The Intelligent Design Movement

Today we have two articles from AnswersInGenesis.org
AiG's views on the Intelligent Design Movement
ID and President Bush - the deeper issues

Intelligent Design Movement (IDM) is being hailed by Conservatives, moralists, theists, and Christians as a great idea, and they are jumping on the bandwagon of IDM to re-establish the Creator in the public square. No doubt, their motives are just and sincere. But as Biblical Christians, should we really support the IDM wholeheartedly? What is IDM, and what is its relationship to the Bible?

Basically, IDM and Biblical Creationism is not the same thing. Skeptics, naturalists, and evolutionists have vehemently charged that IDM is “Creationism in sheep’s clothing” “stealth Creationism” “a secret, underhanded attempt by Creationists to put religion in schools” etc, etc. This is grossly incorrect, however.

IDM’s claim is this: life began by an Intelligent Designer, and there is evidence for this from the irreducible complexity of living organisms, even as small as a cell, and it is impossible that life has evolved (or spontaneously generated) by itself; purely natural processes cannot explain the origin of life.

However, the Bible, the book of Genesis, the age of the earth, macro-evolution, and Christianity is not addressed by IDM as a whole. The IDM loosely contains anyone who is a theist, and this includes theistic evolutionists, old earth creationists, and young earth creationists; both Christians and non-Christians. People of various religions, including agnosticism and the occult, are involved with IDM. IDM simply says an Intelligent Designer created the first life (this “Designer” could be an alien according to some!). Many of the foremost figures of IDM are theistic evolutionists, meaning they believe in millions of years age for the age of the earth, evolution, and that man evolved from ape-like creatures. This is a far-cry from Creationism, and in fact, those ideas are strongly opposed and refuted by Biblical Creationists. Some IDers are even criticizing Biblical Creationism, as the AiG articles show.

What shall Christians do about IDM? I think we can sum it up with two things: 1) The course the Institute for Creation Research, Answers in Genesis, and other Creationists are taking is a good route: speak out, defend, and investigate the same Biblical truths as we have always done, and point out the scientific evidence for the Biblical view of history and origins. Stand against anti-biblical rhetoric, even if it comes from the IDM. 2) It is perfectly alright for a Biblical Creationist to be involved in the ID movement, and many Christians are. Teaching a balanced view of the origin of life in schools and educating the public about the evidence for a Creator is a good thing. It is also good to refute the destructive philosophy of Naturalism*, which has taken over nearly every aspect of American society, science, and law.

Indeed, the IDM has Biblical Creationists in it, as well as fine theistic thinkers. Philip Johnson, a leader among the IDers, author of Darwin on Trial and Reason in the Balance (one of my favorite books, it’s a critique of naturalism), is a good Christian man, and he has destroyed Naturalism and Darwinism. However, even Johnson wants to shelve Genesis in the IDM to make debate easier and draw old earthers and theistic evolutionists. Other Biblical Christians should not be drawn away from standing for the truth. The only attacks IDM has against evolution are the ideas of spontaneous generation** and naturalism.

Of course, the IDM is beneficial to the debate against evolution, and it does ultimately help Biblical Creation. It puts more pressure on Darwinism, it gives the idea of a Creator more prestige and plausibility, it thrusts the question of origins into public debate, it dismantles Naturalism, and it utterly destroys spontaneous generation.

In conclusion, the IDM is not Creationist, but an effort by a mixture of both Christians and non-Christians of highly varied beliefs to show that life began with an Intelligent Designer. Biblical Christians should still advocate Biblical truths of Creation and of Science, and Christians can still be involved in IDM as long as they do not compromise with the Scriptures.

Please read the AiG articles above for another more through opinion.


*Naturalism is the idea that all proccesses occur by purely natural causes, and God must be taken out of the picture.
**Spontaneous generation is the idea that living organisms arose spontaneously from non-living material.

Editorial - Attacks against Bible unfounded

Here’s another article printed in the North County Times. On this blog, these past two weeks I have been focusing on politics and wars, not giving that much attention to religion. It usually will not be like this. Most of my letters to the NCT are religious in nature; they appear in the Faith & Values letters section, which comes out every Friday. The limit between letters by the same person is two weeks, and I try to have letters in the paper that often. Here I responded to two letter writers from the previous week. I will show them first, then mine.



'Christian arrogance is dismissive'
The Bible (both the Old Testament and the New) contains a number of references to homosexuality. Of course, non-Christians, particularly secularists, are not burdened by the grinding biblical prejudices. Also, not everything historical, even in the Bible, is touched upon by writers. PP. Random crevices occur everywhere in the information (and disinformation) continuum. It is not known, for instance, whether Jesus and the Apostles were homosexuals, perhaps even practicing homosexuals. PP. Christian arrogance is generally dismissive of secular – and calmer – points of view regarding human nature. – Clay Northcote, Carlsbad.

'Hating others in the name of an invented god'
As a child living on my grandfather’s sugar plantation in Cuba, my mother taught me how to recognize homosexual animals, such as a tuerca, chicken. These homosexuals were identified as primary candidates for family meals. My grandfather later taught me that some people were tuerca, just like the various farm animals. PP. The perceived homosexual problem was reproduction (important to a farmer) and had nothing to do with any evil. It was natural. PP. During my long lifetime I’ve had a few friends and relatives who were homosexual. I wondered over the years as to why some of my Bible-thumping friends could be so hateful against homosexuals. I wondered if these friends were also hateful against the so-called freaks of nature. PP. I have no problem with homosexuals (or bible-thumpers) having idealistic equal rights and opportunities under the law, regardless of what some ignorant humans wrote in some Scripture a long time ago in the middle of a desert. PP. On the other hand, there will always be people who justify hating others in the name of their invented God(s).
- Tony San Miguel, Vista

Attacks against the Bible unfounded

Mr. San Miguel and Mr. Northcote (Faith & Values Letters, Sept. 30th) said the Bible is “man-made” written by “ignorant” humans, full of human “prejudices”. They use this as an argument against the Christian/Biblical stand against homosexual practices.

While it is true the Bible was hand-written by men, it was inspired by God. God dictated His message through the Holy Spirit to the authors, while still using their unique personalities. It is not a book of myths or human prejudices, but God’s message to humankind. There is strong evidence for this, among which are fulfilled prophecy, archeological confirmation, and proof beyond a reasonable doubt that Christ was raised from the dead.

Biblical Christians are not “hateful” against homosexuals. We stand against the practice of homosexuality because its sin, just as lying, murder, and idolatry are sins. We do not hate homosexuals, because Christ loved them enough to die for them on the cross, and whoever believes in Him will not perish, but have everlasting life. Non-christian homosexuals are as lost as any other non-christian. A homosexual who becomes a Christian should stop his practice out of respect for his Savior, which has been done by thousands of former homosexuals.

-Paul B. Bishop, homeschooled student. Valley Center

You may notice, I could not answer all of their arguments in just one letter, since we have a 200 word limit. For instance, Mr. Northcote's claim that we don't know whether or not Jesus and the disciples were homosexual (of course we know they were not). I value your input on how well I answered those two letters with such limited space.

Anniversary of USS Cole bombing

Anniversary of USS Cole bombing (post on 12th)

Primary article for today is from the BBC
Secondary article is on Michelle Malkin’s blog.

Today is the 5th anniversary of the attack on the USS Cole, an Arleigh Burke class destroyer. A small boat packed with explosives was steered by the suicide bombers to the side of the ship, then detonated, blasting a hole in the hull 40 feet wide. Seventeen sailors were killed and at least forty were injured. The ship was severely damaged, but it was not destroyed; it is still on duty today.

This is a reminder to us how long-lasting and continuous the Jihad Muslim’s hostility towards the United States, and Western civilization itself. Only two years before, the US embassies at Kenya and Tanzania were bombed, killing 224 people. The latter half of the 20th century was pierced by terrorist attacks: the 1993 World Trade Center bombing, the plane hijackings, the hostage-taking, and more. Very little was done by the US, or any other nation, to stop this Islamic jihad violence. The little action that was taken was to kill or capture those directly responsible, usually no more than a handful of men; this is called, “police action.” Sometimes, no action was taken at all. This emboldened the terrorists, and they continued to plan and carry out attacks and increase their forces. With the 2001 September 11th attacks, the Bush administration decided to do things differently. September 11th was seen as an act of war, requiring a massive military response, not merely a police action. This, I believe, is the wisest way to deal with the problem.

If we take out a few here and there, only those directly responsible for a particular attack, then others will quickly replace them in the terrorist network. However, the continued mass capturing and killing of terrorist leaders and troops would leave terror networks always struggling, and with skeleton forces and resources. As a general once said, “hit hard, hit fast, and keep on hitting.”

The passive resistance of the United States before September 11th is illustrated very well in

Sean Hannity's tour

I had the privilege last night to hear the popular Conservative commentator Sean Hannity here in San Diego. He spoke at the Symphony hall, and was sponsored by the local radio station, 760 KFMB. I had a good friend who won two VIP tickets from a radio contest, and I found myself with my friend in the front row.

Overall, I had a good time, as I did last time he came to town (this is the second time I’ve been to a Sean Hannity speech). We arrived at the place at 5:30pm. Even though it was one and half hours early, there was not a small crowd of people there. I must say, standing in a crowded line for over an hour with nothing to do but study the grain of wooden wall panels is rather dull. We were allowed into the sanctuary at 7:05pm, and shortly afterward came Sean Hannity. Some of his speech was stand-up comedy, but he got into serious issues aggressively. Sean is an entertaining speaker, even when he is talking seriously.

Here are some of my notes from what he said. I have my own comments in brackets [ ]. I do not necessarily agree with everything he said, nor necessarily disagree, but here it is:

Sean believes the liberal Democratic party is imploding. Their loud, radical rhetoric is increasingly shrill, showing desperation. In the opinion of most Americans, the quality and esteem of their representatives (Michael Moore, Al Franken, and Rev. Jesse Jackson for example) is poor. He has great hope for the Conservative movement, and for the accomplishments to be.
[I, personally, am still in doubt who will ultimately prevail. America will either become thoroughly morally deviant and anti-Christian, or we will rise to a Biblical, moral culture. While Political Conservatism and Christianity are not the same, it would be fair to say that if America becomes more conservative, a Christian revival will accompany it; in fact, it is likely that a Christian revival would lead a politically conservative movement, since the Conservatism is based in traditional American values, which has Judeo-Christian standards.]

He said he strongly loves and respects the President, and praised him for his work in the War on Terror. However, Sean, (noting to the audience that he is a conservative first, and Republican second, and that conservatives should think rather than blindly follow and agree with everything a Republican leaders does or says), laid out three criticisms of President Bush. 1) he does not control the border, 2) he is not vetoing spending bills enough, and 3) he doesn’t communicate to Americans enough. [These are my own main criticisms of the President as well.]

Sean noted the progress Republicans have made under President Bush. He won 80% of the counties in the United States in the 2004 election, and for the first time since Frankin D. Roosevelt, a President’s party took both houses of congress.

Sean talked about Hurricane Katrina, and that was educational. He said there were over 1,000 buses that sat empty and flooded in Louisiana, because the local government officials did not use them. Amtrac offered trains to be used by Louisiana to transport people, but where rejected by the officials. The local government in Louisiana was far worse off in their mistakes than the Federal government or the Bush administration. And the local government was democrat!
[I found this impressive. I heard that buses sat flooded, but I thought it was one hundred or so, not enough to really make a difference. But with 1,000+ buses and amtrac trains, it seems to me this entire crisis of stranded people could have been avoided.]

Yet, despite this major democrat failure, the liberal cry, even among ranks as high as former President Bill Clinton, is “it’s Bush’s fault.” He laughed the conservative joke that liberals would be someday blaming the weather on Bush is now reality. He mockingly mimicked liberal pundits saying, “the terrorists are Bush’s fault, the bird flu is Bush’s fault, the weather is Bush’s fault, I had an argument with my wife and it’s Bush’s fault,” then he pointed to my friend, who happened to have crutches and a broken foot, and said, “your broken foot is Bush’s fault!” John Kerry accused President Bush of leading a “Katrina administration”, making a campaign speech only one week after the hurricane.
[I agree with Sean that they too readily blame President Bush for things that go wrong. This is detrimental to both sides, ignoring the real issues and spend time talking about problems and blame that don’t exist.]

Sean made a case that the liberal democrat rhetoric is becoming more shrill. Howard Dean in particular keeps sticking his foot in his mouth. He has said since he became head of the Democrat National Committee chairman, he has said the most incendiary things against the opposing party, among them are “I hate Republicans” “Republicans are brain-dead” “Republicans are mean” and a “white Christian party.”
[Dean’s remarks are definitely out of line, and it reflects badly on the Democratic party. The Democrats should never have opted for such a controversial, angry, and radical person to lead their party. It will not only hurt them, but hurt America as well. It is not good for the world perception of America to be nothing but a polarized morass of nasty, rash people insulting each other. Debate is good, but this insulting behavior is not.]

Dean accused Bush/Republicans of not caring about minorities. Sean pointed out that President Bush has done more for minorities than any other President, spending more money on the poor than Bill Clinton. President Bush has appointed more minorities to government positions than any other President, surpassing Bill Clinton in this respect. When Howard Dean was governor, he had no African-Americans at all in his staff.
[It’s true that Republicans are giving attention to minorities, but I think we should dwell more on what unites us rather than what divides us. We need to stop continually thinking of America as a confederacy of minorities and ethnic groups, and think of ourselves as one, united nation first, and our differences second. Martin Luther King Jr. wanted a day when people looked at our character as a defining quality, not skin color. This hasn’t happened among most politicians. Skin color is still politicized. I will post another article on this at a later date.]

Sean quoted Howard Dean as saying that same-sex marriage protection is a “step towards change” further showing how out of touch he is with Americans.
[The liberal battle-cry for the past three centuries is “Change! Change!” The so-called “progressives” throughout history have called for change, but often do not realize what change means, or how change will benefit them. They often want to change a certain idea or practice for no other reason than change. This is what is called, “change for change’s sake”. This is a harmful idea. If we want to change something, it should be for the purpose of making something better; change in itself doesn’t make things better. Change can be for either bad or good. The Red Communists called for change when they overturned the czar, but the Russians found themselves in a worse position than they were before the czar fell – under oppressive communist rule. Howard Dean is right when he said same-sex marriage protection is a step towards change, but it would be change for the worse. It would undermine marriage, and therefore family, thereby undermining the entire United States.]

Eventually, Sean held a Town hall meeting with fellow Conservative talk-show host Rick Roberts. They talked about the border. Actually, the primary focus of this entire event is on the border situation, since San Diego county borders Mexico, and has a problem with illegal immigration. They had quite a long discussion on the need to fix the border problem. They also opened up for questions from the audience; the questioners lined up to speak into a microphone, since there were so many people. The common opinion was this: illegal immigration should not be tolerated, legal immigration should be welcomed, the system of accepting legal immigrants should be more stream-lined and efficient so good, hard-working people could get in easier without coming illegally. Rick Roberts thought that the first step in securing the border is to enforce the laws we already have.
[My present view is similar. However, I think that enforcing the laws we already have first, then months or years later fix the system to stream-line legal immigration, would result in hurt for a lot of people, both for American businesses who need workers and for the hard workers that can’t legally get into out country. Some of the immigration laws we have are faulty, and we need to fix them quickly first before we start alienating good migrants from America. We need immigration, and plenty of it. But it does need to be legal and documented so terrorists would not be able to slip through the cracks.]

When the town hall meeting was over, Sean spoke for a little while longer, encouraging conservatives to act, and let their voice be heard on important issues. He said there is much work to do, because the liberal elite controls most of the media, money, and even much of the government in America. He said we need to change the liberal 9th Circuit court of appeals, the most over-turned court in the US, we need to use the natural resources here in America, and drill for oil, reminding the audience that over 60% of the nations oil comes from outside the US, making us dependent on foreign governments who are hostile to the US.
[The Ninth circuit is out of control. I think Bush’s judicial nominees have helped the situation.]

When it was over, Sean stayed for an extra 20 minutes to sign autographs and take pictures before he left.
[My friend got his book by Hannity, Deliver Us from Evil, signed. Unfortunately, none of the pictures I took there turned out. The bright lights played havoc with my camera exposure, and his face was all washed out in my photos. The picture I have included was from the last time he came to speak.]







Overall, we had a great time. Sean Hannity is an engaging speaker, and has a charming sense of humor, though his humor is often downright insulting to liberals. Nonetheless, he is a good conservative commentator and thinker, and his insights were interesting. I listen to him sometimes on 760 KFMB. His show runs from noon to 3:00 pm.

Fierce Culture war in Massachusetts

A father in Massachusetts is banned from the public school grounds of Estabrook Elementary because he wants to have a say in the teaching about homosexuality in his son’s kindergarten class. Please read the full article, “The Culture War’s Battle of Lexington” by Wendy Mcelroy here (FoxNews address)

In liberal, “progressive” schools tolerance is taught to the students as the best possible quality: tolerance of other religions, tolerance of homosexuals, tolerance of African-Americans, tolerance of many other viewpoints and people. For perfection of society, the schools in Massachusetts make tolerance their holy grail.

But see what they are doing now. One parent, David Parker, has a viewpoint that he should teach his little child about homosexuality himself at home; expressing his freedom to control how his child is taught. And yet the school is intolerant of his view; they not only break Massachusetts state law of parental notification before discussing sexuality with children, but they also ban him from the school grounds, because he refused to leave the grounds until his he was guaranteed the parental notification that the law requires (and from what I understand, he never got it). Is Estabrook Elementary school practicing its highest virtue of tolerance, at least to hear what he has to say?

The only intolerance they support is intolerance against intolerance; but then this makes them intolerant! They are not truly tolerant as they say they are. Apparently, then tolerance is a two-way street. There are some things that should be tolerated, and some that shouldn’t be; but the schools don’t tell the children this, unless there is an opinion against what they believe. This is what it comes down to – the progressives are no more intolerant than we absolutists are. In fact, they are more intolerant. Most of us are at least willing for open dialogue and debate, but they wish to stifle all opposition to their ideology.

David Parker has been extremely patient and noble throughout his ordeal, and he is truly a hero for the Absolute truth side of worldview. Yet the “gay” activists have smeared, insulted and trashed him in an attempt to discredit his words, trying to make him as a “bigot” “homophobe” “anti-gay” “hater”. They cannot afford to have honest debate, but must try to destroy any who gives them opposition.

The trial is being held in Lexington, Massachusetts, hence, the christening, “second battle of Lexington” by Ms. Mcelroy – quite appropriate, I would say. We should keep track of this, since a pivotal case as this may have a profound affect on the culture of the United States.

God bless.

Editorial, "Bush did not lie about WMDs"

Here is a letter to the editor I sent to the North County Times. I do this fairly often, and I will post them here whenever they are printed in the paper. I usually write in response to another writer, and when that's the case, I will include his/her editorial along with mine, so you can see both sides of the issue. This editorial was not responding to one particular letter, but to the constant liberal cry, "Bush lied people died" "Bush lied about WMDs" rhetoric that I know all who read this will be familiar with.

Feel free to tell me what you think, and how I could have improved.



Bush did not lie about WMDs

The common expression, "Bush lied about WMDs" is false. President Bush only repeated the reports gathered from the world's most prestigious intelligence organizations. Everyone - the French, Germans, Russians, and Democrats included -- agreed Saddam had WMDs at the time; it was not in question. As one senator said, "I believe that a deadly arsenal of weapons of mass destrucion in his (Saddam) hands is a grave threat to our security and that of our allies in the Persian Gulf region." Who said this? None other than John Kerry.

The debate was if a terrorist tyrant with WMDs was worth pre-emptive strike. We decided it was. Although we found that Saddam didn't have WMDs at the time, it was an intelligence failure, not a presidential conspiracy. To lie is to knowingly say something untrue. President Bush didn't lie. He didn't fabricate information. He relied, as any President would, on our nation's intelligence.

There are many other reasons we went to war in Iraq; Saddam was our dangerous enemy whether or not he had WMDs on hand. He had the infrastructure and programs in place to build WMDs. All he needed were the raw materials, and we could not allow this.

- Paul B. Bishop, home-schooled student [city]*





* I am not ready to disclose my city to cyberspace at this time. Sorry for being overly paranoid.

What Is Worldview?

Worldview is the way an individual or group thinks of reality; how experiences are explained; a philosophy on life. As David Noebel said in his book, Understanding the Times: The Religious Worldviews of our Day and the Search for Truth,

"…worldview refers to any ideology, philosophy, theology, movement, or religion that provides an overarching approach to understanding God, the world, and man’s relations to God and the world. Specifically, a worldview should contain each of the following ten disciplines: theology, philosophy, ethics, biology, psychology, sociology, law, politics, economics, and history. . . . Each worldview offers a particular perspective from which to approach each discipline. Conversely, each discipline is value laden with worldview implications." (Eugene Oregon: Harvest House Publishers, 1991, page 8)

A person’s worldview is often determined by their experiences or geography. A native who lived his whole life in the African Congo would have a worldview limited to what he knows and sees every day where he lives. Trees, rocks, rivers, huts, and other natives are what he experiences in his isolated geographic location. His outlook on life is largely determined by these things on which he is familiar. If he were to go to a modern city, such as Cairo or New York, his worldview would change considerably. He sees cars, skyscrapers, motorboats, and modern people that he has to explain and accommodate into his understanding of life.

The native’s philosophy was determined also by what his parents and elders told him; his religion is spiritualism and animism. However, when something from the outside comes, perhaps a missionary bearing the Bible, his worldview will have to be altered somewhat, whether or not he accepts the message of the Bible; he knows that another belief system exists apart from what he has been taught.

The world is full of different ideas and philosophies and propositions, with as many philosophies as there are people. It is impossible to look at one’s outlook on things from total objectivity. We cannot fully escape the viewpoint we have already. However, it is possible to examine the world with some level of objectivity. We can be open-minded, and try to look at the facts, as well as other ideas, using common sense and rationale.

As a Christian, I view the world from what I know from the Bible. The Bible is the one constant that brings sanity to our complexity of viewpoints. While worldviews vary, there are ideas that are available to everyone, regardless of what they have experienced or where they live. God, the Creator and Lord of the world and the universe, has revealed Himself to mankind through the wonders of His creation; this is natural revelation. All humans, regardless of location, religion, skin color, or philosophy, have the opportunity to accept or reject God’s natural revelation; and the result of accepting this is the availability of God’s special revelation, the Bible.

The Bible is God’s message to mankind. Through it we can learn about God, how to live, and most importantly, how to obtain eternal life. The Bible says all people are sinners (Romans 3:23), and “the wages of sin is death, but the free gift of God is eternal life through Jesus Christ our Lord.” (Romans 6:23) Jesus Christ was both God and man, and He died on the cross to pay the penalty of death for our sins, then rose again three days later. Jesus said, “Most assuredly, I say to you, he who believes in Me has everlasting life.” (John 6:47). This is the message of the Bible, that we can have everlasting life in heaven with Him through faith in Him. To have a Biblical worldview, one must trust in Jesus Christ first.

Worldview is of utmost importance. In all the study and discussion about the various worldviews and ideas, there is one reoccurring theme – the struggle of absolute truth versus humanism.

Absolute truth says there are moral absolutes. Truth exists. There is an transcendent, omnipotent, perfect God who rules in the lives of men. Human beings are specially created in the image of God, and our lives have worth. The Christian brand of absolute truth also elevates the Bible as the source of constant truth. Its precepts, wisdom, teachings, and laws are good and true.

In contrast, humanism denies there can be absolute truth. The only truth is science. There is no such thing as moral absolutes – morality is whatever society says it is; it evolves on man’s whims. There is no God – man is the measure of all things. It is a religion that ultimately worships man, or environment. Man is nothing more than a highly evolved animal, smarter than a bug in life, but no different than a bug in destiny – death.

The Biblical worldview seeks to overturn the hoplessness of humanism, and humanism tries to overturn the absolutism of the Bible. This theme will be prominent on this blog.

I will be taking different areas of media (newspaper, TV, radio, and internet) articles and reports, and commenting on them from what I believe is a Biblical worldview. The Bible is the standard by which we will view the world.

Sources will be diverse, including CNN, FoxNews, BBC, Newsmax, Asia Times, World magazine, New York Times, the National Liberty Journal, and many others, in attempting to have as open-minded, varying viewpoints and accurate information as I can. I will use my local news sources, The North County Times and the Christian Examiner as well. From the above sources I will comment on current events, the cultural and religious ramifications from those events, as well as how they relate to the Biblical worldview. I will also post commentaries, articles, and essays on culture and religion in general, without reference to a particular media source. My goal is to post on this blog at least once a week.

It is my hope and prayer that this blog will help people think rationally and critically, and that people who have not yet trusted in Jesus Christ to save them would believe, and that Christians would look at the world the way God wants us to, through a Biblical worldview.