Re-applying the creationist pressuppositionalist argument.

You all know what Creationist say about presuppositions. That we interpret evidence through our presuppositions and its not about the right evidence but the right presupposition.

Well although I disagree with their version of it I do think they make a point. The point being that religion give you a logical framework from which to base your ideas, including your idea in science. I am not saying that we ought to develop our scientific theories from the bible (Although there are Christians who do that), what I am saying is that a Christian looks at everything in the light of Christian Monotheism. Essentially that there is a God that is rational, non capricious, and uncompromising. He act like this in the social world with moral law so it is not too much of an extrapolation to say he acts the same with natural law; God makes uniform laws for nature to run by has given us the ability to use our reason to understand these laws. According to the bible, we are capable of using our reason to understand nature (Job 12:7-8, Romans 1:20) and we are also told to test everything and not listen to everything we are told (1 Thessalonians 5:21)

So in this view Christianity is in conformity with the philosophy of science and is therefore not a worldview that rejects science but promotes science. I would also say that belief in a rational uniform universe stems from belief in a creator. The reason being that order, uniformity, and complexity emerges from an intelligent mind. Now this does not prove the existence of God but it does tell us that Christian Theistic Beliefs can lead to a worldview which allows for science to thrive. Thus Christianity is a viable framework for science.

In the same way Materialism is also a framework in which you base all your ideas. It also makes assumptions which lead to science, in the same way it could be called a logical framework from which to work science just like Christianity.

What I am saying is I believe there is some sense to this argument, although I maintain that creationists take it somewhat far.

Is Nature's record unreliable because we live in a fallen world?

The young earth creationist ministry Answers In Genesis has a track record of deriding modern science and the theology which concures with modern science. Now there are many Christians who say that I am overly harsh with AiGers and other creationists, of course that only goes to show that they do not know what "harsh" means; you think I'm harsh? Check out this (theistic evolutionist) guy I rest my case.

Anyway one of their most recent articles Are we missing something? in which they attempt to say nature's record is unreliable since Man is fallen.

When people look to nature to reveal truth, they are falling into the same
speculation trap as in describing the house in the field. No matter how
imaginative or intelligent they are, they can never know exactly what happened
in history without trustworthy eyewitness accounts.
Those who promote nature
as a missing aspect of God’s revelation (the so-called “67th book of the Bible”)
need to understand two crucial fallacies with this idea: first, nature is
cursed; second, our observations of nature are not independent from our
presuppositions. When we examine these problems, we see that nature should never
be put on the same level as the Bible.

Essentially this is one of the most major misconceptions floating around the young earth community that we can not know the past. I have already pointed out the problems with this view. Now to the proposition that our trust in nature's account are fallacious; first of all the bible does not say nature is cursed, the only creature positively under the influence of the curse is Man himself. Secondly the scientific method works around this problem, I'll get to this in a moment.

Many who trust in humans as the highest authority reject the Curse as true
history and thus deny its effect on our observations. Some point to the effects
of the
Curse as proof of “bad design.” For Christians, however, it is foolish to
ignore the Curse when considering what nature can “reveal” to us. After all,
this would be like someone trusting a funhouse mirror to show them how they
really looked. They look into the mirror and see a distorted view but assume
that this mirror must be “right.”
Likewise, while nature does reflect some of
God’s qualities (Romans 1:20), if we trusted the nature we see now to show who
God is, we would see the death, violence, and plant and animal defense and
predatory structures and imagine God as reveling in death and destruction.

I for one do not deny the curse, however I take it as being less universal then AiGers take it to be. I did affect Man's reasoning powers and there is no doubt we humans live in a fallen world and that there definitely is something wrong with creation.,however this does not mean that nature is therefore unreliable. Science can evade the difficulties of the fallen human intellect because;

1. Science is not determined by human opinion but by the facts

2. science is self-correcting and any error will be eventually mended because of the scientific process.

3. Being that God wrote the record of nature it can never truly contradict God's word therefore nature should be reliable since it is inspired by God and God is incapable of lying.

This isn’t to say that we shouldn’t study nature. After all, “nature” is
everything around us, and God gave it to humanity so that we could look into the
universe around us and see His glory. However, nature is only as impartial as
the viewer. Although nature itself does not lead to false conclusions about the
past, people who look at nature can be misled by their own mistaken
presuppositions. Those who look to nature as an objective source of God’s
revelation (or an objective source of scientific truth) are ultimately looking,
instead, at their own preconceptions—even if they don’t realize they have them.

This is how science works and another reason why we as Christians have nothing to fear from science; if the current take on the physical record contradicts the bible it will eventually shift back because truth cannot contradict truth.
For the last part I will give comments on in a slightly more choppy fashion.

Ultimately, God’s Word reveals the reason that we should never consider nature
as our sole source of knowledge or as an extra book of the Bible:
The grass
withers and the flowers fall, but the Word of our God stands forever. (Isaiah 40:8; 1 Peter 1:24–25)

True, but he also says "Speak to the rocks and they shall teach you" (Job 12:7-8). The aforementioned passage is most likely referring to God's eternality, not necessarily nature's record.

When the Bible mentions nature and the Word together, we find that only one
of them is permanent and foundational for knowing and fulfilling His will.
Nature—this universe—will pass away and be rolled up like a scroll (Isaiah 34:4), but God’s Word will endure.

Of course I agree, it is the bible (special revelation) which give us what is important in an eternal sense, everything else only matters in a finite and limited scope.

If we depend on nature to reveal the truth, and especially if we reinterpret
God’s Words based on our stories and interpretations of nature, we will be
building our house on a foundation of sand. By contrasting the transience of
nature with the constancy of His Word, God shows us that His Word alone is
sufficient revelation—and in fact, the only
logical framework—from which we can understand and appreciate the universe
around us.

I agree the bible is a logical framework for science but there is no reason to restrict ourselves to an outdated interpretation of the bible. In science the facts speak for themselves, and the facts say; earth is 4.55 billion years old, man shares common ancestry with great apes, and that the universe is 13.7 billion years old. And biblical theology says; there is no reason for the curse to be extended beyond Mankind or for the days of creation to be interpreted as ordinary days.
Young Earth Creationism is unnecessary from both a scientific and theological perspective so why are we still supporting it in the year 2008?

Now if you object to this I am not closed to discussion, if it turns out that I am horribly wrong then I will gladly change my position on Genesis but for now I remain unconvinced.

By the way I must apologize for my lull in the number of posts I make. I have been really busy and I have been putting of updating this blog for a while, I'll try to be more persistant next time, sorry.

Christianity's fate at the hand of fundamentalists

I recently read a blogpost on the blog Jesus loves Everything; it was posted on October 10, 2005, at the time it was posted I was a space/astronomy creationist geek blissfully unaware of the enormity of the creation/evolution wars. Now even though it is archaic I am going to respond to it. The article claims science is evil and the cause of sexual immorality (now it is probably a parody but I'm board so I am going to refute it). Being a Christian who loves science, lets just see what this guy has to say.

I ask you, when you look around our towns and our cities, when you watch tv and
go to movies, what do you see? Pornography! It's everywhere, infesting our
public squares with scantily clad, whore-like Jezebells that tempt our sons and
daughters into sin.

Yes, its because society is obsessed with sex among other things.

IT didn't used to be this way. Our children weren't robbed of their innocence by
slickly (and slimly)produced television shows, music videos, and advertisements
beating down on them as surely as the sun beats down on sunbathers at the beach.
Britney Spears, Jessica Simpson -- they gyrate and flaunt their breasts,
practically throwing them in our faces so that we can't even look away. And this
dilemma -- this tragedy -- is even manifesting itself in our childrens' physical
appearance, as girls are growing breasts and menstruating at younger and younger
ages.

Alright, subtracting the other parts what does this guy mean by girls growing breasts at younger ages? Does Nathaniel realize that throughout history girls have begun to sexually mature and menstruate in their early teens?

What happened? How did we go from a small town country, where we waived to each
other on the street, worshipped together, and didn't have to worry about our
children being led into sin, into this cesspool? I think I've found the answer,
and it lays in our daughters' breasts. Science. It's science that's been
mutating our children, as we pump hormones and chemicals into our cattle and
poison the nation's food supply. And it's science that brought us television and
movies to warp our children's' minds with pornography, science that has created
a veritable bazaar of abortion to feed the Godless' appetite for stem cells. And
it will be science that creates the first cloned human being. Science,
therefore, is evil.

Science isn't the reason that there is so much immorality in the world. Humans have been given the freedom to use science either for good purposes such as finding ways to end world hunger, care for the environment, and cure cancer. Or to use it for their own selfish ends, it is not science that is the problem it is people that is the problem. And poisoning the food supply? What are you babbling about?

So what do we do? Surely this nation can't live without science, doubters will
undoubtedly say. But we can. Look at the state of America's economy today. We've
been outsourcing so many jobs to India and China, why wouldn't it be possible to
give them all of our science jobs. They are heathens and will always be
heathens, so let them be tempted by the sin that will surely follow.

Greeaat!!!! Lets not even try, lets just give up our position as one of the leading scientific nations in the world to become a third world country; famine, disease, and all! Welcome to Redneckistan!!!!! With people like you around, our nation and my religion is in deep trouble. Once we give up our economy is finished, when the next generation comes to take our place we will fall behind the rest of the world because they will not have adequate education. the United States will become just like Saudi Arabia, the scientific backwaters. Also the military will become less advanced with time because there will be no scientists to develop new technologies or sustain old ones; without science, America is doomed.

Instead of biotechnology and computer science, we can focus on Jesus Loves
Everything Superstores, reforming our economy so it's better prepared for the
end times.

And how are the two mutually exclusive? Haven't you ever read Genesis, if you have I think you need to review the creation mandate. God also tells us not to be like an ox and lack understanding like you clearly do.

Then we will no longer need to teach science in schools, thus depriving
our children of the seeds of doubt in the power of our Lord, that He created the
world in six days, and that we did not descend from apes.

You are pathetic, science is good, and compatible with the bible. You can believe in both, also we only share a common ancestor with apes.

Instead of science, our children can be taught the Bible and how to respect
authority; and when they get a little older, we can add instruction on how to be
a better Jesus Loves Everything Superstore Employee, so that when they are ready
to be sent off to work, they will be the best employees the world has ever seen.

The bible is for sunday school and comparative religion, science is for the science classroom, I believe in both the bible and science and I respect authority. And not every citizen of the United States can work in your stupid superstore (Note: this article may be in fact a parody considering he wants them to work at his store, or he could in fact be describing the church).

If Christians do not embrace science and reason, this is what shall become of us, irrational anti-science, cave-dwelling blockheads. We must not let this happen, God gave us brains for a reason, it is about time we used them and took science back. Nathaniel, the one who wrote the article is causing far more damage to his own religion then he thinks.

Ray Comfort: Adequate evangelist, lousy logician, scientist, philosopher, theologian, and even theoretician

You all remember Ray Comfort. Well on his blog he has written another not-all the way-thought-through post on his blog. Now before I explain the parts which I thought were dumb I will fist clarify that I think as far as evangelism goes, Ray is rather gifted, and that he's doing a good job.

However there are several problems which I cannot ignore in his ministry, one being his flawed attack on the evolutionary theory, and weak and the fact that his method of evangelism (appeal to fear) only really works on those who have already accepted the faith. Yet his ministry is addressed towards atheists.

Now lets analyze his blogpost, not everything he says is flawed but some of it I must address for the sake of his ministry's credibility. Here is the first question he answers;

Q1: Do you believe in microevolution? OF COURSE. WE SEE EVIDENCE OF IT ALL
AROUND US.

Well, good to know you believe in microevolution Ray, however I am not sure if you know the only distinction between macro and micro evolution is time.

Q2: Do you believe in natural selection? THAT DEPENDS ON YOUR DEFINITION.
GOD HAS CREATED A SYSTEM IN NATURE WHERE THE STRONGEST SURVIVE. THE LION EATS
THE LAMB

Well, I am we agree on at least one point in science I have no problem with this part.

Q3: Do you think that one can be both a Christian and an evolutionist? A
NEW
CHRISTIAN, YES. BUT AS HE OR SHE READS AND BELIEVES THE SCRIPTURES, HE (OR
SHE) WILL SEE THAT THE TWO ARE COMPLETELY INCOMPATIBLE.

Tell that the Francis Collins, many Christian converts believe in theistic evolution and reject his brand of creationism

Q4: Do you believe that the book of Genesis calls for a literal interpretation?
DEFINITELY. JESUS LITERALLY BELIEVED IT, SO DID THE APOSTLE PAUL.

I believe he is referring to the time when Jesus said to the pharisees, "Don't you remember that man was created in the beginning of creation male and female?" This seems compelling but on the other hand it seems to contradict young earth creationism, since even they say that it was at the end of creation that Adam and Eve were created, this probably not what Jesus is referring to. As I remember Paul said he believed in the flood, but I don't remember him saying he believed in a six day creation, in other words; [Scriptural citation needed]

Q5: Do you believe that the earth was created in 6,000 years? IT TOOK SIX DAYS.
HOWEVER, I HAVE NO IDEA HOW OLD THE EARTH IS.

This one is the first of-the-wall statement made, first of all the creation did not necessarily take six days, and he may not know but most creationists believe it is between 6,000 and 10,000 years old and most old earth creationists/theistic evolutionists and secular scientists understand it to be 4.55 billion years old.

Questions 6 through 9 aren't necessarily bad, I can accept them but question 12 I have several comments;

Q12: In one sentence what does it mean to you to "prove" something? I DON'T THINK HUMAN BEINGS CAN PROVE ANYTHING ABSOLUTELY. GOD, HOWEVER, CAN ABSOLUTELY PROVE HIMSELF TO THOSE WHO REPENT AND TRUST HIM.

Now it is true that we can never truly know anything, but we can to an extent know something. Science cannot absolutely prove something but it can provide enough evidence that it is almost beyond a shadow of a doubt true.

Some of the questions were good, however a few were a bit insufficient, hopefully he will be able to do better next time. Way of the Master could become a good organization but first they need to get all that anti-intellectualism out of their system. God created the human mind and he gave us good reasoning powers to understand him, there is no reason that we should oppose science.

Why the earth is 4.6 billion years old

This issue has been brought up many times, mainly I have given a theological perspective on why to believe in a 4-billion year old earth, of course that is getting old (no pun intended). In this article will explain why most scientists believe earth is 4.6 billion years old. Now I do not accept the current scientific thinking in these areas simply because I lack faith or because I don't want to "obey God's word," I would like nothing more then to have a belief on origins more consistent with my religious beliefs, but young earth creationism is not an option atleast not from a scientific perspective. And in this article I will show you why I think this way.

Proof 1; Radiometric dating

The first proof I must bring up is radiometric dating, now I can already hear some people saying, "The dating methods are completely inaccurate! The R.A.T.E. proved it. "

I hear your plea and will get to that in a moment, but first let me explain how radiometric dating works to those who are in the dark about it. Lets take the most famous type of radiometric dating which is known widely throughout young earth creationist circles, you've guessed it; Radiocarbon dating (I also left a link for those who want to know more about it from more professional sources). Radiocarbon dating is used to date objects within the realm of 60,000 years of age (so it obviously wouldn't be prove of a billion-year old earth). There are two stable carbon atoms in nature; carbon-12 and carbon 13. When cosmic rays enter the atmosphere they hit the stable carbon 12 atoms which become carbon 14 atoms. C-14 is ingested by plants for photosynthesis, they receive C-14 at a constant rate throughout their life, so do the animals that eat the plants. Now when an animal or plant dies no more C-14 is being consumed; what happens? You remember that C-14 is unstable and will eventually decay back into C-12. Well it has been calculated that it has a half-life of 5,730 years, meaning that in 5,730 years half of the C-14 in the organism will have decayed back into C-12 (this is an unsatisfying brief explanation if you want to know more about C-14 dating go the link I provided ). Other methods work about the same way; during a volcanic eruption the argon gas which Potassium (40-K) decays into escapes from the lava, then when the lava hardens all you have is potassium which decays into Argon (Ar-40) in 1.26 billion years, (a little longer then 10,000 years) this method is called Potassium-Argon dating.

Now I am sure several of you are exploding with anxiety especially since the two examples I gave are favourite targets of young earth creationists. One thing that is often brought up is wildly inaccurate dates. For example rock that had formed in the mount Saint Helens eruption in 1980, was dated at several million years. This has a simply explanation however; xenoliths are foreign sections of rock torn of a lava conduit during an eruption. The rock may be millions of year older then the lava itself. When the lava around the xenolith hardens it causes the otherwise young rock around it to look older then it really is, it turns out Mount Saint Helens incident was where a xenolith had hardened in the crust. There are many times where this happens; geologists recognize there are limitations to dating methods and do indeed understand they can be innacurate. However only about 100 out of 100,000 are inaccurate. This is in fact actually quite reliable; plus they are crosschecked with other dating techniques and as a result you get a pretty reliable date. Now that we know they are reliable, lets look at the problem for young earth creationism, the problem is blaring obvious. if these method are accurate then why do we have elements in the soil which form so slowly? Now you might also ask just how slow are we talking? Very, very slow;

Potassium-Argon = 1.26 billion years

Uranium-Lead = 4.47 billion years

Rubidium-Strontium = 50 billion years

These methods are also discussed here at the American Scientific Affiliation website.

If young earthers are right, then there shouldn't be anything which looks older then 6500 years. If you look at potassium it should look like only 6500 years worth of decay has been happening, not billions. And yet we do find elements which have been decaying for millions even billions of years. Now you could just say, "God created the universe to look old," and that's fine. But its not any more scientifically relevant then saying Queen Maeve the house cat created the universe last Thursday and created the world to look far older. Both positions are unfalsifiable. These beliefs are fine for believing something but if you want to make a scientific theory it needs to be testable. The "Appearance of Age" hypothesis is not testable and anything in science which is not testable cannot be inferred as a scientific idea, or a viable alternative to any scientific concept.

So the fact that the dating methods show an old earth is inescapable.

Proof 2; varves, sandstone deposits, and coral reefs.

Varves in case anyone doesn't know are bi-annual layers of silt that are deposited in lake bottoms. They have two layers, a thin fine layer and a thick coarser layer; the coarser layer is from the summer months since more water enters the lake from the heavy rain fall so larger particles can be moved into the lake. During the winter months there is less rain comes so there are smaller particles and finer layers. Now the obvious problem for young earth creationism is that there are lots of them, far more then would be expected if earth were 6,000 years old. One location where there are lots of varves is the green river valley formation; it has 3 million years worth of varves. If earth is only 6-10,000 years old it should have no more then 3-5,000 varves. Now there are many objections to this, most of them are covered here.

Sandstone deposits such as the Coconino sandstone were formed by wind deposition in a desert environment. It could not have formed during catastrophic flood. The problem comes in when you consider that over many sandstone deposits such as the one I just mentioned, where there are marine fossil deposits which were supposed to have formed in the flood; How could this be if they were formed in a world wide flood?

Coral reefs grow a little annually, in fact we can tell how old a coral is by how much it has grown. There are many coral reefs far older then the flood date (4400 years ago) that would be completely destroyed in the violent events of the flood and definitely not preserved. This appears to be an ever nagging problem for young earth creationists.

Proof 3; The universe indicates earth is old

The third and final proof I will give involves the entire universe. As you may know the universe is pretty large, the farthest galaxies being almost 14 billion lightyears away. The question that comes to mind when you consider this is, how the universe can be so young and look so old? Young Earth Creationists have scrambled to come up with the answer. Sure you can say God just made the universe to look that way; but when it comes to science that is irrelevant since it is non-falsifiable, now if you want to believe this go ahead, but when it comes to science we need to consider something which can be proven with science the Appearance of Age hypothesis cannot.

Conclusion

By the looks of it earth must be millions if not billions of years old and there isn't an escape hatch in sight. Hopefully this will be insightful, I may not have changed any of your minds but perhaps I have caused you to think about it.

Now of course if you disagree respond and debate (and yes Chris, that means you), perhaps you will change my mind, and perhaps you won't.

The saddest thing about anti-science Christians

I was at the Bad Astronomers blog. He has talked about Ray Comfort (the banana guy). Ray Comfort in his blog talked about the Phoenix probe landing on Mars. He talks how he thinks exploration is such a waste of time. For a natural theologian this seems surprisingly anti-science.

Now he does have a valid opinion that we should also be fixing problems on earth as well as be exploring space, but we have enough money to do both.

This highlights the saddest aspect of being an anti-science Christian as opposed to being a pro-science Christian. You miss the grandeur of the creation of God. You miss the expression of the creator's creativity, ingenuity, beauty, intelligence, and most of all the power of the God we claim to worship. Whether or not God created the the universe in six days or six ages of natural processes the universe shouts the glory of anyone who could make it.

Visit the Phoenix section at the NASA website. There are some pretty awesome pictures as well as stories. Someday humans may explore the surface, as well, we will leave and explore the universe leaving people like Ray Comfort behind.

Towards a synthesis between science and religion

At first this may seem like the average, "making faith compatible with science" rant which usually follows. In Christianity, the attempt to combine reason and faith goes back as far as the early church fathers if no earlier. One of the champions of this field was St. Augustine who did his best to bring the two in harmony.

But of course we mustn't only make faith compatible with science, but also make faith hospitable for science. In order for them to be truly compatible they must both contribute to each other.
This would be a science-compatible theology, where science and theology are mutually adding to and sustaining each other. Now atheists and agnostics don't necessarily have to worry about this having no reason to combine science and faith. However since religious people still have a fair amount of influence in the world so atheists and agnostics and other non-religious people would probably be interested in a theology which does not force all society to accept their worldview, or at least subtly enough that it would still be a choice whether or not to believe in God.

So the objective of a practical science-compatible theology would be;

-- to lay a strong philosophical foundation for science

--Generate intense interest in science

--to Give science the freedom they need to explore the natural world without undermining the authority of the theology

--Be able to differentiate between scientific and spiritual questions

Therefore this religion would allow science to prosper and thrive while contributing to the religion.

Of course if we are to know how faith and science are compatible we must not just reconcile the latest scientific research and the current paradigms but the basic philosophic assumptions by which both science and faith operate. Let us first examine the foundations of science which are;

Uniformity in nature -- In order for science to work there must be laws in nature that repeat themselves in predictable patterns. So that we can test, experiment with, and observe the laws. Uniformity in nature is very important for the scientific worldview.



Objective truth -- Postmodernism (one of its many meanings being that there is no objective reality) is almost the exact opposite of the scientific worldview which states that there is an objective reality. The reason is because in order for science to work there must be a reality which we can test all ideas against, if there is no objective reality science is worthless and the necessity of science is eliminated.

The reliability of the senses and human reason -- Reason is obviously important to science, reason is how we do science. In order for science to be a trustworthy method of finding truth, reason must be reliable; because science is all about using our reasoning powers to discover the world around us. If we cannot trust our reason then science is worthless, because science is built on that crucial assumption. Also the trustworthiness of our senses goes hand in hand with this assumption since that is how we get information about the world, which our reason uses to put together of the pieces of the puzzle of existence.

Now that we know the foundations of science, how do we marry it to the philosophical foundations of faith? well what are the philosophical foundations of faith?;

That there is a reality in which the human intellect is inapplicable-- This is essentially faith, being that human reason is unreliable in gaining knowledge of this unseen world at least can only come from revelation. Now at first, this may seem to make faith and science seem like two contradictory views. But then again it is only referring to the unseen reality in which the five senses are not reliable tools for examining that reality. This does not necessarily mean all reality is undecipherable to human reason.



That there is an unseen reality which ultimately affects our reality -- This is fundamental to Abrahamic faith, since it implies a force from another reality which engulfs our own in its power, and that what happens in the other reality ultimately affect what happens in this reality and vice verca.



Objective Truth -- This objective truth is truth not established by human opinion but by the force which comes from the unseen reality, it is truth which will not change no matter how much a man wants it to.



Absolute Truth -- Even more important to faith is absolute truth. This truth unlike the uncertain truth in science is absolute and unchanging, this aspect of faith is what draws so many people to it. This truth is not found by human reason by revealed by the force from the unseen reality. So therefore it cannot change, that would upset a cardinal philosophical pillar of faith.

How do we reconcile these two views? At first they seem to be exact opposites, science says human reason is reliable and faith says the opposite; however it is clear faith only deems the unseen supernatural realm as inaccessible to human reason, and knowable only through revelation. Also both science and faith operate by the same assumption that there is an objective truth.

Well the obvious question for the Christian is, "Does the bible support science?" The bible gives strong support for using nature for the benefit of Man (Genesis 1:28) which is the the best reason for science. Also there are several verses which imply the reliability of human reason when applied to nature. One is Job 12:7-8; But now ask the beasts, and let them teach you; And the birds of the heavens, and let them tell you. "Or speak to the earth, and let it teach you; And let the fish of the sea declare to you. This passage implies that our senses can be used to accurately understand the world. Also Romans 1:20 gives a clear indication that God expects us to be able to use our reason to determine his existence.

So we can say that the bible supports use of human reasoning skills from these two verses. The bible also supports uniformity in nature with passages like Genesis 8:22. Since the biblical God is unchanging and not whimsical in his moral judgements, it is not to much to extrapolate that he is not whimsical with natural law, thus allowing for science to exist. And obviously the bible supports the idea of an objective truth, otherwise the biblical worldview would be forfeit since it clearly states that there is only one truth.
So we find that;
--The bible supports objective truth
--the bible supports limited use of the mind when examining nature
--the bible supports uniformity in nature
--and the bible gives proper incentive for science.
So what would be the biblical reason for science? Well in Genesis 1:28 God gave us dominion of this planet and told us to develop it and to use its resources for our own benefit. Science is the best way to do this, at the same time science is the study of God's creation so it should be incredibly interesting to anyone who is interested in God. Because it is another revelation by which we may know God's face.

So ultimately faith and science are compatible, so let us work together to find truth. If science and religion can work together along these lines, one providing the philosophical foothold and the other gathering information about the world then we are on the right path towards reconcilliation.

A map of interstellar planets

Some of those reading this may be familiar with planetquest, which is part of an active search by astrobiologists (and yes that is a real scientific field) for earth like planets. It is a very interesting study which in which I plan to be involved. The reason I am mentioning this is because I found a really cool 3-D map of all the stars with planets orbiting them. So far only one planet small enough to be a terrestrial planet has been found so far (most are the size of Jupiter or the gas giants). Of course one of the gas giants in the habitable zone may have a large moon which harbors some form of life.

There are also some planets which have circular orbit which might mean there is a small undetectable earth sized planet orbiting that star. You see, a Jupiter sized planet in a very eccentric (comet-like) orbit would carry off any poor unsuspecting earth like planets into the far reaches of its Solar System making it inhospitable for life. So if there are no Jupiter sized planets in eccentric orbit there might be a planet orbiting the star which is earth like or perhaps a large moon orbiting the Jupiter like planet capable of harboring life.

Many of these worlds could be future homes for our descendants

AAAS on Expelled

Being that I will be out of town for the next week I will close with a comment on what my fellow evolution-supporting Christians think of Ben Stein's Expelled.

It is rather insightful, although some may think of it as old.

Expelled, a review from theistic evolutionist's perspective

And so I begin? Where I probably should, at the beginning with (an introduction); it all started on Sunday when during service at my church, the pastor came up and said someone was going to be speaking on the movie "Expelled; No intelligence allowed!" Now I have talked about it in the past, although mostly I talked about its producer Ben Stein. Well the person said it was going to be at a nearby theater and that the church was invited.



This caused my youth-pastor to cancel leadership (when the youth group gets together each Tuesday to plan whats going to happen at the high school and to talk about one and others walk in the faith) and instead we were going to see the movie. Well I got there a half hour before it started, most of the people there were from my church or the school which is connected to the church. Well after waiting half an hour the video started. The opening seen showed pictures of Nazi Germany, the Berlin wall, etc. Then it opened onto a stage where Ben Stein came out to speak.



At first I was afraid this would ruin the entire experience. But he started talking about freedom, and how our nation is built on freedom, and how without freedom, we wouldn't be America. I agree to all these statements, moving forward.



He then starts talking about a movement in the scientific community to suppress Intelligent Design (whether or not this is true will be decided soon). He talks of people who had their lives ruined and were fired from their jobs simply because they mentioned the word Intelligent Design (well, we'll see...)



He starts with Richard Sternberg, who worked at the Smithsonian institute until about two years ago. Then he published an article by Stephen Meyers which caused a bit of trouble. He claims that he was unjustly fired and his career ruined. Now if this is true then I am appalled. Nonetheless we must look at both sides, other reliable sources say otherwise, here is an excerpt from an article on Expelled Exposed;

"Sternberg did not lose his office or his access to collections, he did not lose
his job, he was not “fired” from the (unpaid) editorship of the journal (he had
resigned six months before the publication of the Meyer article), and from the
e-mails in the appendix to the Souder report, it appears that his colleagues
were civil in their communications with him. The Smithsonian renewed his
Research Collaborator status for another three years in 2006. It seems, then,
that the worst that happened to Sternberg is that people said some unkind things
about him in private email to one another. Since the same can be said of almost
every person, it’s hard to see how this could be construed as “life ruining”.
There is no evidence of any material harm done to Sternberg as a result of the
publication of the Meyer article. And any damage done to his reputation would
seem to have been self-inflicted.

This does not sound like his life was being ruined, or that he was immediately fired from his job. Also there is another problem, he claims it was peer-reviewed, and that's true-well...sort of...

"The first question asked by BSW members was “how did this paper ever get
published?” According to the Council of the Biological Society of
Washington, Sternberg failed to follow proper procedure in publishing the
paper: “Contrary to typical editorial practices, the paper was published without
review by any associate editor; Sternberg handled the entire review process. The
Council, which includes officers, elected councilors, and past presidents, and
the associate editors would have deemed the paper inappropriate for the pages of
the Proceedings because the subject matter represents such a significant
departure from the nearly purely systematic content for which this journal has
been known throughout its 122-year history.” The BSW withdrew the paper in
embarrassment, emphasizing that the paper was substandard science. It commented
that the society endorsed “a resolution on ID published by the American
Association for the Advancement of Science (http://www.aaas.org/news/releases/2002/1106id2.shtml), which
observes that there is no credible scientific evidence supporting ID as a
testable hypothesis to explain the origin of organic diversity. Accordingly, the
Meyer paper does not meet the scientific standards of the Proceedings.”"

His article contrary to his claim did not meet the peer-review requirements, he didn't even send a copy of it to those more qualified them him to review it, an excerpt from science blogger Ed Brayton;

"Systematics (the study of taxonomy) is the subject of the PBSW and it is the
subject of Sternberg’s expertise, but it is not the subject of Meyer’s paper.
The primary subject of the paper is the Cambrian explosion and, ostensibly,
bioinformatics as it pertains to the origin of the higher phyla. This is not the
focus of Sternberg’s research, nor does it have much of anything to do with
systematics other than an obligatory discussion of how many phyla and sub-phyla
originated during the Cambrian. The most appropriate reviewers, then, would be
paleontologists. Among the associate editors at the time (and still today) was
Gale Bishop, an expert in invertebrate paleontology. There were three other
specialists on invertebrates among the associate editors as well, including
current PBSW editor Stephen Gardiner, Christopher Boyko and Janet Reid, all
specialists in invertebrate zoology (the Cambrian fauna was almost entirely made
up of invertebrates). Yet Sternberg felt no need to let any of those people, all
more qualified than him on the subject, even look at the paper, or even make
them aware of its existence. He may not have been under any formal obligation to
send the article to someone with a specialty in Cambrian paleontology, but that
is both the professional and the ethical thing to do."

Whether by chance or by design (no pun intended) Richard Sternberg didn't exactly deserve the grace he was in fact given, the science he promoted wasn't good science. He did not make a good case for Intelligent Design unfortunately. I feel like saying, "Keep trying IDers, your getting there, but your not accepted as a legitimate scientific movement yet."

During this time I wouldn't say everything was peaceful; as I watched it is sure was convincing, my old young earth creationist side kicked in, the amount of creationism entering my brain reached critical mass and my brain cells began to self-destruct one by one. 25% through the video I felt really sorry for what I had said about Ben Stein earlier, I began to think to myself "You are a traitor! You have sold out to the enemy! If you lived in medieval times you would be drawn and quartered!" I had nothing but sympathy for those who were expelled, non-ID scientists were made to look like such dogmatic anti-religious fools that I wanted to sock them in the nose saying "Has your brain been replaced by a very small califlower!?"

Either way it is up to you decide whether or not I was thinking clearly.

The next person was Caroline Crocker who said that after she after mentioned Intelligent Design she was fired and blacklisted. Now if this is true then may those who did this be beaten by a severely hormonally pregnant woman with a volcanic temper and a very skilled hand at pitchforking. But we must see the other side, she claims that she was immediately fired from her job and I would like nothing better then to believe her, but professional sources say otherwise;

"Crocker’s position at George Mason University (GMU) was a non-tenure track
contract position in which the employee teaches on a course-by-course basis for
a set length of time, with no guarantee of a renewal. Universities commonly use
such “contingent faculty”, and, while not being brought back for another term
may be the result of inadequate performance, it most commonly is the result of
staffing needs: whether or not an individual’s expertise is needed at a
particular time, or whether regular faculty can handle the load for the
particular semester. Tenured and tenure track faculty make up only 31.9% of
university teaching jobs in the United States, so Crocker’s situation was
not unusual. In fact, overlapping with her contract at GMU, she held another contract position to teach at Northern Virginia Community
College.
Despite claims of being fired, Crocker was allowed to continue
teaching and complete her GMU contract after the Department became aware of her
ID instruction through student complaints. She was instructed to not teach about
intelligent design and creation science, which was not part of the curriculum of
the courses she had been hired to teach. Academic freedom does not mean the
freedom to teach about anything you want, regardless of the expected content of
your courses. And, far from having her academic career “come to an abrupt end”,
after leaving GMU, Crocker taught at NVCC, and additionally acquired in 2006 a
postdoctoral position at the Uniformed Services University in Bethesda, MD,
working on T-cell signal transduction – an actual scientific investigation –
suggesting that her reputation as a scientist was unaffected by the controversy
over intelligent design."

It seems that she either severely misinterpreted it or well...either way, this claim that she was fired for even mentioning her job is also inaccurate. In fact she was allowed to continue teaching Intelligent Design even though she was using faulty, discredited creationist arguments which frankly I would not expect from a person like her;

"In the above-mentioned article in the Washington Post, Crocker is described teaching her students a
laundry list of discredited Creationist arguments. In a
video on the Coral Ridge Ministries site, several of Crocker’s slides are
shown. Though it’s not known whether Crocker used the same slides while teaching
at George Mason, the Washington Post article provides evidence that they were
part of her Northern Virginia Community College lectures. Her use of these
slides suggests that Crocker shows either a shocking ignorance of evolutionary
science, or a rather shameless willingness to distort the evidence"

The exact arguments she used were arguments, many of which not even Answers in Genesis uses anymore! This is an Intelligent Design Advocate who is not supposed to be a creationist, the arguments she used are;
--the Archaeopterix was a fraud
--Eohippis (the proposed evolutionary ancestor of horse) is really a modern day Hirax (they are obviously two completely different animals).
--she misquoted Stephen J. Gould on speciation
--She said the peppered moth experiment was hoax.

All of these are false discredited creationist claims, I am ashamed at Professor Crocker's intellectual behavior.

He next mentions Robert Marks III, a tenured professor who had his research website shut down for supporting Intelligent Design, although this isn't actually the case;

"Robert Marks’s “Evolutionary Informatics Laboratory” website – touting
intelligent design – was originally hosted on a Baylor University server.
Concerned that the material on the website misleadingly suggested a connection
between the intelligent design material and Baylor, administrators temporarily
shut the website down while discussing the issue with Marks and his lawyer.
Baylor was willing to continue hosting the website subject to a number of
conditions (including the inclusion of a disclaimer and the removal of the
misleading term “laboratory”), but Marks and Baylor were unable to come to
terms. The site is currently hosted by a third-party provider."

it was not nearly as Nazi-like as Expelled portrays it;

"Given this history, it was consistent for Baylor to be sensitive to attempts to
portray it as sponsoring intelligent design: the science departments have been
reluctant to be associated with a field they consider unscientific, and the
issue has been a source of strife at Baylor for several years. In any event, the
worst that happened to Professor Marks was that he had to remove his web site
from Baylor’s webserver. In no other way was his free speech impinged, nor have
his work conditions changed in any way: he remains a Distinguished Professor of
Electrical and Computer Engineering at Baylor, holding a full professorship in
the School of Engineering and Computer Science. He continues to teach his
courses and conduct research. Where is the harm?"

Ben Stein also interviews Guillermo Gonzalez, Gulliermo also says it was because of his association with Intelligent Design. However it was in fact associated more with his declining publishing and research record as well as the lack of graduate students he had and those he had mentored;

"Gonzalez’s publication output dropped steadily during his time at ISU. The work
he did publish was based on re-evaluations of data he had previously collected
or analyses of other people’s data.
An
assessment by the Chronicle of Higher Education (subscription required)
found that:
…a closer look at Mr. Gonzalez’s case raises some questions about
his recent scholarship and whether he has lived up to his early promise.
…
Under normal circumstances, Mr. Gonzalez’s publication record would be
stellar and would warrant his earning tenure at most universities, according to
Mr. Hirsch [a scholar who analyzed the publication record]. But Mr. Gonzalez
completed the best scholarship, as judged by his peers, while doing postdoctoral
work at the University of Texas at Austin and at the University of Washington,
where he received his Ph.D. His record has trailed off since then.
“It looks
like it slowed down considerably,” said Mr. Hirsch…. “It’s not clear that he
started new things, or anything on his own, in the period he was an assistant
professor at Iowa State.”
That pattern may have hurt his case. “Tenure review
only deals with his work since he came to Iowa State,” said John McCarroll, a
spokesman for the university.
When considering a tenure case, faculty
committees try to anticipate what kind of work a professor will accomplish in
the future. “The only reason the previous record is relevant is the extent to
which it can predict future performance,” said Mr. Hirsch. “Generally, it’s a
good indication, but in some cases it’s not.”
David L. Lambert, director of
the McDonald Observatory at Texas, supervised Mr. Gonzalez during his
postdoctoral fellowship there in the early to mid-1990s. … [H]e is not aware of
any important new work by Mr. Gonzalez since he arrived at Iowa State, such as
branching off into different directions of research. “I don’t know what else he
has done,” Mr. Lambert said. …
Mr. Gonzalez said he does not have any grants
through NASA or the National Science Foundation, the two agencies that would
normally support his research…. He arrived at Iowa State in 2001, but none of
his graduate students there have thus far completed their doctoral work
That
even Gonzalez’s former academic advisors expressed doubts about his performance
at ISU suggests that this is a serious issue. It is worth noting that the
decline in his publication rate corresponds to the time when he started putting
time into an intelligent design project that has produced no peer-reviewed
results. This includes his work on The Privileged Planet and his collaboration
with old-earth creationist Hugh Ross from the ministry Reasons to Believe (for
instance: http://www.firstthings.com/article.php3?id_article=2612 and http://www.reasons.org/resources/fff/2002issue09/index.shtml#rare_sun).
According
to another analysis of his publication record which includes a
graph of his publication productivity:
Gonzalez had a very successful postdoc
with a good research group, and that carried over to his first faculty
appointment at University of Washington, where he continued to collaborate with
his old colleagues from his Ph.D. and postdoc. However, he peaked in 1999, and
the decline began even while he was still at the University of Washington. Even
more pronounced than the drop in publications is the complete bottom-out in
first authorships that is almost sustained throughout his entire probationary
period leading up to tenure.
So ISU Physics [would be] stuck with a guy who
publishes hardly any papers as primary author, whose publication list contracts
once he strikes out on his own, and, perhaps most importantly, who doesn’t
publish with new colleagues. New tenure-track investigators … absolutely MUST
take an active role in pursuing one another’s research interests in order to
stretch meager funds as far as possible.
In addition to his declining publication record and his failure
to mentor graduate students to completing their programs, it is also notable
that Gonzalez brought in far fewer research grants than his colleagues. The
average tenured faculty in the ISU physics and astronomy department brought in
$1.3 million in grants during their first six years. Gonzalez brought in, at
most, $200,000 during the same amount of time, $64,000 of which was used to pay
a doctoral student at a different university and $58,000 of which was for his
intelligent design book The Privileged Planet. In 2007, Gonzalez told the Ames Tribune that “he was told, beginning with his
three-year tenure review in 2004, that he needed to bring in more research
funding. He added he heard the same message in reviews every year since, as
well. He has made the effort, he said, submitting two grant applications per
year, but to no avail.”"

It was only because of his declining academic record and the fact that tenur at ISU is notoriously hard to achieve. Besides being that he is an Astronomer even if there is a movement out to get ID advocates all fired and denied tenure, why would he matter? He's an astronomer and the current theory of Intelligent Design is a biological theory, which i agree with its premise but not necessarily with every aspect of the theory.

Anyway he talks about two more people who were, as they claim persecuted, one of them being physician Michael Egnor. Engor apparently wrote an essay so dammaging to "Darwinism" that the they had to call the gestapo and [thick German accent] Exterminate the enemy of the furor! [end of thick German accent]. Well according to one post (excuse its harsh language) it was not a problem at all;

"After my having written repeated debunkings of various physicians who are creationists (mostly of the “intelligent design” variety), in
retrospect I should have seen this one coming. I should have seen that the
Discovery Institute, eager to use anyone they can find whom they can represent
to the public as having scientific credentials (never mind whether those
credentials have anything to do with evolutionary biology) and thus dupe the
public into seeing them as having authority when they start laying down ignorant
brain farts about how they “doubt Darwinism,” would settle on physicians. After
all, as I have pointed out before, until recently medical schools taught little
about evolutionary biology (that is, if they taught anything at all about it),
and as a result all too many physicians, particularly the ones whose
undergraduate majors were not biology, tend to be no more knowledgeable about
evolution than your average lawyer….
The reason that a contest with such a
topic was thought to be a good idea, I’d guess, is because evolution-ignorant
creationists like Dr. Egnor are constantly attacking evolution in a manner that
you don’t see other of the basic sciences that form the basis of medicine ever
being attacked. – “Orac”, an oncologist and surgeon, in Train wreck, thy name is Egnor! Blog post, Respectful
Insolence."

--

"What’s going on here is that Egnor dislikes evolution and is
hoping to de-emphasize its importance. Why? It is possible that he earnestly and
sincerely believes that evolution has not contributed to his art. It is possible
that he earnestly and sincerely believes that recognizing the validity of
evolution would render his life meaningless or without value. It is possible he
is a cynical liar and he wants no readers of the Discovery Institute Ministry of
Media Complaints who credit his perspectives to enter or do well in medical
school. (Hey, if true, he wouldn’t be the first surgeon who knew better
about evolution but still advocated for ID only to make a buck, gain a
little influence, or exhibit some sort of other ulterior motive.) Whatever his
motivations may be, readers should not credit his testimony: he is at least dead
wrong.
Further, his perspectives are very difficult to distinguish from
ignorance advocacy. Egnor first came to attention when a blogger at Time
magazine criticized him for not being an expert in evolution. He has stated that
he does not use evolution, but this is more an admission of a willful disregard
for the evolution he does use and upon which his art is based. Taken together,
along with his assurance that the only contribution evolution has made to
medicine was eugenics, his writings bespeak the dangerous combination of
ignorance and arrogance, traits altogether common with creationists, but that
shine in Dr. Egnor to such an extent that a neologism should bear his namesake.”
– Burt Humburg, a physician, in Egnorance: The Egotistical Combination of Ignorance and
Arrogance. Blog post, The Panda’s Thumb."

Now people on blogs said a lot of nasty things about him on the internet and I do not plan to follow suit, he says he was surprized by the visciousness of the thing written about him. I being a Christian and descdent human being will say he was simply mistaken. But some of those atheist and science bloggers are mean! Egnor shouldn't be surprized that articles about him are often 38% made up of swearing and cursing.

Then next part of the video talks about how the science establishment is suppressing freedom of thought, after analyzing their claims this seems shaky at best but it is true there is a movement to destroy religion. The next part has less to do with interviews and more to do with Intelligent Design versus Evolution. It is time to differentiate between what I agreed with in the next part of the movie and on what I points disagreed.

I agree;
--that there is some evidence one way or another of Intelligent Agency in the universe
--that the scientists don't always do a very good job at explaining how they think life began through natural causes
--that Atheism and Philosophical Naturalism are inherently metaphysical and unprovable
--that many atheists are incorrectly equating atheism with science and trying to create a flase dichotomy of sorts
-- that there is an active movement among atheists to devalue religion.
--that science (Evolution in particular) can be used to rationalize evil deeds such as killing off the weak

I disagree;
--That Intelligent Agency is incompatible with evolution and the current scientific theories
--That science that can't attempt to give natural explanations whih may help our understanding of a deity and how he created the universe.
--that Evolution is religious, evolution can be tested and validated/falsified by genetic genealogy, the fossil record, structural homology therefore it is a science, Naturalism (which one could argue evolution is based off of) on the other hand is an unfalsifiable philosophical system.
--that evolution rules out the possibility of the existence of a deity and that we should equate the evolutionary paradigm ultimately to atheism; By doing that we are simply letting the atheists win.
--that Evolution ultimately leads to Eugenics, Nazism, and Racism. Also I should probably point out that religion and philosophy can also be used to rationalize evil.

Among all of these I will only touch upon two; Evolution being ultimately atheistic, and of Darwin's ideas leading to Nazism.

Many have made fun of this concept that it ultimately leads to Nazism, but lets look at why they think this.

Eugenics is the attempt to make Mankind a better species by getting rid of the defective genes (farmers have done this for thousands of years with their animals). In doing this one must sterilize or kill those with defective genes in order to stop them from breeding. Now Natural Selection is "survival of the fittest." It is natures method selecting those with the best genes and the best advantages in a particular environment, it is for the good of the species. Natural Selection utlimately decides which organism will survive by which ones are able reproduce.

So yes it could work from evolution.

Now Nazism interestingly enough orignates from the occult, it grew partially out of an idea known as Ariosophy (as well as several other beliefs such as Theozoology and Armanism) which stated that the Germans were the pure "Aryan race." The Aryan race was actually supposed to be the race which came from Atlantis who were supposed to have been the most advanced people on earth. And the Germans were supposed to be the purest branch of the Aryan race. Hitler thought he needed to get rid of all the impurities in Jews and other peple who were not close to pure Aryan. Another idea which permeates Nazism is Theozoology which was made up by an Ex-Cistercian monk named Jörg Lanz-Liebenfels. It stated that God created two races, the Ape-like Animal people and the God-like Aryan people. And the Aryan women were overpowered by sxually active Ape-men which made the rce impure; so They needed to purify it. Now Htiler probably didn't hold most of these bizarre beliefs but he definitely did base his ideology off of them.

So at first glance Nazism and Eugenics seem to fit hand and glove with Evolution but wait a minute; evolution says diversity is better because then you have more of chance to survive becaue you will have more advantages. If you keep the line pure without interbreeding then the species will eventually become 100% homozygous and any change in condition could doom that species. So the entire premise behind Nazism of keeping the race pure doesn't dit evolution since evolution favors diversity. Also these ideas came out of religious beliefs not scientific theories (such as Manichaeanism and Occultism), they have nothing but a similar premise to do with evolution.

Also the Eugenics Hitler was using was fallacious because it turns out Ashkenazi Jews are some of the smartest more productive people on the planet, a total of 28% of Nobel Prize winners are composed of Jews.

And now to the subject of evolution, science, and atheism being in conflict. People like Richrd Dawkins, Daniel Dennett, William Provine, and PZ Myers are the ones who want to see religion wiped of the face of the planet. They want you to think science is against and out to destroy religion. They don't want you to think you can believe in ID and Evolution. They want to see you and I as atheists. Of course they are going to make it look like most supporters of evolution are atheists. Of course they want to make it look like its either church or the laboratory. Here are just a few theistic (Christian) supporters of evolution
Scientists
--Kenneth Miller
--Francis Collins
--Theodosius Dovsansky
--Pierre Teilhard De Chardin (athough his theology was really out there in the ozone layer)
Theologians, philosophers and other non-scientists
--B.B. Warfield
--Billy Graham
--Charles Hodge
--There are also many other names mentioned in the Clergy letter project

You can believe in Intelligent Design, God, and Evolution all at once even, evolution and God are not incompatible.

Evolution only rules out young earth creationism. It does not rule out God despite what Dawkins says. There are reasons to believe in God despite the fact that evolution (speaking of macroevolution in particular) might be true. The attack on the belief in both God and evolution is only an attempt to try to get theists into the ID or Creationism category and to clear the middle of the road. The radicals on the other end of the spectrum are trying to do the same thing.

Ultimately we must decide by objectively looking at both sides and judicially considering the facts, and finally comming to a conclusion with our God-given reason. It is ultimately up to you whether you take the atheist stance, the ID or Creationist stance, or if you take the Theistic Evolutionist stance.

I found I actually agreed with a surprizing amount of the video, although I still see several glaring flaws. The entire point of the video is to say Intelligent Design advocates are being persecuted and denied their academic rights. And my response it, "You not being persecuted, you are not being fair, come on out and tells us your position, lets bring it on..."

Now for the epilogue. The video ended with a few ID advocates as well as theologian Steven Kini came out to each say something bout Intelligent Design. Naturally I asked a question about evolution listened to them finish. Then I went home and immediately started writing this blogpost.

I hope the intended message is given that I am not against the general idea of Intelligent Design, I simply think the IDers have done a bad job so far, and that they should do better.

Well take out the fact that Ben Stein sort of needs to do a little more research the movie was actually rather interesting, but it did have some untruths and so I would caution my fellow Christians before giving it their wholehearted support.

"Test all things and hold fast to what is good," -- The Apostle Paul, 2 Thessalonians 5:21.