Three great tips on offer here to decipher all the inputs we receive via social and mainstream media…
The false promise of electric cars (15-minute read)
“The reckless pace at which vehicle electrification is being pushed through — a hallmark of central planning — will add to the pressure on electricity grids on both sides of the Atlantic, at a time when the grids are sinking deeper into the disorder brought on by their decarbonization. Europe’s energy miseries are no secret, but there have been signs of trouble here too, including grimly amusing requests to EV owners not to charge their cars during a couple of extremely hot days in Texas and California.”
What is the Christian perspective here? Well, one biblical principle that applies is humility. Our leaders don’t know enough to make choices for all of us, whether that’s what foods farmers should plant, what clothes factories should produce, or what car manufacturers should make. In humility, politicians need to quit taking on problems that are beyond them and start addressing the issues God has charged them with, like stopping the slaughter of the unborn (Ps. 82:3).
The gospel of self-forgiveness?
What if you’ve done something so bad you just can’t forgive yourself? The good news is, you don’t have to.
Is raising the minimum wage a Christian thing to do?
Raising the minimum wage would help some people and hurt others so does that just make it unclear what we should do? This article offers 3 biblical principles to clarify the case against the minimum wage.
Contention in the creationist camp… and that’s a good thing! (10-minute read)
Dr. Randy Guliuzza is the president of the Institute for Creation Research (ICR.org), so his creationist roots run deep, and any critique he’s offering of creationist conclusions is going to be worth considering. So what new point is he making?
Guliuzza thinks creationists have conceded too much when we say that random mutation and selection can have beneficial results.
One example creationists will share of a beneficial result is the loss of eyes in fish trapped in a dark cave. Their eyes aren’t needed in the lightless conditions, and perhaps could be harmful as they are vulnerable spots on their bodies. Another often-cited cited example is the loss of wings on a beetle that lives on a windy island where flight might result in getting swept out to sea. Creationists (myself included) have acknowledged these as examples of where mutation might lead to a creature becoming better suited (fitter) for its environment. But we were quick to add, such a benefit is coming through a loss of information which is very different from the gain of information and increase in complexity – taking us from molecules to Man – that’s needed for evolution to be true.
Now Guliuzza is saying that even this concession to the power of random mutation and natural selection is too much. Why? He says we are attributing to chance what should be credited to brilliant design. How is it that so many creatures are so adaptable? Is it just happening, or did God build in that adaptability? Do, for example, blind cavefish go blind because that’s a built-in adaptation they’ve got hidden somewhere in them? Good question (Prov. 27:17). And I suspect that Guiliuzza is taking us in a very good new direction. This might well turn out to be a pivotal essay for the creationist movement.
Top 10 problems that government spending has solved
Waaaaaaaait for it….