Creation v. Evo-Humanism

The recent controversy with Indiana SB 89, the life science bill, has caused quite a stir among a few people including me. The proposal is summarized as follows:

Teaching of the origin of life. Provides that the governing body of a school corporation may require the teaching of various theories concerning the origin of life. Requires the curriculum for the course to include theories from multiple religions.”

Sounds pretty convincing for a culture that prides itself on pluralism, right? Well, our society is anything but pluralistic.

I noted particularly hostile, anti-God sentiment at Masson's blog, so I chose to springboard the issue over there. Now in fairness to the primary blogger, he is not opposed to challenges to evolution or debate, only a law requiring creation-science to be taught as actual science (That’s how I understood his main objection. But, he is certainly no friend to Christianity). I encourage you to go read the blog and the comments too. It represents classic evolutionary thought with a few of my own objections.

As far as we know, thePoliPit.com is the only creation-science advocate blogging in Indianapolis and possibly Indiana (outside of church based blogs.) So, we’re it! I suppose we can just add that to our growing list of reasons to hate us. Or, you can stick around, contend with us and strengthen your decision with evolution; or you might (oh my) become a creationist.

Therefore, we have decided to make the creation v. evolution debate a part of our regular discussions throughout 2012. This has been something in the works for a while, but the timing of SB 89 fanned the flames and set the house on fire. We also have a few things in the works that we may announce in the next few weeks.

Now to understand and appreciate the whole of my position, I don't want creationism taught in public schools. I don't want prayer in public schools. I don't want the bible taught in public schools. In fact, I don't want public schools period! But, since they do exist, they need to be dealt with.

The public school is a boot camp for the religion of humanism. Everything about public schools is hostile to Christianity and has been since its compulsory inception in 1852. Fortunately, the Supreme Court ruled in Pierce v. Society of Sisters against compelled public school attendance. But, those that attend will be religiously indoctrinated with humanism; that is inescapable. This is truly where the foundation of evolution resides.

The problem is that humanist want to convince people that public schools are religiously neutral. In this particular case, we are told to believe that evolution is synonymous with science, and that it is a non-dogmatic, non-religious, neutral fact. As such, there is no room for creationism; we have it figured out. Any contrary thinking is quickly ridiculed, cheaply refuted, and then shut down through legal processes.

The truth of the “public school-evolution-humanism” connection is sordid indeed. The three are inseparable:

I am convinced that the battle for humankind's future must be waged and won in the public school classroom by teachers that correctly perceive their role as proselytizers of a new faith: a religion of humanity that recognizes and respects the spark of what theologians call divinity in every human being...The classroom must and will become an arena of conflict between the old and new -- the rotting corpse of Christianity, together with all its adjacent evils and misery, and the new faith of humanism, resplendent with the promise of a world in which the never-realized Christian ideal of 'love thy neighbor' will finally be achieved. - John L. Dunphy

What should you expect from us on this topic? First, you can expect the rotting corpse of Christianity to turn the other cheek, and as were coming back around make the idiot go back to his village. Second, we are not scientist, so we must rely on the work of operational scientists to even consider the issue. A scientist however, does not refute an argument, that’s the job of an astute thinker. Our strategy will generally adhere to using the words of evolutionists and not creationists. Not because we think the latter to be less credible but because “argument by authority” requires the parties to accept the authority referenced. There is no way an evolutionist will accept the words of a creationists (evolutionist are way to open minded for that). So we will analyze their words, research, and methodology and work from there.

In the coming weeks and months I will lay the foundation for understanding the philosophical difference between creation science and humanistic evolution. I will present with unambiguous language what the creation science model is and compare it with the evolutionary humanistic (Evo-Humanism) model. Once these two obligations are met then you may begin to judge the truthfulness and validity of what we offer.

Don't worry though; we are not giving up our regular political commentary. We're just augmenting it with a timely, relevant, and vitally important issue.

PM

The Other Right-to-Work (HB1006)

Nearly a year after the democrats fled the state in protest, increased political battling and aggressive union opposition over the last few months, the Indiana House passed the GOP supported right-to-work legislation 54-44. The bill now moves to the Senate where the Republicans enjoy a 37-13 advantage over the democrats. Unless there are some key movers, this legislation looks to be a done deal.

But lost in the right-to-work raucous was the little known HB1006. House Bill 1006 was introduced by District 18 representative David Wolkins as a good, conservative effort to reduce government intrusion into private business affairs. The irony is that many conservatives that highly praised the right-to-work legislative success were strangely opposed to HB1006. There are just some liberal ideas that even conservatives cannot live without. If there is one thing I do better than others, it is exposing the hypocrisy of conservatives that cannot seem to be consistent with their beliefs.

Government regulations imposed on tradesmen is a form of protectionism; much like the union racket that the right-to-work legislation intends to topple. I have always had a problem with the government licensing professions for which they have no expertise. So I was pleased to see Mr. Wolkins move forward with deregulation and put the responsibility where it rightfully belongs: with the business owners themselves AND consumers.

The idea behind the proposed bill, according to Rep. Wolkins, comes from the concept of "limited government". If this is true, how is it that conservatives, right along side the meager public opposition celebrated the removal of this bill?

This bill would have eliminated not only the laws regulating the named professions but the government licensing boards as well. The professions affected included cosmetologists, barbers, dietitians, hearing aid dealers, private investigators and security guards. Can you guess who opposed HB1006 the most vigorously? But on what grounds?

An online poster at beautytech.com identifying herself as Diana Bonn, at the Indiana State Board of Cosmology stated on January 10, 2012, "the schooling and license you have now will mean nothing" and " anyone off the street can do...anything". Ms. Bonn continues and gives her cliff notes interpretation of the ROEC committee report: "the ROEC committee basically says that if the consumer is hurt, they can hire an attorney, if they get a bad hair cut, they can switch to another salon, buyer beware. But Government regulation is not needed".

In other words, according to Ms. Bonn's unstated premise, people outside of government are too stupid to research and qualify their own service providers. In other words, Indiana citizens need the government in order to get a good hair cut, a trained, security guard, or a discreet private investigator. Let's not forget that those licensing fees collected by the agency Ms. Bonn works for account for over One-million dollars in revenue for the State of Indiana. Protectionist agenda?

Nicole Holland, a self employed cosmetologist, pursuing a registered dietitian degree made her opposition plea on the grounds that she may be stuck paying $60,000 in student loans for a useless degree. But, $60,000 for a registered dietitian degree sounds useless on its own merit to me. Then in the same aggravated breath she mentions "the government already makes it extremely difficult to get your head above water". I think she realizes that government in general is part of the problem but doesn’t admit it in her own case. Protectionism agenda?

Another writes: "proper education and licensing of the cosmetology profession by the state is essential to ensuring the welfare of the general public" and "complete removal of...HB1006 poses a clear and imminent threat to the livelihood of Indiana's 1,457salon/spa establishments". Do you understand what each lady is suggesting? Protectionism agenda?

Although cosmetologists were the largest group to oppose, they were closely allied with the security and private investigation profession. Pursuit Magazine, in reporting that The Indiana Association of Professional Investigators (IAPI) and the Indiana Society of Professional Investigators (INSPI) both opposed HB1006, offered a pre-formatted, fill in the blank, PDF file to send off to legislators. Their reasoning was that a licensed security provider is required to conduct background checks, document experience, and licensed employers pay payroll tax on their employees. And none of this can be done without government regulations?

Do you know what a felon is before they are a felon? A non-felon! Background checks do not protect against felonious behavior; they only root out those that have been caught, not those with the propensity. How often are background checks required in order to maintain licensing status? The private owner is in a better position to root out incompetent employees than the government. The business owner has a personal stake that the government does not.

What about the touted experience? For security, a few years on the payroll of another licensee will give you what is required; even if all you ever do is watch an access door into a business. A door observer can become a government ordained security specialists.

Like unions opposing right-to-work views so too is the resistance to deregulation a protectionist strategy. From the inside looking out, things are lovely. Unnecessary rules and regulations are favored by those already on the inside. This is because, in many cases, the government artificially helps those with a license keep their competitors at bay. I think a lot of licensed and board approved business owners were afraid that their protection was about to end. Well not this year; Tony (.Gov) Soprano is good to go for now. But like the right-to-work bill, expect it to come back. Next time, I hope you conservatives won’t be as hypocritical in your selective advocacy for smaller government principles.

PM

Follow me on Twitter @PoliticoMonk

The Babbling Butler Buffoon

Butler University professor of religion and philosophy James McGrath offered his “expertise” as a “scholar of the Bible” concerning “young earth creationists.”  Seems he has a problem with “charlatans propounding pseudoscience”; that the earth was created in six literal days and is 6-10,000 years old.  Since McGrath never identified himself as a Christian I’ll assume he’s not, for if he is a Christian, my preteen daughter applies more logic and truth to an argument than he.

First things first; McGrath stated “injecting young earth creationism into science classrooms, is not only harmful to science education in this state but also unconstitutional.”  It’s neither.  How does teaching the theory of creationism “harm” science any more than the theory of macro-evolution already has.  Quite honestly, chemistry, biology, physics and astronomy support an intelligent design theory with far more certainty than random-chance-evolution.  Yet evolution, i.e. Old Earth, is taught as though it is fact when it’s nothing more than a God hating supposition from a European racist.  Furthermore, teaching creationism in school is not “unconstitutional.”  If Mr. McGrath reads the Constitution with as much clarity and understanding as he reads the Bible, I’m not surprised he thinks this.  A tiny bit of research would reveal exactly when the U.S. government foolishly began removing God from schools.  Answer:  1962-Engel vs. Vitale.  This court case was the first time in our nation’s entire history the court separated Christian principles from education.   The previous 200 plus years Christian principles were taught in our public schools and Bible reading was encouraged by the men who wrote our Constitution.

What are Prof. McGrath’s beliefs on the origin of life?  Does he believe life on Earth is a result of random chance, or does he believe an all-powerful, all-knowing, timeless, immaterial, perfect and loving God created our earth through macro-evolution?  Of these two theories, the latter is more ridiculous and illogical than the first; and Genesis 1 doesn’t describe either.  Why would a God with the previously described attributes leave His creation up to the random chance of macro-evolution; which is a horrible picture of death and dying?  I hazard to guess Mr. McGrath doesn’t believe the Genesis account of literal physical and spiritual death entering the world after Adam and Eve sinned.   Did they actually sin by disobeying God or was it just a fable?  How can there be millions of years of death and dying before death and dying resulted from Adam’s disobedience?  The incredibly ignorant belief of God prescribed macro-evolution does not “parallel” with the Genesis message or the known character of God.

Prof. McGrath claimed himself an expert on Biblical truth and interpretation.  He stated Genesis 1 has more to do with “parallelism” than anything else.  While the Bible uses the Hebrew literary style of parallelism in various places, not all of it is intended to be given equal importance, and “literary style” doesn’t alter the intent of the message.  Genesis is a historical account and is written in such a manner consistent with other historical texts.  For example, when Genesis speaks of the six DAYS of creation, the Hebrew word the writer chooses to use is “YOM”, which means a literal 24 hour day.  “YOM” and its derivatives are used thousands of times throughout the Bible and are translated to mean a literal day, or part of a day, each and every time.  Construing “YOM” into meaning a lengthy passage of time like “millions of years” is absurd.  Simply stated, Genesis is about the origin of life, humanity and death.  If Genesis 1:1 is not true the rest of the scriptures cannot be either.

Prof. McGrath encouraged Hoosiers to “listen to people who share their faith and who also have expertise in biology.”  I absolutely agree with McGrath and encourage all who profess the Faith of Christianity to seek out those who can teach and instruct in Biblical and scientific truth; unfortunately McGrath is not one of those I would recommend.  If he were interested in truth he wouldn’t accept a scientifically unsupported theory on the origin of life.  He would question the assumptions and intentions of all scientists and ask for proof of their conclusions.  Show me one example where genetic information has ever been added to any living organism’s genetic code and I’ll believe evolution.  Show me fossil evidence of transitional stages from one kind of species to another.  Use some basic logic and prove irreducible complexity doesn’t exist in biology or physics.  McGrath won’t and he can’t because macro-evolutionary ideas are constructed by man’s desire to exclude God’s truth.

McGrath’s grasp of the Bible is juvenile at best, and his poor reasoning condemns the Butler religious and philosophy programs with equal irrelevance.  Like Prof. McGrath I also encourage Christians to spend time studying the Bible and learning all you can about biology, chemistry, physics, astronomy, theology, etc.  However, time would be better spent listening to and reading materials from experts associated with organizations like Answers in Genesis or The Creation Museum.  There are plenty of Bible-believing, Christ professing PhD scientists in the fields of biology, chemistry, physics, astronomy, and theology that correctly interpret the Bible.

 

All of nature asserts a designer and sustainer by its mere complexity, order and functionality.  God’s fingerprints adhere to creation and are visible to everyone, unless you happen to be looking through. …how did Mr. McGrath state it…..a clouded “lens of your own assumptions, language and culture.”  Here’s the crux of the problem.  If you view creation through the crystal clear lens of Genesis 1:1 and nature points toward God, then life has purpose.  If life has purpose, what is it and what are our expectations for living?  I think the Bible addresses those questions as well, but maybe I’m just misinterpreting it.

Ten Commandments: Redneck Style

Life Without Unions

The current “right-to-work” legislation has once again angered the unions and Democrats (Is there a difference?).  What’s the number one complaint about the legislation:  It will weaken the unions because a certain number of employees will be “freeloaders.”  It seems our liberal friends have a problem with provisions in the legislation that allow employees who opt out of the local union to receive the negotiated wages and benefits that the union was given by the company.  Am I really hearing liberals complaining about certain people “freeloading” off the hard work of others!?   Phenomenal!  If only the liberals applied this principle to our nation’s outrageous entitlements that seek to redistribute wealth.  Furthermore, based on the complaints, unions want “right-to-work” defeated for the sake of saving unions, not jobs!!!!  Believe it or not, you can have a job without a union.

As a business owner it’s my right to offer my employees any wage or benefit I choose.  The employee can either take it or find a job elsewhere.  As a business owner it’s also my right to negotiate with a specific employee or a group of employees to determine any wage or benefits.  If I choose to allow a union into my business the workers should have a choice; they can join the union or not but I am going to pay all the employees the same wage and benefit (based on job performance) no matter if you’ve signed the union rolls.  How many employees do you think would sign up with the union if they knew a part of their income was going to union dues, while the other employees who didn’t sign up got to keep their money?  ZERO!  Unless, of course, the union lied to the workers claiming they would receive a whole bunch of added benefits, and the employees were foolish enough to believe them.  Unions don’t like “right-to-work” because it will expose how worthless unions have become.  In the free market of ideas, unions are a bad product that is quickly becoming obsolete.

Many middle class workers hang onto their unions because that’s all they’ve known, and the fear of the unknown is paralyzing.  I can’t think of a better analogy to describe what unions have become than to look at our country’s own social welfare system.  Many who are employable refuse to work because it’s “easier” to take the welfare money offered by our government.  These welfare recipients are often gripped with the fear of trusting in their own talents and abilities instead of relying on the enslaving benefits from the government.  They have been conditioned into thinking they are unemployable, unproductive and lazy, and require our government’s help.  This is exactly what big-government-liberals desire because if you rely on them for life’s necessities, you can be controlled.  Union members have also grown too attached and reliant on the “union way” of doing things, which is exactly what the union leadership desires.  Union members have become conditioned into thinking all businesses will be unfair and malevolent if you aren’t “protected by a union.”  God forbid you work hard, show your worth to a company and advance in your place of employment without the perceived help of a union.

My advice to union members:  Unions are imploding under their own selfishly motivated desires.  They aren’t too big to fail…let them.  Let go of the fraudulent “life line” unions are offering and you will quickly realize you can swim on your own.  The sun will rise in morning and the jobs with good pay and benefits will still be there.

By the way…no one has a RIGHT to work; they have a responsibility to their family to work.  I hate the legislation name.  It should be named, “Right-to-Choose Bill.”

"Clean Up on Aisle 1"

I’ve been silent long enough regarding the self-defense incident involving Elijah Elliott, a Kroger store manager who shot and killed a thug attempting to rob the store.  Most of you who follow www.thePoliPit.com know our position on the validity and necessity of protecting our 2^nd Amendment right to “keep and bear arms.”  That being said, I understand why a company would establish certain workplace rules limiting their employee’s ability to carry a loaded firearm while working.  Businesses have every right to restrict their employees from possessing guns inside their privately owned property; however I don’t think it necessarily the wisest policy to enact.  I don’t want to debate Kroger’s policy restricting their employees’ ability to carry a specific self-defense tool, a gun, but I do want to discuss the more general unalienable right of life and liberty secured by the 2^nd Amendment.

Liberals love to play “what if” games, so I’ll offer a question for them.  What if Mr. Elliott had thwarted the violent robbery attempt by grabbing a pocket knife and cutting the thug into little pieces; would we be having a similar discussion about knives in the work-place?  I suppose some liberals might clamor for a sharp object ban or that Kroger update its policies.  If deadly force is warranted based on the crime being committed - a crime where death and/or serious bodily injury is possible to the victim or a third party – what is the difference if a bat, knife, rock or gun is used?  Mr. Elliott used a very effective tool available to him and, in my opinion, successfully and safely ended a violent life threatening crime.  The bad guy is dead and the good guys are alive – good job!  “Let’s go Kroger’ing’…for the best of everything…including your life.”  Please insert the appropriate catchy Kroger commercial jingle.

A few weeks before the Kroger Life and Liberty Defense Event, I had a discussion with a German immigrant that has lived in the U.S. for a number of years.  I always enjoy my conversations with this older lady, and I think it’s because she has yet to comprehend the American Culture of independence and liberty and I like explaining it to her.  She commented that she doesn’t understand “America’s infatuation with guns.”  She proceeded to tell me about observing a young teen and his father walk into a rural McDonalds dressed in hunters orange, and their shotguns slung over their shoulders.  I attempted to explain the hunting culture and the value of doing this type of activity within a family, especially a son.  She was befuddled when I told her that the father and sons’ armed presence inside the McDonalds would have made me feel safer and more secure, not less.  Predictably, this discussion quickly turned to the 2^nd Amendment and concealed carry laws.  She brought up the most recent state law that allows concealed handguns in state parks; and stated she didn’t understand the need for such a “ridiculous law.”  I asked her, “If law abiding citizens aren’t allowed to carry guns, then who will carry guns unopposed?”  She replied that she had heard this argument before about “good guys not having guns and criminals having them”, but she didn’t really “buy it”; mind you she cited no reason for her “not buying the argument.”  She then quipped, “Wouldn’t this world be a much better place if there were no guns!?”  I quickly interrupted, stating, “….and no sticks, bats, knives, rocks, hands, and people for that matter.”

I now digress to the December 27^th, 2011 Indy Star article, and the comments of Indianapolis Lawyer Michael Blickman.  He stated, “Gun owners aren’t necessarily trained in how to deal with dangerous situations…”  (Although it sure seems Kroger Manager Elijah Elliott did just fine)  Numerous other blogs have stated similar reservations of “armed citizens” taking action against violent criminals.  Sheila Kennedy said, ”…what if a trigger-happy employee misconstrues a ‘situation’ and starts shooting?”  What is the common thread among liberals, other than ignorance, who frightfully oppose armed citizens?  Trust!  Liberals always assume the worst intentions of individuals and always assume the best intentions of government; while conservatives like me assume the exact opposite.  Ignorant gun-haters seem to think an American citizen isn’t smart enough to formulate a proper plan of action to ensure their own safety and the safety of others, but the government always has our best interest in mind? 

A citizen that cares enough about his family and co-workers to arm himself with the proper tools to protect them, gathers much more confidence and trust in me than a government that is always trying to restrict liberty and freedom, and rarely in a position to properly help.  “I’m from the government and I’m here to help” frightens me far more than Bubba with a shotgun in McDonalds, or Elijah Elliott with a handgun in Kroger.