Life's busy, read it when you're ready!

Create a free account to save articles for later, keep track of past articles you’ve read, and receive exclusive access to all RP resources.

Search thousands of RP articles

Articles, news, and reviews that celebrate God's truth.

Get Articles Delivered!

Articles, news, and reviews that celebrate God's truth. delivered direct to your Inbox!



News

St Catharines challenged for censoring pro-life messages

ARPA Canada is taking the city of St. Catharines to court. In September 2023, the city passed a bylaw that forbids delivering any image of a fetus to a private residence unless it is placed in a sealed envelope with a warning label on it.

In their application to the Ontario Superior Court of Justice in late February, ARPA Canada (ARPACanada.ca) argued that the bylaw is a violation of the Charter-protected freedoms of conscience, religion, and expression, and is beyond the authority of a municipal government. They believe that “the bylaw’s true nature and purpose is to suppress pro-life or anti-abortion content,” because it doesn’t apply to any other gory images.

Such a bylaw could impact the Canadian Center for Bio-ethical Reform (EndTheKilling.ca) which has long used abortion victim photography to show the public the gory reality of what abortion is. As the organization explains on its website:

“By studying effective social reform movements of the past – from the British Abolitionists, to the National Child Labour Committee, to the civil rights movement – we can see how they changed the unchangeable by exposing injustice using visual evidence, and confronting the culture with that evidence.”

ARPA Canada doesn’t use abortion victim photography, but does include ultrasound pictures of living unborn babies in its campaign materials, so they’d also be required to put a warning label on their envelopes. “The bylaw requires ARPA and its volunteers to mislead people about our message,” said John Sikkema, ARPA’s legal counsel. “Ultrasound photos are common and innocuous, not offensive or disturbing.”

St. Catharines is the latest Canadian city, along with London, Woodstock, and Calgary, that have passed bylaws in an effort to prevent the sharing of pro-life materials.

Photo is of ARPA Canada material that would require a warning label if delivered via the mail.

Pro-life - Fostering

Fostering? I could never!

“Oh, I could never foster. I could never part with kids after having them in my home for a while. It would break my heart. Fostering is not for me.” So many times we’ve had people say things like this to us. It can be a bit awkward. I mean… we foster… and we have for years. What’s that say about us and our hearts? You think that we don’t grow attached? Or that goodbyes are easy? Or that there’s no risk to our emotions? It’s not like we are so uniquely cut out for the task. Fostering is hard work and time consuming. It stretches you and can be taxing on home life. But it’s also beautiful in that it teaches you to love a stranger; to embrace a needy child. In essence, it’s the core of the gospel at work: to love a stranger. As former strangers now loved by God, wouldn’t He in turn want us to love strangers? It seems pretty important to Jesus in light of eternity. “They also will answer, ‘Lord, when did we see you hungry or thirsty or a stranger or needing clothes or sick or in prison, and did not help you?’ “He will reply, ‘Truly I tell you, whatever you did not do for one of the least of these, you did not do for me.’ “Then they will go away to eternal punishment, but the righteous to eternal life.” (Matt. 25:44-46). Imagine… making time to care for the needs of strangers can affect our eternal destiny! I wonder if people who say, “I could never do that,” are also covering up a bit of a fear of the unknown, or attempting to disqualify themselves, or maybe just justifying not interrupting their life with other kids. Whatever the reasoning, be sure to talk about it with God. Maybe the timing is not right for you, or you have circumstances that are not conducive to fostering at this time. That’s ok. But for the most part fostering is something everyone can participate in, especially if you confess Christ and keep in mind what is important to Him. Taking a huge risk There’s a point where you have to set aside your worries and fears (says me the worrywart) to not focus on the hurt of goodbyes, but instead to think about the joy of hellos. To think about welcoming a child (yes, the least of these) into your home. With thousands of kids in need of care right now, there’s opportunity for you to open your door, and welcome one of them into your heart and your home. And yes, opening the door of your home, means opening your heart. And opening your heart means taking a huge risk… to love and to care for someone. When we love and care for someone, we risk that someday we may have to part ways, and say goodbye. But, better to have loved and feel the pain of separation, than not to have loved at all. We were made for relationship. We welcome people into our lives all the time: a new birth, a new friend, a new neighbor, a new wife, a new husband, a new family member, a new community, and maybe a new foster child. And whenever we welcome someone in, we know that at some point we’ll have to say goodbye. Kids grow up and move out, we might travel around, we might leave the country, and any one of us might die at any time. We part ways with people all the time. Life is full of goodbyes, and sometimes heart-wrenching goodbyes that leave us marked forever. Love is like that – it’s risky. And while we live on this side of heaven, love will be severed at some point. But as in any relationship, we don’t focus on the goodbyes. We focus on the time we get to be together, and then make the best of it. So, if you’re still thinking you are not even slightly prepared to foster because you can’t handle the pain of separation, I beg to differ. We face separation in all relationships. And if its fear of the unknown or not wanting interruption, well, that can be challenged. What if your life up to this point has been the training ground for you to take in someone new, to take in a stranger to love? What if life training for you included being stretched in new ways through fostering? Our story My wife and I have six children. They’re all grown up now. All of them except for one have moved out of the house. We often got strange looks when traveling about as family. People would ask, “Are these all your kids?” (No, we just collect them as we go.) “Yes, they’re all our kids.” “Must be a lot of work!” “Well, they didn’t all come at once and they all do help each other.” “Same woman?” “Yes, same woman.” And people would walk away in amazement. One guy pulled me aside and said, “Must’ve cost you a fortune!” I responded, “But the rewards far outweigh the costs.” Contrary to today’s cultural ignorance, large families are a wonderful thing. Kids are not a “cost,” they are a reward, a gift. And you raise them to contribute. Not only to society, but to the Kingdom of God. Despite some bickering and some fighting once in a while, there is a beauty to forming your own little family community that interacts with the broader community. Family is the place we learn how to live together as disciples of Jesus, how to love, forgive, grow in patience, accommodate, take care of the needs of others, reveal blind spots, and discuss how to live in our crazy world. Family is the training ground from which we shoot forth our kids like arrows into the world to go and make a difference in the name of Jesus. Life can be dreadfully lonely without family. When a couple of our oldest kids moved out of our home, we then had empty bedrooms. We wanted to fill them and invite others into that “family” thing we do, learning to live together as disciples of Jesus. So we thought to foster. Opening our doors to new children meant introducing them to Jesus. No force, just display. We called a family meeting to share with our kids our idea to begin fostering and to inquire of them if they’d be supportive of that. All were in favor (whether moved out or not). One ad, one phone call And then something crazy happened. My wife Joanne saw an ad in the newspaper for Bridgeway Homes, a fostering agency out in Cobourg, Ontario. She called and inquired about fostering. After a number of months of training and inspections, we became an official fostering home for them. But here’s the thing: Bridgeway only ever put out one ad in the Niagara area newspapers. And Joanne was the only one person to respond to it. Coincidence? I don’t think so. Through Bridgeway we began fostering. Numerous children came to stay with us, mostly for respite, so usually it was for one or two weeks at a time. One girl, a young teen, who had experienced a lot of moving around, got approval in mid-November to stay with us over Christmas and into the new year. She had had some deep questions about life that she had unpacked with me in my office and was so content to stay with our family that she was bursting with joy the day she unpacked. “Mark, I get to spend Christmas with you guys! I’m so excited!” Two days later the Children’s Aid stopped by our house when she was at school. They grabbed her stuff, told us they had found a placement for her and had to act quickly, and then went to pick her up from school to take her away. No goodbyes. Man, that hurts. One thing that hurts more than goodbyes, is not having a chance to say goodbye. I was crushed for days. “Mark…. Christmas with you guys….” Yes, fostering can hurt. I always hope that the kids we were blessed to have would be blessed in return for having met us. And then along came AJ, the foster boy we had for seven years. He had no idea of who God was, but after only 4 days with us he was already asking if he could pray. And in less than a month, he was asking my wife and I if he could call us “Mom” and “Dad”. About 3 years ago, when hospitalized, we were told he would die, so we experienced those kinds of goodbyes. But God’s plan was recovery! And now recently, due to increased care needs, he was moved out of our home – another goodbye. Fostering… it’s living, loving, laughing, leaving…. but often lasting. Everyone can participate Remember I said, “fostering is something that everyone can participate in.” I did not say fostering is something that everyone can do (although I think most can). But fostering is something everyone can participate in. This is where “wrap around” is key. If you cannot foster yourself, everyone can help – everyone can wrap support arms around someone who is fostering. You can open your home for visits or respite, you can drop in and help out, you can make a meal for the foster family, you can take foster kids out on trips with your kids, you can support the foster parents, you can offer to drive for outings, you can ask how to be of help, and you can pray for all involved. Dispelling a few excuses But I just can’t. How about talking about it? And also take it to God. List off all your reasons and tell Him why you can’t. It’s not like God will be shocked or overwhelmed. But He may ask you to shift from “I can’t” to “trust Me.” And if you seriously can’t take someone in yourself, find someone who did take a child in and ask how you can be of help, how you can be part of a “wrap around.” I’m too busy. When in life will you not be busy? It’s generally when we are laying on a hospital bed or recovering at home that we finally slow down and realize we’ve been occupying ourselves with a whole lot of “stuff.” And in times we are not occupied, we are preoccupied. We like to busy ourselves! Being busy is what we gravitate to. Often we hear, “So, are you keeping busy?” The challenge for the rest of our life is to create space in our schedules — space in which we allow God to act. Maybe even space for a certain child to enter into. The timing is not right. We can always come up with reasons why the timing is not right. We’re too young. We’re just married. Our family is too big. Our family is too small. We don’t know what to do. The system is too complicated. We’re too old. And the list goes on. Analyze your situation and write down what it is that you think is getting in the way and see if, how, and when the obstacles can be removed. Some might be legitimate, others might be you just making excuses. But do determine a time. Fostering is something that everyone can participate in. I don’t say this to make you feel guilty, I say this to make you think about it. I have shared our experience; yours will be different. Think pro-life Perhaps you’ve never considered that being pro-life is synonymous with being “pro-fostering.” Pro-life means having an open door. If someone didn’t abort as we’ve asked, and now can’t raise their child, it’s logical that a pro-lifer would step up to help. And that may include fostering. But wait, what about all the sign-up requirements for fostering agencies? When they come to assess your home and start asking you about life, simply state what’s right and true and allow the chips to fall where they may. Be shrewd as serpents, innocent as doves. We proclaim truth even in this, and suffer the consequences if need be (or the agencies do if their requirements exclude us). But imagine if fostering agencies had 500 Christian homes in the waiting and it was only one or two silly stipulations getting in the way. That would make it their problem. But you and me would stand ready to serve. Obviously in all circumstances you do not want to jeopardize your own health or family. It’s of no use stepping up to help another child or family only to ruin your own. But just be honest with yourself and your family whether the reasons for avoiding fostering or a fostering “wrap around” are substantial enough to wait for another time. We may set the bar so high for an “ideal time” that it never comes. And we’d say that old line once again, “Fostering? I could never!” No, we don’t want to go there. Remember, these things are of eternal significance. “God sets the lonely in families, he leads out prisoners with singing.” – Ps. 68:6 Mark Wanders lives in Smithville, ON with his wife Joanne. He writes regularly on his blog site: www.theartisanpost.com. Picture at the top is of Mark and AJ, used with permission....

News

Health minister will protect kids from nicotine, but not castration?

Last week, the federal government announced that it will “explore legislation and regulatory options” to address the growing popularity of youth using certain “stop smoking” aids.  Specifically, the government is focusing on restricting access to nicotine pouches, which are tobacco pouches placed between the gum and cheek, with the intent being to counteract nicotine cravings. Zonnic is one of the popular brands approved in Canada, with Health Canada stating that the 4 mg per dose “is usually recommended for adults who smoke 25 or more cigarettes a day and want to quit smoking.” These pouches release the same addictive chemicals found in cigarettes, vape products, and chewing tobacco. In July 2023, Canada approved Zonnic as a natural health product, allowing it to be sold at any store with no restrictions.  But these products have been marketed to teens with different candy-like flavors and colorful packaging. Federal Health Minister Mark Holland was having none of that: “To the tobacco companies that continue to look for ways to use loopholes to addict people to their products: Get away. Stay the hell away from our kids.” The BC government already took action last month, ensuring this product can only be sold over the counter in pharmacies.  Yet, this same “keep away from our kids” minister, just last month, criticized the Alberta government for new policies that focused on protecting minors from gender transition hormones and procedures, banning males from female sports, and giving more parental control over sexual education curricula. Holland stated that the policies are “deeply disturbing.”  Holland listens to the science regarding addictive drugs harming minors. Yet, when it comes to so-called “gender-affirming care” that does irreversible harm to children including sterilization, castration, and other genital mutilations (more harm than nicotine products could do), he would rather align with an ideological stance that fails to affirm a child's God-given sex. ...

News

Election day delay could cost taxpayers millions

On March 20 the Liberal/NDP government proposed bumping the 2025 election date back a week because the election would otherwise be at the same time as Diwali, the Hindu festival of lights. Critics have noted that moving election day back a week would also guarantee that any MPs first elected in 2019 would now be eligible for pensions that they wouldn’t have gotten if they’d lost. An MP needs to serve 6 years to be eligible for a pension, and for those elected on Oct 21, 2019, the 2025 election date of Oct 20 would have left them a day short. If current polling numbers persist, the government could expect a lot of their MPs to lose, but this election-day delay would give them a going-away pension bonus. Among the other electoral changes being proposed are an expansion of 2 more days of advance polls, giving voters seven days in total – six advance days and election day – to be able to vote in person. The government also wants to make it easier to vote by mail, and allow electors to vote anywhere in their electoral district. These changes are being done in the name of “encouraging participation in the electoral process.” However, that doesn’t seem a pressing issue – over the last 30 years, electoral turnout has stayed consistently within 60%-70% of eligible voters. Looking south of the border, we can see that what’s more important is the perceived trustworthiness of the election. Canada has not had allegations of stolen elections, as is almost commonplace in the US. That’s because Canada’s federal elections, as they have been run over the last many decades are the most verifiable in the world, with each voter checked off a list at their poll, and every ballot evaluated by two Elections Canada agents as well as representatives from each major party. These competing interests provided the ultimate verification for each election. Mail-in balloting and vote-anywhere initiatives might make it marginally easier to vote, but cause complications – last election 90,000 mail-in ballots arrived too late to be counted – and muddle the transparency. The more heated our politics become, the more important it is that our elections are not only trustworthy, but are obviously so....

News

Saturday Selections – Mar. 23, 2024

How to undermine election trust The title of this video – "how to steal an election" – isn't as much the issue here as the fact that results become more disputable, and more controversial, when in-person voting is replaced with mail-in balloting. This is an American case, but applicable to Canada and elsewhere. Why chromosomal differences do not create additional sexes The Christian apologetic group Stand to Reason has made this short and to the point, but with plenty of links to go explore deeper. Sadly, Jordan Peterson still isn't Christian Aaron Renn argues that Peterson is basically New Age. Only God as Trinity can offer Atonement Richard Dawkins, Christopher Hitchens, and other prominent atheists have equated Good Friday as nothing more than a case of "cosmic child abuse" – a vengeful Father venting His wrath on His innocent Child. That's a charge shared by Jehovah's Witnesses and Mormons (so lock this in for the next time you hear a knock at your door) and others who deny that God is indeed Three in One, because then the Cross is indeed a god punishing some "entirely other" being. But, as we know, at the Cross it is a just God also showing mercy by voluntarily taking on our punishment. In the linked article, Jeremy Treat explores this truth from two other analogous angles. Yes, teens, virginity is good for you Virginity doesn't just provide freedom from sexually transmitted diseases, but it also lowers incidences of all sorts of other risky behaviors, such as smoking and drug use. Are biblical counselors unbiblical? (20 minute read) Secular psychologists who ignore the spiritual world can, at best, treat only half the person: their material body. Biblical counselors can turn to the wisdom God has written in His Word to treat the soul too. But how much should biblical counselors rely on, and turn to, what God has also revealed in His Second Book, the "book" of Creation? That's where an important debate is being had. Astonishing fly can breathe underwater even after losing its underwater lungs (6 min) This fly as a larvae has organs that allow it to breathe underwater, but it loses those in its adult stage. But it still lives underwater using a completely different system to get its needed oxygen. That all happened by chance? You have to be willfully blind to miss God's creative genius here. ...

In a Nutshell

Tidbits – March 2024

The world’s only pro-life comedian? Nicholas De Santo is an Iranian-Italian who performs what he calls the “only pro-life stand-up act” which, he notes, also means it is “the world's funniest pro-life stand-up act.” Here’s a good bit from a set he did at London’s Backyard Comedy Club to a very receptive audience. “So, in the US the Supreme Court overturned Roe v. Wade and that was a serious blow to casual dating and casual sex, but it was a major victory for babies who want to live so, that's half full. And it was a major victory for Catholic biology. Do you guys know Catholic biology? I was born in Italy; I went to Catholic school. According to Progressive biology, they say “my body, my choice” because according to Progressive biology a woman, at some points in her life, she has a second beating heart, an extra pair of kidneys, and four extra limbs. But according to Catholic biology, a woman throughout her life has only one brain, one heart, and so forth so. In other words, if you are a woman and you ever find a second beating heart in your body, it's not your body! And if you're a man and you ever find a second beating heart in your body, it's not your body…and also you are not a man.” On the point of being open-minded “My friend said that he opened his intellect as the sun opens the fans of a palm tree, opening for opening’s sake, opening infinitely for ever. But I said that I opened my intellect as I opened my mouth, in order to shut in again on something solid.” – G.K. Chesterton English: that weird and wonderful language I’ve wondered if dad jokes might be a particularly or at least especially English thing. As a mishmash of so many other languages, there’s so much potential for wordplay. Here are just a few puns and ponderables: Before was was was, was was is. The word queue is just a Q followed by four silent letters Jail and prison mean the same thing, yet jailer and prisoner are opposites You have fingertips, not toetips, and yet you can tiptoe, not tipfinger How can wise man and wise guy be antonyms? We have players in a recital, and reciters in a play. Cough, rough, dough, bough, and through should rhyme but don’t. While you can drink a drink you can’t eat an eat or food a food. Your nose can run and your feet can smell! Why English is so hard They say Albert Einstein didn’t speak in full sentences until he was five. Maybe he just didn’t have anything to say, or perhaps learning English is hard enough to challenge even a genius. Just consider one small part of the process that, at first glance, might seem easy: creating plurals. Dog becomes dogs; cat becomes cats – it’s as easy as adding an S, right? Not so fast! Below is a part of a poem, credited only to Anonymous, that tackles the problem of plurals. This is just one verse, but there are many more plural problems where this came from! If the plural of man is always called men, Why shouldn’t the plural of pan be called pen? If I speak of my foot and show you my feet, And I give you a boot, would a pair be called beet? If one is a tooth and a whole set are teeth, Why shouldn’t the plural of booth be called beeth? Why English is hard - part II A native English speaker knows never to speak of a “red massive bull.” Instead, he’d describe it as a “massive red bull” …but he wouldn’t know why. That’s because there is a rather precise ordering of adjectives that we all mostly know, even though we don’t know that we know. While it isn’t absolutely fixed, the order of adjectives most English folk agree to goes roughly like this: quantity, opinion, size, age, shape, color, origin, material. So, for example, we might ask for three Grade A eggs (quantity, opinion) but not Grade A three eggs. Or we’d talk about one hundred, enormous, old, round Englishmen (quantity, size, age, shape, origin) but not English, round, old, enormous, one hundred men. This knowledge is a gift to you as a native speaker, but it’s quite the challenge for any latecomer to our country. So, the next time you hear your Dutch grandmother, or maybe some newer immigrant, talk a little peculiarly, you’ll know why (and you’ll be sure to cut them some slack). How English is going to become easy While our native tongue does sometimes tie us up, the next generation can look forward to a much-simplified version. I had my own ideas for streamlining things that involved doing away with the letter C completely, substituting K where it was a hard sound and substituting S everywhere else. Kan’t we all agree that’d be niser? I took the idea to Merriam Webster (the dictionary lady) and she asked what I was going to do with the C in CH and I kouldn’t kome up with mukh of an answer for her. Anyways, Merriam did share with me her own simplification plans, giving me a peek at an upcoming edition of her dictionary. She’s managed to do what I could not – they’ve streamlined everything! She wasn’t sure exactly when this edition was coming out, but she knew it would be very soon. Here are a few entries from the first page: a noun Anything that identifies as the letter A Aaron noun Anything that identifies as Aaron ABBA noun Anything that identifies as ABBA asinine adjective Anything that identifies as being asinine Why today’s temperature? Those that hold to a millions-of-years-old earth also hold that the earth has been both vastly warmer and enormously cooler during that time. So why then do the global warming proponents among them think that the temperature we have now is the one we must maintain? This is an urgent question, as it is on the basis of today’s temperature being the right one that carbon taxes are being implemented, fossil fuels are being made more expensive, and consequently energy, and all that requires energy to produce (i.e., homes, food, heating, clothing, and, well, everything) more expensive as well. That’s even making things tough in Canada, but it’s that much worse for those around the world who have much less. Equal pay laws hurt those they are supposed to help There's both a theological and practical objection to "equal pay for equal work" laws, no matter how well-intentioned they might be. The practical objection is laid out by Milton Friedman in the quote below: "...the actual effect of requiring equal pay for equal work will be to harm women. If women's skills are higher than men's in a particular job and are recognized to be higher, the law does no good, because then they will be able to compete away and can get the same income. If their skills are less, for whatever reason...and you say the only way you are able to hire them is by paying the same wage, then you're denying them the only weapon they have to fight with. If the unwillingness of the men to hire them is because the men are sexist pigs... nonetheless you want to make it costly to them to exercise their prejudice. If you say to them you have to pay the same wage no matter whether you hire women or men then here's Mr. Sexist Pig: it doesn't cost him anything to hire men instead of women. However, if the women are free to compete and to say 'Well now, look, I'll offer my work for less,' then he can only hire men if he bears a cost. If the women are really good as a man, then he's paying a price for discrimination. And what you are doing, not intentionally but by misunderstanding, when you try to get equal pay for equal work laws is reducing to zero the cost imposed on people who are discriminating for irrelevant reasons. And I would like to see a cost imposed!" The theological objection is covered in the "Parable of the Workers in the Vineyard" (Matt. 20:1-16). While the parable is about grace, not economics, what it illustrates is true: “Don’t I have the right to do what I want with my own money? Or are you envious because I am generous?” If an employer wanted to pay the last worker more than the rest, but pays others what he agreed to, what business is the last worker’s wages to us? Or the first? Mo Willems’ sage advice Mo Willems, the author of the delightful Elephant and Piggie children’s book series, has some good advice for adults too. Here’s a trio: You only have one chance to make a twenty-third impression. Better to say, “I love you more than ever” than “I used to love you less.” Better to say, “You are one in a million” than “There are 7,960 others just like you out there.” Some truths are simply written on our hearts In a 1998 debate with atheist Peter Atkins in which Atkins touted science as the ultimate arbitrator of truth, William Lane Craig highlighted how there are fundamental truths that science can’t prove. Craig is a theistic evolutionist, but does well here. “I think that there are a good number of things that cannot be scientifically proven, but that we’re all rational to accept. Let me list five. “Logical and mathematical truths cannot be proven by science. Science presupposes logic and math so that to try to prove them by science would be arguing in a circle. “Metaphysical truths like, there are other minds than my own, or that the external world is real, or that the past was not created five minutes ago with the appearance of age are rational beliefs that cannot be scientifically proven. “Ethical beliefs about statements of value are not accessible by the scientific method. You can’t show by science that the Nazi scientists in the camps did anything evil as opposed to the scientists in Western democracies. “Aesthetic judgments cannot be accessed by the scientific method because the beautiful, like the good, cannot be scientifically proven. “And, most remarkably, would be science itself. Science cannot be justified by the scientific method, since it is permeated with unprovable assumptions.” Just one issue? “If you're pro-life, you realize abortion is murder. How can you say ‘it's one of many issues’ and vote for a pro-choice candidate? What policy of theirs could be so good that it's worth allowing millions of babies to be killed?” – Seamus Coughlin...

News

Saturday Selections – Mar. 9, 2024

Click on the titles below to go to the linked articles... College isn't for everyone (3 min) Christians listening to this Mike Rowe clip might hear echoes of Paul's message in 1 Cor. 12:12-31, about how the Body has many members. We're not all the same, so we shouldn't presume that university is for everyone. This is a clip from Rowe's free 20-minute mini-documentary called The Case for Trade School. Good news: the Earth is getting greener Even NASA is sharing this, though with a negative spin (they can't get away from their cataclysmic take). Millions of Americans are banned from pumping their own gas Under the pretense of "safety" millions of Americans are prohibited from pumping their own gas. But is it really so unsafe? No, as all of us who manage to pump our own gas without blowing ourselves up can attest. So then what's the real reason for the ban? It's a case of private interests using the levers of state power to fight off their competition. And that's far from unusual. When is a question better than an answer? John Stonestreet – riffing off of Christian apologist Greg Koukl – offers 6 simple, great questions that'll help you stand up for the truth. "Time to admit genes aren't the blueprints for life" Have you heard that your cellular DNA is the instruction sheet or blueprint for your cell and body? Well, now it seems that was a gross oversimplification. This article is complex too, but here's the key: scientists keep discovering the life is more and more complex than they'd previously thought. And evolution only makes sense if we are simple enough to have come about without design or direction. Equal pay for equal work laws hurt (4 min) Milton Friedman offers up a practical objection to "equal pay for equal work" laws, no matter how well-intentioned they might be. ...

News

Lawyer learns she should double-check ChatGPT’s work

Last month, a BC lawyer was caught submitting an AI-generated legal application to a family court. Chong Ke was representing a father asking that his children travel to China so he could have parenting time with them there. Ke used ChatGPT, a text-based generative Artificial Intelligence (AI), to write the application, which cited two fake cases. ChatGPT does not provide links to its sources which makes its fabricated content hard to spot. To the AI’s “success,” the case was won, finding it was in the best interest of the client's children to visit their father. Although the fake cases were put into the application, they were never presented in the hearing, so the courts kept the initial ruling. Shortly after the ruling, the lawyers for the mother tried to track down the cases referenced, even asking for copies from the opposition. After not receiving any copies the team hired a researcher to find the cases. This matter was then taken to court where Ke apologized for her actions. "I acknowledge that I should have been aware of the dangers of relying on Al-generated resources, and been more diligent and careful in preparing the materials for this application. I wish to apologize again to the court and to opposing counsel for my error.” The process of preparing legal documents can be arduous, and although AI technology might be a tool to help with this, we should not be naive about its capabilities. Ke was ordered to pay the costs associated with the time and resources the other counsel used to discover the fake cases. In attempts to make court applications easier, the lawyer ended up doing the opposite, deceiving others in a scramble to seek truth in the application. In the court case against Ke, the judge reminds us that AI is not a replacement for humankind. “As this case has unfortunately made clear, generative AI is still no substitute for the professional expertise that the justice system requires of lawyers."...

Internet, RPTV

Talking to teens: How does social media fit into a Christian worldview?

TRANSCRIPT Welcome to Reformed Perspective; I'm Alexandra Ellison. Did you know that in Canada almost everyone is on social media? About 89% of the population uses it, making Canada one of the most online countries in the world. Given the prominence of social media in our society it's crucial to understand how it's being utilized. For Christian parents it's especially important to be aware of their kids' online activities. In today's video, I visited a high school to talk with Christian teenagers about their experiences with social media. Q. 1 Are you on social media? If so, what apps do you use? Student 1: "Not too much but I am on YouTube and Messenger Kids." Student 2: "Not really. A little bit. I have Google Chat so I can text my friends; they live like an hour away from me so I don't get to see them too often, so I text them sometimes and sometimes do a video call with them." Student 3: "Yes, I am. I use Tik Tok quite a bit, as well as Instagram." Student 4: "Yes I'm on social media. Mostly Instagram and Snapchat." Q. 2 What are the benefits of social media? Student 2: "I get to talk to my friends. If I didn't have it I wouldn't be able to communicate with them too much." Student 1: "I get to catch up with my friends because I don't live close to them and I get to just be entertained and, um, find out a little bit about like movies that are coming out that I might like or just, um, stay current." Student 3: "I mean, it's entertaining. I also have communication with some of my friends as well via social media, so it's a good way to stay in contact with them. Also, with Instagram, I'm able to look at my family's posts to see what they're up to, especially if I'm not able to see them. I have a cousin overseas so I'm able to see what she's up to overseas, via her posts on Instagram." Student 4: "Most of the benefits are communications; I've been able to communicate with one of my Bible studies that happens on social media, and also a lot of my friends: church friends, school friends." Q.3 What are some of the negatives? Student 2: "If you are with a person, sometimes they're too busy with their phone to actually be with the person. When you're with the person they're too busy on their phone, not with you." Student 1: "There are a lot of downs to all of these different websites, so you need to be careful on them." Student 3: "I know people think that they can handle it, so it lessens my time doing other more productive things. As well, it does have things on there that one should not look at." Student 4: "The negatives of social media are distractions. Sometimes it can just be really distracting, like you want to go do your work and then you just get distracted looking at something on Instagram and then you get down a rabbit hole, down there for an hour." Q. 4 What should parents be aware of? Student 2: "Make sure that what they're watching is good content not bad." Student 4: "They should be aware of who their kids are following 'cause there's a lot of people who maybe seem like they're good people but then they give false information or just a lot of things that can be not honoring God on social media. Sometimes they post something inappropriate that you don't want to see in your feed, or randomly comes up. You especially don't be following those type of things." Q.5 How does your Christian faith guide you in using social media? Student 3: "My faith comes into play for what I'm looking at so that I don't look at the negative things. As well, it keeps me honest with what I'm looking at, and how I use my time on social media, and what I use it for spreading God's Word, or at least not getting into different areas of social media where they would be putting God down or just not following Him." Student 4: "Well, when I use social media my faith can come into play through communications with friends. Especially since I'm at a Christian school, so I can talk with Christian friends, have good conversations, as well as being able to have my Bible study that we have on Instagram. And we meet up and stuff, so it helps me communicate with others and helps me grow in that. And I think that's pretty good, to have that space to be open, when sometimes you can't communicate with others." Q.6 Can social media be used to glorify God? Student 2: "I think so. You can tell your opinion on your worldview; share your views of the world on social media." Student 1: "Well I would say they would have to be extremely careful, and pretty much not really interact with it that much at all. And maybe just talk about the Gospel and all the benefits and all the good things to spread the message because God wants us to spread His Word to the world. There are adults and other people that also do that on YouTube and other platforms, but young kids can also try to do that, to show that the youth also love God as well. But there are risks to that – major, major risks – because some people do, when they're on these platforms, they might get caught up with the fame that they might be getting, and more want what the public wants instead of what God wants them to want." Student 3: "I think that they can use social media to their benefit and to our benefit as Christians, as you can spread the word of God via social media to a large group of people especially if you have a large platform like these influencers do. As well, you can find communities on Facebook, for example, you can join a Facebook group of Christian people, whether they're doing a Bible study or they just talk about their views on Christ." Student 4: "Pages like I follow, a few that put a Bible verse a day, or follow like YouVersion, the Bible app. Ways like that. And then also through communication with other Christians, like if you're just find spaces through different apps, you can find people on things like Discord or Facebook. There's just many ways you can connect with others." It's important for us to reflect on the profound impact our digital interactions can have on our faith and our relationships. Just as we are called to love our neighbors as ourselves, let us extend that love into the virtual realm remembering that every interaction carries the potential to glorify God. In a world often filled with noise and distraction if we do choose to use social media maybe use it as a tool for spreading the light of Christ for building up one another, and for fostering genuine connections rooted in love and grace. As we navigate the ever-changing landscape of technology, may our faith serve as a compass guiding us towards discernment and ultimately towards God's eternal truth. Thanks for watching this episode of Reformed Perspective. Make sure to subscribe and share this video with family and friends....

Assorted

What makes a person instantly unattractive?

I asked this question on a Facebook page for secular women over 60 years of age: “What makes a person instantly unattractive?” I was intrigued by the breadth of answers, but not surprised at those at the top of the list. Within two days I received more than 150 answers. There were trends – answers could be grouped together in 12 different characteristics, so I compiled what I had and ordered them according to the number of answers that were received for each characteristic. Why undertake such a study? I did it for a couple of reasons: A desire to share Christ – In this data, I was hearing from mainly non-Christians. So what types of behavior might make us immediately repugnant to them? Let’s take a look at ourselves and determine whether we are acting in loving ways in order to share Christ. A desire for friendship – Many people are lonely, and some have difficulty building friendships. While it isn’t always our fault, it might be helpful to compare these unattractive traits and prayerfully analyze whether we might find room in ourselves for improvement. Being attractive Proverbs 16:21 says: “The wise of heart is called discerning, and sweetness of speech increases persuasiveness.” Here is a clue towards being a witness for our Lord. And Peter tells us in 1 Peter 3:15-16: “But in your hearts honor Christ the Lord as holy, always being prepared to make a defense to anyone who asks you for a reason for the hope that is in you; yet do it with gentleness and respect, having a good conscience, so that, when you are slandered, those who revile your good behavior in Christ may be put to shame.” Being unattractive Let’s take a look at the top twelve characteristics that make a person instantly unattractive, in the order of the number of votes received: Bad attitude Potty mouth/cursing Smoking Body odor/poor hygiene/dirty or unkempt clothes Bad breath Arrogant/entitled/rude Lying Boasting/bragging Complaining/ungrateful spirit Being unkind Bad manners Being bossy/loud/yelling To be honest, years ago it never occurred to me that people might dislike my loudness and yelling, or what I eventually discerned to be my bossiness. These are the top twelve characteristics that may make us instantly unattractive to other people. Where might we improve? Is it possible that some of these characteristics are making us less lovely to be around? Do we come across in any of these ways to our neighbors, coworkers, fellow church members, or prospective friends? How is your attitude when life isn’t going as you would prefer? Working on it Think about 1 Corinthians 13: “Love is patient and kind; love does not envy or boast; it is not arrogant or rude. It does not insist on its own way; it is not irritable or resentful; it does not rejoice at wrongdoing, but rejoices with the truth.” This description of real love is a tall order, but it is not beyond what we can learn through the power of the Holy Spirit working in our lives. Without love, we are a noisy gong and a clanging cymbal; we are nothing. This chapter goes on to get rid of nearly half the list immediately: arrogance (6), boasting (8), unkindness (10), and being bossy (12). It pretty well covers bad attitudes (1), lying (7), and complaining (9) as well. Manners (11) are just a culturally agreed upon way to show respect and love for one another. For example, no one wants to watch someone’s food roll around inside his mouth, or be commanded without a please and thank-you. In regards to potty mouth/cursing (2) and hygiene (4), we could say that these come under the law of kindness as well. If we put others first instead of ourselves, we will consider the language that we use, and not make others uncomfortable. We will “do unto others as we would have them do unto us” by not causing others to have to put up with a stench in our presence. A smoker can at least be courteous around those who are sensitive to the odor of tobacco (3). And we can make the effort to clean our teeth and mouths as well as possible (5) to consider the sensitivities of others. Conclusion None of us enjoy being around people who exhibit unattractive characteristics. Now that we know what many other people find obnoxious, we can all take a look at ourselves to see how we can become lovelier....

Assorted

A lament for our nation

Lament is not a common word today. It is rare to hear of lamentation in our secular culture, and even within the Church we don’t often speak of lament. And yet, I believe lament is one of the most important – and biblical – postures that we can take as Christians in the public square today. Why lament? Consider our situation. We see (at least) 87,000 abortions every year here in Canada. Over 13,000 died by euthanasia last year, and that number grows every year. We’ve seen our fundamental freedoms eroded. Conscience rights for health care workers aren’t adequately protected. Our governments have redefined marriage by liberalizing divorce laws, recognizing same-sex marriages, and even starting to legitimize polyamorous relationships. The entire concepts of motherhood and fatherhood are fractured by our country’s policies on in vitro fertilization and surrogacy, and jurisdictions like Ontario are recognizing that kids can have many (not just two) parents. Hundreds of kids are pursuing medical gender transitioning, rejecting the bodies that God has given them. Counseling children to love the body and identity they have been given has been outlawed by conversion therapy legislation. Human trafficking, pornography, and prostitution are rampant in society. And our country, ostensibly still founded on the principle “that recognizes the supremacy of God,” has insisted that all cultures and all religions by-and-large are equal. Sin and brokenness are pervasive in all aspects of Canadian society. Let’s consider some potential unbiblical options of how to respond to this sin before coming to why we need to lament for our nation. Unbiblical responses 1. Do not grumble One response – the most unbiblical response – is to grumble. We can be tempted to complain to God, to each other, and to ourselves. But complaining is antithetical to the Christian life. The Israelites of the Old Testament were famous for grumbling. They complained about bitter water or a lack of water (Ex. 15:24, 17:3), about a lack of food (Ex. 16:2), their misfortunes (Num. 11:1), the strength of the Canaanites (Num. 14:2), and their leadership (Num. 16:11, 41; 17:5). In most of these instances, God punished His people. He had just brought them out of Egypt with a mighty hand and an outstretched arm and, rather than worshipping and praising Him, they complained. Rather than “grumbling or disputing,” Paul calls on Christians to be “blameless and innocent, children of God without blemish in the midst of a crooked and twisted generation, among whom you shine as lights in the world” (Phil. 2:15). We confess that “it is impossible for those grafted into Christ by true faith not to produce fruits of gratitude” (HC Q&A 64). 2. No need to fear Another response to a bleak political situation is fear and anxiety, but this too is an unbiblical response. We may fear persecution from our culture, tyranny from our government, or censure from media companies. But in Philippians 4, Paul instructs followers of Christ, “do not be anxious about anything.” Christ Himself commands us “do not be anxious about your life, what you will eat or what you will drink, nor about your body, what you will put on” or about anything else for that matter (Matt. 6:25-34; Luke 12:22-31). The most frequent command found in Scripture is “do not be afraid.” 3. Do not be angry Another common response to this sin-filled world is anger. Anger can be a powerful motivator to inspire people to speak up and to act. And, unlike complaining or anxiety, there is some biblical justification to be angry (e.g., Eph. 4:26). When people sin and transgress the law of the LORD, there is a reason for righteous anger. Jesus Himself became angry on occasion with a righteous anger (Mark 3:1-6 and Mark 10:13-16). Scripture, however, portrays human anger as a negative phenomenon in almost every instance. Proverbs often counsels the wise and the righteous to refrain from anger (Prov. 14:29, 15:18, 16:32, 19:11, 22:24, 29:22). The apostle Paul commands believers to put away anger on several occasions (2 Cor. 12:20; Gal. 5:20; Eph. 4:31; Col. 3:8; 1 Tim. 2:8). Our fallen anger makes us susceptible to sin. (Perhaps why Eph. 4:26 says “be angry and do not sin.”) Anger can easily lead to hasty and thoughtless words and actions. Perhaps this is why James admonishes believers to be “slow to anger; for the anger of man does not produce the righteousness of God” (James 1:19-20). Like fire, anger can be a beneficial and God glorifying tool when used in the right way, yet it can easily grow out of control and cause great spiritual (not to mention temporal!) damage. So instead of complaining, fearing, or being angry about the state of our nation, a more biblical response is lament. An example of lament Scripture is full of laments, but the best example of lamentation flows from the prophet Jeremiah and the people of Judah in exile. Put yourself in their shoes. Close your eyes. Take a deep breath. Clear your mind. Imagine you are a young Jew living around 609 BC. You and your people are led by King Josiah. Your life revolves around a divinely inspired calendar of feasts and sacrifices. In fact, you just celebrated a Passover the likes of which hadn’t been observed since the days of the judges. You observe a weekly Sabbath day of rest, a year of Sabbath rest of the land every seven years, and a year of Jubilee every 50 years. You periodically visit the glorious temple of Solomon in Jerusalem, perhaps the most ornate, beautiful, and costly structure on earth. There the Levite singers and musicians make music to God and the priests offer sweet incense to the LORD. God has promised that a descendent of David would sit on the throne of Judah forever. In fact, the current king “turned to the Lord with all his heart and with all his soul and with all his might” so that there was never a king that came before him or after him that pursued the LORD with such fervour (2 Kings 22-23). Life is good. During your lifetime, all that comes crashing down. The Egyptian Pharoah Neco kills godly King Josiah, hauls his successor, King Jehoahaz, in chains to Egypt, exacts a heavy tribute from Judah, and sets up a puppet king, Jehoiakim, on the throne. After a stint under Egyptian oppression, King Nebuchadnezzar of Babylon puts your country under tribute. When King Jehoiakim rebels against Babylon, bands of Chaldeans, Syrians, Moabites, and Ammonites begin raiding your country. King Nebuchadnezzar comes back with a vengeance, besieges and conquers Jerusalem, carries away all the treasures of the temple and the king’s house, and carries away all the royal family, all officials, all the mighty men of valor, all the smiths and craftsmen, and 10,000 more captives. Only the poor remain under another puppet king, Zedekiah. Thankfully, the temple, the center of Jewish life, still stands. But your religious leadership pollutes this temple. Then Zedekiah rebels against Babylon too, prompting Nebuchadnezzar to return again to besiege Jerusalem and trigger a terrible famine in the city. When the city falls, Nebuchadnezzar slaughters Zedekiah’s sons in front of him, gouges out Zedekiah’s eyes, and carries him off to Egypt. But at least the temple still stands. A few years later, Nebuchadnezzar attacks Jerusalem a third time, destroying every building in Jerusalem, including the temple, and tearing down the walls. Even the poor people who were originally left in Jerusalem are carried off to Babylon, except for the poorest of the poor who are left to work the land.  And even after all this, the poorest of the poor rebel against Nebuchadnezzar, murder the governor, and flee in fear to Egypt, the very place that God had led them out of slavery 890 years before. And so, the land lays desolate. Your nation is utterly destroyed. Your whole religion revolving around the temple, sacrifices, and feasts is impossible. There is no descendant of David seemingly on the throne. It’s a horrific state of affairs. What was the response of the Jews carried off to Babylon? They responded with lament. We get a glimpse of this in Psalm 137: “By the waters of Babylon, there we sat down and wept, when we remembered Zion.” But the main lamentation over the exile is written by the prophet Jeremiah. While there isn’t a book of Complaining, of Anxiety, or of Anger in Scripture, there is a book of Lamentations. For almost the entire book, Jeremiah recounts and laments the destruction of Jerusalem. The book opens, How lonely sits the city that was full of people! How like a widow has she become, she who was great among the nations! She who was a princess among the provinces has become a slave. She weeps bitterly in the night with tears on her cheeks; Among all her lovers she has none to comfort her; All her friends have dealt treacherously with her; They have become her enemies. Judah has gone into exile because of affliction and hard servitude; She dwells now among the nations but finds no resting place; Her pursuers have all overtaken her in the midst of her distress. What is a lament? Lament, properly speaking, is a uniquely Christian activity. It isn’t complaining, though it certainly recounts all the evils of this present age. It isn’t anxiety, although the situation certainly seems bleak and full of uncertainty. And it isn’t primarily angry, despite the calls for judgement on Babylon found in the final verses of Psalm 137. And lament isn’t just mourning what has been lost. A lament has hope. That’s why, smack dab in the middle of the book of Lamentations and in the middle of perhaps the most hopeless period of Judah’s existence, Jeremiah confesses, “But this I call to mind, and therefore I have hope: the steadfast love of the LORD never ceases; His mercies never come to an end; they are new every morning; great is Your faithfulness” (3:21-23). One hundred and one years ago, Thomas Chisholm plucked these words out of Lamentations to create the hymn Great Is Thy Faithfulness. It is a beautiful hymn of hope and praise. But it helps to remember its scriptural context. God’s faithfulness is wonderful indeed when we consider how He changes not; how all nature witnesses to His great faithfulness, mercy, and love; and how His presence cheers and guides us, as the hymn’s verses recount. But those truths aren’t the context for Jeremiah’s confession when he says, “great is thy faithfulness.” Lamentation over the destruction of Judah and the captivity of the Jews (Jeremiah is in captivity himself) is the context. God’s faithfulness is always important, but it tastes the sweetest when it is juxtaposed with the evils of this world. Lamentation today Politically, culturally, socially, economically, religiously – really any way you can think of – we are in a far better position than Judah was at the start of the exile. As we’ve already recounted, we certainly face many evils in this dark world that tempt us to respond with complaints, fear, or anger. But I think that the best response is lament. We can lament instead of complaining about the failure of political leaders to follow God’s will. We can lament rather than fear the cultural hostility to orthodox Christianity. We can lament rather than rage about the injustices in the world. And lament does more than just look around at others. It confesses our own wrongdoings, remembers the faithfulness of our sovereign God, and prays for His intervention. And so, I lament for our nation. And I’ll do it with a song, a Jeremiah lament-style version of Great Is Thy Faithfulness: O LORD, our nation reviles and forgets Thee. We have departed from thy righteous law. We deserve judgement and none of thy favour, But I call this to mind and so have hope: Great is thy faithfulness! Great is thy faithfulness! Morning by morning new mercies I see: The steadfast love of the LORD never ceases – Great is thy faithfulness, LORD, unto me! Levi Minderhoud is the BC manager of ARPA Canada....

News

Saturday Selections – Feb. 17, 2024

Failing at failure? This could be a great way to bring up an important conversation with our kids. The fear of failure stops many children from trying new and hard things. God gave them talents, and if they are going to develop those skills (and not bury them - Matthew 25:14-30) our children will need to push their limits. That might mean running so hard they start tripping, stumbling, and even eating some dirt. They need to know there is such a thing as God-glorifying failure... but not God-glorifying cowardice. Marriage makes men better Though he doesn't acknowledge God, this evolutionist has discovered that God's plan for the family – marriage – works best, reining in men's antisocial behaviors. There is a really great metaphor here, too, about our rational self being a rider trying to control an elephant that represents our impulses. Those impulses – or, in Christian terms, sinful desires – can be easier or harder to control depending on where we take them. So, for example, a rider troubled by alcohol shouldn't "take his elephant" into a bar. To extend this to the family realm, a dad or mom trying to deal with a kid that pushes their buttons shouldn't indulge in watching the late show – they'll have to put their elephant to bed early each night to better enable them to be calm and controlled. The Swiss Family Robinson: a return to the classics Jonathon Van Maren makes a plug for this great book. Parents, if you get your kids a copy, be sure you get an attractive one: a great cover, good font, and a few illustrations thrown in here and there can really help by making a classic so much more appealing. G.K. Chesterton on AI If you want to understand AI, then who better to ask than someone born two hundred years before it was invented? This is a good one! And for an in-depth dive check out what's on offer at Creation.com. The most bizarre experience of my life When theologian E. Calvin Beisner was invited to do an interview about climate change, he never expected to be interviewed by a clown. Who knows how this will end, but some people certainly are desperate to try to make Christians look bad. "He Gets Us" takes a big "L" in the Super Bowl Among the Super Bowl commercials last week were two to promote the "He Gets Us" evangelistic campaign. Many Christians have defended them as "pre-evangelism" – sure, they didn't hint at the Good News, but they did tell people that Jesus gets them. That's a start, right? There's some truth to that – they had a minute, and if you had just a minute would you be able to present the whole of the Gospel to someone? To say it another way, an incomplete message isn't wrong... it just needs more. But the problem comes when we say the easy part and stop. And a lot of "churches" are content with just telling folks that Jesus gets them. But they don't want to offend anyone. Telling people they need to repent? Jesus as Saviour is offensive indeed. Now someone has shown how it is possible, in just a minute, to tell people quite a lot about Jesus and their need for a Saviour. And Ray Comfort gives his own version here. ...

Science - Creation/Evolution

My dog ate the evidence for evolution

3 evolutionary theories that are based on the lack of evidence for evolution ***** There are plenty of great, readable books that expose the many problems with evolutionary theory. These include Gordon Wilson’s Darwin’s Sandcastle, Change Laura Tan and Rob Stadler’s The Stairway to Life, and Marcos Eberlin’s Foresight: How the Chemistry of Life Reveals Planning and Purpose (just to name a few). But what about something shorter? My daughter is sometimes allowed to take a notecard full of key facts with her into a test. That’s what I was looking for: not a book-sized rebuttal, but something short enough to remember and use. That meant it couldn’t involve stacks of studies and countless facts to counter the evolutionists’ mountain of materials. Those facts can be had, and include revealing quotes, like this infamous admission by one of the world’s leading evolutionary biologists, Richard Lewontin (1929-2021). Back in 1997 he acknowledged that it wasn’t the evidence that drove evolutionists to accept evolution, but their ideology: “Our willingness to accept scientific claims that are against common sense is the key to an understanding of the real struggle between science and the supernatural. We take the side of science in spite of the patent absurdity of some of its constructs, in spite of its failure to fulfill many of its extravagant promises of health and life, in spite of the tolerance of the scientific community for unsubstantiated just-so stories, because we have a prior commitment, a commitment to materialism. “It is not that the methods and institutions of science somehow compel us to accept a material explanation of the phenomenal world, but, on the contrary, that we are forced by our a priori adherence to material causes to create an apparatus of investigation and a set of concepts that produce material explanations, no matter how counter-intuitive, no matter how mystifying to the uninitiated. Moreover, that materialism is absolute, for we cannot allow a Divine Foot in the door.” As impressive as that admission is, it’s just one guy. I was after something bigger, and also simpler – an argument where, even if I didn’t recall all the details, I might still be able to recall and relay the gist of it. What I found are three instances where evolutionists have accidentally acknowledged the lack of evidence for their theory. That acknowledgement comes, not from anything they’ve said, but instead by the “sub theories” they’ve offered to explain away the missing evidence. And what’s the evidence for these “sub theories”? Only that Evolution needs them to be true. This is akin to the student who, to explain why he hasn’t handed in his homework, claims his dog ate it, and when he’s asked for proof that his dog did indeed chow down on the assignment, he points to what’s missing: “My dog must have eaten it, because my homework’s not here, right?” As his teacher knows, the missing paper isn’t proof at all; the boy is simply presuming the very thing – that he actually wrote a paper – he was being asked to prove. And when he resorts to this kind of logical contortions, all it really evidences is that he has nothing better to offer. I think the same is true in the three evolutionary examples that follow. The most compelling evidence on offer is only the lengths evolutionists are willing to go to, to prop up their theory. Two pillars When it comes to the Theory of Evolution we all know the basics: once there was no life on this planet, but then simple cells formed in the primordial soup. After millions of years, and through the process of natural selection, these simple cells eventually spawned more complex cells and even more complex organisms, until finally we arrived. Greg Koukl has called this the “Molecule to Man Hypothesis.” And as Koukl also noted, if we’re going to take this nice story seriously, then evolutionists would have to prove two key things: 1) That life can come from non-life 2) That transitions from one kind to another do happen. These two ideas are so pivotal to evolutionary theory that if they can’t both be proven, then Evolution wouldn’t have a leg to stand on. 1. Life from non-life The Stanley Miller experiment (also known as the Miller-Urey experiment) consisted of a closed system with tubes connecting a heated water (ocean) chamber down below, with a gaseous chamber above, with sparks simulating early Earth lightning.        One of the problems with the Stanley Miller experiment is that it turns out amino acids come in left-hand and right-hand varieties – mirror images of each other – and the experiment produced equal quantities of each.         But our bodies don’t use both. Living creatures use the left-hand sort, and just as you can’t fit your right hand into a left glove, the cell can’t use right-handed amino acids – they aren’t a good fit. In fact, their presence can harm cells, and at a minimum, they would need to be sifted out. That means, even before the first cell ever formed, there would need to be some sort of mechanism present which could separate the righties from the lefties. That separation can be done in a lab through intelligent intervention. But who or what could do the selecting on early Earth after that lightning bolt blasts out that first batch of amino acids? Cells don’t exist yet, so there are no cellular mechanisms present to do the separating – there’s nothing in place. It’d be more accurate to say the Stanley Miller experiment didn’t produce building blocks of life so much as a muddled mess. The idea that life came from non-life used to be known as Spontaneous Generation. Maggots, it was thought, were spontaneously formed in dead rotting meat, and many believed that mice and flies were formed the same way. After a bit of investigation this was shown to be untrue. Today the idea persists under a different name: Abiogenesis (literally life from not life). Everyone knows maggots could never spontaneously form from non-living matter, but what if the organisms being formed were much simpler? What if it was only a single cell? And what if we gave it millions and millions of years to develop? Could it happen then? Well, if you read the scientific literature you’ll hear that yes, under those circumstances abiogenesis could happen, and indeed did happen. However, even though scientists are very sure it happened, even they’ll admit they haven’t worked out exactly how it happened. But isn’t evolution supposed to explain the “how” part? To be fair, they do have a variety of interesting ideas, but all of their proposals have serious problems. Let’s take a look at the best-known example – the Stanley Miller experiment in 1953. Though it happened 70 years ago, this experiment is still getting in the news today, because it was so influential. For decade upon decade the experiment has been cited in textbooks as proof that life could arise through a series of random chemical reactions. It’s so pivotal, that many a time it is presented as the proof for life from non-life, with no others given. So what happened in the experiment? Miller subjected a mixture of chemicals to an electric spark. The mixture of chemicals was supposed to mimic Earth’s early atmosphere and the electric spark was supposed to represent lightening. A week later, Miller discovered that some amino acids had been formed, which was significant because amino acids are a vital component of living cells. It should be noted though, that amino acids are not living themselves, but are merely a necessary component of cells. So they are a basic building block of life in much the same way that steel is a necessary building block for cars. These amino acids were presented as proof that life could arise from random chemical interactions. Consider for a moment how overstated this claim was. Miller hadn’t shown how life could be created from non-life, he had only shown how one necessary component might be formed. Going back to the car analogy, this is akin to someone zapping a rock of particularly pure ore and then declaring that the puddling blob of molten metal that results proves a car could come about by chance. Overstatement aside, there were other significant problems with the experiment and its results. For example, at one point many evolutionists thought that Earth’s early atmosphere was in some ways the opposite of what we have today: they believed back then it was hydrogen rich and lacking oxygen. Why? Well, at least in part because they needed it to be that way; oxygen would have interfered with the chemical reactions that they needed. And yes, to work, Miller’s experiment required a lot of hydrogen and absolutely no oxygen. But today even evolutionists will concede that our environment has always had oxygen in it. And that means that the amino acids could never have formed here on Earth via anything remotely resembling Miller’s method. The fix: extraterrestrial life from non-life So here’s where things get interesting. Put yourself into the shoes of an atheistic scientist who knows that Abiogenesis couldn’t have happened here on Earth. What “logical” conclusion will he be forced to draw? That’s right – life must have originated on some other planet first, and then come to Earth! This idea is known as Panspermia and while it’s not evolutionists’ consensus position, that it is seriously discussed at all only emphasizes the problem that evolutionists have with life arising here on Earth. The only “evidence” for Panspermia is that life exists here on Earth and it seems impossible for it to have started via evolutionary processes on Earth… therefore it must have started elsewhere. So Panspermia – this theory of an extraterrestrial origin for life – is actually an acknowledgement that evolutionists can’t explain how life could have arisen on Earth. 2. Transitions from one kind to another Things don’t get any easier for evolutionists when it comes to transitional forms. Evolutionary theory says that molecules evolved into man over millions of years and via millions of tiny changes. So when we start searching through the fossil record we should come across literally millions of transitional forms as one species turned into an entirely new one. Now, depending on which side of the creation/evolution debate you are talking to, the fossil record either doesn’t provide any examples of these transitional forms, or there are museums’ worth of such fossils. The Archaeopteryx has often been mentioned as a transition between dinosaurs and birds, and you can go to Creation.com or AnswersInGenesis.org, to learn about how it and other supposed transitional forms fails as a true transition. (The short summary: if birds evolved from dinosaurs or reptiles, then feathers must have evolved from scales and their wings must have evolved from arms. The Archaeopteryx has true wings and detailed advanced feathers, similar to those of bird species today. It only seems fair that when evolutionists are asked for transitional forms between reptiles and birds they should have to produce the half feather, half scale versions – the true transitional forms. The Archaeopteryx is at best a questionable example of an intermediary stage.) But what I want to highlight is the kind of argument evolutionists have to resort to if they acknowledge that there aren’t good examples of transitions. How would they explain away that lack of evidence? The fix: transitions few and far between Well, if someone absolutely refuses to believe in Creation, what “logical” conclusion will they be forced to come to? Then evolution must have happened in quick spurts, leaving few evidences of transitions in the fossil record! This theory is called Punctuated Equilibrium and was first proposed by Stephen Jay Gould and Niles Eldredge in 1972. Again, this theory is not based on the evidence, but rather the lack of it: we’re missing the transitional forms that would be needed to prove Evolution, but since Evolution must be true – that presumption is beyond question – then Evolution must not need transitional forms all that badly after all. Punctuated Equilibrium is an acknowledgement that evolutionists don’t have the abundance of transitional forms they expected to find. It’s also worth noting that until Gould and Eldredge, the lack of transitional forms was not really acknowledged. As Gould put it in 1977, “The extreme rarity of transitional forms in the fossil record persists as the trade secret of palaeontology.” Creationists were pointing out the lack of transitional forms long before Gould and Eldredge…but secular scientists don’t listen to creationists. 3. The Anthropic Principle At this point we should see the beginnings of a pattern in the Evolution/Creation debate. And the Anthropic Principle only makes that pattern all the more evident. The phrase “Anthropic Principle” was first coined to describe the amazing way in which our universe seemed to be designed specifically for human life. For us to live here on Earth it seems we need physical constants, laws, and properties to fall within certain narrow ranges. In Designer Universe: Intelligent Design and the Existence of God, authors Jimmy H. Davis and Harry L. Poe give these three examples: Protons and electrons have to have just the right charge. Atoms are composed of two charged particles: a positively charged proton and a negatively charged electron. The proton is 1,836 times larger than the electron and yet these two particles have exactly equal charges. If the two charges weren’t exactly equal in magnitude, if say, there was a charge difference of only one part per billion, all the pieces of your body would fly apart. Our Sun has to be just the right type of star. The Sun is not a typical star, being bigger than 95 per cent of all other stars. These smaller stars aren’t as hot so a planet would have to orbit much closer to stay warm enough. But at closer distances the rotation of a planet becomes locked so that one side always faces the star. This would cause one side of the planet to freeze and the other side to burn (sort of like our moon, or like Mercury). Additionally, our sun is a single star. 70 percent of stars are estimated to be binary or multiple star systems. It is hard to imagine how habitable planets could exist in such systems. Jupiter is just what we need, just where we need it. Jupiter turns out to be in just the right orbit and the right distance away to protect Earth from bombardment by killer asteroids or comets. Jupiter’s large size and high gravity makes it act as an asteroid and comet catcher. Some other stars have Jupiter-like planets orbiting them, but in most cases they are either in the wrong orbit, or are too near the sun, or may be spiraling inward toward the sun. While our Jupiter is necessary for life on Earth all the other “Jupiters” detected so far would prevent life from living in those systems. These are just a few examples of the anthropic (man-centered) nature of our universe. When you add all the factors together that would have to be just so for life to exist in our universe it turns out the odds against life are astronomical. The odds are so amazing even evolutionists are astounded. This makes the Anthropic Principle a powerful piece of evidence for a universe Designer. The fix: An infinite multiverse But imagine you are an atheist and evolutionary scientist who has been confronted with the Anthropic Principle and the astronomical odds against life in this universe. What logical conclusion are you going to be forced to draw if you want to remain an atheist? That’s right – if the odds are infinitely stacked against life in any one universe, wouldn’t the odds even out considerably if there was an infinite number of universes? This universe would then just happen to be that one universe in a million billion where the odds all worked out in our favor. This multiverse theory has become a staple in Star Trek and Marvel superhero movies, but once again there is no actual evidence for it. None at all. It’s another evolutionary story used to fill in for a lack of evidence. Thus the Multiverse Theory is an acknowledgment of just how implausible it is that an undesigned universe would be so well-suited for life. One last example I'll include one bonus example of an evolutionary theory based on a lack of evidence: the Oort Cloud. This is a theorized cloud of icy planetesimals that are said to be on the outer fringes of our Solar System. This cloud is beyond the limits of our current observational technology, so how do we know it is there? Because evolutionists need it to be. We still have comets, and if our Solar System is 4.6 billion years old, as the evolutionists presume, then any icy comets passing around the Sun should long ago have melted away. So, the continuing existence of comets would seem to be evidence of a Solar System that is much much younger – just thousands, not billions of years old.. But, no, evolutionists see them instead as evidence of a comet breeding ground way, way out there, where billions of icy chunks will sometimes bump into each other in just such a fashion as to direct an ice ball inward towards the Sun, starting a new comet. So the evidence for the Oort Cloud is lacking, and based only on the fact that evolution needs it to exist. Conclusion I haven’t tried here to provide facts to counter the evidence for evolution. Instead what we’ve explored is how evolutionists themselves have highlighted the lack of evidence for their theory by coming up with theories to explain away that lack. Evolution’s two pillars – life from non-life, and species’ transition to new species – were supposed to have lots of proof to back them up. But evolutionists have had to come up with “sub theories” – Panspermia and Punctuated Equilibrium – to explain why that proof is missing. And these sub theories are themselves supported, not by evidence, but by the lack of it. When Christian scientists pointed out the amazing odds against a universe supporting life, evolutionists answered this evidence with another unsupported story – the Multiple Universe Theory. Finally, the Oort Cloud is yet another example of evolutionists, instead of relying on evidence, turning to stories that already assume Evolution is true. Reflection questions What are the two pillars of evolution? Explain "Abiogensis." Is it possible? Explain "Panspermia." What does the theory of Panspermia show? What problem is there with the theory of transitional forms? What is meant with "Punctuated Equilibrium”? Why have evolutionists come up with the idea? What is the "Anthropic (man-centered) Principle”? What is the "Multiple Universe Theory"? A version of this article was first published in the January 2003 issue under the title “The Science is underwhelming.”...

1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 13 14 15