Jersey girl out of a Cub Scout troop because—of course—she’s not a boy.

Only a mind corrupted by liberalism could promote the notion that a human being can simply choose his or her gender. Do I really need to present data here on what makes one a male or a female? Since at least the 1970s, when among other things, feminazi Gloria Allred sued the Sav-On drugstore chain for daring to label its toy section “Boys’ Toys” and “Girls’ Toys,” liberals have attempted to sell the lie that the only differences between boys and girls—aside from the obvious biological ones—were the result of “patriarchal cultural biases.”

As psychologist, author, and renowned family expert Dr. James Dobson put it in his excellent book, Bringing Up Boys, the ultimate goal of the feminists and homosexual activists is to “dissolve the traditional roles of mothers and fathers and, in time, eliminate such terms as wife, husband, son, daughter, sister, brother, manhood, womanhood, boy, girl, masculine, and feminine.” And as the former psychiatrist-in-chief of Johns Hopkins Hospital recently noted, transgenderism is “a mental disorder that deserves understanding, treatment and prevention.” Dr. Paul McHugh notes, not treating transgender disorder properly “can lead to grim psychological outcomes.”

Blind to the notion that some things are settled for all-time, once liberals began to insist we debate what is marriage, we should not have been surprised that they would want to debate what is a male and what is a female—or any other long-held, long-settled matter that conflicts with modern liberal orthodoxy in the sexual realm.

Few things in the modern era motivate liberals to ignore sound science and morality more than their desire to do whatever they wish sexually. Nothing illustrates this better than the debate that surrounds the homosexual agenda. In addition to the clear teaching of virtually every western religion on homosexuality, science has long revealed the dangers of a homosexual lifestyle. Yet liberals persist—passionately and angrily—in denying these truths when challenged in any way in this matter. Gospel singing legend Kim Burrell is the latest victim on this front in the left’s war on the truth. After the gospel singer dared to preach the Gospel on homosexuality, liberal McCarthyists went on the attack. A scheduled appearance by Burrell on the TV show Ellen was cancelled. Texas Southern University cancelled Burrell’s radio show on their station, KTSU. And of course, the liberal media was quick to label Burrell a “bigot.”

All of this, and I’ve made no mention of the propaganda, threats, lies, and the like from the left in the climate debate, or the propaganda, threats, lies, and the like from the left in the abortion debate. In spite of their arrogant self-promotion as champions of science, liberals are behind the greatest lies of our era.

(See this column at American Thinker.)

Copyright 2016, Trevor Grant Thomas
At the Intersection of Politics, Science, Faith, and Reason.
www.trevorgrantthomas.com
Trevor is the author of the brand new book The Miracle and Magnificence of America
tthomas@trevorgrantthomas.com

Answering the Evolution Question

I tried to warn them. In addition, back in 2012, after Marco Rubio was asked about the age of the earth, I provided conservative politicians (and others interested) a primer for answering some of the “gotcha” questions that most every conservative running for political office in the U.S. will inevitably face. It seems that Scott Walker or his staff need to spend more time on my website, or on American Thinker (one of the top conservative websites in America).

Byron York hopes Walker learned a valuable lesson. Silvio Canto at American Thinker doesn’t care what Scott Walker (or Hillary Clinton) thinks about evolution and wants to “pound on the guy asking these stupid questions.” Jonah Goldberg, like I did, correctly points out that, “the evolution question really isn’t about evolution at all,” and concludes that this incessant question “deserves to be cessant.”

As Goldberg puts it, on the surface, questions about evolution are really questions about the culture war (or, as I have alluded, the moral wars), and, beneath the surface, such questions are ultimately about the nature of man. And for liberalism to prosper, any notion of God or absolute truth to which man is ultimately accountable must at least be compromised, if not completely rejected.

This is why evolution—or, better put, Darwinian evolution (D.E.)—is deeply embedded in the foundation of liberalism. D.E. teaches that all life—plant, animal, human—billions of years ago sprang from the same single-celled source, strictly as a product of nature and natural processes (billions of years of death and struggle). Thus, as a liberal at Salon recently put it, “Darwin…explained the evolution of life in a way that doesn’t require the hand of God.” (His piece is gleefully entitled “God is on the Ropes,” and writes about the “brilliant new science”—isn’t it always—that expands on Darwin’s work and will finally liberate us from any idea that God was involved in creating life.)

Many, including those who call themselves Christians and/or conservatives, would like to ignore this tenet of D.E. Thus we now have the nonsense that is “theistic evolution.” This is nothing more than the sad attempt to reconcile God’s Word with what is perceived as the “settled science”—isn’t it always—on the beginning of life (that has misled the likes of even the Pope).

Even the rabid atheist and Darwinist Richard Dawkins understands the fallacy here. When asked recently what was the particular point at which he was able to conclude that God doesn’t exist, Dawkins replied that “by far” the most significant event for him was “understanding evolution.” He went on to say that he thought the evangelical Christians have it “sort-of” right when they see (Darwinian) evolution as “the enemy,” adding that there “really is a deep incompatibility between evolution and Christianity.” The “sophisticated theologians” who are “quite happy to live with evolution” are, as Dawkins puts it, “deluded.” How sad that it takes an atheist to point out the truth in this debate!

Nevertheless, well-meaning Christians, especially those aspiring to win elections, will continue to seek compromise here. Scott Walker himself demonstrated this when, after his perceived attempt at “weaseling on evolution,” he later benignly tweeted, “I believe faith & science are compatible, & go hand in hand.”

Politically speaking, I have no problem with Scott Walker “punting” on the question. (Right now, he’s my favorite potential GOP presidential candidate.) It’s no different than then presidential candidate Barack Obama’s “above my pay grade” response when he was asked about the beginning of human life. However, such a response by a conservative candidate is only likely to draw further such questions (whether on evolution, abortion, marriage, global warming, and the like). As I noted in 2012, it would have been better to turn the tables in such a way that would give left-wing reporters significant pause before again venturing down this path of questioning.

What’s more, again, as I noted in 2012, and as others have similarly pointed out in the last few days, Walker, or any other candidate, can use the approach taken by Jesus Christ Himself. Often, when doubters were attempting to trap Jesus with their “gotcha” questions, to reveal their ignorance and hypocrisy, Christ responded with a wise question of His own.

For example, first of all, when asked about evolution (i.e., as Walker was asked, “Do you believe in evolution?”), I would ask the reporter to clarify what she means by evolution (it’s highly unlikely that she will be able to do this articulately). If the reporter stumbles around and is unable to explain what she means by evolution, the candidate can reply: “If by evolution you mean the idea that all living things, such as humans, monkeys, elephants, antelopes, lions, lizards, apples, apricots, roses, and rhododendrons all have a common ancestor and are nothing more than the result of natural processes, and leave no role for a Creator, then no.”

Additionally, one could respond with (as James Taranto alluded to), “Why must one ‘believe in’ evolution?” I suppose it’s for the same reason that one must “believe in” man-made global warming: the science doesn’t really reveal what liberals want it to reveal.

If the reporter gives some silly response that, by evolution, he means that “things change over long periods of time” (i.e. “natural selection”), then the proper reply would be: “Of course I ‘believe in’ natural selection. But if by natural selection you mean the idea that all living things, such as humans, monkeys, elephants, antelopes, lions, lizards, apples, apricots, roses, and rhododendrons all have a common ancestor and are nothing more than the result of natural processes, and leave no role for a Creator, then no.” (What’s more, the VAST majority of Americans allow God at least some special role in creation.) In other words, natural selection is not synonymous with Darwinian evolution.

One could also do as Marco Rubio hinted at in 2012 and ask, “What does D.E. have to do with the gross domestic product or economic growth of the United States?” If a candidate really wanted to get cute, he could ask, “Why is it possible to reject completely D.E. and millions/billions of years (as did Newton and Kepler, who both actually took the time to calculate the age of the earth and found it to be only a few thousand years old), and still operate perfectly well in any scientific field including medicine (i.e. Pasteur)?”

Conservative candidates are never going to get the slack that liberals do when it comes to anything related to the moral issues. The liberals in the media are too personally invested in having those that share their (mostly) godless worldview win elections. Thus, any serious conservative candidate for higher office better spend some time thinking about how to answer such questions.

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

A Defense of "Creationism"

Anyone who has given the creation/evolution debate even a cursory following has heard the creation position described as “creationism.” One rarely, if ever, hears of “evolutionism,” as though only one side (evolution) of this debate is rooted completely in logic and reason, without any un-provable premises.

It is very often overlooked that when it comes to the question of how life began on earth, people on every side of this debate have the same evidence (rocks, fossils, current living things, and other measurable objects), use the same equipment (microscopes, telescopes, labs, and so on), and employ the same techniques to support their positions.

It is also frequently overlooked that every side of the creation/evolution debate derives their knowledge (The word “science” is derived from the Latin word “scientia,” meaning “knowledge.”) from certain governing presuppositions. In other words, whether a person is a creationist or an evolutionist, or some combination of the two, eventually he or she must eventually rely on certain un-provable assumptions. As the late philosopher, Dr. Greg Bahnsen, put it, “At the most fundamental level of everyone's thinking and beliefs there are primary convictions about reality, man, the world, knowledge, truth, behavior, and such things. Convictions about which all other experience is organized, interpreted, and applied.”

Likewise, theologian, author, and pastor, R.C. Sproul, in 2009 discussed the “lasting impression” that the book, The Metaphysical Foundations of Modern Science, which he read over 50 years ago, had made upon him. He noted that the book was so influential to him because it “clearly set forth the importance of understanding that all scientific theories presuppose certain philosophical premises.”

The concept of “primary convictions” or presupposed “philosophical premises” is important when it comes to the creation/evolution debate. The devout creationist has primary convictions that are rooted in the Genesis account of creation. The devout evolutionist has primary convictions that are rooted in purely naturalistic forces.

Neither side can use exclusively the methods of science to verify their primary convictions. The scientific method of observing, measuring, testing, and repeating does not work when it comes to revealing exactly how life began. In spite of what some devoted evolutionists would have us believe, no one has ever observed or been able to experimentally repeat evolution that shows one kind of creature changing into another. We certainly have never seen life created in a Petri dish.

Of course, neither have we observed someone creating matter or speaking life into existence. However, what the creation account has that the Darwinian account lacks is a written record of events. Now, many are quick to discount the biblical record of events as fiction, but this is typically because the accounts of events recorded in Scripture directly contradict the primary convictions of Darwinian evolution.

Evolutionists know that such a historical narrative is desirable. Ernst Mayr, considered one of the most influential evolutionists of the 20^th century, put it this way:

Evolutionary biology, in contrast with physics and chemistry, is an historical science—the evolutionist attempts to explain events and processes that have already taken place. Laws and experiments are inappropriate techniques for the explication of such events and processes. Instead one constructs a historical narrative, consisting of a tentative reconstruction of the particular scenario that led to the events one is trying to explain.

How does the evolutionist construct this historical narrative? By assuming (using primary convictions) that “the present is key to the past.” Today’s evolutionist observes “change over time” within certain species, such as with peppered moths, antibiotic-resistant bacteria, insecticide-resistant bugs and the like, and uses such evidence to support billions of years and molecules-to-man evolution.

In accepting the biblical narrative of creation, Creationists typically support the doctrine of biblical inerrancy. This doctrine is deduced from two biblical conclusions: the Bible is the Word of God and God is never in error. However, interpretations of the account of creation vary within those who accept biblical inerrancy. In other words, conversely, not all who accept biblical inerrancy accept the six days of creation that a straight-forward reading of the book of Genesis reveals.

Creationists who accept the six-day account in Genesis do so by practicing a form of hermeneutics known as the literal historical-grammatical approach. This method attempts to find the literal meaning of a text based on an understanding of the historical and cultural settings in which it was written.

Following accepted rules of grammar and noting the particular style of the book (historical, poetic, prophetic, and so on), conclusions about proper interpretation are then reached. Borrowing from Dr. David Cooper, we get a clear, if not succinct, summary of the literal historical-grammatical approach: When the plain sense of Scripture makes common sense, seek no other sense. Therefore, using the standard meaning, form, and syntax of the words in use; and understanding the proper historical position of the author; take every word at its primary, ordinary, usual, literal meaning unless the facts of the immediate context, studied in light of related passages and axiomatic and fundamental truths, indicate clearly otherwise.

Or, as Screwtape put it to his demon protégé, “The documents say what they say and cannot be added to.”

The validity of the literal historical-grammatical approach is supported by multiple facts. First of all, a scholarly approach to the New Testament reveals that, when interpreting the Old Testament, this approach was taken by both New Testament authors and characters.

Of course, there are many references to the Old Testament in the New Testament. Consider for a moment only the references to the book of Genesis. Every New Testament author either directly quotes or alludes to Genesis. Dozens of times Adam, Eve, the Serpent (Satan), Cain, Abel, Noah, the Flood, Abraham, Isaac, Jacob, Lot, Sodom, Gomorrah, and so on, are directly (and indirectly) referenced. They are spoken of as literal historical characters and events, not mythological beings and occurrences.

Jesus Himself referred to Genesis several times. When asked about marriage, He quoted directly from Genesis chapters one and two. Speaking of marriage as a union of one man and one woman, Jesus used the phrase “from the beginning of creation,” which only makes sense if he was talking about a literal Day 6 of creation. In other words, Jesus understood the text exactly as it was supposed to be understood—exactly as the author intended for it to be understood. Jesus also referenced Sodom, the Flood, Abraham, Noah, and Lot—and again, did so in a nothing but literal historical manner.

Paul, in Romans—the “caput et summa universae doctrinae christianae” (“the summary of the whole of Christian doctrine”)—chapter 5 referred directly to Adam and compared him to Christ as “a pattern of the one to come.” He also added, “Therefore, just as sin entered the world through one man (Adam), and death through sin, and in this way death came to all men…Consequently, just as the result of one trespass was condemnation for all men, so also the result of one act of righteousness (Jesus’ atoning death) was justification that brings life to all men.” Thus, the man who wrote nearly half of the New Testament saw Adam as not only a real historical figure, but as essential to the Christian doctrine of sin and death.

Secondly, the literal historical-grammatical approach is how most early church fathers interpreted Scripture. These men were “theologians after the apostles.” As Dr. James Mook put it,

Most of the Church Fathers interpreted Genesis 1 in a plain and straightforward way, as actual history. The six days were 24-hour days. Ephraim (Ephrem) the Syrian (306–373) and Basil of Caesarea (329–379) argued for the literal sense of Scripture against the distortions of allegory. Basil said twenty-four hours fill up the space of one day. Even Ambrose of Milan (330–397), mentor of Augustine, believed each day consisted of twenty-four hours, including both day and night. In addition to this, the Fathers believed that the earth was less than 6,000 years old.

Also, this hermeneutical philosophy is consistent with how we speak, hear, read, and write in our everyday communication. Real communication cannot happen otherwise, as trying to understand one another becomes a ridiculous exercise where one misses the forest because of the trees. Or, as C.S. Lewis, when discussing Modern (liberal) Theology and Biblical Criticism, put it: “These men ask me to believe they can read between the lines of the old texts; the evidence is their obvious inability to read [in any sense worth discussing] the lines themselves. They claim to see fern-seed and can’t see an elephant ten yards away in broad daylight.”

The use of the word “day” in Genesis chapter one provides an excellent example of how the literal historical-grammatical approach works. The Hebrew word for day used in Genesis chapter 1 is “yom.” A number and the phrase “evening and morning” are used for each of the six Days of Creation. In Scripture outside Genesis 1, yom is used with a number 410 times. Each time it means an ordinary day. In Scripture outside Genesis 1, yom is used with the word “evening” or “morning” 23 times. “Evening” and “morning” appear in association, but without yom, 38 times. All 61 times the text refers to an ordinary day. Why would Genesis 1 be the exception for the use of yom?

In addition, in Exodus 20:8-11, the fourth commandment instructs the Israelites to “Remember the Sabbath day, to keep it holy.” Thus, the seven-day week (six-day work week) is established as Moses records that “in six days the Lord made the heaven and earth, the sea, and all that is in them, and rested on the seventh day.” Any number of words or phrases could have been used here, but again, “yom” is used in both parts with the same context as in Genesis chapter one. Therefore, the only logical and common-sense conclusion is that “day” here means a 24-hour period.

Of course, many devout Darwinists will reply, “So what!” Their conclusion is that the Bible is inaccurate on many points, with the use of “day” in this context being another. Thus, in the creation/evolution debate, what we see more often than not is sincere (or at least self-proclaiming) Christians pitted against one-another: those accepting a literal six-day creation, and those who reject such a literal reading of the creation account, but nevertheless, and to varying degrees, believe that God is the creator of the material universe.

It is (sadly, in my opinion) the latter view which is more prominent in mainline Christianity—both Protestant and Catholic—in the U.S. Such a view of creation is often referred to as “theistic evolution,” though many reject this label. Secular humanist and non-theist Eugenie Scott, Director for the U.S. National Center for Science Education, notes that “In one form or another, Theistic Evolutionism is the view of creation taught at the majority of mainline Protestant seminaries, and it is the official position of the Catholic Church.”

According to Callie Joubert of Answers Research Journal, although “some proponents of theistic evolution such as (Francis) Collins (2007), and Giberson and Collins (2011) prefer BioLogos, and others such as Denis Lamoureux (2010a) prefer ‘evolutionary creation,’ they all share their three core beliefs with other variants of theistic evolution, such as the emergentism, panentheism, process theism, or naturalistic theism of Barbour (1990), Clayton (2000; 2006), Griffin (2000), and the late Arthur Peacocke (2006).” Lamoureux, the author of Evolutionary Creation and of I Love Jesus and I Accept Evolution, sums up these “core beliefs” well when he states that science “reveals how the Creator made” the world, “while the Bible (reveals) precisely who created it.”

Vaguely articulating the Anglican (especially the Episcopal Church in the U.S., and the Church of England) position on creation and evolution, the former Archbishop of Canterbury Dr. Rowan Williams said

I think creationism is, in a sense, a kind of category mistake, as if the Bible were a theory like other theories. Whatever the biblical account of creation is, it’s not a theory alongside theories…My worry is creationism can end up reducing the doctrine of creation rather than enhancing it.

The official Anglican position is laid out in Catechism of Creation Part II: Creation and Science. This document attempts to reconcile a “conflict” between “science and the Bible.” (Though, I know of no one, especially those who intelligently articulate the six-day creation position, who see a conflict between science and the Bible. This is a common straw-man argument thrown out by those wanting to compromise creation and evolution.) “There is a middle way,” states the Catechism, “which some call a Complementary approach.”

The Catechism asks, “Is it proper to speak of an evolving creation?” Of course, the answer is “Yes.” Reflecting the “Complementary approach,” the Catechism adds “[Astronomers] are able to see our universe at many stages of cosmic evolution since its beginning in the Big Bang.  Here on earth biologists, paleontologists, geneticists and other scientists are showing that life has evolved over four billion years, and are reconstructing evolution’s history.  None of these scientific discoveries and the theories that explain them stands in conflict with what the Bible reveals about God’s relationship to the creation.”

The problems with such a “Complementary approach” are myriad. I submit that an atheistic Darwinist, who completely denies God and the Bible, while proclaiming molecules to man evolution as absolute truth, has a more logically defensible position than the Christian who wants to compromise Darwinian evolution and Scripture.

In addition to violating the approach to Scripture interpretation taken by Christ, the New Testament authors, and the early church fathers, such a compromise misrepresents the nature of God. Scripture reveals God’s creation work is “very good” and “perfect.” Also, Genesis reveals that there was no death until the sin of mankind. In direct contradiction to the Genesis record, Darwinian evolution requires billions of years of death and struggle before we see the first humans.

What’s more, and perhaps worst of all, a compromise between evolution and creation mythologizes the biblical account of the redemptive work of Jesus. (See the Romans reference above.) Jesus came to save all people. Save from what?  From sin and death. How did sin and death come to all people? By what is revealed in Genesis.

If we don’t have a literal Creator, a literal creation, a literal Adam, a literal Eve, a literal serpent, a literal garden, a literal tree, a literal fruit, and a literal fall, why did Jesus have to come and die for our sins?

At this point, it needs to be clarified what it means to take the Bible “literally.” As apologist Greg Koukl puts it, the question “Do you take the Bible literally?” is ambiguous, confusing, and awkward to answer. The best way to answer such a question is that we (“literalists”) take the Bible literally when it is meant to be taken literally. In other words, as Koukl puts it, we read the Bible in its “ordinary sense.” (“When the plain sense of Scripture makes common sense, seek no other sense.”)

A good analogy that Koukl provides is the reading of a modern day sports page. When a sportswriter says that one team “crushed,” “destroyed,” or “annihilated” its opponent, no one speculates or frets about literal meanings. When we read that the Georgia Bulldogs “steam-rolled” the Florida Gators, there is no investigation into whether state highway equipment went missing during what used to be known as “The World’s Largest Outdoor Cocktail Party.” Though certainly a more difficult read than a sports page, we are to approach reading the Bible in the same way.

Additionally, when it comes to believing miraculous events recorded in the Bible, whether the virgin birth, the resurrection of Jesus, or the miracle of a literal six-day creation, the inconsistency applied by “evolutionary creationists” is fascinating and troubling. After all, why believe in the resurrection of Jesus? Has science proven how we can raise the dead?

After His resurrection, why did Jesus chastise the two disciples on the road to Emmaus? Was it because they failed biology 101? “How foolish you are, and how slow to believe all that the prophets have spoken!” In other words, why did you not believe what was written?! If one will doubt the creation account, why believe the prophets? Why believe any of the accounts of supernatural events in Scripture?

A bias against the supernatural is pervasive throughout the evolutionary community and, I believe due to the willingness and the attempt by many Christians to reconcile Darwinian evolution with Scripture, sadly has infected the Christian community as well. For example, about a year ago several churches in my community, Gainesville, GA—one of the most conservative and Christian areas of the country—sponsored a seminar held by “progressive Christian” Marcus Borg.

The pastor of First Baptist Church Gainesville said that Borg “speaks of an emerging paradigm to see faith and practice faith in an age of science and technology.” The implication here is that in our “modern” age of science and technology, we need a new approach to understand our faith. We need a new way to understand Christianity without having to believe in things like virgin births, water turning to wine, the instant healing of the blind and leprous, the raising of the dead, and so on. Because, of course, science—especially Darwinian evolution—tells us that these things are not possible.

In other words, if it can’t be explained in the natural, then it must not be true. This is certainly the belief of the “Jesus Seminar” of which Dr. Borg has been affiliated for decades. Begun in 1985, the Jesus Seminar is a group of self-described scholars (I’d be willing to bet that each one of them is a Darwinist.) who attempt to discover the “historical Jesus.” According to Koukl, “they have rejected as myth the resurrection of Jesus from the dead, the virgin birth, all Gospel miracles, and a full 82% of the teachings normally attributed to Jesus—all dismissed as legendary accretions with no historical foundation.”

Thinking themselves “brilliant” and unique, the Jesus Seminar (and any similar movement) “scholars” are only undertaking what the demon Screwtape (in the early 1940s) told us happens “every thirty years or so.” Each “historical Jesus,” Screwtape reveals, is “unhistorical—something which does not exist.”

In 1995, J.P. Moreland rightly concluded that the Jesus Seminar operates from an “unfalsifiable presupposition” that is rooted in naturalism. Thus, he notes, any event in the Bible that is deemed supernatural is automatically dismissed as unhistorical. Of course, this especially includes the act of God speaking into creation the entire universe.

Though many who attempt to seek a compromise with evolution and creation do not reach Borg’s extremes, this is eventually what results once compromise with Scripture creeps in: We get so-called Christians whose teaching and “preaching” are almost completely devoid of historical and biblical Christianity. This is why compromise with Darwinian evolution is so dangerous.

Such compromise is why we have the Episcopal Church in the U.S. saying not only that homosexuality is no longer a sin, but going so far as to ordain openly homosexual priests. This is why we have the Church of England willing to “bless” same-sex relationships. When Scripture is so compromised, it becomes very difficult to call upon the authority of the Word of God in any matter, but especially when it comes to calling sin what it really is.

Lastly, perhaps the most common accusation hurled at Christians who accept the biblical account of creation is that we are ignorant anti-science boobs (or something similar). Nothing could be further from the truth. What’s more, at times it seems that the (ridiculous) implication is that nothing in science can get done unless it is done from an evolutionary worldview. This is certainly the case in fields related to biology, but many Darwinian evolutionists would have us believe that everything from anesthesiology to zoology rests upon Darwinian evolution. Given that Darwin proposed his theory just over 150 years ago, it’s a wonder that anything at all was accomplished in science prior to 1850.

Of course, much was. As I have noted before, anyone past (such as Pasteur, Pascal, Newton, Kepler, et al) or present can practice good science while operating from a biblical worldview. If this is not the case, then how did Newton, considered by many the greatest scientist of all time, ever invent calculus and develop his laws of motion and universal gravitation while operating from a strict biblical worldview? Newton also calculated the age of the earth to be only a few thousand years and declared, “For an educated man…any suggestion that the human past extended back further than 6,000 years was a vain and foolish speculation.”

If science and religion are “fundamentally incompatible,” how did Pasteur, “the father of microbiology” and a firm believer in God and His Word, ever discover the principles of vaccination, fermentation, and pasteurization? If Darwinian evolution is “biology’s greatest theory,” then why did Pasteur directly oppose Darwin and his theory, all the while conducting experiments to enhance the Law of Biogenesis?

Certainly ours is not a blind and ignorant faith. Though we can’t prove or disprove the supernatural through natural means, this does not mean that there is a lack of evidence for what we believe. As the Apostle Paul noted as he stood before King Agrippa, “What I am saying is true and reasonable.” For the things upon which our faith rests were not “done in a corner.” We know in whom we believe. The evidence is within Scripture as well as outside of it.

The science of archaeology has been a great friend to Christianity. Noted Jewish archaeologist Nelson Glueck wrote: “It may be stated categorically that no archaeological discovery has ever controverted (his word) a biblical reference.” He asserts that the “incredibly accurate historical memory of the Bible…is fortified by archaeological fact.”

The great archaeologist William F. Albright states that,

There can be no doubt that archaeology has confirmed the substantial historicity of the Old Testament tradition.” Millar Burrows of Yale, a leading authority on the Dead Sea Scrolls, observes that “Archaeology has in many cases refuted the views of modern critics. It has shown in a number of instances that these views rest on false assumptions…

He explains such unbelief:

The excessive skepticism of many liberal theologians stems not from a careful evaluation of the available data, but from an enormous predisposition against the supernatural.

An acceptance of the biblical account of creation does nothing to hinder anyone in any arena of science. However, a denial of the creation account places significant logical burdens upon those who still want to hold to other truths of God’s Word.

(See this column on Real Clear Religion.)

Copyright 2014, Trevor Grant Thomas

At the Intersection of Politics, Science, Faith, and Reason.
Trevor is the author of: The Miracle and Magnificence of America
Trevor and his wife Michelle are the authors of: Debt Free Living in a Debt Filled World
tthomas@trevorgrantthomas.com