With apologies to Kierkegaard, there are two ways to be deceived. One is to believe what isn’t true; the other is to refuse to believe what is true. I prefer always to assume the Bible is right, while atheists always assume the scientists are right. Both positions are based on faith. Evolutionists have done a good job convincing people the theory of evolution has scientific merit; however, it is a wrong assumption and not a winning argument.

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

The Bible says that God is responsible for everything we see and don’t see, but evolutionists tell us He is not responsible for creation because He does not exist. If that’s true, how did this incredible universe originate?

Some scientists are willing to admit that they honestly don’t know. Scientist L. John concluded, “…the sad truth is that we do not know how the galaxies came into being.”

There are four theories of the universe’s origins: (1) It created itself, but then that is contrary to the first law of thermodynamics (that says no new energy and matter are being created), so a well-established scientific law disqualifies that possibility. (2) The universe has always been here, but that is contrary to the second law of thermodynamics that says everything is running down, and if the universe had always been here, it would have totally unwound and disintegrated. (3) The old Greek notion that the universe is not here. Everything is an illusion! That is contrary to the law of common sense, a law not understood by most evolutionists! (4) God did it!

Each person has a choice, and frankly, the ancient Greeks’ mental meanderings make almost as much sense as modern-day evolutionists!

Evolution could not exist without guesses based on inference and extrapolation, but they hold to the first position that the universe created itself. Many refuse to use those words since they make one look stupid, if not silly, and for sure not scientific. Some scientists have plainly declared that nothing created everything! Thinking people with common sense realize that absurdity; knowing nothing cannot do or create anything.

Such teaching is desperation, and they call it the Big Bang Theory (BBT), but it really wasn’t a bang, nor was it big! It also doesn’t rise to the level of a theory but only a hypothesis, guess, or assumption.  Of course, the really Big Bang is God spoke, and Bang, it happened!

Space has proved in recent years to be dark, deep, and disturbing to scientists as they observe detailed space photos that scream, “The heavens declare the glory of God; and the firmament sheweth his handywork.”

The Hubble space telescope, launched on April 24, 1990, caused concern making some scientists “jump ship.” That new information from the Hubble pegged the age of the universe at 8 to 12 billion years while the “dense groupings of stars in a galaxy…are thought to be 16 billion years old.” That would make the universe a few billion years younger than some of its stars! Well, we know that isn’t true, don’t we? That’s like you being older than your parents!

The incredible new photos from the James Webb Space Telescope (JWST) are causing heartburn and loss of sleep for many big bangers in recent weeks. The photos from the JWST have generated the opposite of what the BBT should have produced. The new photos show galaxies that are too small, too old, too smooth, and less chaotic for their accepted (and assumed) age of 13.8 billion years.

Astronomer Alison Patrick said, “Right now I find myself lying awake at three in the morning and wondering if everything I’ve done is wrong.” Since the stars being discovered are thought to be older than the Big Bang, maybe the BBT should be renamed the Big Bust Theory or the Big Fizzle.

Some Big Bang theorists were shocked, and some were panicked by the photos from JWST. They appear to cast doubt on their myth. Based on the published literature right now, “the Big Bang makes 16 wrong predictions and only one right one.”

Not a very good track record.

This problem was admitted by Ken Croswell in a New Scientist article where he says such a young age “…suggests contradictions that would destroy the big bang theory.” Breaks my heart.

English astronomer Fred Hoyle coined “big bang” during a 1949 BBC broadcast, although he did not believe it. He taught the steady state theory of origins that teaches the universe has always existed. That’s almost as silly as the BBT, but it does not require a Creator, satisfying most scientists.

Unbelieving scientists pretend that God does not exist (they might as well pretend the sun doesn’t shine), so they have decided that creation could not have taken place and Genesis is not a scientific or historic source. All right, then how did the universe get here? It is here! Trying to deal with that reality, they desperately posited the Big Bang Theory; but I believe the BBT takes more faith than creation! (The Bible does teach a Big Bang in that this world will end with a Big Bang!)

According to a high school textbook, “…a fireball exploded 15 to 20 billion years ago. Then matter and energy spread outward in all directions, cooling as it expanded. After about 500,000 years, hydrogen gas formed. The gas collected into clouds which formed galaxies during the next half billion years. Now all that remains are galaxies and radiation.

“Within the galaxies, stars form and die and new ones form….Probably the most widely accepted theory for the origin of the solar system is the dust cloud theory. According to this idea, a dust cloud began to rotate….When the mass had swept up most of the material in an eddy, a planet was formed.” Proof? None!

Note that nowhere does the textbook tell the students where time, energy, space, and matter originated. Genesis 1 tells us when all four began. The Bible says, “In the beginning (time) God created (energy) the heaven (space) and the earth (matter).”

We are told a fireball came out of nowhere and exploded, but the students were not told what caused the explosion. Explosions don’t just happen. Where did the hydrogen gas come from? That book should be listed as “mythology,” not science.

I would also like to know the origin of the scientific laws under which the universe operates. You know, like gravity, inertia, laws of planetary motion, etc. Who had the power to originate such laws? Also, did they precede or follow the Big Bang?

While many people assume the BBT is an accepted fact, some experts are not convinced the theory is valid. J. Trefi says that one problem with the Big Bang is “how the galaxies could have formed in the time allotted for this process.” Leslie, author and scientist, agrees by saying it “is hard to see how galaxies could have formed in a universe which is flying apart so fast.”

How did order come out of an explosion? Does that happen if a large firecracker goes off inside a television set? Why and how could it happen in the universe? Leading British astronomer Paul Davies wrote, “The greatest puzzle is where all the order in the universe came from originally.” Order does not come from an explosion.

Davies wrote in a New Scientist article, “Everywhere we look in the universe, from the far flung galaxies to the deepest recesses of the atom, we encounter order….” Nobel Prize winner Max Planck agrees: “There is evidence of an intelligent order of the universe.” Einstein seemed to concur, suggesting that the “high degree of order” was somewhat of a “miracle.”

Famous astronomer Alan Sandage confessed, “I find it quite improbable that such order came out of chaos. There has to be some organizing principle. God to me is a mystery but is the explanation for the miracle of existence, why there is something instead of nothing.”

One does not have to be a scientist to understand that obvious problem.

If the universe is the result of an explosion, how does it run like a Swiss clock? This was a comparison made by astronomer Johannes Kepler whose laws describe planetary orbits. Why, if the planets resulted from a big bang, do Venus and Uranus revolve backward, and why do at least six moons (out of 60 in our solar system) rotate around their planets opposite to the other moons? How could the same explosive thrust produce objects revolving in different directions?

It is no surprise the Big Bang has started to fizzle!

Astronomer Hoyle says that a “sickly pall now hangs over the big bang theory.” The Big Bang has fallen with a big bang! Eminent scientists who reject the BBT include Nobel Prize winner Hannes Alfven, astronomer Sir Fred Hoyle, astronomer Jayant Narlikar, astronomer N. Chandra Wickramasinghe, astronomer Geoffrey Burbidge, physicist Allen Allen, physicist Hermann Bondi, physicist Robert Oldershaw, and physicist G. de Vaucouleurs.

American physicist Eric J. Lerner penned, The Big Bang Never Happened: A Startling Refutation of the Dominant Theory of the Origin of the Universe. That sums it up succinctly.

It is mind-boggling to think how rejecting the BBT would impact academia. Professors, scientists, and writers would have to repudiate a lifetime of work, remove their books from bookstores, refuse future royalties, and, if they possess any character, refund their salary for teaching lies to gullible students.

Alas, they would also lose tenure.

Probably the biggest problem the Big Bangers have was voiced by A. Krauskopt and A. Beiser: “A number of scientists are unhappy with the big bang theory….For one thing, it leaves unanswered the questions that always arise when a precise date is given for the creation of the universe: Where did the matter come from in the first place?” (Emphasis added.) That is the question that evolutionists simply can’t answer unless they are willing to whimper, “God.”

On Pat Buchanan’s national talk show, I debated Eugenie Scott, scientist/atheist/evolutionist  and president of the National Center for Science Education and major creationist critic. Reluctantly, she admitted that maybe God started it all! I had debated her earlier, and she was not willing to make that concession.

There are various theories as to the beginning of all things, but they can be distilled into two theories: God created everything according to the Bible record, or He did not. Under the column “He did not,” you can place the day-age theory, gap theory, theistic evolution, the Big Bang Theory, steady state theory, etc. Either He did, or He did not act according to the Scripture.

For those who believe that the Bible is the Word of God and that it means what it says, there is not an iota of doubt: God created the universe and everything therein in six 24-hour days! God very clearly tells us in John 1:1-3, “In the beginning was the Word, and the Word was with God, and the Word was God. The same was in the beginning with God. All things were made by him; and without him was not anything made that was made.” That passage is very clear, isn’t it? All things means all things.

Now, either believe God or not, but don’t play around with the facts. Maybe unbelieving scientists should look again at the Book that says, “Let there be light.”  It was not an explosion or expansion but an exclamation: Let there be light.

In Acts 17:24, Luke tells us again that, “God that made the world and all things therein, seeing that he is Lord of heaven and earth, dwelleth not in temples made with hands.” That is an affirmative statement that leaves no room for doubt. “God that made the world….” Did He or did He not?

If not, the Bible is untrue, unreliable, and unnecessary, and if the Bible is true, evolutionists are untrue, unreliable, and unnecessary. And should be unemployed.

(Dr. Don Boys is a former member of the Indiana House of Representatives who ran a large Christian school in Indianapolis and wrote columns for USA Today for 8 years. Boys authored 20 books, the most recent, Reflections of a Lifetime Fundamentalist: No Reserves, No Retreats, No Regrets! The eBook is available at Amazon.com for $4.99. Other titles at www.cstnews.com. Follow him on Facebook at Don  Boys, Ph.D., and visit his blog. Send a request to DBoysphd@aol.com for a free subscription to his articles and click here to support  his work with a donation.)

“You have not lived today until you have done something for someone who can never repay you.”  John Bunyan, Baptist Preacher

Wiping the foam from his lips he wrote his first paragraph depicting evangelical Christians as nuts, jerks, and flakes comparing us to the Westboro Baptists in Kansas. From this inauspicious beginning it is obvious that he is dishonest or totally uninformed; either reason would be justification for yanking his journalist credentials.

Eichenwald’s untrue, unfair, unkind characterization of Christians would be like my suggesting that all journalists are wild, woozy, and wicked people who get to work at 10:00, have a three hour lunch break consisting of three shots of cheap gin, stagger back to the office to work a couple hours then buy a quart of wine from the local grocery and go home where they cause havoc in the neighborhood, beat their wives and knock their children around until bed time. Now, I’m sure that is true of a few journalists but it is irresponsible to suggest that is true of most of them. Kurt was irresponsible.

He spends much ink dealing with snake handling as if that is normal in real Christianity! Some leftists are dumb as a box of rocks or are so short of arguments that they depict Christians as carrying a sack of rattlesnakes to church each Sunday.

Eichenwald makes a very silly statement when he declares that “evangelicals are always talking about family values. But to Jesus, family was an “impediment to reaching God.” He took that position because of a naïve misinterpretation of Matthew 19:29 where Christ spoke about forsaking father, mother, brother, and sister for His sake and their inheritance of eternal life. Of course even Christian neophytes are aware that the Bible clearly commands us to love and support family and to honor father and mother.

Kurt further shows his immaturity or dishonesty when he charges that all female Christians in political life should quit (or remain hypocrites!) because of 1 Timothy 2:12 that commands a woman not to teach and have authority over a man. This is a much discussed verse and theologians in various denominational groups take various interpretations but everyone knows it specifically deals with women in the local church. Kurt doesn’t know that.

There is no way Eichenwald could have done any research without knowing about I Timothy 2:12 yet he was way out in left field and gave no indication of objectivity. Of course, true objectivity is as hard to find in Newsweek and all liberal media as white dinosaurs in Kentucky.

Eichenwald is out of his league in this article. In paragraph after paragraph I cringed in embarrassment for him and Newsweek. He was like a 12-year old kid making an appearance at the Major League Training Camp in Florida with a desire to play in the big leagues. The kid would be told to come back in a few years. I’m afraid it would be many years before Eichenwald could qualify for the Theological Big League. Mainly because Kurt seems to be blind (or keeps his eyes shut) therefore can’t read the Bible he accuses us of not reading!

He continues to prove his lack of knowledge (or honesty) when he charges that fundamentalists “twist phrases and modify translations” to prove some of our “biases and beliefs.” The fact is most fundamentalists may be guilty of a little twisting (always wrong) now and then but we never “modify translations.” We would rather be caught naked in subzero weather on Fifth Avenue  during rush hour than mess with the King James Bible. We take it as it is–inspired, inerrant, and infallible.

Kurt then charges that Christians believe “Mosaic law from the Old Testament directs American government.” Gasp, does he mean that we believe that our basic judicial system is based on the original Ten Commandants? If so, then everyone knows that is true: From Israel, to Rome, to England to America. You know, don’t bare false witness, don’t kill, don’t steal, don’t commit adultery.

He further charges us with Bible illiteracy but with his litany of mistakes, mishmash, and misrepresentation, that is like a skunk accusing a rabbit of having bad breath. Our “illiteracy” allegedly causes parents to “banish children from their homes.” No doubt this refers to parents who require children to live decently, get a job, not fornicate, not use vile language and no pornography if they want to live at home. How dare they!

Because of our alleged “Biblical illiteracy” he charges that we believe that climate change (remember when it used to be global warming?) is impossible because of God’s promise to Noah! Hey, only an uninformed fool would use such an argument when there is no evidence of man-made climate change. Of course, the climate changes every day!

His also charges us with “imped[ing] science” and undermining “intellectual advancement” which, of course, refers to the creation/evolution controversy. He and others will discuss how evolution happened but not if it happened. Such people talk about being open minded but their minds are as closed as a miser’s wallet.

His diatribe is based on “scores of theologians and scholars” but he did not interview or quote one evangelical, let alone a fundamentalist, but three–count them, one, two, three leftists. And he only names one–Bart Ehrman, an apostate New Testament professor at the University of North Carolina. Bart grew up a fundamentalist, went to Moody (after me), then to Princeton where he lost whatever faith he had. Kurt calls him a “groundbreaking Biblical scholar” when he is really an apostate. I could have chosen a kinder term but I’m committed to honesty and accuracy.

Dr. Michael Kruger, an expert in early Christianity wrote of Eichenwald’s “jaw-dropping ignorance of the facts about the Bible.” Kruger declared that Eichenwald’s article “is short on the facts, it has little understanding of interpretive principles, it assumes that it knows more about theology than it really does, and it pours out scorn and contempt on the average believer.” Right!

Dr. Daniel Wallace, commented on Eichenwald’s “numerous factual errors and misleading statements, his lack of concern for any semblance of objectivity, his apparent disdain for and lack of interaction with genuine evangelical scholarship, and his uber-confidence about more than a few suspect viewpoints.” Wallace is Professor of New Testament Studies at Dallas Seminary.

Eichenwald charges that none of us have ever read a reliable Bible–that we have translations of translations of translations of bad translations that have been altered hundreds of times. The fact is that we have over 6,000 good Greek manuscripts going back as far as the second century! When Kurt writes about corrupt manuscripts he gives the impression that he knows what is corrupt and what is not corrupt. Neither he nor anyone else has read the original autographs. Kurt is a charlatan.

Kurt shows his shallowness with his antiquated charges: there are two (or even four) creation stories; Christ’s geologies are contradictory; the events around His birth are in conflict; the resurrection stories are in conflict; Moses did not write Deuteronomy; Noah taking two or seven kinds of animals on the ark and the number of days the water was upon the earth; the question of David killing Goliath and many others.

Kurt tells us that unicorns did not exist even though the Bible mentions them ten times. It is really humorous to hear liberals deal with this subject. They seem to be clueless about the extinction of species since the beginning of time and all evolutionists agree with that. Unicorns could have existed and like the dodo bird disappeared long ago. Furthermore, a whole herd of unicorns could be found tomorrow grazing on a Peruvian mountainside!

Eichenwald may not believe much of the Bible but like all humanists, hedonists, and homosexuals he believes Jesus when He said, “Don’t judge” in Matt. 7:1. However, we are not to judge unfairly or without judging ourselves first. In fact, we are commanded to judge righteous judgment in John 7:24. Kurt is very careless with the context of his criticism.

Wonder if Eichenwald, in all fairness, will do a hatchet job on the Koran as he has the Bible. No, because he is a coward. He knows Christians are taught to turn the other cheek while Koranic Muslims are taught to behead critics.

(Next column: “Newsweek’s Hatchet Job on the Bible!”)

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!”

All creationists and all thinking people (but then I repeat myself) have always believed that “In the beginning, God created the heaven and the earth.” That is settled; however, when the universe and Earth were created has not been settled for many people. Was it billions of years ago or less than 10,000 years ago? That is the question and it is a fact that most Americans believe in a young universe and Earth but almost half do not.

In Matt. 19 Christ said that man was made at “the beginning.” So, no matter what the myth-makers in their ivory towers declare, whenever the beginning was, man was there. That fact alone negates all kinds of evolution! That settles the origins issue for believers but now we must convince the weak, the wavering, and the wrong souls that the Earth is young.

A recent column by one of my favorite columnists, Lord Monckton at World Net Daily declared, “One should no longer believe that a bishop [Archbishop Ussher] was correct in calculating that the world began 6,000 years ago.” (Famous historian Josephus believed the same as Ussher!) Even some creationists accept the columnist’s erroneous conclusion. What about the science to support an ancient Earth? It is not sufficient to say, “But every sane person knows that the Earth is billions of years old.” After all, in ancient times some men said, “Everyone believes that the world rests on the back of a giant elephant,” (some said a giant turtle) or “Any fool can see that the Earth is flat.”

It seems that few creationists have taken on the highly qualified scientists with counter arguments to demand some answers about the age of the Earth and Universe. I will do so even though my doctorate is not in science.

When discussing the age of the Earth, the ancient-earther always supports his position with modern dating methods, but that dog won’t hunt and can’t hunt because it is crippled in two legs! Modern dating methods are not reliable! It seems necessary for me to declare that rocks and fossils are not found stamped with a date of origin! Their ages are assumed by using various “clocks,” which I will cover in this series. Some of the “clocks” indicate a young age for the Earth. It depends on what “clock” is being used and what assumptions are being made.

While Archbishop Ussher’s Bible dates are not inspired, they are rather accurate when compared to other “clocks.” The fact is the Earth and the universe are very young–not very ancient–much to the consternation of the evolutionists who must have long periods of time to develop their cockamamie story of macro-evolution.

Dr. Stephen Moorbath, an evolutionist associated with the University of Oxford, wrote: No terrestrial rocks closely approaching an age of 4.6 billion years have yet been discovered. The evidence for the age of the earth is circumstantial, being based upon . . . indirect reasoning.” I can assure you that most evolutionists are astute at “indirect reasoning,” and are experts in circular reasoning. Some evolutionists are Professors of Tautology.

Evolutionist Fredreck B. Jeaneman declared: “The age of our globe is presently thought to be some 4.5 billion years, based on radio-decay rates of uranium and thorium. Such ‘confirmation’ may be short-lived, as nature is not to be discovered quite so easily. There has been in recent years the horrible realization that radio-decay rates are not as constant as previously thought, nor are they immune to environmental influences. And this could mean that the atomic clocks are reset during some global disaster, and events which brought the Mesozoic [dinosaur age] to a close may not be 65 million years ago, but rather, within the age and memory of man.” Wow, that from an evolutionist!

Criticism of modern dating methods continues to grow and many evolutionists run from confusing, comical, and contradictory decay rates like a mythical vampire flees the morning sun! One reason is that fossil rock may be contaminated. Many other contingencies are possible that might affect the date. Furthermore, a “global disaster” would disturb the status of the rocks. Do you think maybe that a worldwide flood qualifies as a “global disaster”? So the world Flood could reset all the radiometric clocks because of the swirling waters, volcanic eruptions, the atmospheric pressure, vast temperature fluctuations, magnetic reversals at the poles, etc., thus producing the long dates evolutionists must have–or get new jobs that might require them to work.

NASA hired the famous John (Jack) Eddy to write a book which enabled him to do research in the great astronomy libraries such as Harvard and the Naval Observatory. He used those facilities to do research on the Maunder Minimum (unexplained period of drastically reduced sunspot activity between 1645 and 1715) and his findings were published in the journal Science as a cover story. National Geographic also documented his work. That public exposure led to radio and television shows and lectures.

At a scientific conference at Louisiana State University Dr. Eddy, an ancient-earther, shocked the audience when he said, “I suspect that we could live with Bishop Ussher’s value for the age of the Earth and Sun. I don’t think we have much in the way of observational evidence in astronomy to conflict with that.” Another kick in the teeth for evolutionists by an evolutionist!

So, maybe Archbishop Ussher was not nuttier than a Snicker’s Bar after all, but evolutionists are!

(Four more columns will follow dealing with modern dating methods.)

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!”

It is shocking that any court, especially the U.S. Supreme Court would discuss, debate, and presume to decide same-sex “marriage”! God decided it a long time ago! Even ten years ago the subject would not have been discussed in polite company, and anyone who predicted that homosexual “marriage” would be seriously discussed by sane people would have been hooted out of the market place of ideas.

Any day the highest court will decide the future of America; however, I don’t believe we have a future. The fact that same-sex “marriage” is before the court indicates our moral depravity, depression, and destiny. Disobedience to God is costly. I think payday is coming and the chickens are getting ready to roost.

I believe the above because as a nation we decided that we rejected the Bible as our standard and guide. We expelled God and the Bible from our schools making them incompetent nut factories. We have been killing innocent, helpless, unborn babies for decades even killing them after they survive abortion! The media have ridiculed genuine Christians for a generation, dismissing godly living, etc. Now we have national leaders, of both parties, who have endorsed and encouraged perversion. Maybe it would be helpful if I reminded everyone that God destroyed Sodom and Gomorrah because of their evil activities.

The reason we are at this juncture is because the American people have rejected God’s standard so as to make decisions based on how they “feel” or “think” about something. When there is no absolute standard, anything can be affirmed, advocated, and approved. But where does it end? There are some things that are wrong if done by anyone, at any time, under any conditions. Murder, rape, perversion, cursing, thievery, and personal hate are always wrong. Same with drunkenness, abortion, and illegal drugs.

It matters not how one “feels,” “thinks,” or “believes.” Nor does it matter if some misfit, cowardly preacher gives such things a pass and seeks to make them “respectable.” No person on earth has the “right” to do those things even if they don’t believe in a Supreme Being. To say otherwise is to drive society to the place where “everyone did that which was right in his own eyes.” With the present debate about same-sex “marriage,” we are at that place.

Can anyone defend multiple wives or husbands; how about sex with children? How about sex with a favorite goat? Preachers of permissiveness ridicule those questions but they don’t reply to them! Their only reply is “bigot.”  It matters not what I think or anyone else thinks but it sure matters what a holy, all powerful God thinks. And we will all stand before Him and give a personal account as to what we believed and how we lived. The Bible is the only safe, sure standard by which anyone can make a decision about any issue. To live any other way is anarchy and treason against God and the Bible.

When homosexual “marriage” becomes lawful (but never right) I wonder if the broadminded proponents will be broadminded and tolerant of preachers who refuse to marry Fred and Frank (and maybe Frick.) Will those paragons of equality support those churches that refuse to hire homosexuals as staff persons? Of course, they will not support resisting churches since most of proponents of perversion are hypocrites.

Therefore, those people who want to live without any restraints and support homosexuality proving their broadmindedness are defending the indefensible. They are defending a castle in ruins.

Apostles of permissiveness denounce marriage “inequality” not knowing that “inequality” came from God’s original creation as humanity was divided into separate but equal genders, man and woman. Earliest civilizations followed this pattern because it was best for society. Differences between man and woman will not go away just because some court changes some laws. And I will never adjust my convictions whatever the price, privation, pressure, persecution, or prosecution.

No Christian can choose to be exempt from this warfare and ever live in peace with his or her conscience. To acquiesce to unquestioned evil is a disgrace, disobedience, and disaster for the cause of Christ as well as the compromising person. Many Evangelicals, not wanting to “swim against the tide” of public opinion, have taken a cowardly stand; and others, including some Fundamentalists, are standing in safe shadows, having taken a vow of silence–at least on this “hot” issue.

In this case, it is so obvious that old-fashioned Christians are on the right side that it should not require any defense to thinking people. The real Christian realizes that personal honor is dearer than life itself. And personal honor is more important than receiving honors especially from a corrupt, compromising, and craven populous. Many silent preachers are not morally bad or scripturally deficient but are cowardly. Most people are afraid of someone or something. So many leaders live in fear and, on very controversial issues, they stand silent in safe shadows or join the herd.

Martin Luther said, “If I profess with the loudest voice and clearest exposition every portion of the Word of God except precisely that little point which the world and the devil are at that moment attacking, I am not confessing Christ, however boldly I may be professing Him. Where the battle rages there the loyalty of the soldier is proved; and to be steady on all the battle front besides, is mere flight and disgrace if he flinches at that point.”

I stand with Luther and God. Pretty good company.

Evolution is a confused, convoluted, and contradictory theory that is unreasonable, unscientific, and unbiblical. And in trouble! Creationism has been denigrated and denied, but not disproved. Evolutionists know that if God created everything, it means they will one day give an account to that God whose laws they have dismissed and disobeyed. So the battle continues.

The hypocrites on the left are very dedicated to the principles of diversity and tolerance except in a few matters such as abortion, homosexuality, and scientific creationism. There, diversity is unnecessary and tolerance unthinkable. The loonies on the left tell anyone who will listen that ideas can’t hurt children, even in the lowest grades, so expose them to vulgarity, immorality, perversion, anti-Americanism, etc., since it is good for children to hear different views. However, that does not hold true when it comes to the above hot-button issues. Wonder why? That is one reason why I believe that liberals are the biggest hypocrites in America.

Almost all evolutionists want to start the debate with Darwin’s warm little pond where the process is alleged to have started: slime to slug to sloth to scholar. Or to put it another way, from molecules to mollusks to monkeys to man. However, it all didn’t start at a warm little pond (for which there is not a scintilla of evidence), but with the universe. When, where, and how did energy, matter, and time start? After I hear a few evolutionists tell me, “Well, we don’t know,” then we will go to the mythical pond and discuss man’s origin.

Major journals have cranked out hysterical propaganda to do damage control for the Americans United for Separation for Church and State (who recently had their annual meeting in a New Jersey telephone booth), PAW, National Center for Science Education, ACLU, and assorted atheists, agnostics, and associates. Galloping to the rescue of overwhelmed evolutionists came Time, Newsweek, USA Today, New York Times, and others spouting untrue, unfair, unscientific drivel to con the gullible public into believing the humbuggery of evolution and that those who advocate creationism are Bible thumping fanatics. (I almost never thump my Bible and when I do it is not really hard.)

Evolutionists trot out weary accusations against creationists, implying all are “fundamentalists” (gasp!), always denigrating them, often suggesting a belief in a flat earth! Really desperate evolutionists even suggest that we carry a bag of rattlesnakes to church each Sunday! I am shocked, shocked that educated scientists would stoop so low. This is further proof, if it is needed, that many scientists are asinine, arrogant, and audacious bigots in defending their religious philosophy called evolution. Of course, bigots are as easy to find in a secular university as a bowling ball in a bathtub.

ScienceWeek (Jan. 23) displayed obvious bigotry (note their title) with their editorial “Creationism vs. sanity” when they accused creationists of being primitive thinkers who “believe the Earth is as flat as a pancake,…resting on the backs of four giant elephants.” To think they killed a tree to print such tripe. How could a responsible scientific journal permit something like that to be published? Of course, it was in defense of their religion—evolution.

Last week, another USA Today writer suggested people of faith could justify “anything in the name of dogma. Let’s not teach our children to burn witches, please.” That is outrageous plus inaccurate. Not one witch was ever burned in the U.S. Witch burning took place in Scotland, England, etc.

Also New York Times columnist Maureen Dowd mocked a classy 25-million dollar Creation Museum being established near the Cincinnati airport by Answers in Genesis. Mocking Christian creationists is acceptable but mocking a religion of hate is anathema. Wonder why?

Andrew Kantor, columnist for USA Today.com expressed sorrow for the Cincinnati area, calling the creation museum a “national embarrassment,” using buzz words such as “lies,” “distortions,” “gullible,” “scary,” and “silly.” Responsible journalism, huh?

Oxford biologist, Richard Dawkins, a famous proponent of diversity, balance, fairness and civility opined that creationists were “ignorant, stupid or insane—or wicked.” He called us feeble-minded, pathetic, and intellectual cavemen in his book, The Blind Watchmaker. In a November 1983 article, published in the Times Literary Supplement, Dawkins called us a “gang of ignorant crackpots.” There, isn’t that kind, fair, and civil? See what I mean when I say that many evolutionists are as mean as a junkyard dog.

Stephen J. Gould (evolutionist, Marxist, and Harvard professor—three strikes and you’re out!) now deceased and no longer an evolutionist, Marxist or professor, called creationists “kooky,” “yahoos,” and “latter-day antediluvians.” But Steve would never consent to debate one of the “yahoos”!

Isaac Asimov showed his hatred and bigotry (hatred and bigotry on the left!) when he wrote that creationists “…are stupid, lying people who are not to be trusted in any way.”

With the above vicious libel of creationists, ABC News, after commissioning me to write an anti-evolution piece for their website, refused to use it because I was “too militant!” No, I was too accurate and had too much sting. They wanted a mild piece so they could point to it and say, “See, we are balanced. We provided a forum for the other side.” But they did not want a challenge to the “other side.” Evolutionists must never be presented as fools, fanatics, fakers, and frauds but creationists can be presented as inept, incompetent, and insane! That is dishonest and the major media wonder why they have been abandoned by thinking people!

Even an Oxford professor can understand the reason.