"Freedom? Oh Really?"

Exercise great care in your choices--in particular your choices of the prejudices you choose to embrace.
 
Choices have consequences which at times are subtle and unnoticed and at other times claim almost all of one's life and living.  

How often a person can claim freedom only to be hemmed in by biases, claim insight only to be bound by partiality, claim autonomy only to be trapped in self imposed limits, claim independence from faith and yet be trapped in prejudices against faith, and the list goes on and on?

It is as if one is caught in a vortex of understanding and then while being carried about in that vortex claims all reality outside of that vortex does not exist. That is the freedom some loudly proclaim.  However, the reality is that such freedom is not freedom at all but bondage. 

Any sincere seeker of truth and thus freedom takes down all preconceived notions and follows the trail of truth to wherever it may lead. If one cannot in all honesty say that they do so then such seeking is not legitimate.  

Most often when that trail leads into the arena of faith and in particular Christian faith, one's preconceived prejudices against Christian faith will block one's way. Such a person can be carried along by the trends and current of their prejudices without even knowing it. 

When such is the case they are by choice, blind to all that lies outside of their reality and rather than making a sincere effort as a seeker of truth they loudly make proclamations of special truth, superior insights, experience, and science. 

In doing so such a person purposefully turns a blind eye to that which is not in in one's your knowledge-comfort zone--even going on the attack. Such is not freedom but an enslavement to one's own limited understanding. These are the choices one has the freedom to make however one has no control over the outcomes of those choices.

Chose carefully as there are eternal consequences for how one decides.

"IMO and The Truth" Part One

The court room was packed and overflowing.

The judge looked at the jury verdict form and then at the jury.  It was then that he announced that when the verdict was read there was to be no reaction from those present in the court room.  It had been a particularly heinous crime and there was no doubt that the defendant was guilty!

The form was returned to the jury foreman and in a matter of fact voice he read, "In the matter of the state versus the defendant, after careful consideration the jury returns a verdict of not guilty."  Try as they might, there was a collective gasp from those present, how could this be?

Indeed from opening statements through the presentation of testimonies and evidence to the closings statements and finally the judge’s instructions to the jury it seemed so very clear.  How could the jury return anything but a verdict of guilty?

Later when interviewed the jury foreman had a shocking response.  A response that was in no small way disturbing!

"To a person, we the jury believe that the defendant was guilty, as guilty as could be!"  Then he went on, "The parameters set forth in the jury instructions were drawn so tightly that when we look at the cases presented within those parameters we really had little choice but to return the verdict we did."

Now let us move from the example to the venue of the one's opinion. 

Parameters Do Not Change Reality

At one time or another most people think about what constitutes or makes up truth/reality in general and in particular what may be considered as one seeks to find that truth/reality.  It is here that there may be a very real danger. 

For example if a person draws the parameters of what is acceptable too restrictively, the discovery and/or defense of truth/reality is then in serious jeopardy.   The outcome at the very least is far less accurate than it otherwise would be. At the other end of the scale the truth/reality would be denied even though valid.

Take for example the existence of Jesus Christ.  To simplify the issue, either Jesus existed or He did not.  That is the very basic truth/reality of the question.  No amount of evidence or opinion can now change the reality of His existence or His non-existence.  Said another way, no amount of opinion, bias, assumption, nor anything else can change what was so, either way you view the question.

An attendant problem is that of accuracy.  As noted above restrictive parameters have an effect upon accuracy.

So then how is one to know for sure?  As with any other truth or reality, if one's rules of evidence are drawn too tightly, then genuine and valid evidence is disregarded and the truth of the matter is lost.  The question then becomes who is to be the arbitrator of what may be considered and what may be discarded from the inquiry?

Drawing the Parameters

It would appear that there are two somewhat different but related Influences that bear on the subject of how one discovers reality.  One might view the first influence in terms of a scale and the second in terms of an all or none position. 

First, is the question of just where one fits on the “believe – disbelieve” scale.  While a little cynicism protects one from certain kinds of dangers, the total doubter will have no basis for the existence of any kind of reliable truth.  Such a person rejects all truth claims and fits in a Post-Modern notion of existence.

Second, is more of an all or none position.  The position is encapsulated in the question, “Does God exist?”

For the one who tends toward disbelieving and as well reject the existence of God, there remains no authority outside of the self.  So it is that the individual has become the arbitrator of truth.  The validation of truth is nearly impossible as truth rests solely on, “In my opinion….”

Such a position can be very lonely.

Note:  More to follow in Part Two.

 

Bill Nye Science Guy—Really?

Recently Bill Nye the Science Guy made the comment that "Creationism Is Not Appropriate For Children." He proposes that the next generation must be raised as evolutionists or they would be lost to science and thus culture would lose out. His comments may be found at http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=gHbYJfwFgOU

 So here are a few question for Bill Nye the nice guy Science Guy.

Bill Nye

 Creationists are largely made up of those of Judeo-Christian faith.  That being so let us assume for the moment that you are right.  Let us consider all of the good that has been done by the secular evolutionist.

Was it the evolutionist that with deep conviction sought to abolish slavery?

Was it the evolutionist that started hospice which then lead to hospitals, hotels and motels, and yes, hospice today?

Was it the evolutionist that started humanitarian aid organizations like the American Red Cross, World Vision, St Vincent de Paul, and the Salvation Army?

Was it the evolutionist that began such academic institutions as Oxford, Cambridge, Yale, Harvard, and many, many others?

Was it the evolutionist that gave to us a country built upon the ideals of life, liberty, and the pursuit of happiness?

Was it the evolutionist that gave to us such science as the study of genetics?

Was it the evolutionist that gave to us such great music as Handel and Bach?

Was it the evolutionist that started and led the American Civil Rights Movement?

Was it the evolutionist that went to the Pacific islands and worked among the lepers?

Was it the evolutionist that gave us great literature such as Shakespeare?

Was it the evolutionist that gave us laws that protect the innocent and punish the guilty?

Now Bill, if you apply your scientific methods to these questions you will find that it was people of Judaism and Christianity that did these things.  There is not one objection you raise that cannot be answered by the Creationists.

For example, who is to say that God did not create the stars and as well the light radiating from those stars so that man might observe them though they are billions of light years away?

Was it the evolutionist that originated not a changing theory (which it is since it has to flex and change to be compatible when true science proves it wrong as it has) but an immutable law?  Such sound beliefs that they have not changed since Darwin wrote?  No, Darwin did not include billions and billions and billions of years in his theory.  That had to be added later when his basic ideas were found to be flawed and untenable!

Oh, let me ask you another question.  Were you there to observe evolution?  Have you seen it in action?  Of the 50,000 fossils or more that we have cataloged, where are the intermediary life forms?   

Here is another one.  What about man’s capacity to make informed choices, why have not other lower life forms evolved to do that?  Why is it that man alone has the capacity to make decisions with the outcomes in mind?

Then there is that matter of love which is not at all compatible with the notion of survival of the fittest.

Another question.  If all animals evolved as you say they did, then why are eye structures fundamentally the same in all species?

Oh, and is not all creation (nature to you) winding down to entropy (heat death)?  Now you want me to believe that evolution is the exception?  

But here is a much greater and more important questions for you Bill Nye.  What has been the effect of evolution?  What has been the effect of leaving God out of the equation?  What has been the effect of secularism—this notion that there is no higher power to which one is going to give an account?

When the 10 Commandments were posted and prayer offered in schools those things served to remind students that there is a God to whom one is accountable, how many school shootings were there?  How many drug deaths?  How many unwed high school moms did we have? 

Bill would you like another one?  Try this one.  The effect upon the world of the secular evolutionist.  How many of the following were people of faith in God?

Adolf Hitler and WWII – Somewhere between 50 and 70 million dead.  Six million Jews exterminated.

Mao Ze Dong – 49 to 78 million dead

Stalin – 6 million some estimates are 20 million dead

Pol Pot – 1.75 to 2 million dead

Kim II Sung – 1.6 million dead

These are but a few from the site http://www.scaruffi.com/politics/dictat.html

What about the creationist and the use of Biological and Chemical weapons?  Just was it the evolutionist or the creationist that made and employed those things?

You are concerned that Creationists cannot do good science.  Further, you are concerned that those coming up behind must be freed by evolution and its companion secularism or the next generation of scientists will be lost.

You should be more concerned with something else.  You see Bill Nye Science Guy, those kids will be the ones who live their lives unrestrained and unaccountable and will become the Adolf Hitlers, the Cyber terrorists, the Pol Pots, the school shooters, and the drug dealers etc.

Understand this one thing.  Without the God effect, 

There is a way which seems right to a man,

But its end is the way of death. (Proverbs 14:12)

The way of death is not just for the person for the death of one effects the many.

The genuine reality, the real deal truth is that Judeo-Christian faith has been in existence much longer, is much more durable, and has in greater measure benefited the world than anything the secular evolutionist can offer!

Bill Nye, Science guy, I am sure that you are a nice man but sorry, you are wrong!  The harsh truth is that any system to include man, left alone will not evolve but will devolve to chaos and eventually entropy.