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

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

The True "Spirit" of Christmas

Recently my lovely wife was leaving a local retail establishment. On her way to her vehicle she had one of those trying little moments that reveals what kind of a person we are. Right after the incident she called me, slightly shaken. Some of the first few words out of her mouth were “you’re not going to like this,” “parking lot,” and “minivan.” My mind immediately envisioned a large dent somewhere on the body of our relatively new “child taxi.” Thankfully, that was not the case.

As Michelle was walking toward the van, a group of four young twenty-somethings, unaware of her presence, preceded her by about 10 yards down the parking aisle. This gaggle of young folks consisted of only one male. As he slinked passed our parking space, he glanced over at our vehicle and proceeded to spit upon it. My wife was startled and then just plain-old mad. Many things ran through her mind, but thankfully, none of them jump-started her tongue.

As our phone conversation progressed and I became aware of the offense, thoughts ran through my mind as well. My tongue, however, did begin to wag a little, especially after Michelle revealed that the most likely target of the lad’s spittle was not simply our van, but the political sticker that adorned the rear window. Now, I’m not going to reveal whose name was on the sticker, because that doesn’t really matter. (Those of you who have happened to read some of my previous columns could probably make a good guess.)

My words consisted mostly of the acts of vengeance that I could enact upon the young “loogie launcher.” I boldly stated that I wished I had been with her, and proceeded to describe what I would have done. I imagined myself asking the fellow to wipe off his saliva, and if he refused, picking him up and using him as a squeegee.

After several minutes of discussion my “Spirit overcame my flesh” and I concluded that the things that I were describing were not what Jesus would do. Michelle also revealed that after she was a few minutes removed from the scene she decided that the best thing she could do at that time was pray for the young man.

Later that evening over dinner with our two young boys (ages 2½ years and 9 months) we talked about the matter in more detail. My thoughts went not only to the words of Christ, but also to what kind of example I need to be setting for my boys. What if they had been on the scene? Do I want to exemplify the kind of man who lets such trivial things go—in other words, “turns the other cheek”? Or do I want to model the “sometimes you’ve got to fight to be a man” man? After all, if I can’t turn away from such a thing as that, from what can I turn away?

Michelle pointed out that as Jesus went to the cross, He Himself was spat upon, and, of course, much worse. His example was to forgive and to pray for those tormenting him.

I believe this incident is all the more significant given that we are only days away from Christmas. One of the many clichés tossed around this time of year is “Spirit of Christmas.” Folks interpret this to mean many things, but I believe that it is the “Spirit” I spoke of earlier: the “Holy Spirit” that lives inside all those who believe in Christ.

This Spirit is active not only during Christmas but all year round. Every day, as we face whatever life throws at us (or spits at us), the Spirit of Christ can be there to guide us down that “narrow path of righteousness.”

When Christians truly celebrate Christmas, we’re celebrating not only a birthday but the beginning of a sequence of events that changed the world forever. Jesus was born, He lived, He died, He arose, He sent His Spirit to us, and now He is preparing a place for all of those who believe in Him. Just as sure as all of the other events took place, we who celebrate Christmas look forward to His return and we will celebrate for all of eternity.

Have a truly merry Christmas.

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

Bust the Filibustering

Now that the current election cycle has come and gone, what are the talk shows going to talk about? What are Rush, Hannity, Al Franken, and Michael Moore going to do with their time? What are editors going to editorialize about? I believe one of the more interesting things to watch politically for the next several months will be the battle over the federal judiciary that will take place in the U.S. Senate.

There has been much talk lately concerning the process of approving federal judges. The president nominates judges at the federal level, and the senate must approve them (by a simple majority). As has been frequently noted in the media recently, democrats in the senate have been filibustering some of the nominees, not allowing them to come up for a vote. Republicans, with a slight majority in the senate, have had the necessary votes for approval, so the democrats see this as their only method to keep certain judges off the bench.

Republicans have been unable to muster the 60 votes necessary to break the filibuster, so they have been at the mercy of the democrats when it has come to particular judicial nominees. However, the dynamics of the recent election may bring an end to this filibustering.

I don’t think the fact that Bush won the election, with a majority of the popular vote, is the most significant factor in sending a message to democrats in the senate. I think it helps, but I think the fact that republicans gained four seats in the senate, and defeated Tom Daschele (the minority leader and chief architect of their policy of blocking judicial nominees) in the process sends the most powerful message to democrats. That message is: democratic senators from largely conservative states, as Daschele was, may not want to find themselves labeled as Daschele was—a liberal and an obstructionist.

The republican gains still give them only 55 senate seats—not enough to overcome a filibuster. The measures they take to combat the filibustering will be very fascinating to watch.

President Bush won 31 states in his successful reelection bid. These states represent 62 senate seats. In addition, there are nine current republican senators from states the president lost. That means, of the 55 republican senators, 46 are from states he won. Therefore, there are 16 senators that are democratic but are from states that Bush won. Five of these won in this past election, so that leaves 11 as targets to pressure to stop the filibustering.

Five of these 11 will be up for reelection in 2006, so they will be the ones really feeling the heat. They are: Nelson (FL), Conrad (ND), Nelson (NE), Bingaman (NM), and Byrd (WV). Not all of these represent states won soundly by Bush, but the senators from Nebraska and North Dakota will probably especially take note of what happened to Senator Daschele. The remaining six, up for reelection in 2008, are from AK, IA, LA, MT, SD, and WV. So, most of these 11 are from states that went solidly for Bush. It would appear that the president might find it a little easier to get the 60 votes it seems he now needs to get his judges approved.

However, there are other factors to examine. Some of the nine republican senators that are from states Bush lost are not solidly behind his agenda. Republican Lincoln Chafee (RI) reportedly didn’t even vote for George W. Bush. In protest of some of the current Bush’s policies, he said he would cast his vote for George Bush I. Nevertheless, when it came to judicial nominees these nine always backed the president.

Also, it may not be easy to sway voters in certain states based solely on how their senator voted in the judicial nomination process. What they’ve done for their state will weigh heavily. However, the defeat of Daschele almost assuredly emboldens republicans when it comes to their efforts to defeat democrats in solidly red states.

There is still another option open to republicans. If they are unable to sway enough democrats to their side they can invoke what has been called the “nuclear” option. Under this procedure, the senate's presiding officer, Vice President Cheney, would find that a supermajority to end filibusters is unconstitutional for judicial nominees. Democrats would certainly challenge this ruling. But it takes only a simple majority—or 51 votes from the senate GOP's new 55-vote majority—to sustain a ruling of the chair. This is a rarely used maneuver and has explosive potential, hence the “nuclear” tag.

Whatever method the republicans use to push through Bush’s judicial nominees, the political intrigue should be high. Stay tuned.

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

Abolish the Electoral College?

Frustrated with the outcome of the last presidential election, especially since Al Gore won the popular vote, some in our country have cast a wary eye at the method by which we choose our president. Murmurings against the electoral college began even before George W. Bush was sworn in and they have picked up recently as we approach the 2004 election. Significant members of Congress have even suggested abolishing the electoral college. Like-minded editorialists and media elites have joined in the fray.

Upon being elected to the Senate, Hillary Clinton promised to introduce in the Senate a constitutional amendment to abolish the electoral college. The movement was supported by other like-minded Senators from both parties: Democratic Senator Dick Durbin and Republican Senators John Warner and Arlen Spector. There was also support in the House of Representatives, from Republicans Ray Lahood and Jim Leach and Democrats Robert Wise, Dick Gephardt, Rick Boucher, Virgil Goode, and Robert Underwood. Most of those calling for a change offer no real alternatives other than allowing the popular vote to determine the winner.

Within the last few weeks editorialists from The New York Times and The Atlanta Journal-Constitution also called for the abolition of the electoral college. The New York Times called it “a ridiculous setup, which thwarts the will of the majority.” They added, “There should be a bipartisan movement for direct election of the president.”

What were our Founders thinking and why shouldn’t we have a direct election of the President? According to historian David Barton, “During the Constitutional Convention, three proposals were originally discussed by the framers on how the president could be elected. Interestingly, those three proposals were rejected.” The first proposal called for Congress to elect the president, the second proposal allowed for the state legislators to do so, and the third proposal was to have the president chosen by national popular vote (direct election).

According to Barton, the national popular vote method was rejected “not because the framers distrusted the people but rather because the larger populous States would have much greater influence than the smaller States and therefore the interests of those smaller States could be disregarded or trampled. Additionally, a nationwide election would encourage regionalism since the more populous areas of the country could form coalitions to elect president after president from their own region. With such regional preferentialism, lasting national unity would be nearly impossible.”

The framers, then, referred the issue of the selection of a president to a “Committee of Eleven” for further investigation. The electoral college was the result of this investigation.

Barton adds that, “The electoral college synthesized two important philosophies established in the Constitution: (1) the maintenance of a republican, as opposed to a democratic, form of government and (2) the balancing of power between the smaller and the larger States and between the various diverse regions of the nation.”

The Legislative branch of our government, with its House and Senate, also reflects this balance desired by our Founders. Representation in the House is proportional to a state’s population, but representation in the Senate is the same for all states no matter their population. Consequently, Alaska, the third least populous state, has only a single vote in the House, where California, the most populous state, has 53. Therefore Alaska, a very important state in our union (with all of its natural resources), has almost no power in the House to affect legislation. However, it has equal power in the Senate and there must be significant agreement or compromise for legislation to become law.

Using the electoral college system to determine the head of the Executive branch of our government maintains the same kind of balance reflected in the Legislative branch.

The will of the people is taken into account, but the will of the states is also.

People frustrated with the outcome of the last presidential election point only to the majority of the vote, which Gore won by ½ of 1%. They ignore the fact that Bush won 30 states (60%), to Gore’s 20; or that Bush won 2436 counties (78%) compared to 676 for Gore; and by my count, Bush won 225 congressional districts (51.7%) to Gore’s 210. So, while a very slight majority of the people chose Gore, a much more significant majority of states and regions chose Bush. The result, therefore, was a slight electoral victory for Bush.

John Taylor (an officer during the American Revolution and a U. S. Senator under Presidents George Washington and Thomas Jefferson) put it this way:

“Two principles sustain our Constitution: one a majority of the people, the other a majority of the States; the first was necessary to preserve the liberty or sovereignty of the people; the last, to preserve the liberty or sovereignty of the States. But both are founded in the principle of majority; and the effort of the Constitution is to preserve this principle in relation both to the people and the States, so that neither species of sovereignty or independence should be able to destroy the other.” 

I agree.

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