Louisiana public school science teachers allowed to criticize evolution.

THIS is definitely a step in the right direction. Hopefully, this will seep into all 50 states and allow all science teachers the right to present evidence for and against evolution.

Louisiana Gov. Bobby Jindal this week signed into law the Louisiana Science Education Act, which allows school districts to permit teachers to present evidence, analysis and critique of evolution and other prevalent scientific theories in public school classrooms.

The law came to the governor's desk after overwhelming support in the legislature, including a unanimous vote in the state's Senate and a 93-4 vote in the House.

The act has been criticized by some as an attempt to insert religion into science education and hailed by others as a blow for academic freedom in the face of pressure to ignore flaws in politically correct scientific theories.

Robert Crowther, director of communications for The Discovery Institute, a Seattle-based think tank on science and culture, called the act necessary.

In an article posted on The Discovery Institute's evolution news website, Crowther wrote, "The law is needed for two reasons. First, around the country, science teachers are being harassed, intimidated, and sometimes fired for trying to present scientific evidence critical of Darwinian theory along with the evidence that supports it. Second, many school administrators and teachers are fearful or confused about what is legally allowed when teaching about controversial scientific issues like evolution. The Louisiana Science Education Act clarifies what teachers may be allowed to do."

Specifically, the act allows teachers in the state's public schools to present evidence both for and against Darwinian theories of evolution and allows local school boards to approve supplemental materials that may open critical discussions of evolution, the origins of life, global warming, human cloning and other scientific theories.

Teachers are still required by the act to follow the standardized science curriculum, and school districts are required to authorize both the teachers' classes and additional materials. The state's Board of Elementary and Secondary Education will have the power to prohibit materials it deems inappropriate, and the act prohibits religious instruction.

ection 1D of the act states that the law "shall not be construed to promote any religious doctrine, promote discrimination for or against a particular set of religious beliefs, or promote discrimination for or against religion or nonreligion."

Despite section 1D, many national voices, including the Americans United for Separation of Church and State, a New York Times editorial, and the American Civil Liberties Union opposed the measure.

Marjorie Esman, state director of Lousiana's ACLU told the New Orleans Times-Picayune, "To the extent that this might invite religion in the public school classroom, we will do everything we can do to keep religion out."

John West, a senior fellow of the Discovery Institute, however, said opponents of the bill are misunderstanding it. Rather than being about infusing intelligent design or creationism into the classroom, he contends, the bill is about giving teachers the freedom to talk about the debates that already exist in science, even among evolutionists themselves.

"This bill is not a license to propagandize against something they don't like in science," West told the Times-Picayune. "Someone who uses materials to inject religion into the classroom is not only violating the Constitution, they are violating the bill."

Gov. Jindal released a statement at the time of the signing that read, in part: "I will continue to consistently support the ability of school boards and (the state Board of Elementary and Secondary Education) to make the best decisions to ensure a quality education for our children."

Bad quotes and Watchtower authority.

"That they must adhere absolutely to the decisions and scriptural understandings of the Society because God has given it this authority over his people." (Watchtower, May 1, 1972, p. 272)

Those of us who are directly involved in witnessing to Jehovah's Witnesses tend to get caught in the trap of trying to find the "magic bullet." You know what i'm talking about; its that one argument that will instantly bring them to repentance in accepting Jesus as their savior. When you read a quote like the one above, you might be thinking to yourself, "wow, if they could only read a statement like this! Then they'll realize how blind they are in doing anything and everything that the Watchtower tells them!"

Well, it turns out that this quote may not exist. In fact, there's a really good chance that it doesn't. Who knows how fake quotes come about, but they may come from those who unethically will do anything to make the Watchtower look bad, or from JW's themselves who want to ruin the credibility of Christians who seek to witness to JW's. Whatever the reason, as followers of Jesus Christ, we should do anything and everything possible not only to be honest and careful in our apologetic, but to represent the opposing side as accurately as possible. Anything less is a shame to Christ's name.

One thing i've learned from Jehovah's Witness (mainly those online) is that they will look for any opportunity to attack your credibility. Recently, I received a similar confrontation. I have a fairly large stash of Watchtower quotations in my possession. Back when I began learning about JW's, I collected many quotes that I could use in witnessing. The vast majority were photocopies, but some of them were quotes from books and online articles. The above quote was one of them. Fortunately, I only used the quote in an email and not on my blog or some other public venue. The JW was quick to point out that the quote didn't exist. Since the vast majority of my resources are back at home, I couldn't even try to verify the quote. I then contacted a few friends to see if they could find the quote. None of them could. Therefore, I apologized for sending him quote that most likely didn't exist. Thankfully, the JW didn't doubt my credibility (at least, not to my knowledge), nor was the quote necessary for the argument I was making to him.

This was certainly a lesson learned; to be more careful in research. And I hope this will be an encouragement to everyone to seek honesty and accuracy in everything they do; especially when witnessing. But what about the quote above? Even though it is probably not a real quote, isn't it a generally true statement? I believe it is. Interestingly, the actual article rings true of the quote, although it doesn't contain the word-for-word statement:


***w72 5/1pp.267-273 How Your View of Authority Affects YourLife***

15 The visible governing body of Jehovah's organization has also been given authority by Him to direct the work of His worshipers on earth at this time. (Matt. 24:45-47) The congregation and its overseers show their proper view of authority by accepting willingly its counsel provided through the printed page, letters or its traveling representatives. Sometimes there is a tendency to doubt the fitness of certain counsel, perhaps about the matter of dress or hairstyle, regarding it as an undue invasion of privacy and one's "freedom." Yet one with the proper view of authority will realize the concern Jehovah's organization has for the way God is represented to the world through us. (1 Cor. 4:9) He will view the instructions, not as arbitrary rules, but as an evidence of Jehovah's loving interest in his worshipers.—Prov. 3:12.

Does this not say that Jehovah's Witnesses should uncritically accept whatever the Watchtower says? For instance, if you disagree with Watchtower dress regulations, are you not disagreeing with Jehovah Himself? Isn't that what it means when it says that they should accept "willingly its counsel?" If you disagree, you are not "willingly" accepting their council.

16 Sometimes persons speak against the understanding of certain Scriptural teachings that the Watch Tower Society has set forth. For example, there were those who had difficulty accepting the change of understanding regarding the "superior authorities" of Romans 13:1. Some even stumbled from their dedicated relationship to Jehovah over this matter. They did not have the proper view of the authority of Jehovah's organization for providing spiritual "food at the proper time." When some of the disciples had difficulty accepting what Jesus was teaching on one point, saying: "This speech is shocking; who can listen to it?" they "went off to the things behind and would no longer walk with him." Peter, with the right view of Jesus' teaching authority, realized there was no other place to go for truth and so remained in the way of life.—John 6:60, 66-69.

This one is very interesting. Sometimes JW's had difficulty in uncritically accepting new WT rules, regulations, and doctrinally changes. Why? Perhaps they believed the old things to be biblical. For instance, if the Bible taught that organ transplants and vaccinations were wrong, then who could say otherwise? When the organization decided to declare these "biblical rules" void, then what did that say about their authority? Did Jehovah change His mind? Certainly not, for truth always remains true. But if we are to uncritically accept whatever changes the organization makes, then it doesn't really matter if its in line with what we think is biblical. If Jehovah's organization teaches it, then it is Jehovah's truth--even if it gets changed again in 10 years. Sure, JW's are quick to admit that a current teaching is "biblical," but so did JW's of old who believed that Christ's physical return in 1914 was "biblical." But what they really mean is, "we aren't the ones who decide what is biblical and what isn't; if the Watchtower declares it, then I believe it."

Jesus Christ is "the way, the truth, and the life." (John 14:6) If you want to follow truth that doesn't change, then follow him.

Louie Giglio, laminin, and the cross

In no way am I writing this to discourage Louie Giglio's ministry in any way. He is an incredible communicator and has certainly done amazing things for the kingdom. Nonetheless, I have to talk about this. A friend of mine sent me this video today. As I watched it, I pretty much agreed with everything he was saying. In fact, the talk was passionate and full of biblical truth...up until...laminin? See for yourself.



I'm sorry, but the "left hook" or "final punch" to the sermon didn't do it for me. Honestly, a spaniard seeing Mary in a tortilla was more convincing than this. I mean, what are the chances of molecules shaping themselves randomly into a cross? Well, they are not too bad, actually. Ok, ok, I get the point: Jesus holds everything together and so does laminin, which happens to be in the shape of a cross. I don't know, this just didn't awe me like it did the audience. Maybe I wasn't in the moment?

Ok, here's the real reason why this didn't do it for me. Louie asked the question, "How can we know that this is true...that God will hold on to us no matter what?" Wow, what a suspenseful question! It certainly would have had me leaning on the edge of my seat! And this is where your apologetic methodology determines what your answer to that question would be. Essentially, Louie was asking, "How do I know that these words in the Bible are true?" Not knowing Louie's position on apologetic methodology, I had no idea what was coming!

Sure enough, it was evidentialism. In other words, the evidentialist answers that question by appealing to evidence. But not just any evidence; evidence from outside God's Word. He appealed to a molecule shaped like a cross. Whether you are an evidentialist or presuppositionalist, listen to what Louie is saying: "The way we can know for certain that God will hold on to us no matter what is because laminin is shaped like a cross." Am I missing something? If that's not what Louie is essentially saying, please correct me on this.

James White critiques Ergun Caner's sermon against Calvinism

I've been meaning to do some videos explaining Calvinism, but haven't been able to. Its pretty difficult being in New York as there are not many places where I can make video blogs in a quite environment. Furthermore, I have pretty much no resources at hand. But recently, I found this video where someone with way too much time on their hands synced the video of one of Ergun Caner's sermons with the audio where James White critiques. Although Dr. Caner isn't exactly the best that the Arminian side has to offer, many of his objections are common. Chances are, if you are an Arminian, your questions and objection to Calvinism will be answered. If not, leave a comment or shoot me an email and i'll answer your question the best I can.

I think everyone can benefit from watching this, especially those who are interested in investigating Calvinism.

Kent Hovind and King James Onlyism

The spring of 2002 was my first experience in apologetics. Before then, I had never known that the Christian faith could be defended. What did this experience entail? One of my friends wanted me to drive 3 hours to see this dude speak on creation/evolution. So I decided to go. This "dude" happened to be Kent Hovind. Yeah, thats right...the guy with the million dollar reward for evolution, who is now in prison. But you know what? Although he is dead wrong on a lot of things and is now in prison for not paying his taxes; if it weren't for him, there is no telling where i'd be today. I probably wouldn't be on here writing blogs on defending the faith, thats for sure!

Anyways, as I was really getting into this guy, I found myself in a very vulnerable place. I pretty much ate up everything he taught! He was very anti-Calvinistic, and so was I (geez, how things have changed!). He was a young-earther, and so was I (and still am!). He was a King James onlyist, and so was....I? That last one was a big struggle for me. It was a bit odd how Hovind found a way to mix in his King James onlyism with his young earth creationism. But he managed to do it; along with many of his other odd-ball teachings. I was very close to being sucked into this. In fact, I used to listen to Gail Riplinger lectures in awe (now, I can only listen to that woman in disgust!) and couldn't refute anything she said. I wasn't an all out King James defender, but I was close.

It wasn't until I found James White that I learned how to refute this silly mindset. And I say "silly" because thats exactly what it is! King James onlyism is poor scholarship and nothing more than an attempt to defend the King James in a way that the translators themselves would have never dreamed! Anyways, recently James White did a YouTube series refuting Kent Hovind's teachings on the King James. I found it to be extremely helpful and wanted to share it with you all.

Thoughts from Job

We all know the story of Job. But have you ever thought to look at it from these various angles?

Then YHWH said to Satan, "Behold, all that he has is in your power, only do not put forth your hand on him." (Job 1:12)

Here, YHWH is giving Satan permission do ruin Job's life, as long as he doesn't touch him. Of course, in Job 2:6, Satan is allowed to take away his health, as long as he didn't kill him. Clearly, we can determine that all these terrible things happening to Job are the result of Satan's actions, right?

"The oxen were plowing and the donkeys feeding beside them, and the Sabeans attacked and took them" (Job 1:14-15) "The Chaldeans formed three bands and made a raid on the camels and took them and slew the servants with the edge of the sword." (Job 1:17)

Here, the Sabeans and Chaldeans raided and destroyed Job's possessions. Clearly, we can determine that all these terrible things happening to Job are the result of the Sabean's and Chaldean's actions, right?

"YHWH gave and YHWH has taken away. Blessed be the name of YHWH."

Here, YHWH is given credit for giving Job everything that was destroyed. And He is also given credit for taking all these things away. Clearly, we can determine that all these terrible things happening to Job are the result of God's actions, right?

If God, Satan, and the Sabeans/Chaldeans are all credited for the terrible things that happened to Job, who are we to blame for these evil action? All three? Just one? Or perhaps two?

Did the Watchtower claim that 1975 would be the end?

There is no doubt that the Watchtower was a bit confused as to whether or not 1975 would be the end. Nevertheless, they said what they said:

*** Awake! October 8 1968 pp. 14-15 ***
6,000 Years Nearing Completion […] The fact that fifty-four years of the period called the ‘last days’ have already gone by is highly significant. It means that only a few years, at most, remain before the corrupt system of things dominating the earth is destroyed by God. Today, many years later, we may ask, What does the phrase ‘the immediate future’ mean? How many years are ‘a few years at most’?...only seven more years from the autumn of 1968 to complete 6,000 full years of human history. That seven-year period will evidently finish in the autumn of the year 1975

But here they seem to be a little bit confused:

*** Watchtower 1968 May 1 pp.271-3 Making Wise Use of the Remaining Time ***

THE SEVENTH DAY

7 The immediate future is certain to be filled with climactic events, for this old system is nearing its complete end. Within a few years at most the final parts of Bible prophecy relative to these "last days" will undergo fulfillment, resulting in the liberation of surviving mankind into Christ’s glorious 1,000-year reign. What difficult days, but, at the same time, what grand days are just ahead!

8 Does this mean that the year 1975 will bring the battle of Armageddon? No one can say with certainty what any particular year will bring. Jesus said: "Concerning that day or the hour nobody knows." (Mark 13:32) Sufficient is it for God’s servants to know for a certainty that, for this system under Satan, time is running out rapidly. How foolish a person would be not to be awake and alert to the limited time remaining, to the earthshaking events soon to take place, and to the need to work out one’s salvation!

What do you think? False prophet? Or a really confused false prophet?

Why didn't he just sue the Holy Spirit?

I was wondering when these lawsuits were going to start happening.

KNOXVILLE — A man says he was so consumed by the spirit of God that he fell and hit his head while at a Knoxville church.

Now he wants Lakewind Church to pay $2.5 million for medical bills, lost income, and pain and suffering he says he's endured from his injuries.

Matt Lincoln, who is 57, says he decided to sue the church after its insurance company denied his claim for medical bills.

Lincoln has had two surgeries since the June 2007 incident but says he still feels pain in his back and his legs.

The Sevier County man says he was asking God to have "a real experience" while praying at church.

He says he has fallen from the force of the spirit before but has always been caught by someone.

Lawyers for the church say other congregants saw him on the floor laughing after his fall. They say he failed to look out for his own safety.

On a serious note, when are people going to start realizing that the practice of slaying in the Spirit is one of the most absurd and ridiculous things that the "church" has ever come up with?

You think this is bad? Just wait 15 years...

This lawsuit might happen, or it might not. If such a thing is even being considered in our courts, what do you think is going to happen in 20 years? My friends, our days of free speech are coming to an end.

Lawsuit against Zondervan complains about Bible statements on homosexuality

CASCADE TOWNSHIP -- A Canton man is suing Zondervan Publishing and a Tennessee-based publisher, claiming their versions of the Bible that refer to homosexuality as a sin violate his constitutional rights and has caused him emotional pain and mental instability.

Bradley LaShawn Fowler, 39, is seeking $60 million from Zondervan, based in Cascade Township, and another $10 million from Thomas Nelson Publishing in the lawsuits filed in U.S. District Court for the Eastern District of Michigan.

Fowler filed the suit against Zondervan on Monday, the same day U.S. District Judge Julian Abele Cook Jr. refused to appoint an attorney to represent him in his case against Thomas Nelson, a Tennessee publisher. Fowler filed a suit against Thomas Nelson in June. He is representing himself in both claims.

"The Court has some very genuine concerns about the nature and efficacy of these claims," the judge wrote.

Fowler alleges Zondervan's Bibles referring to homosexuality as a sin have made him an outcast from his family and contributed to physical discomfort and periods of "demoralization, chaos and bewilderment."

The intent of the publisher was to design a religious, sacred document to reflect an individual opinion or a group's conclusion to cause "me or anyone who is a homosexual to endure verbal abuse, discrimination, episodes of hate, and physical violence ... including murder," Fowler wrote.

Fowler's suit claims Zondervan's text revisions include and then delete the reference to homosexuality without informing the public of the changes.

The other suit, against Thomas Nelson and its New King James Bible, mirrors the allegations made against Zondervan for "manipulating" Scripture.

Read the article here

The Nephilim of Genesis 6

The "Nephilim" of Genesis 6 has always been an interesting issue to me. I've read many different opinions on this and still haven't made up my mind on it. But regardless, there are some interesting interpretations that have been offered. One of my friends, Daniel, sent me the following commentary and I thought I would share it with you. Feel free to leave your thoughts on this in the comments as i'd be interested in what everyone has to say:

1Now it came about, when men began to multiply on the face of the land, and daughters were born to them, 2that the sons of God

being human men right with God, those who followed him and worshiped...

saw that the daughters of men

being human women who were the daughters of idolatrous and pagan men

were beautiful; and they took wives for themselves, whomever they chose. 3Then the LORD said, "(A)My Spirit shall not strive with man forever, (B)because he also is flesh;

meaning that God was grieved that the lineage of Godly, upright men had been diluted and mixed with pagan cultures

nevertheless his days shall be one hundred and twenty years."

either because God decided to limit mans life because he saw that eventually, if a Godly man lives long enough, he would fall away. Or he was simply stating the future conditions in a prophetic way- Like this, "My spirit shall not strive with a single man for so long anymore, and that will be taken care of by the flood I'm about to send because the changes it brings to the earth and the removal of the firmament will create conditions were a mans' maximum life span can't possibly go much beyond 120 years.

4The (C)Nephilim

It's not really defined what they are, but I think it's correct to assume they are a seperate being than "sons of God" My best guess is that it is a general term for any group of people who are exceptionally evil

were on the earth in those days, and also afterward,

meaning there will always be entire cultures of very evil people, for example, the people of Iran are Nephilim, because their entire culture is embedded in the evil of Islam. Also, afterward means after the flood.

when the sons of God came in to the daughters of men, and they bore children to them.

Meaning, after the flood, God's true followers bred with pagan woman, tempted by their great beauty, creating a new race of an evil culture(nephilim), the same way they had done before the flood

Those were the mighty men who were of old, men of renown.

Meaning every single person mentioned above- the nephilim, and the sons of God were living at the same time long ago, at the beginning of the earth, and so we have a tradition of legends about exceptionally giant, valiant, or strong men which were stories both about Sons of God and the Nephilim.

5Then the LORD saw that the wickedness of man was great on the earth,

because Nephilimistic culture had taken control and changed the sons of God into evil men

something to note

For the next 5 weeks my band will be in new York recording our first full length album. If you want to check us out go to myspace.com/thestatus. My Internet access is going to limited not only bc our housing doesnt have Internet (I'm using my phone to write all of this), but bc im the drummer, and drums go first in the recording process. So I apologize if my interactions with your comments are scarce. Dave and I are still seeking to wrap up our debate on the deity of Christ. We basically have to finish one section of the cross-examination and then issue our final closing statements.

Other than that, I'm hoping to continue blogging once my recording is done, since I'll just be hanging around doing nothning while the rest of the band finishes recording!

New survey results

These survey results are pretty alarming to me, and should be to all born-again believers. Here's a few things to note:

71 percent are "absolutely certain" of their belief in God. 5 percent "don't believe."

57 percent of "evangelical protestants" believe that "many religions can lead to eternal life."

61 percent of "evangelical protestants" believe that "abortion should be illegal in most or all cases."

64 percent " " believe that homosexuality should be "discouraged by society."

With regards to point 2, I want to ask something. Is this decline due to the fact that churches aren't being "creative" enough? Or perhaps they aren't being "loving" enough?

The church is declining in its affirmation of absolute truth and the gospel. If you are one of those who think the church needs to focus on methodology more than its message, think again. We have a problem; adding drums and being more creative with "topical sermons" isn't the answer.