Telling the truth about Blacks (or Whites) is not a good career move since most people want to be comfortable and don’t want confrontation and conflict from anyone at any time. It seems black fanatics demand that they not be held to the same standard as Whites. That kind of thinking used to be known as racism. It still is.

It seems I am not “sensitive” to the feelings of others when I deal with famous black leaders. Political correctness requires us to not repeat facts, easily substantiated facts, if those facts might offend others, especially minorities. I refuse to play such childish games.

I have always been critical of civil rights leaders who seemed to be more interested in “a buck and a broad” (their term) than in equal rights while young idealistic acolytes lost their lives in the civil rights struggle. Many of those “reverends” (who seldom preached the Gospel and did not believe the Bible) used the ministry to con gullible Blacks to their cause. And at times managed to accomplish something positive. While it was past time for Blacks to have the same rights as Whites, it was not good that Blacks began receiving special treatment at the expense of white people. After all, if discrimination was and is wrong against Blacks (and it was and is) then discrimination against Whites was and is also wrong. But I’m not supposed to say that.

About this time the government forced its way into every business to enforce civil rights laws and began to regulate salary, benefits, working hours, hiring and firing standards, etc. Many think that was good for America; I think it was a major tragedy. The government has no constitutional authority to set any standards for business unless tax money was used to start the business. Yes, it did provide jobs for minorities but business owners lost the freedom to run their own business.

Preachers King and Abernathy did not believe the Bible they quoted, as their public statements and writings easily prove. Hypocrites such as Jesse Jackson and Al Sharpton would have been tarred and feathered in earlier days. However, it seems to be prima facie evidence that my making the statements–that all informed people know to be true–proves racism!

When I took the position that forced busing of school children was insensitive, intrusive, and insane I was called a racist by Indiana Democrats and leftist Republicans. I said that it was an insult to Blacks to suggest that they would do better in school if they sat in the same classroom with white students.

When I said that abortion was killing a huge proportion of black babies and it would be devastating to black families I was right then, as I am now.

When I said that black students must stay in school, get a job, any job, work hard, get married and have babies, I was right. In 1965, 25% of black births were out of wedlock. Today, 72% of all black births in the US are out of wedlock! That is compounded by the Huffington Post reporting, “There is nothing ‘immoral’ or ‘pathological’ about deciding not to marry.” Even if one agrees (and I don’t) that making bastard babies is not immoral, then surely all sane people believes it is pathological.

When I suggested that black men should stop fathering illegitimate babies and stay faithful to their wives rather than selling dope, looting stores, and mugging others I was right. And black men have filled our prisons as a consequence.

Ben Carson is a fantastic example of one coming out of Detroit’s inner-city because of a concerned mother (a third-grade dropout who worked three jobs at the same time) who instilled character in him. If he can make it, then anyone can make it. Did I mention that Ben is black?

Non-thinking fanatics tell us that any criticism of Barack Obama is positive proof of racism but it might be that his policies are so leftist, they would make Marx, Lenin, and Stalin stand up and cheer.

I said that Attorney General Eric Holder was/is a wild-eyed racist dedicated to defend anything blacks do no matter how guilty they are. His replacement seems to be a female clone.

Even if decent people disagree with some political decisions mentioned above, no honest person, black or white, can defend the vicious racist tirade of Louis Farrakhan, head of the Nation of Islam–known as black Muslims. If a clown in the KKK had said the same thing about killing blacks that Louie said about killing whites, the KKK member would not put on his sheet for many years because they don’t have sheets in the pokey. Where are the media on this?

Our nation has experienced many unnecessary conflicts between police officers and young black men with too many blacks being killed. In every incident a death would not have occurred had the young man obeyed police orders. That problem is not a police problem but a home problem. Obviously parents are not teaching their children to obey them, school officials, or the police resulting in chaos in the home, in our schools, and in our streets.

It is also interesting that in every case, the dead youth is touted by family and friends as a “good” boy, “kind,” and “gentle.” But then the police record reveals that he was more of a thug than an eagle scout who has committed himself to lifetime celibacy, poverty, and working with lepers in the world’s last leper colony in Romania.

America’s homes–black, white, Hispanic, etc.—are all in trouble. However, single parent homes statistically are in worse condition because of the lack of disciple. Of course, a dash of Bible training in home, church, and school would be a major improvement. Sure couldn’t hurt.

Folks, it is time for honesty, to treat all people with kindness, respect, and equality. It’s time to hold ourselves to a standard of personal honor, excellence, duty, kindness, tolerance, and not question the motives of those who disagree with us.

It’s still shocking to know that Ben Carson is a black man!

(Boys’ new book, The God Haters was recently published by Barbwire Books; to get your copy of The God Haters click here . An eBook edition is also available.)

Nye did not explain why he perceived a Creation scientist would be somehow less productive at creating new innovation. He did not provide a single demonstration of how the creation scientist is a lesser scientist. Nye claimed children taught creationism would be stunted (fall behind in the world) and the U.S. would fall behind in scientific advancements, but he said nothing to substantiate his claim. However, Ken provided impressive evidence that creationism does not restrict scientists from being very productive in scientific achievement.

Nye was a fool to agree to the debate location. He was obviously in hostile territory although the crowd was the most disciplined of any debate I have seen or participated in. Nye came across as a cheerleader for education and seemed to enjoy himself even while he was losing the debate! Maybe he was delighted at being on the same stage with a creation scientist! It gave him some credibility! Or possibly he was delighted in making Ham look like a fool–he thought.

Nye’s reference to his bow tie and his grandfather was totally unnecessary, unsophisticated and proved him unacquainted with appropriateness. Both Bill and Ken appeared to be as uncomfortable as a dog in hot ashes. That surprises me since Bill’s television experience should have prepared him for any kind of exposure. Of course, his lack of knowledge and the venue would contribute to his discomfort.

Ken’s unease is understandable. He is thoroughly informed but inexperienced in debate. He also seemed to want to appear as “Mr. Nice Guy,” but there has to be some confrontation, even conflict in a debate. The early Christians were militant in their beliefs and in their confrontation with Caesar. Historian Will Durant admitted that Christ and Caesar met in the arena and Christ won. Christ won because His disciples were militant–not irresponsible, but militant. However, responsible militancy is abhorrent today even to many Fundamentalists, but at one time it was one of their trademarks.

The debate was supposed to be “Is creation a viable model of origins in today’s modern scientific era?” Ham permitted Nye to take control and direct the debate into another and less important direction. While the age of the earth is very important, that was not the focus. Same with the Flood. That issue is vital; however, how the Ark was constructed and the astronomical number of animals alleged to be on board were not. Origins were not discussed.

Ham could have scored big by providing evidence of a global flood such as major river basins in the world that display evidence of a much higher waterline. Additionally, billions of sea creatures have been found on the tops of the highest mountains and the fact of millions of various animal fossils found buried in the same location in many places of the world. The fact is elephants and lions, and foxes, and sharks don’t go to the same place to die. However, they do if they are being churned around in a violent, catastrophic flood.

Moreover, Ken did not deal with animals leaving the Ark and ending up in Australia. Even without a possible land bridge, scientists are aware of floating land masses. Remember, it was a massive, convulsive, destructive flood and masses of land with various animals could easily have floated to Australia and New Zealand.

Ken made a major mistake when he did not respond to Nye’s ridiculous suggestion that every land plant on earth was in the Ark. Noah did not take the plants on the Ark since they could easily survive the Flood via seeds and roots. Besides, God made His intentions clear in Gen. 6:17 when He said, “And, behold, I, even I, do bring a flood of waters upon the earth, to destroy all flesh, wherein is the breath of life.” Plants don’t have “the breath of life.”

Ken could have hit the ball out of the park with the issue of the Grand Canyon. He should have reminded Nye that there are strata missing and other places where recent layers are far below older rock! How can strata be missing? Where did they go? How did they get there? Moreover, how is it scientifically possible for young rocks to be found much lower and under old rocks?

Ken failed in not responding to Nye’s sarcastic question about fish being sinners since they had tumors. That would have been the ideal place for Ken to inform his opponent that the world was at one time perfect when people and animals lived in harmony and no one got cancer. Then came the Fall and the Curse and the Curse was upon all creation so men and fish were subject to the Curse–not because they had individually rebelled against God as did Adam and Eve.

The biggest mistake Ken made was in not devastating Nye with the hammer that he handed Ham. Nye asked if Ham was sure that life can not arrive from non-living matter? Ken should have aggressively forced Nye to confess that he [Nye] did believe, contrary to true science, in spontaneous generation. Here, Ken should have ridiculed such stupid, anti-science drivel. I would have said, “You evolutionists ridicule the fact that God created man out of dust yet you believe that life arose from a planet of rock.”

Such an encounter would have made Ney look like a mule at the Kentucky Derby!

Nevertheless, I am delighted with the debate. For sure, this was not a Scopes Trial, 2014. Ken Ham was far more informed than William Jennings Bryan and I am proud to be identified with Ken.

(My column tomorrow will deal with the original intent of the debate: “Is creation a viable model of origins in today’s modern scientific era?” My basic premise is that creationism has the answers to many scientific problems rather than evolution.)

http://bit.ly/1iMLVfY  Watch these 8 minute videos of my lecture at the University of North Dakota: “A Christian Challenges New Atheists to Put Up or Shut Up!”

Copyright 2014, Don Boys, Ph.D.

Richard Dawkins and his rabble are fearful of this coming encounter. Some evolutionists are even preparing excuses for Nye’s defeat: “He only has a bachelor’s degree.” “He’s an engineer, not a biologist.” Others have said that Nye will treat the debate as a joke, but if so, the joke will be on him.

Dawkins has interjected himself into this debate by pontificating: “They [creationists] want to be seen on a platform with a real scientist, because that conveys the idea that here is a genuine argument between scientists.” Only a fool, a falsifier, or fanatic declares that all scientists are in agreement on the issue of origins! One major, obvious disagreement is between Neo-Darwinists and punctuated equilibrium devotees. Of course, the huge difference is between those scientists who believe in evolution and those scientists who believe in creationism–there are thousands of them!

Dawkins has said that “Scientists should not debate creationists. Period.” In that, Dawkins is right, at least from their perspective because they almost always lose the debates!

Dawkins added incorrectly, “They [creationists] may not win the argument–in fact, they will not win the argument, but it makes it look like there really is an argument to be had.” Sorry, Dick, you are in a dream world. Dawkins got wounded when an Australian film producer asked him a question about the origin of information and Dick was silent for 19 minutes (not 11 as reported) before he came up with an answer that did not relate to the question! Now, he is denying it happened! And Dawkins has the audacity to say of creationists, “Their dishonesty stops nowhere.” I think Dawkins’ honesty has never started.

Concerning evolution/creation debates, famous evolutionist Niles Eldredge confessed in his book, Monkey Business, “The creationists nearly always win….Creationists today–at least the majority of their spokesmen–are highly educated, intelligent people. Skilled debaters, they have always done their homework. And they nearly always seem better informed than their opponents, who are reduced too often to a bewildered state of incoherence.” So, it’s no surprise that evolutionists are concerned about the “Shoot-out at the O.K. Corral” in Kentucky.

Since Ken and I are on the same team, I will provide him some unsolicited advice (although I’m sure he is “loaded for bear”) on how to handle “the science guy.” Scientific creationism has been discussed, debated, denigrated, denied but never disproved; and the “science guy” will discover that when he visits Kentucky. My advice to Nye is to run away from this debate as if his hair was on fire!

Ham should challenge Nye to declare that he does or does not believe the unsupportable, even outrageous teaching that nothing created everything. Ham should promise not to laugh out loud, maybe only a snicker or two. If Nye follows the path taken by others, he will try to flimflam common people with scientific jargon, psycho-babble, and gibberish. He should be pressed to make his points in clear, concise, and common English. He may try to laugh it away but Ham should not permit him to get away with that.

Ham should demand an explanation as to how all the scientific laws such as gravity, inertia, the First and Second Laws, laws of planetary motion, and others came into existence. After all, “laws” cannot evolve. Were those laws operating before or after the Big Bang?

I would then ask Nye to produce evidence that an explosion has ever resulted in order. Nye may then try to declare that evolutionists don’t believe the Big Bang was an explosion but Nye is lying or is uninformed if he defends that myth. Press him, kindly, of course.

I would then ask how life first formed on a planet made entirely of rock! Then force him to admit that he believes in spontaneous generation that no sane person believes! Press harder.

I would then ask why, if the earth is billions of years old, no meteorites are found in “ancient” strata. That was zero, nil, zip, nothing! Everyone admits that meteorites have always fallen so where is the evidence if the earth is ancient?

I then would ask which evolved first, the mouth, the stomach, the digestive system, or the elimination system. After all, what good is a mouth if you don’t have a stomach? No sensible person says they all evolved together. Yes, evolution requires miracles but only one every few million years. Not four miracles happening at the same time!

I would then ask about DNA. Since everyone admits that DNA is a code, ask who wrote the code. Books, codes, messages, letters, notes, emails, etc., do not self-compose, well except in the fairytale world of the evolutionists. Who wrote the DNA code? Press real hard!

I would then demand to know how blind chemistry created mind/intelligence, meaning, altruism, and morality. The “science guy” will probably sweat, squirm, stutter, and stammer about here.

I would then ask him to explain the symbiotic relationship between wild creatures such as the Nile crock and the Egyptian plover that walks into the crock’s mouth to clean out parasites then walks out without any harm. How does such evolution happen without the crock getting an easy, tasty meal and the plover getting dead?
I would ask how it is possible for fresh (not fossilized) blood cells to be discovered in dinosaurs that are alleged to be more than 60 million years old. That doesn’t happen in the real world.

Evolution is simply a humanist, materialistic religion that seeks to explain man’s origins. It’s not a very good religion. It doesn’t even have any holidays except April 1, although most evolutionists get rather pious on the anniversary of the founding of the ACLU.

Every evolutionist I have met and observed and read after brings up the “creation is religion and evolution is science” axiom as if that settles the matter. But how can evolution be science when it can’t be observed, tested, or demonstrated? The fact is, evolution is as scientific as a voodoo-rooster-plucking ceremony in Haiti–almost!

Evolution is like a blind man in a dark basement looking for a black cat–that isn’t there.

Press on, Ken, press on.

http://bit.ly/1iMLVfY  Watch my eight-minute videos of my lecture at the University of North Dakota, “A Christian Challenges New Atheists to Put Up or Shut Up!”

Copyright 2014, Don Boys, Ph.D.

While I would not run if nominated and would not serve if elected, I wish I had been Obama’s opponent Monday night. Following are some questions I wish Romney would have asked:

“Mr. Obama, no patriotic American would make politics out of the Libyan disaster, but our citizens have a right to know why there was no protection at the consulate especially in light of the previous attacks. If you did not know about the previous serious attacks, it is incredible and inconceivable, and you should be impeached. If you did know about the previous attacks, it is incredible and inconceivable and you should be impeached since you did nothing to protect our people and property. If we could have Marines in consulates at places like the peaceful and placid Caribbean then why was there no protection in hot spots such as Benghazi? Do you think, in light of the attacks, that you should have attended your intelligence briefings rather than playing on the golf course?”

“Mr. Obama, if you knew immediately that the 9/11 attack was in fact a Muslim terrorist attack, why did you permit Ambassador Rice to appear on five television shows on Sunday and state categorically that it was a protest that got out of hand? Moreover, why did you, during your UN speech, use the silly video as the cause of the attack when you knew it was not so? (By the way, no one has claimed the video was inaccurate, only insensitive and inane.)”

“Mr. Obama, in light of the tragedy in Libya, why have no heads rolled in your administration? In such a situation, it has been traditional that the culpable persons should lose their positions. Saying, ‘I am responsible’ is not sufficient. Were those underlings following your orders? Many Americans want to hear a metaphoric guillotine blade fall a few times. It would send a powerful message to Americans and others. Yes, many in your administration have lost their minds but some should lose their ‘heads’ as well. You might start with a certain female!”

“Mr. Obama, are you finally willing to say the words, ‘Muslim terrorists’? No doubt you can mouth the words but you refuse to do so. Will you admit that Muslim terrorists are at war with the free world? Everyone else, except you, seems to be aware of that fact.”

“Mr. Obama, will you admit that every Koranic Muslim has an obligation to make the nation in which he lives, a Muslim nation? All educated people know that is a fact, but you seem to be reluctant to admit that fact. Why?”

“Mr. Obama, will you take the position tonight in front of the watching world that Sharia law must never be enforced in America and in fact, should be repudiated all over the Muslim world? If not, why not?”

“Mr. Obama, would you also state that Muslim women throughout the Muslim world should have equal rights and privileges in every area as men? If not, why not?”

“Mr. Obama, will you please tell Americans why there have been scores and scores of known radical, terrorist-supporting Muslims who have visited the White House, meeting with top administration officials? Those people are well known to the FBI and other agencies yet they have been honored to have multiple visits to the peoples’ House. I would also like to know if even one Fundamentalist or Evangelical has been so honored? Any Mormons?”

“Mr. Obama, as you know, many Americans believe you to be a not-so-secret Muslim because you were born into a Muslim family, educated as a Muslim, repeatedly said, ‘Allah is God and Mohammed is his prophet.’ That statement, said sincerely, is what makes one a Muslim if done before witnesses. Moreover, you have worn a Muslim ring all your adult life and even said on national television, ‘My Muslim faith,’ and you were ‘corrected’ by the interviewer! Sir, how can any sane person not believe you to be a Muslim? Does asking the question make me a bigot?”

“Mr. Obama, will you look us all in the eyes and declare firmly, ‘I am not a Muslim, have never been a Muslim, and will never be a Muslim. I trusted Jesus Christ as my personal Savior, placing faith in His death on Calvary and faith in His bodily resurrection. I followed him in public baptism indicating my desire to be identified with Him and to live a committed Christian life as revealed in the Holy Bible. I am only a sinner saved by grace.’”

“Mr. Obama, Dr. Don Boys of North Georgia has been trying to get Muslim approval to start the Trinity Baptist church in Mecca and has received no help from any Muslim. Would you be willing to use your influence to help him start a Baptist Church in Mecca? After all, as a Christian you surely believe in missions, don’t you? Moreover, the Saudis have built 2,000 mosques in the U.S., so surely it is only reasonable that Mecca should have one Baptist Church. Boys would be willing to rent a store-front in Mecca or maybe he could rent the Kabaa since it is not used on Sundays. Maybe you and I could give an initial gift of $10,000 to get the church started! Let’s both agree to kick-start this worthy project. I have my checkbook with me, so let us show an ecumenical spirit and help the Baptists in this project.”

“Mr. Obama, you are aware of the many rumors circulating, especially in the Chicago area, that you have a very shady past. No doubt those scurrilous rumors are untrue and I am sure you can lay them to rest tonight. Please tell us what relationship you had with Larry Sinclair and with the murdered, openly homosexual choir director at Wright’s Trinity Church. Did you know those men and what was your relationship with them?”

Too bad those questions were not asked, but then most politicians, in all parties, are afraid of the truth. They will flirt with it, but never follow truth all the way. They will spin the truth, play with it, distort it, but never follow it to its conclusion whatever the results.

Now you know why I am no longer in politics!