Shih Tzu, Chinese Philosopher

[Bob is going to explain something from a variety of aphorisms.]

Shih Tzu was a brilliant Chinese poet and philosopher who lived in the 17th century. Early in his life he studied in Tibet and traveled to many places in search of wisdom and enlightenment including India. He held a position of great honor in the court of an emperor of the Manchu Dynasty. The Empress Dowager was his greatest patron. Details of his life are rather sketchy and exact dates are uncertain, little is known of his thinking beyond his classic work “The Book of Quietude” and a few poems. Most of this book is composed of aphorisms. His book, as everyone knows, is not to be confused with the occultic book of a similar title translated into Latin by Abdul Al Hazred in the 8th century.(Abdul Al Hazred, as everyone knows is famous, or infamous, as the translater of The Necronomicon, that compendium of evil, occultic lore. Al Hazred is also known as "the mad Arab", probably his evil occupation accounts for his madness.) Authentic manuscripts are very rare, and there is some question as to whether everything ascribed to Shih Tzu is truly his or the work of a later redactor. The following are his most quoted sayings:
Deception is deceptive. They are foolish indeed who imagine themselves
too wise to be taken in.
They shall become wise who bear the travail of wisdom!
No man comprehends truth but truth comprehends all.
Truth is mysterious, the mysterious is true.
The One is all and all is the One!
You cannot behold the same sunrise twice.
The world is a place of ever changing wonder!
The fate of empires rests with the improvement of the soul!
Know thyself and thou shall have the key to all knowledge,
but if thou know not thyself all worth knowing shall elude thee!
Know evil and good for the one gives definition to the other.
Beautiful women are pleasant to look upon
but beauty without wisdom and depth of soul
are vanity and a snare!
However pleasant thy surroundings
and thy barns and coffers full,
death will overtake thee!
Live wisely that thou may die in peace!
It was said of Han Shee “If he ever lost his mind he would not have missed it!”
After his death, his head was carefully examined by the hammer craftsmen.
It revolutionized their trade.
Three babbling baboons: See no truth, hear no truth, speak no truth.
The nobler and more perfect a thing is, the slower it is in arriving at maturity.
A woman matures at sixteen, a man may still be learning at seventy.
The path of wisdom leads ever upward to mountaintop vistas of beauty.
Ignorance and folly lead ever downward to murky depths of futility and despair.
Walk in thy own way and be filled with the fruits thereof!
Let thy thoughts be deep, thy speech scanty. Not all things true are suitable to be aired
in public. Keep thy own counsel. Give advice and hear it among trusted friends.
When people unknown to thee seek to draw thee out, ask what they think.
Come before those in reputation for wisdom as an empty pitcher before a full
fountain of knowledge.
Wise men learn more from fools than fools learn from wise men! .
The wise will know and understand!
Appearance often conceals reality
as quicksand appears to be solid ground
and the strength of flexibility appears to be weakness.
More things come to him who waits
than to him who vigorously pursues them.
Justice among men should begin
with those who so fervently claim to long for it!
To study wisdom is most commendable,
to practice it far more so!
They are wise indeed, who know what they are doing,
especially when they are doing it.
If men teach wisdom but do not practice it,
follow the wisdom, not the example.
He who is brought low by misfortune
may be a good guide to where the pitfalls lie.
We may learn much from him.
To be wise is good. To become intoxicated
by praise of thy wisdom may well be the cure of it.
Experience is a hard teacher. Alas!
Even the wisest have need of this instruction!
Fools will learn in no other, if even then!
A wise man’s steps are directed by what he understands,
the outcome is determined by what is true.
Learn to be thy own best friend and thy own best critic.
Truth is always true and will go right on being true,
in spite of what men think!
The king has power to silence all opposition,
but woe to him when his critics are right!
They are foolish indeed
who think that all powerful rulers
can do exactly as they please.
Wealth and power may be good in a measure,
but greater than this is the improvement of the soul
for virtue and wisdom do not come from wealth and power,
wealth and power come from virtue and wisdom, seek them first.
All things good are good in a measure.
It is wisdom, indeed, to know the measure!
Actions have consequences
and thy thoughts bear fruit for good or ill,
learn to choose well and seek ever to walk in the right path.
A measure of dross costs a measure of gold,
when fools attain the desire of their heart, it destroys them.
The wise betimes crawl into a corner to contemplate their foolishness
as an animal licks its wounds. Fools glory in their folly.
Women are like architecture: it’s nice to have splendid façade, but it’s what’s on the inside that really counts.
Fools who need advice most, seldom seek it, seldom take it.
Thou hast many acquaintances, few friends. Most are flatterers.
Real friends will draw thee off to the side,
risking offense, to tell thee your mistakes.
Power forces, authority wins assent.
Authority is born of dignity, worth and virtue.
Error shuts out the contrary.
Truth illumines everything.
The wise follow the path of light,
fools walk in their own way
and that way leads to destruction!
Fools characterize what is right, just and true
as a product of intolerance
while they force their folly on others!
The wise hear and understand.
Only the rod compels fools and then far from always!
Go to the light, walk in the light,
for without light there is only darkness
in which all deeds are dark.
Hate the evil, love the good,
establish justice that thy days may be long and fruitful!
Fail to teach a child respect and obedience
and you will fail to teach him anything else!
The first step to learning
is to realize thy ignorance.
Those wise in their own eyes
have no reason to accept instruction!
Who can take credit for wisdom?
It comes from listening, thinking,
experience and applying standards.
Which of these hast thou made?
The wise Ming Foo has observed:
"He who rides a tiger may fear to dismount.
We must one day account for foolish words
and foolish silences.
Men stand alone, baboons hunt in packs!

Of Knowledge and Wisdom

Youth imagines old men are fools.
Old men know the foolishness of youth for certain!
Much learning makes one know many things
and gives an awareness of vast ignorance.
Ignorance always exceeds knowledge.
The study of wisdom
makes us know that we are fools.
The wise Ming Foo observes:
To practice wisdom is like climbing a hill.
When the young men come into the room
to express their opinions,
the old men edge out the door.
It is wisdom to know what can be
known for certain, which is much,
and what cannot be known,
which is greater!
When I was young,
I thought five lifetimes
would be sufficient
to study all I wished to know.
In old age, ten would be better!
Alas, that suicides
cannot give over to methe years they are throwing away

Words to Live By

(Please check the bottom of all posts for new material.)

_____________________________________________________________________________________

Adair's Razor (apology to William of Occam)

Can this writer put two sentences together which do not contradict each other?
Liberals usually flunk this test.

Adair's Precept

There is no religious fanatic so fanatical as the one who thinks he is not religious.
This includes most evolutionists and Secular Humanists.

Adair's Law

What's the dumbest thing you can think of? Some Liberal guru or Liberal university professor will pontificate it. The science editor of The New York Times told us that "A rocket cannot work in space where there is no air for it to push against." Floating about in Liberal circles is the dictum "War never solves anything." Told that 2+2=4 is an example of an absolute truth, a Liberal college student responded very petulantly: "Two plus two is approximately four!" A liberal student has also proclaimed: "You're advocating censorship! You shouldn't be allowed to publish your book!" Robert Pennock has affirmed: "...supporters of intelligent design don't offer evidence to support their idea." - Only the universe, Pennock, too bad it slipped by you!

Adair's Test

Law is force. Government involves violence, not just coercion, but killing. One of the best ways of judging a political regime is to ask the questions 1."How many people have they had to kill to remain in power and to maintain order?" 2."How many have they killed for other reasons?" and 3."How many have they found a way to avoid killing?" Dictatorship A. executed 300 people last year and dictatorship B. executed 3,000. Dictatorships are not my concept of an ideal form of government, but some places it's the only option. The first one is probably executing criminals and revolutionaries, the second one is probably genuinely tyrannical. Ideologies can be evaluated in the same way. Nazism had perhaps 17 million victims, and American Liberalism has had nearly three times that many, while Communism is the all-time great mass-murdering ideology and, of course, State Socialism, is the least lethal of these murderous, fascist philosophies. Perhaps they are better called "anti-philosophies".

The Principle of Preaching

A speech on "The True Meaning of True Humanity" delivered by Adolph Hitler or a near clone like Margaret Sanger will create serious problems of credibility for many listeners.


Definitions:

Metaphysics 101

Metaphysics concerns what you think about God, Man and the Universe. If you are a living, breathing human being, you must have some sort of opinion about all three.
This is why Man is incurably religious.

American Liberalism

1. Fabian Socialism 2. A form of antirational, gnostic mysticism with a murderous, totalitarian political agenda.

Extreme, Marginal, Right Wing Fundamentalism

The 51% of the American population who believe in Creationism.

The Miniscule Middle

The 33% of Americans who believe in Theistic Evolution.

Mainstream America

The 8% or less who believe in atheistic Evolution and are the only ones whose opinions deserve to be heard.

True Democracy

The above 8% cramming their beliefs down everybody else's throat and taxing them out of their homes to pay for it.

Bigot

One who respects facts, logic and moral principle.

Reason

In Conservatism,logical thinking is coupled with the idea that beyond our noses lies something called "The real world". Knowledge of it is an asset to sound thinking. In the immortal words of John W. Campbell, Jr., "A person's actions are governed by what they understand to be the facts. The outcome is determined by the facts." Logic is based on the intuitions of the human mind. It is a codification of the way the mind works when it is working. But it is also a codification of intellectual honesty. No one can seriously believe that 2+2=6. In Liberalism "Reason" means whatever notions, dogmas, prejudices, half-baked ideas, or discredited 19th century scientific theories are kicking about in a particular Liberal's mental vacuum. This completely exhausts the category of "Reason". It also obviates the need for extensive study. Liberals already have all the answers at their fingertips. Within the metaphysical foundation of the Darwinian mythology there is no basis for logic having any authority. Logic is based the rational intuitios of the human mind which all came ito being by sheer happenstance like an explosion in a boiler factory. There is no necessary connection between these intuitions and reality. There is a logical argument for evolutionist mythology? So What! There is no more connection to reality than the mystic notions of a whirling Dervish! In Christian theology there is a necessary connection. Logic is an attribute of God, He created man in his own image which includes rationality, therefore there is a necessaary connection between logic and reality. Atheism in all its forms is: irrational, inconsistent and incoherant.

Evolutionist Scientific Objectivity

Evolutionists are commited to "naturalism", the doctrine that the universe can and must be interpreted without any reference to God or the the supernatural. Thus, evolutionist science is intrinsically atheistic. Atheism has been smuggled in through the back door, the crime of which they gleefully accuse the Creationists.
Whenever I read the writings of the evolutionists, I am reminded that "An honest man is the noblest work of God." One thinks of Francis Crick's guidline for evolutionists "Biologists must constantly keep in mind that what they see was not designed, but rather evolved." (What Mad Pursuit, p. 138). Such an aptly named volume! Bravo, Crick! A truly disciplined mind is never confused by the facts!
One fact that should never confuse us is that evolutionism is every bit as "religious" as Creationism and maybe a lot more so!

Another important principle is that "An educated person is one who knows what he is doing when he is doing it." Evolutionists are doing history without any knowledge of historiography, and they are doing philosophy without any background or education in this intellectually demanding discipline. They also fail to show the slightest proficiency in logical argument. Most evolutionists are trained in narrow, specialized tasks, so when they stray from their stamping ground they are like a sidehill badger pulled away from his hill. They simply do not have the intellectual tools for the task they have undertaken.

Bias

"Well, of course, since he's a Baptist he's biased!" This is an example of the too successful argument. Everyone has a bias, everyone has a point of view. Many people are so unconscious of their mental processes they are fooled by this dishonest rhetoric. I have many biases; 2+2=4, there is absolute truth, the real is rational and the rational is real, logic is a valid tool of analysis, etc., etc. Human thought when it occurs involves many basic assumptions. They are like the axioms of geometry;while they may be unprovable they can be verified and corroborated. Those of us who do not wish to make fools of ourselves, unlike the proponents of evolution, counterbalance our will to believe with these intellectual procedures. A similar sophistry is "That's just your interpretation!" Yes it is; after consulting the thermometer, after weighing it, after measuring it and applying logic, that's just my opinion.

Name Calling

This term is bandied about by many people today without any idea of what it means. If you call a man a thief to blacken his name, that is name calling. If you seriously think he has stolen something, that isn't.

The Right of the Minority

In the continuing brouhaha about the word "God" and similar expressions in the Pledge of Allegiance and invocations people seem to overlook the time honored solution hammered out in the Church/State conflicts of the Reformation: It is the right of the minority to withdraw, not to dictate to the majority. Such dictatorial tactics as in the Avon High School case are what most people consider tyranny. One member of the ICLU had the gall to accuse his opponents of "being sold out to power", while he was bludgeoning them into submission with the threat of federal intervention.

An Aphorism

I think of a woman, a fellow worker once, whom I had done something to hurt. I see her standing there, tears streaming down her cheeks. It reminds me of what a fool I am capable of being. Her image merges with Christ on the cross and I realize that I put Him there. It is a painful thing to confront our ignorance, our folly and our sin. But it is also purgative and, through God's Grace, healing. "They shall become wise who bear the pain of wisdom."

The First Circle

He awoke to see a pleasant, smiling face. “Congratulations, you made it.”

“Am I dead?”

“We prefer to say, ‘ You have passed over.’ Come I’ll show you your new quarters.” He was led to a rather comfortable apartment. One wall was lined with bookcases.

“There is, of course, no provision for food or sleeping. You will need neither. I will leave you now.”

John was pleased. He had always wanted to catch up on his reading. He sat down at the
desk provided and read and read, one book after another. John had been an engineer,
mostly concerned with various narrowly focused practical problems of building roads and bridges. He prided himself on having a good, logical mind.

He had always wanted to know more about evolution and was happy to see an abundance of writings about it. The most eminent writers were here: Darwin, Thomas Huxley, Julian and Aldous, Steven Hawking, Richard Dawkins, Francis Crick, Robert Pennock’s
The Tower of Babel, the brilliant, effervescent Barbara J. King, and Robert Hazen.

John was really stunned! He found page after page after page of the most ridiculous,
illogical arguments he could imagine He turned for relief to other books, but discovered that every book, whatever its subject area, was full of Liberal viewpoints, all equally irrational and self contradictory. He left his room, head spinning with angry confusion.

A few steps down the hall and the fellow who had ushered him in suddenly appeared before him.

“Is there a problem John?” he asked, smiling pleasantly.

“I’ll say there is! This stuff you provided me to read. It’s so irrational, so contradictory! It’s driving me crazy! If this is all there is to read, I’d rather be in Hell!”

The fellow immediately vanished in a swirl of sulphrous smoke, reappeard as a grinning demon and replied, “And where do you think you are?”

MORE APHORISMS

Youth has energy, age has experience.

Anyone can see the price, few the real value.

How blest we are surrounded by so many wiser than God.

Justice is what we wish upon our enemies and from which we seek to protect our friends and ourselves.

If you want a just society, try being just yourself.

Admiration is the homage we pay to those better than we are.

Youth believes many things not true and questions many that are, experience, hopefully, will reverse this.

God has given us a sense of humor partly so we can enjoy laughing at ourselves.

No one handles relativity so badly as a relativist.

There are none so dogmatic as those who denounce dogmatism.

There are none so intolerant as those who make a fetish of tolerance.

There are none so illiberal as liberals.

Knowledge puffs up, wisdom humbles.

PC Prayer

Regarding the ICLU lawsuit, the Indianapolis Star(10/21/05) captured the true democratic spirit of this group: "The ICLU seeks to force the House leadership...", "force" being the operative word. Sometimes a small group like this understands democracy better than the majority which may have quite different ideas.

Brian Bosma needs to learn that "The fear of the ICLU is the beginning of wisdom"!
In the spirit the laudable aims of this lobby I humbly suggest this PC rewording of The Lord's Prayer:

Our whatever, which art somewhere or other, hallowed be Thy name so long as it isn't mentioned. Give us this day our daily bread, preferably from a liberal welfare state. And forgive us the trespass of thinking there are any trespasses, and deliver us from the evil of thinking anything is evil. For Thine, whoever you are, is the kingdom and the power and the glory forever, so long as the ACLU aproves.

I wonder how many people see the absurdity of Judge William Hamilton's prayer ruling? He not only bans the name of Jesus Christ, but any content in the prayer that even suggests a Christian doctrine. Deists do not pray because their God is not a personal God; the same would apply to Confucians, Scientologists and the followers of many other religions. Thus, the very idea of prayer has theological implications. Of course Hamilton has made it clear that his strictures apply only to Christians. Are Jews to be forbidden to pray to the Lord God or Muslims from praying to Allah? Hamilton's ruling is inequitable and unjust, the opposite of what one would expect from a judge.

Let's see; we Christians can't pray to our God, Jesus Christ, and the prayer can't have any Christian character. Isn't this like saying, "You can have all the electric razors you want so long as they don't have a head, a body, an electric cord, or batteries?" It's rather like dehydrated water; when you dehydrate it, there's nothing left. With rulings like this, it's not surprising tht people see Liberalism as anti-rational mysticism.

What is Truth?

"In the beginning God created the heavens and the earth." (Gen. 1:1).
Many preachers and theologians have broken this down into "In the beginning God"-"created"-"the heavens and the earth." For the Christian, for the genuine lover of truth, everything begins with God.

Here is a picture of man. What is he thinking? We can photograph his head, measure it, even detect brain waves emanating from it. There is only one way of finding out: to have him tell you.

What is the secret of the universe? The vain babbling of irrational atheists can never unlock this. Even the best reasoned arguments of rational, theistic philosophers cannot adequatetly deal with this. Only a revelation from the true and
living God can answer this question. And in the Scriptures we have exactly this--the revelation of the mind of God.

Against the Greek philosophers and against the atheist humanists of today, St. Augustine held that to know the truth is not necessarily to do the truth; in fact, to be able to do the truth.

Between the emotions, the intellect and the will, the essential nature of man is the will. The doctrine of the primacy of the will helps us to understand why education must always be focused on the strengthening of character, first of all, and the development of the intellect, secondly. Love is not so much an emotion as a disposition of the will. Man is created so as to be oriented toward love--that is, to orient his being toward some principle, ultimately some person, with complete devotion. As St. Augustine says "Thou madest us for Thyself and our hearts are restless till they they find their rest in Thee!" Whether the true God or some other less worthy object, everyone has this sort of supreme object. Man is incurably religious. This gives him his presupositions, motivations, rationales and goal in life. There is no one without such a "faith" or whatever you want to call it.

No one believes in God unless he wills to, and no amount of persuasion can change an unwilling will. Since fallen man is essentially self-centered and his will has been impaired by the Fall, he will always will something other than the true God. He will love some sort of wish fulfillment fantasy more than truth. Only when he is touched Divine Grace which changes his corrupt will can he truly love and worship God, the true center of his life.

There can be no severance of philosophy from theology--no genuine reasoning to faith but only from faith. Only from a rightly oriented will turned toward God, the Redeemer, can man discover Truth. Thus we come to St. Augustine's two formulas: "I believe in order to understand." and that theology and proper skeptical inquiry are "faith seeking understanding."

The same thing applies to virtue and works; they are only such when they are motivated by the love of Christ; this is why works, though necessary to a Christian life can never save anyone. If they are not already saved, that is, transformed by the Grace of God, they cannot perform properly motivated works. In fact, without Christ, such things are "splendid vices". This emphasis of St. Augustine, thoroughly grounded in Scripture, was rediscovered by Martin Luther and the Protestant reformers. They did not originate this doctrine, but found it in the early Fathers such as Justin Martyr.

This brings us to the core of the Christian Gospel: "For God so loved the world that He gave his only begotten Son that whosoever believes in Him should not perish but have everlasting life." (John 3:16). Oh that unbelievers would open their hearts and receive Jesus Christ as Savior and Lord!

At the end of his masterpiece The Confessions, St. Augustine prays for a godly peace, insisting that the wisdom he has long sought is to be found in one source only: God. There is no other teacher able to bring this precious knowledge to us: "What man will give any man the actual understanding of this? What angel will give it to an angel? From Thee must it be asked; in Thee must it be sought; at Thy door must one knock. Thus, will it be received; thus will it be found; thus, will Thy door be opened."

An Interview With An Angel

Greetings from New York City! It’s time for another scintillating session of A.W.O.L., a World of Liberation. Yes friends, ideas can be fun, they can liberate us from stodgy old
Notions and give us fresh, modern, trendy ones. Here is your favorite TV personality, Dhum Moeyer.
Thank you! In our studio today we have that wonderful, world famous, charismatic personality, loved by some, hated by others, none other than Satan himself. Mr. Satan,
Where are you? That’s funny, he was here a minute ago!
There is a blinding flash of light, Satan appears, ten feet tall, a giant angelic being, wings and all, shimmering in incandescent glory!
My word! What an entrance!
Isn’t it though!
In an instant, he vanishes and reappears as a suave, handsome man in a black, business suit. I think you will be more comfortable with this incarnation, Dhum. May I call you Dhum, Dhum?
Yes indeed! I must admit you are very impressive, sir! Tell me how did you get started in your unusual career?
It all began as a protest against dictatorship and tyranny. I was the world’s first freedom fighter. I have been cruelly misrepresented and misunderstood!
That is so sad! To think people would treat you so badly! They should give you your due.
Millions have doubted my existence. Unlike my Great Adversary, I don’t care if you believe in me, I only want you to follow my precepts. I want people to be free to fulfill the desires of their hearts and to realize that you can be good without any help or guidance from my Great Adversary.
Oh, yes I see, like in the Garden of Eden. You just made suggestions.
Some of the greatest thinkers in the world have advocated my views: Darwin, Nietzsche, Marx, Lenin, Stalin, John Dewey, Bertrand Russell, Machiavelli, Margaret Sanger, Pearl Buck, and of course, Adolf Hitler.
Hitler?
Yes Duhm. Adolph Hitler. Contrary to lying propaganda, my friend Hitler was a dedicated statesman, a kindly father figure, who only wanted to promote the freedom and well being of his people. This bushwah about the so-called “Holocaust” is nothing but a pack of lies promoted by Jews and Christians. The real problem in Germany was a rising tide of Jewish bigotry. Jews shamelessly protested being subjected to imaginary persecution. Fortunately, post-modern historians are beginning to get the public straightened out about this.
Isn’t modern scholarship wonderful! I envy contemporary students: they learn so many things we older folks never knew!
The same thing is happening in America today. The well-intentioned efforts of people like Sheila Seuse Kennedy, Dan Carpenter. Fran Quigley and other enlightened liberals to curb the undemocratic power of a Christian majority to practice their religion is being demonized as an attempt to wipe out Christianity. Make no mistake; Christian bigotry is on the rise!
Good heavens, how awful!
Please refrain from hate speech.
Oh! Excuse me.
This Fran Quigley seems like such a nice fellow! Reminds me of a bright, young S. S. officer I knew in Germany once. I deeply sympathize with Fran Quigley’s complaint about being demonized. I have been a victim of this foul practice for thousands of years. And believe me, I’ve gotten very tired of it!
I can understand. That’s what’s wrong with all conservatives! They just keep harping on the same old same old. No new ideas, they opposed the new morality, said it was just the old immorality! Boring!
Exactly! But to get on, you talked about giving me my due. I am an angel! Leader of a host of angels! We are proud of our skepticism and independent mindedness like your independent judiciary. Rebels with a cause, fighters for freedom! Why we actively took part in the French revolution. I am a born leader who has swayed millions with his charisma and rhetorical skill. I kneel to no one! I apologize to none! Calling me and my followers demons! For shame!
You’re message is so powerful! So compelling! So timely!
It is. Bigotry is an ugly thing! Christians can and must be made to see they are free to practice their religion so long as they keep it to themselves. The narrow minded, judgmental, bigoted extremists in their ranks must be condemned! They must stop dwelling on those isolated passages, a mere seven, which they interpret to condemn homosexuality. They can and must learn acceptance, tolerance and love of all!
Oh! That is so inspiring! So beautiful! Well sir I want to thank you for one of the most stimulating, enlightening interviews we’ve been privileged to present! To our viewers, Good night and remember, keep an open mind!

ETHICS
By
Dr. Robert O. Adair

WHAT IS ETHICS?

Ethics is a set of general principles designed to govern conduct, and is ultimately derived from a person’s understanding of the nature of reality. This understanding can be very abstract in the hands of professional philosophers, but it comes down to “What do you think of God, man and of the universe?” Ethics answers the question, “Based on what you think of God, man and the universe, how should you act or not act?” Everyone has ideas about this; another approach is to say that ethics deals with the way things should be done, while morals, by contrast, deals with what people actually do.

Various types of regulations are closely related to this. Someone once said that businesses have so many regulations because each one stems from a past problem. Each mishap led an executive to say, “We’ll never let THIS happen again,” and to come up with a rule to prevent just that. In other words, ethics is important, because actions as well as ideas have consequences.

But regulations have a weakness; each one can only cover one or a few situations. Thus, they can proliferate into blizzards of memos, lists, and handbooks, which tend to bury anyone who deals with them. Statute law has much the same problem. This is why ethical principles ideally are broad and overarching, as well as simple. For example, the Bible has its Ten Commandments, which can be further reduced to the two great commandments.

Many individuals do not have a system but a code - simply a list of things they will or won't do. But any serious thought find this inadequate.

Since ancient times, philosophers have analyzed these questions in depth. For instance, Epictetus the Stoic said, “Here is the beginning of philosophy; a recognition of the differing opinions among men, a search for their cause, and the discovery of a standard of judgment.”

This takes us to the deepest question of ethics: "What should be done?" The liberal giant killer: "That's just your opinion!" is pathetically inadequate. How does ethical conduct relate to reality? If there is no god, no ultimate reality, anything is permissable. When people do whatever comes into thir heads, there are two alternatives: total chaos or extreme repression. The pragmatic dimension of ethics is simply that in order to function, work must be done, order must prevail or humanity will die.

Today there is a growing emphasis on multiculturalism, both within the United States, and to deal with the massive and continuing expansion of world trade and world markets. So we need to ask the ancient questions again, to understand the foundations of different religions and philosophies, and how they affect the thoughts and actions of peoples who follow them.

One way to deal with multicultural diversity is the natural law theory, which was first developed by the Romans, and which has been widely adapted and used by civilized peoples around the world for nearly two thousand years. In spite of their many religions and philosophies, most peoples, whether they’re organized as a small tribe or a complex empire, have laws against stealing, murder, false testimony, and so forth. Thus, this theory says, it is possible to find common values and reach a basic consensus.

There is, as already stated, a pragmatic element to ethical thought, because actions do have consequences. Thus, when the church and state in seventeenth century France took a strong position against dueling, it was because dueling was so widespread that hundreds of their best soldiers were killing themselves fighting each other instead of an enemy. Dueling, in fact, was actually compromising France’s military security.

All ethical systems, in addition, tend to have a religious foundation of some sort. This is because men, unless they are held to a transcendent standard beyond themselves, will generally use any excuse they can think of to resolve ethical questions by brute force. The Nazis, the Communists, and the Ku Klux Klan, among others, all have used this approach; only the excuses have changed. Of course, even what men call a transcendent standard can backfire disastrously, as Islamic fundamentalism has proven again and again.

So we see that through all of human history, ethics, or the way things should be done, has been vitally important, and is just as important today.

COMPASSION

A woman's right to murder her baby in the most brutal, inhuman way possible. Also known as "abortion right's" or a woman's "right to privacy".

BEHOLD THE MAN

In this vulture haunted "Place of the Skull"
see how He hangs in agony
by His nail-pierced hands.
The sun's eye hidden in shame
that these healing hands stretched out in love
should be so stretched out in hate
by those whose twisting of truth
is more cruel than the spear in His side
or the searing, twisting, torture of the cross,
and these healing, loving, gentle hands
blasphemed by the rusty,iron nails
tearing into the flesh.
And even these crude soldiers
whose foul, cursing mouths
dishonor their own heathen gods
as they cast lots for His one poor garment,
whose vinegar and gall was, at that,
a certain rough kindness,
even they would not call their work
an act of compassion.
Ecce Homo.
Behold the Man!
Risen triumphant and in agony
till he comes again.

The Puritans

Puritan-a ntheame hated by Liberal ideologues. What does it mean? The Puritans were the party in the Church of England which wanted further reform, particularly to eliminate Roman Catholic practices. Puritans were so called because they wanted to "purify" the English church. The persecution they endured along with other Protestant groups, especially the Separatests, precipitated the English Civil War (1640 A. D.). This revolution abolished monarchy and attempted to establish parliamentary government. The protectorate collapsed in 1660 A. D. and was followed by the Restoration, so called because it restored monarchy. However, this reinstatement of kingship was accompanied by the clear position that monarchial powers were limited. The doctrine of the Divine Right of Kings was laid to rest. The Glorious Revolution 1688 A. D. vindicated Puritan political principles and England now had a firmly established constitutional monarchy. This was one of the great Puritan contributions.


In 1662 A. D. the Puritans were expelled from the Church of England and Puritanism in the exact sense of the word was dead. Separatism, forming your own church, was now the only option. Historians today use the term Puritan as a blanket term for nearly all the heirs of the Protestant Reformation at that time. The expelled Puritans took small churches, mostly in northern England, and produced an outpouring of wonderful, deeply spiritual classics stessing the centrality of Scripture and the necessity of a personal relationship with Christ. They understood the Bible to adress all of the concerns of life; this included education, ethics, literature, science and government. However, Jesus is our Sovereign Lord, and there is nothing outside His concern and purview. When He said, "Man does not live by bread alone, but by every word that proceeds from the mouth of God," (Matt. 4.4)the Puritans understood this to be the basis of true spirituality. For example, John Wesley once preached a sermon on choosing your life's occupation.

The Puritans, particularly the Presbyterians, retained the Roman Catholic notion of having a state church, but by the end of the 17th century most Separatists were moving away from the idea. Baptists were in the forefront of espousing religious liberty. For example there was Roger Williams classic The Bloody Tenant of Persecution. Baptists never had a state church.
The American Revolution, far from being a product of Enlightenment thinking, was fomented by Puritan preachers,so much so, that the presence of the occassional deist in the woodpile was irrelevant to the fact that a Christian revolution set up a Christian republic. In many ways it was a continuation of the English Civil War. Edmund Burke, then a member of Parliament, said that the Americans were only demanding the rights generally enjoyed by Englishmen. Later he wrote two classic books contrasting the American and the French revolutions.

The English called our revolution "The Presbyterian Rebellion". While they were over here they burned 50 Presbyterian churches and stabled their horses in a number of others. Actually, Congregationalists and Baptists also preached this revolution as well as some Methodists and others. The American Revolution established a Christian republic which tolerated other religions. It was one of the few revolutions which established a stable government.

The constitution contained nothing about the mythical doctrine of "separation of church and state". In 1830 A. D., the state church of Massachusetts voluntarily disbanded. Nearly all of the state constitution as well as The Declaration of Independence mentioned God and His Providence. The Puritans were responsible for the best and freest government ever created.
The Puritans were also great believers in education. They established many schools and universities including Harvard, Yale and Princeton. The existence of our vast system of public education is also a Puritan contribution.

Spiritually and intellectually the puritans drew upon the Reformation (Luther, Calvin and the Bible) as well as the Renaissance (Classical learning, Christian Humanism and emerging natural science).

Jonathan Edwards was not only an accomplished minister but a brilliant writer in philosophy, science and education. Many scholars believe Edwards was the greatest thinker in American history.

The idea that thePuritans were overly prudish or condemned sex is a myth. They were, of course, against promiscuity. The Biblical story of Jacob who labored 7 years for the love of a beautiful woman was a favorite.

John Calvin promoted the then somewhat radical notion of "companionate marriage". This was further developed by the Puritans. They conceived of marriage as a deep spiritual union of spirit and mind as well as body. The husband was acknowledged as head of the household but on the spiritual and often the intellectual level the Puritan wife thought of herself as his equal. "Souls have no sexes" preached Robert Bolton.

At the core of their union lay communion with Christ. As they looked daily towards God and approached Him on their life's pilgrimage, so they grew closer to each other.
Jonathan Edwards' wife wrote a beautiful book about their marriage. Ann Bradstreet had this to say about her marital relationship;

"To My Dear and Loving Husband

If ever two were one, then surely we.
If ever man were lov'd by wife, then thee;
If ever wife was happy in a man,
Compare with me ye women if you can. "

Contemporary Evangelical Christians are the spiritual heirs of the Puritans.

They Preached Liberty

This book has an introductory essay and biographical sketches by Franklin P. Cole.
"Leave politics alone! Stick to the simple gospel!" This outcry from the Liberals and fuzzy minded evangelicals shows ignorance of the Bible and American history. This splended book, published by Liberty Press, now out of print, dispels these popular shiboleths. It is an anthology of quotations from New England ministers of the American War of Independence "on the subject of liberty: its source, nature, obligations, types, and blessings."

In the Election Sermons of Massachusetts. Connecticut and Vermont, the ministers expressed themselves on the subject of civil government. Two sermons were preached annually on general election day and on the artillery election day. Also on Thanksgiving or Fast Days or receiving news from abroad, the ministers spoke on political subjects.

"In his Election Sermon of 1772 before the Massachusetts council and House of Representatives, The Rev. Moses Parsons of Newbury Falls stated his conception of the duty of ministers: "Watchmen upon the wallsmust not hold their peace- they must cry and not spare, must reprove what is amiss, and warn when danger is approaching!" This is the great tradition in American preaching. Then as now, it was not always popular. "After William Gordon's sermon of December15, 1776, one of the "king's friends" ejaculated: "I most heartily wish, for the peace of America, that he and many others of his profession would confine themselves to gospel truths!" Tyranny had many friends in those days as well as now. Had the Liberals lived in those days, which side would they have been on?
From colonial times to the present it has always been considered the prerogative of ministers to express themselves on questions of public morality and government. Those who think otherwise are perhaps victims of educational malpractice. A member of the "now" generation encountered a sundial for the first time in his life. They explained to him that they could use it to tell time by the sun. His response was: "Wow! What will they think of next?" For liberals the world was created at six O'Clock this morning.
This book is not only informative but inspiring: "The Scriptures cannot be rightfully expounded without explaining them in a manner friendly to the cause of freedom...Unlimited submission and obedience is due to none but God alone. He has an absolute right to command; he alone has an uncontrollable sovereignty over us, because he alone is unchangeably good. He never will nor can require of us, consistent with his nature and attributes, anything which is not fit and reasonable. His commands are just and good. And to suppose that he has given to any particular set of men a power to require obedience to that which is unreasonable, cruel, and unjust, is robbing the Deity of his justice and goodness."
As we move into this new century, let us pray for a rebirth of liberty founde on thework of God!

Evolution: Unimpeachable, Flawless Science?

Guest Article: Tracy A. Gray - Manufacturing Engineer and Writer

Someone has rightly observed that the essence of true science is measurement, observation, and repeatability. This is true. Clearly though, neither model of origins, creation or evolution, is scientific in this sense. We cannot go back and view our origins taking place. This does not mean, however, that their results cannot be observed and tested. In other words, we can define two models of origins and then make predictions as to what we should find if one is true. Though we cannot prove either theory, the model which best fits the observable data is the one most likely to be true.
Creationists are not saying the creation model is true because evolution cannot explain everything. They are saying that real, 0bservable scientific data fits the creation model better than evolution does. Teaching intelligent design alongside evolution is not an attempt to force "religious dogma" on others. Since when have archaeology, geology, biology, biochemistry, statistical probability and thermodynamics been matters of religious dogma? It is evidence from these fields of study that intelligent design advocates want brought to the science class. Yet proponents of evolution continue to pretend it is a religious issue. And the evolutionary theory alone continues to be taught as fact in schools without an argument being heard against it. Who is brainwashing whom here?
Some will cry: "But evolution is supported by a mountain of evidence! It is "established science!" Perhaps we should listen to evolutionists themselves. Regarding missing transitional forms evolutionist Steven M. Stanley writes: "The known fossil record fails to document a single example of phyletic evolution accomplishing a major morphologic transition...". Evolutionist Mark Ridley states: "In any case, no real evolutionist...uses the fossil record as evidence in favor of the theory of evolution as opposed to special creation." Regarding a lack of even a general evolutionary progression in the fossil record, evolutionist Stphen J. Gould writes: "I regard the failure to find a clear 'vector of progress' in life's history as the most puzzling fact of the fossil record...we have sought to impose a pattern that we hoped to find on a world that does not really display it." Regarding the fact that all things are degenerating over time (what science calls the law of entropy and the exact opposite of what one would expect if evolution were true), evolutionist Sydney Harris observes: "How can the forces of biological development and the forces of physical degeneration be operating at cross purposes?
Mathematician and physicist Sir Arthur Eddington warned: "If your theory is found to be against the law of entropy, I can give you no hope; there is nothing for it but to colapse in deepest humiliation." If space allowed, more quotes could show that pet theories such as vestigial (i. e. useless) organs and recapitulation (i. e. embryonic development displaying evolutionary progression) are considered outdated and worthless as evolutionary evidence even by evolutionists. Where then, is this great mountain of evidence for evolution? And why is it the only voice heard in our schools? Good question.
Evolutionist Colin Patterson, after studying evolution for twenty years, became frustrated by the lack of real evidence. He decided to pose a question to various groups of his evolutionist friends. The question? "Can you tell me any thing you know about evolution, any one thing, any one thing that is true?" He tried that question on the geology staff at the Field Museum of Natural History. The only answer he got was silence. He tried it on the members of the Evolutionary Morphology Seminar in the University of Chicago, a very prestigious body of evolutionists, and all he got there was a long silence. Then, finally, one person said: "Yes, I do know one thing - it ought not to be taught in high school!"
Couldn't have said it better!

Intelligent Design

The editorial cartoon in The Indianapolis Star (8/11/05), demonstrates the abysmal ignorance of the Liberal mindset. It shows an evil creationist wolf in the sheep's clothing of "intelligent design" trying to get into a public school, thus depicting all creationists as evil, predatory creatures, and proving to anyone capable of thinking that Liberalism is a religion of hate like that of Arab terrorists. It also lends itself to all sorts of satirical possibilities. Are we to understand that anything intel

ligent is taboo in Liberal dominated schools? Do Liberals believe in unintelligent design? Are Liberals against all intelligence, or just an intelligence that's the uncaused cause? Does such an intelligence make them nervous, perhaps?
The concept of intelligent design permeates the history of Western thought. It is found in The Old Testament of the Jews: "The heavens declare the glory of God, and the firmament showeth His handiwork. Day unto day uttereth speach, and night unto night showeth knowledge. " (Ps. 19:1-2), and many other passages.
Many of the Presocratic Philosophers believed in a sort of deistic god because they understood the world to be a cosmos not a chaos, and that order demanded a principle of order behind it. Among these were the philosophers of the Milesian School, in the sixth century B.C. Nearly every philosopher of note from then to the present was some sort of theist because the order and unity of the universe seemed to require an intelligence to explain it. This includes Plato, Aristotle, Augustine, Bonaventure, Thomas Aquinas, Kant and Hegel, as well as Thomas Jefferson, and most of the French Enlightenment philosophers. Jefferson planted flower seeds in his garden so they spelled out some words, then when they came up, he showed them to his children and asked them if this could just be an accident.
Intelligent design was not dreamed up yesterday by Christian fundamentalists; we are in excellent company!
The reason Liberals find all this so hateful is simply that Liberalism is a form of antirational, gnostic mysticism with a murderous, totalitarian political agenda.
Not wanting to end with the sad note of the gloomy doctrines of atheism, I think of many great hymns of the Christian faith such as All Things Bright and Beautiful, How Great Thou Art, and Joseph Addison's wonderful hymn:
"The spacious firmament on high, With all the blue ethereal sky,
And spangled heav'n, a shining frame their great Original proclaim ...
In reason's ear they all rejoice, and utter forth a glorious voice,
Forever singing as they shine: "The hand that made us is divine."

Pre-Evangelism

Years ago in Indiana a Wesleyan evangelist was conducting a revival in one of the poorest counties. It was so backwater, there wasn't even a village. He had his tent set up at a crossroads. He noticed a tremendous coldness in the response of the people.

By inquiring around, he discovered that the most successful farmer in the area had written a book critising the Bible. Everyone therabous had read his little book and no one ever contradicted it. This was very peculiar because it was one of the most ignorant books ever written against the Bible. It contained such arguments as how could the ark have landed on a mountain peak since it would be teetertotering back and forth.

The evangelist went out to this man's farm and talked with him. The farmer related to him that he had been put off by the over zealousness his wife's religious relatives. They had provoked him into writing this book.

The minister who had patiently heard him out said to the man: "Well, if it hadn't been for your wife's relatives, you would probably still be a church member today."

The farmer replied: "That's probably true."

"I'll tell you what I'm going to do", the evangelist said, "I'm going to answer all the objections in your book. I would like you to sit up there on the podium with me and hear me out. Is that fair enough?"

The farmer agreed. Probably no one had ever had the consideration to actually talk to him. He really was basically a fair and reasonable person.

So, that night, the evangelist did answer every one of his objections, the farmer even admitted that really had done so. After that, the revival picked up and many converts were made.

This is a good example of of pre-evangelism. The fact that nobody had ever challenged these wrong ideas formed a stumbling block to this evangelist's audience.

Christians have a responsibility to stand up and challenge false ideas and proclaim the truth where misunderstanding is likely to hinder accepting the Gospel.

Philosophies of Science

One of the great mysteries is the cocksure certainty of intellectual superiority assumed by atheists and secularists. They are certain that science is superior to the Bible and that they can refute the Bible on the basis of science and Reason. "Reason" usually means the prejudices of atheistic Humanists. It has little to do with thinking logically. I think it's more fun than the Sunday crossword to try to figure out what all this means. First of all, we are told in tones of dogmatism so absolute as to make the medieval Popes turn green with envy "there are no absolutes" and "There is no absolute truth." Any sane person would wonder what they have left to talk about, but atheists and their compeers have no trouble blowing up a platform and then standing on it. When it comes to the area of science, without a Christian metaphysics to undergird it, we are left with nothing but inductive reasoning. This hardly constitutes the best knowledge we have. A whole generalization can be overthrown by the discovery of a single fact. For example:"All crows are black." This stood for several centuries until a species of white crows was discovered in Australia. This is referred to as "The Scandal of Empiricism". David Hume expounded the unsupportability of "Radical Empiricism". He pointed out that just because water has always boiled at 212 degrees a hundred times or a thousand times, it doesn't prove it did in the past or it will in the future. The same sort of problem exists for causality. Alfred North Whitehead , in his classic book Science and the Modern World, pointed out that science arose in the Western world because it was permeated with Christian metaphysics. Christians understood that an intelligent designer had created it and given it order because for the most part every- thing was governed by laws God had established. Many other scholars have also made this point. Are evolutionists against intelligent design because they are just against intelligence per se? Don't their anti-rational ravings prove the point? Only a Christian philosophy can supply us with a rational basis for science. When we get away from Christianity, science is seriously compromised. A case in point is the evolutionist myth which has produced nothing but racism and fascism.

Non-specialists eagerly transported the idea of biological evolution to other realms entirely: Julian Huxley and his ilk popularized "Social Darwinism" in interracial and international affairs, which led to racist eugenics, adopted in Nazism.

None of the atheist/secularist philosophies asserts that science is true. Thomas S. Kuhn in his influential book The Nature of Scientific Revolutions, argues that science is not made up of carefully consructed theories based on neutral fact , but is a contingent social activity. Scientists do not " know what the world is like." Their thinking is based on "world views" and especially "paradigms". These "provide models from which spring particular coherent traditions of scientific research." These "paradigms" may or may not be true.

Logical Positivism was developed by a group of anti-philosophers at the University of Vienna in the 192o's. The so called "Vienna Circle" held that philosophy does not produce propositions which are true or false; it merely clarifies the meaning of statements, showing some to be scientific, some to be mathematical and some to be nonsensical. The last of these includes most philosophical statements. In essence Logical Positivism denies all metaphysical ideas as having any meaning. This, of course, is a metaphysical idea, so of course, it too has no meaning. Logical Positivism is a quagmire of twisted reasoning, but if it is true, science is not.

Another popular view was Pragmatism, formulated by C. S. Pierce (1839-1914) and further developed by William James (1842-1910). It asserts that the meaning of any proposition can always be boiled down to the practical consequences which will issue from it in practical experience. Besides being a quagmire of logical absurdity, it clearly states that science is not true, it is merely useful .

These ideas were further developed as Operationalism by P. W. Bridgeman (1882-1969). It also states that all scientific ideas are not true. They are merely useful. This is the most popular view today. If this concept were vigorously applied evolutionism would only appeal to racist hatemongers and power-mad fascists.

Once again we have an unanswerable question for the evolutionists and the science worshippers: "Which of these four theories do you suscribe to?" Whichever one it is, you still have no basis for challenging the eternal, unchanging, revealed truth of the Bible.

What is Science?

Science arose in the Western world because it was permeated with Christian theology. This was pointed out by Alfred North Whitehead in his classic book Science and the Modern World. Numerous historical scholars have concurred with this analysis. The Eastern philosophies virtually all posited a universe which was always changing with no fixed physical laws. Nearly all the Greek philosophers believed in some sort of deity because this explained the order in the universe. Intelligent design is not an idea hatched by scheming fundamentalists just last week. It permeates the history of Western Philosophy. The Christian God very explicitly created the universe and governed it by fixed laws. There were indeed miracles; these were viewed as special, voluntary acts by an all wise, all powerful God. The concept of physical laws was unique. Furthermore, subsequent belief in physical law come into being on the basis of this a priori Christian doctrine, and afterwards was confirmed by empirical evidence. Another specifically Christian element was belief in logic as a true tool for analyzing empirical data. Understanding this makes us realize that scientific ideas cannot for the most part be proved but only verified. Scientists from the 16th century to the 19th century were also aware of the limitations of empiricism, as well as logical fallacies like “insufficient evidence”. The Christian influence was also evident in the emphasis on integrity and accuracy as well as the need to examine all the relevant evidence, not just that which supports some favored view.

Science properly so called is focused on phenomena which are observable, repeatable and capable of being tested. The emphasis on testing and experimentation is what raised science above the level of mere technology. The ancient Greeks came close to developing science but lacked the experimental method and an adequate metaphysical foundation.

Contemporary atheist/secularist science even more so lacks an adequate metaphysical foundation, and is either careless of sound logic or determinably anti-rational.

There are four popular views in this area. The positivism of Auguste Compte was based on social Darwinist mythology. He claimed that the development of human intelligence passed through three stages (1) the theological, (2) the metaphysical, (3) the scientific or “positive.” In the highest stage science abandons metaphysics and is concerned only with the relationship of phenomena to each other. Positivism is sort of like a mental pre-frontal lobotomy. It led to such just plain silly dictums as “Science is based on knowledge and religion is based on faith.” There is no knowledge without faith. The temperature in this room is 72 degrees. How do I know that? I believe that the expansion of mercury correlates with the rise and fall of level of heat in this room. Ah, but it doesn’t stop there, I also believe that that there are fixed, unchanging laws of the universe and that there are absolute truths such as 2 plus to is 4, yesterday, today and tomorrow. Compte’s disavowal of metaphysics is hopeless contradiction—not just one but a morass of contradiction—because if it is true it is also false. This anti-rationalism still underlies the murky thinking of atheist/secularism.

Just as bad is the doctrine of pragmatism propounded by William James. The essence of this idea is that scientific ideas are true insofar as they as can accomplish their intended result. Again it is anti-metaphysical to the extent it rules out objective standards of truth.

Probably the most popular view today on a conscious level is Operationalism. This is the doctrine that scientific ideas are not true, they are useful. For example, what is light? This metaphysical concept is not dealt with in science. For problems of science in optics light travels in a perfectly straight line, for other problems it travels in waves, for others it is a stream of particles and for still others a stream of particles that travels in waves. Pick your problem and pick your theory!

Finally there is the view expounded by Thomas Kuhn that science operates with paradigms, which may or may not be true. There are other more sophisticated views, such as Scientific Idealism and Scientific Realism, which also suffer from the same basic problems which undermine all scientific claims to truth, the inherent weakness of anything based on empirical evidence and the highly speculative nature of secularist metaphysical presuppositions. There is nothing in atheist/secularist science that can plausibly assert that their science is so crushingly correct that no other opinions have any right to be considered or even heard. They can’t refute the tooth fairy, let alone the Bible. And, despite decades of attempted brain washing less than 8% of the American population believes in evolution, while the number who believe in Creationism has risen from 42% to 51%. I, of course, see evolutionism as incredibly bad Science Fiction. Science properly so called must be undergirded by the Christian metaphysical foundation which brought it into being and without which it makes no sense. Whatever atheist/secular science is, we can know for sure it is not true!

What I Learned From Arguing With Evolutionists

An honest man is the noblest work of God!
A lie is an abomination in the sight of the Lord and an ever ready help to darwinians in time of need!
Never buy a used car from an evolutionist.
Everything I needed to know about evolution can be learned from Ann Coulter. (Godless)
Evolution is no substitute for rational thought or legitimate science.
Scratch an evolutionist and you’ll find a fascist.
Darwinian evolutionists are best described as "Babbling Baboons". This is not name calling, just accurate description. According to the evolution myth, people are just highly developed apes. This is a self fulfilling prophesy, because they are only animals, they are governed by their baser feelings and instincts, we see this in the apalling horrors of American Liberalism, Nazi Germany and Soviet Russia, where people are murdered by the tens of millions. As one Soviet administrater put it when reproached for killing 100,000 people: "What would you do with a herd of sick cattle?" Evolutionists are incapable of rational thought and Baboons are a particularly viscious form of ape which hunt in packs, the anolgy is perfect!
There is not a single legitimate, rational argument to support evolution!
Evolution is the ground and piller of Socialism in all its forms, no wonder the majority of scientists endorse it. They'd lose their jobs and possibly their heads if they didn't!
Evolutionists qualify for the cheapest funeral in the world. Wait till rigor mortise sets in, then screw them into the ground!

Frauds of Darwinian Evolution

There are many of these frauds, the so called primitive men especially. There have been many of these, 2o at least, often based on phoney, manufactured evidence, but worse than that, is the blatant disregard of the logical principle of "insufficient evidence". Darwinists have no respect for facts or logic. Within the framework of Darwinian metaphysics logic can have no ontological significance, it is another accident, having no intrinsic relationship to ultimate reality.

Another fraud is the use of Earnst Haeckel's fraudulant embryo drawings, used in biology textbooks right into this century, despite having been exposed by responsible scientists back in the 19th century. The babbling baboons, true believers in this pseudo-scientific religion(Heackel and T.H. Huxley admitted that's what it is, a religion), swear that they have not been used that way-but what has Darwinism got to do with truth? Despite being a well known fact they demand documentation, so I am compiling a list.

1. Alton Biggs, et al,Biology: The Dymamics of Life, Glencoe/McGraw-Hill, 1998.
2. N. Campbell, et al, Biology: Exploring Life(Florida Teacher's Edition), 2006.
3.Douglas J. Futuyama, Evolutionary Biology, Third Edition, 1998.
4. Burt S. Gutman, Biology, 1999.
5. George B. Johnson, Biology: Visualizing Life, Annotated Teacher's Edition, 1998.
6. Kenneth R. Miller et al, Biology, Fifth Edition, 2000.
7. Peter H. Raven et al, Biology, Fifth Edition, 1999.
8. William D. Schraer et al, Biology: The Study of Life, Seventh Edition, 1999.
9. Cicie Starr et al, Biology: The Unity and Diversity of Life, Tenth Edition, 1998.
10. Joseph Raver, Biology: Patterns and Processes of Life, 2004.
11. Donald Voet et alBiochemistry, Third Edition, 2004.
12. Bruce Alberts, Molecular Biology of the Cell, Third Edition, 2005.

You can bet that all these books in the third or seventh edition carried this fraud in the earlier editions too. Stephen J. Gould, one of the most famous Darwinian biologists, called Haeckel's embryo drawings "fraudulant", he wrote:"We do, I think, have the right to be astonished and ashamed by the century of mindless recycling that has led to the persistance of these drawings in a large number, if not a majority,of modern textbooks!" Despite lying protestations to the contrary, this recycling continues! Mass murderer Carl Sagan and others used Haeckel's fraudulant drawings to justify the murder of the unborn. he used the long disredited "recapitulation theory" to claim that in first trimester the embryo wasn't human so it was all right to kill it. Lies! fraud, the usual!
Another interesting book is The Illustrated Origen of the Species by Charles Darwin, Abridged & Illustrated by Richard E. Leakey, 1978. On page 213 Haeckel's fraudulant embryo drawing are used without any comment that they are fraudulant.
In addition to this, we have many other classic frauds: The Miller-Urey Experiment, Darwin's Tree of life(diagrams often take the place of arguments), Archaeopteryx, Peppered Moths and Four-Winged Fruitflies.

Books to read

Michael Behe, Darwin's Black Box, 2003.
The Lie: Evolution, Ken Ham, 1987.
Cornelius G. Hunter, Science's Blind Spot-The Unseen Religion of Scientific Naturalism, 2007.
Phillip W. Johnson, Darwin on trial,
Sir Arthur Keith, Evolution and Ethics, ("To see evolutionary measures and tribal morality being appliedvigorously to the affairs of a great modern nation, we must turn to again to Germany of 1942. We see Hitler devoutly convinced that evolution produces the only real basis for a national policy...") 1947.
Willy Ley, Exotic Zoology(The Sirrush of The Ishtar Gate,argues that the Ishtar Gate of Babylon proves that at least one living species of dragon-dinosaur was known to the Babylonians.), 1959.
David T. Moore, Five Lies of the Century, 1995.
Roger Patterson, Evolution Exposed, 2007.
Geoffrey Simmons, Billions of Missing Links,2007.
_____________, What Darwin Didn't Know, 2004.
Tom Sutcliff, Why Evolution is a Fraud,
Traverso, Enzo, The Origins of Nazi Violence, 2003.
Richard Weikart, From Darwin to Hitler,
Jonathon Wells, Icons of Evolution, 2002.
The politically Incorrect Gide to Darwinism and Intelligent Design, 2006.

Seven Questions No Evolutionist Can Answer

1. What is the mechanism of evolution? A clear unequivical answer is the only thing that could make this a scientific theory. Natural selection and mutation are nonsense answers.

2.If you are an evolutionist how can you deny being a racist? Racism is intrinsic to Darwinism.

3. If the earth is billions of years old, how can you account for the salinity of the ocean? Studies have shown that a uniform rate of salination would make the ocean only 7,000 years old.

4. How can you account for the fact that the classic layers of strata are not universally layed down in the same order? There is one place where they cover fossilized trees 100 feet tall, yet these layers are supposed to represent millions of years. Of course any introductory handbook on fossilization will tell you that fossilization rarely takes place in nature, so how did we get all these millions of fossils?

5. Why should any logical person want to accept the circular reasoning used to date strata? The fossils are used to date the strata and the strata are used to date the fossils.

6. what is the future of science if it is to be controlled by evolutionists with their selective appeal to evidence, their denial of the unity of the universe, their irrationality and complete lack of intellectual integrity?

7. Why are evolutionists deathly afraid to have all sides of the issue be presented, even calling in the government to silence all opposition?

Liberalism

Arguing with a Liberal
is just like an oldtime
horror story in Weird Tales or
Tales From the Crypt:
a rotting, resuscitated corpse
comes for you,
No! No! Get away!
You’re dead!
You put four shots into it,
it keeps coming!
Just like Liberals!
You refute
their arguments
time and again,
refute their lies
endlessly!
They just keep coming!
Goya was right,
the sleep of reason
produces monsters!
Dr. Robert O. Adair
gggggggggggggggggggggggggggggggggggggggggggggggggggggggggggggggggggggggggggggggggggggggggggutman,

The Witness of Atheism

There is an old saying: "What you are speaks so loudly, I cannot hear what you are saying." This is the meaning of "witness". From time to time I have had it called to my attention that something I did revealed my attitude or my convictions.

One thinks of the story of a Chinese missionary. He was stung by the ridicule that Chinese converts were "rice Christians", that is, they just accepted Christ because the missionaries were giving away rice. Consequently, he set up two tents 500 feet apart; in one, they preached the gospel and in the other they gave away rice. One day as he was sitting in the rice tent, and a Chinese man came in. He asked the missionary: "Those people up the roach preaching, do they believe the same as you?" The missionary said: "Yes, I hope you will listen to them and come to know Jesus Christ as your savior." "Perhaps," he said, "but I would prefer to hear this message from one who so costlingly cares about me."

One thinks of the word "martyr" which means, "witness". I have always thought it was so moving that this word came to mean one who has sealed his testimony with his own blood-as so many millions of Christians have.

This brings us to the witness of atheism. What does atheism say about itself and what does it do that speaks louder than words?

First of all, atheism, and its clone agnosticism, says there is no truth. Ask any atheist you choose and you will be told, "There is no absolute truth-everything is relative." What this means is that atheists don't know anything. This simple unbelief, wrongly called "skepticism", is usually couched in the language of the Sophist found in Plato's Dialogues (circa 500 BC). From this unsupported dogma they usually proceed to assert or insinuate that since they don't know anything, neither can any one else. It is also fashionable in his or her circles to assert that anyone who claims to know anything is just being arrogant. Here we can readily see the self-contradictory nature of atheist statements. How can one know there is no truth and, if you don't know anything, how can you pass judgment on the claims of others? And, by the way, isn't this being judgmental. This is something they assure us in a no-no. Aren't all those taboos or no-nos judgmental?

The testimony of atheism is that atheists are incurably ignorant, irrational, inconsistent, and hypocritical. The atheist abandonment of truth cuts far more deeply than the ritualistic recitation of the formula "There are no absolutes, etc." Atheists have subverted public education. For example, John Dewey's version of pragmatism, called instrumentalism, asserts that "the consequences of practice was the true test of ideas." Like Dewey, William James, rejected "absolute categories of truth and value."

"Historians such as Frederick Jackson Turner, Charles A. Beard, and Carl L. Becker threw off…the historicism of the German scholar, Von Ranke, who called for a completely objective accounting of the past." One obvious question in the light of this material quoted from Gutek's history of education isn't based on truth, what have they got to sell? These relativist notions have come to dominate so-called education (better called government education) along with the notion there is no difference between right and wrong, the Ten Commandments are irrelevant and have no place in schools, as well as the evolutionist myth of human origins.

However repugnant these notions are to the general public, they are imposed regardless of opposition or appeals to fairness.

To recapitulate: the witness of atheism is not only irrationalism and inconsistency, but that atheism is by nature unjust, unfair and fascistic. This point was driven home by the Waco massacre. Whenever the subject of Christianity comes up, it usually triggers the knee jerk reaction: "What about the Inquisition?" Well, what about it? In the course or three centuries, three million people were killed. In a small percentage of cases, there might have been some justification, but probably, most of them were killed for political reasons. Significantly, when some of these geographical areas became Protestant and the people were exposed to the teaching of the Bible, they broke down and cried saying: "Oh if only we had known, we would not have cooperated with the Inquisition!" Just since 1973 (Roe vs. Wade) over 48 million helpless babies have been tortured and murdered-a striking kill record for the atheists. The crimes committed in the name of Christianity were not committed in the spirit of Christianity. But crimes committed in the name of atheism were also committed in the spirit of atheism. So what about the Inquisition? It was very inefficient compared to modern atheists who are the supreme mass murders in all of recorded history.

Joseph Stalin and Communism are unparalleled, but liberals are no slouches either. Abortion alone has killed more innocent human beings than all the wars, all the plagues and all the natural disasters in our history. There has never been a great philosopher who was an atheist. One scholar describes atheistic liberalism as "a form of anti-rational Gnostic mysticism with a totalitarian political agenda." This too is the witness of atheism.

Summing up, we can say the witness of atheism is: There is no truth so they don't know anything; they are self-contradictory, irrational, inconsistent and hypocritical. They have reduced history to propaganda and learning to utter foolishness; they are fascistic and the greatest killers of all time. The collapse of the Soviet Union proved one thing: you cannot build a civilization on a foundation of atheism.

I personally detest atheism, but every negative quality I perceive in them, they have witnessed to, they said it, they exemplified it, I didn't. I simply agree that they are exactly what they say they are. What does God say about this? "All those who hate Me love death." The witness of atheism confirms the Bible and moves me to pity for these poor, miserable lost souls.



The Failure of Atheism
by Robert O. Adair

Across the world, wherever atheist secularist governments are in control, the people long to be free. In the Soviet slave empire, which has recently collapsed, we see the most dramatic failure. Along with this, there is a conspiracy of silence in the corrupt, secular press concerning the powerful roll the Christians played in the demise of Communist power. One thinks of the slogan, "Scratch a liberal, you will find a Fascist."

Also, in communist China and Cuba and other communist countries, there is an evident longing for freedom, economic prosperity, and yes, even for spiritual freedom. Atheist materialism is not only a philosophical error, it violates the deep longing of the human heart. Even in European socialist countries there is a growing recognition that socialism is a gigantic mistake. These people are also attempting to gain freedom.

In the field of scientific thinking, opinion is moving against materialism and the evolution myth. Growing numbers are beginning to see Carl Sagan and Stephen J. Gould as hucksters for bankrupt ideas, not serious scientists. Above all, in the field of philosophers are increasingly either boring people to death or impressing them with the fact that if Russell, Ayer and the existentialists can’t discover any truth, they have nothing to sell.

As a consequence, millions are seeking to escape from the toils of public education even at the university level. Indeed, the future belongs not to the brainwashed and intellectual cripples who are a product of public education, but to the escapees, especially the Christians. The abolition of public education supported by the legalized plunder of unlimited taxation is a key step to undercutting fascist tyranny. Without the ability to brainwash decent people, the forces of atheism will probably subside. After all, it is the atheist and secularist who are intent on murdering their own offspring. If they cannot control the children of others, they will die out. Once again, as in the days of the Roman Empire, the viability, the stability of Christian people and Christian institutions is key to genuine civilization.

But how sad for a person to turn from the dry water hole of atheism only to venerate Christianity for its vastly superior rationality or its contribution to human culture. What a pity to know all this and not to personally know the Lord Jesus Christ in the way of John Bunyan or Bernard of Clairvaux who wrote:
"Jesus, the very thought of Thee witseesweetness fills my breast; but
Sweeter far Thy face to se and in Thy presence rest."

One thinks of the famous passage in The Pilgrims Progress where Bunyan's character actually comes to faith in Christ:
"Then Christian was glad and lightsome, and said with a merry heart, 'He has given me rest by his sorrow, and life by his death.' Then he stood still a while to look and wonder, for it was very surprising to him that the sight of the Cross should thus ease him of his burden."

How simple and yet philosophically profound for someone to recognize that he personally is a sinner and worthy of death; and that he must personally acknowledge his sinful state so that he can fully appreciate and comprehend the words of the apostle John who said:
"For God so loved the world that he gave His only begotten son, that whosoever believeth in Him should not perish, but have everlasting life." (John 3:16).

Ah! That the people would repent and believe the glorious gospel of Jesus Christ! That they would come out of darkness into the light of the glory of God!



What is Education?
by Robert O. Adair

Prior to 1900, practically every serious educator understood that the primary purpose of education was "the formation of moral character." American liberal arts colleges treated lying and cheating as completely inconsistent with being an educated person. Those caught doing this were generally expelled and seldom reinstated.

We Christians have the Word of God, which is eternal Truth, settled in heaven forever. By contrast, there is secular humanism, which asserts, "everything is relative," and "there is no absolute truth." Both statements are logical contradictions. If they are true they are also false.

For Christians, "The fear of the Lord is the beginning of wisdom:"(Prov. 9:10) fear meaning awe and respect. The revealed truth of Scripture should be the first foundation of education. "Hear instruction, and be wise, and refuse it not."(Prov. 8:33) The Book of Proverbs is what particularly inspired the great flowering of universities in the twelfth century, which has carried down to the present day. Most universities, including the ones now dominated by secularists, were founded by Christians. They were part of the Christian cultural milieu. And as Christian influence declines the elements of genuine education evaporate. Morality and integrity are disappearing. History is conceived as propaganda a la 1984 and the evolution myth is misrepresented as science, which it is not and cannot be.

Logic is another bedrock of serious education. Only if the real is rational and the rational is real do we have a basis for knowledge and education. Logic is formalization of the way the human mind works. You cannot seriously deny that 2+2=4. One liberal student confronted with this replied petulantly: "2+2 is approximately 4!" How can you know something is approximately something without a standard?

Contrary to much popular opinion, morality is also a bedrock of education. Without it science becomes myth and history is mere propaganda. Everything becomes just a matter of opinion. The basic question is simply: "Is there any absolute truth?" If there isn't, there is not, of course, any relative or approximate truth. What resembles a Snark? If you don't know what it is, you can't tell if it approximates or resembles anything. Lewis Carroll had a lot of fun with fuzzy minded people. Those who deny the existence of absolute truth, and there are many, have nothing to teach. Western philosophy really got off the ground when Plato developed concepts of knowledge which were plausible and acceptable.

As for building on these foundations, this brings us to Dorothy L. Sayers' classic essay The Lost Tools of Learning, in which she asserts that schools need to get back to the medieval trivium of grammar, rhetoric and logic. If you have a firm grasp of these, you have a basis for tackling any subject.

The study of history is also an essentially Christian concern. Without history you do not know who you are or who God is. He is the Lord of history, who created the heavens and the earth and man; who called Abraham, Isaac, Jacob, and Moses; who is incarnate in Jesus Christ who died for us and our salvation; who has surrounded us with a cloud of witnesses, and who is coming again to wrap up history and to usher in a new heavens and a new earth.

Another dimension of history is cultural or social history. To understand any subject, we need to understand something about its development and its cultural milieu. Is Islam a religion of peace? 13 centuries of warfare deny this idea, as a reading of the Quaran will confirm. This brings up the fact that there is a moral obligation to be intelligent and not bear false witness.

You cannot understand American or English literature apart from the Bible and the histories of these countries. Literature represents the very soul of the people. This includes religious writings, such as the Bible, the Quaran, along with the writings of Confucians, Hindus, and Buddhists, etc.

True education has a moral, a Biblical and a logical foundation. "Wisdom is the principle thing; therefore get wisdom: and with all thy getting get understanding." (Prov. 4:7) In this frantic, restless, secularized world, we can do nothing better than ponder the Book of Proverbs to find the answer to "what is education?"

The Organon
by Robert O. Adair Ph.D.

When I attended high school I heard many discussions and arguments in the classroom, in assemblies and in the Shortridge Senate. What bothered me most was that I would hear arguments on one side of an issue that sounded good and arguments on the other side, which also sounded good. To some extent, I realized I simply needed more information, but the question, which really concerned me, was, "How do you get to the bottom of a question?"

The answer was to be able to distinguish between sound arguments and fallacies. So when I attended Duke University, I took a good thorough course in logic. To my surprise, I discovered that most logical concepts are little more difficult than arithmetic. It is fairly simple to add up a column of figures and get the right answer. It is almost equally easy to spot logical fallacies and determine whether an argument is valid or not. Though Parmenides (515-440BC) and Plato (427-347BC) were important pioneers, it is Aristotle (384-322BC) who really established the science of logic. He articulated it as "The Organon" or the instrument of knowledge. So it was very widely understood until irrationalist 20th Century with its dissolution of the university and its anti-philosophical ideologies and just plain superstitions.

What is important to understand about logic can be dealt with briefly under three headings. First that "definition" is essential to a disciplined and intelligent discussion. One often finds such weasel words as "authoritarian" used by people. Does this mean "“having genuine authority" or "a pretense to authority which is unjustified"? One thinks of Lewis Carroll, the logician who spent a lot of time laughing at our loose, sloppy ways of saying things in Alice in Wonderland and the Hunting of the Shark. Definition controls? Can one species evolve into another? First of all, what is a species? Socrates tireless exposure of such sloppy thinking earned him the hemlock.

Second, the study and analysis of the syllogism is the key to understanding the heart of logic. This is the formalization of argument into a major premise, a minor premise and a conclusion. For example:
"All men are mortal.
Socrates is a man,
Therefore Socrates is mortal."
The validity (or falsity) of a conclusion is something we can know for sure. By changing the major premise or the minor premise we can invalidate the conclusion. "Aha! Socrates isn't a man, actually he's an angel" or "the men on Altair IV are just as human as we are but they are immortal." Well, if either of these propositions were true, it would invalidate the conclusion.

Significantly, people don't often speak in syllogisms but if you unpack what they say, you will find it. "Bob, your father told you to mow the lawn." One sentence. This translates into:
Your father told you to mow the lawn.
If you don't do it there will be bad consequences.
Therefore, to avoid the bad consequences, mow the lawn.
This is also like "Freeze!" which unpacks to:
If I move I'll be shot.
I don't want to be shot,
So I won't move.
People make these connections intuitively; the study of logic lays bare the underlying structure. Logic does for the mind, what time and motion studies do for the workplace.

Finally, there are anywhere from 40 to 115 logical fallacies. Usually, they have a technical name such as "the ad hominem fallacy" as well as popular designation such as "mixing apples with oranges,", "the tail wagging the dog," and "the refusal to discuss." Knowledge of these is like the tilt sign on a pinball machine. It almost instantly warns us that something is wrong. Logic can be considered a codification of intellectual honesty. One can say two plus two equals three, but no one can seriously believe it.

Society today is beginning to diverge into two cultures: on one hand there is Liberalism, which is an anti-rational Gnostic mysticism with a totalitarian political agenda. And there are various forms of conservatism, which still believe that the real is rational and the rational is real.

Forgotten Background of America's Founding

Public education has sunk to such a low level that the most basic facts of America’s founding are unknown to the general public. For example, a recent letter in ‘The Indianapolis Star’ points out that Article VI of the Constitution says, “No religious test shall be required” of public office. The author of the letter goes on to give examples of what he thinks are religious tests. He cites a minister’s criticism of George Washington for not taking communion. But the expression “religious tests” meant one specific thing in 18th century America. It meant being required to sign a religious creed, ostensibly one so narrow and specific that only a member of a particular church group could sign it.

What the writer of this letter overlooks is, that most state constitution required that teachers believe in God and the Ten Commandments. No one saw any contradiction between this requirement and “no religious test.” Rightly understood, there isn’t any.

This is one of the evidences of the Puritan background of the American Revolution. They still remembered Archbishop Laud and the Great Ejection of 1662. Puritan ministers had been required to sign a creed, which was so High Church Anglican, none of them could possibly sign it with good conscience. Contrary to contemporary notions, this country was not founded by deists. Thomas Jefferson denied that he was one; possibly, he was closer to being a Unitarian. Only three of the 56 signers of the Constitution were deists. Deism was so unpopular that after the Revolution, many places had laws against deists being eligible for public office. Generally overlooked, is the obvious fact that whoever signed the Constitution; they were men representing the American people and not themselves.

The Declaration of Independence contains passages completely inconsistent with deistic theology. This applies even more so to that neglected massive body of evidence, the preambles of the Constitutions of the 13 colonies:
“ We,…the people of Massachusetts, acknowledging with grateful hearts, the goodness of the great Legislator of the universe, in affording us, in the course of His providence an opportunity, for forming a new Constitution….”

Virtually, all of the subsequent state Constitutions similarly acknowledged Almighty God and quite often referred in no uncertain terms, to His providence. This material is completely contrary both to deism and to the ACLU and other secularists’ notions.

This brings us to the myth of “the wall of separation between church and state.” There is no such language in the Constitution. The expression “separation of church and state” is found in a letter by Jefferson assuring Baptist ministers that the sort of intrusive, totalitarian government currently favored by liberals would not oppress them. Indeed, contemporary notions of church/ state relations strongly resemble Russian Communist ideas. They are quite foreign to any legitimately traditional American notions of “the wall of separation between church and state.”
One liberal oracle which also appeared in ‘The Indianapolis Star’ tell us “separation of church and state is something…expressly stated in our Constitution to inhibit religion in any form from dictating how Americans choose to live.” Returning to the Massachusetts State Constitution:
“It is the right, as well as the duty, of all men in society publicly, and at stated seasons, to worship the Supreme Being…As the happiness of a people and the good order and preservation of civil government essentially depends upon piety, religion, and morality…the people of this commonwealth have a right to invest their legislature with power to authorize and require…the several towns…to make suitable provision….for this institution for the public worship of God and for the support…of public Protestant teachers….”

While we have quoted from the Massachusetts State Constitution, many other state Constitutions had similar provisions. Until 1830, the state of Massachusetts had an established church, in that year, it voluntarily disbanded and no one ever thought its existence contrary to the US Constitution.

Another massive refutation of the contemporary church/ state myth is the Supreme Court decision of 1892 stating, “This is a religious nation.” Many people have at least heard of this but it repays careful study. It is very cogently reasoned and supported by undeniable evidence; to quote only one of the Founding Fathers, Thomas Jefferson: “The God who gave us life, gave us liberty at the same time…Can the liberties of a nation be secure when we have removed their only firm basis, a conviction in the minds of the people that those liberties are the gift of God?”

America's Founding

“When will people learn that this country was founded by Deists?” Proclaimed a sneering secularist in a letter to the Indianapolis Star a few months ago. This misconception is very widespread today. An article in MacGregor’s Dictionary of Religion and Philosophy says, “Deistic attitudes…might be said to be characteristic of a majority of the signatories of the American Declaration of Independence.” One can only imagine that history teaching in the public schools is nearly identical to ‘The Ministry of Truth” in Orwell’s novel, 1984.

Christians founded this country, in reality. How can we know this for sure? Deism is the doctrine that God created the universe and went off and left it to function like a great, clockwork mechanism. In Deism, there is no personal God, no revealed religion, no prayer, and no providence.

Of the 55 delegates to the Constitutional Convention, only 3 claimed to be Deists. There is a serious doubt about the consistency of their stated philosophy, especially later in their lives. Deism was so unpopular that many places had laws against Deists holding public office. Noah Webster published a 60-page sermon denouncing the French Revolution and Deism. The Great Awaking, the religious revival of the 1740’s, particularly helped to undercut the spread of Deism, especially in the colonies.

John Hancock and all 55 delegates signed the Declaration of Independence. Governor Bradford listed the delegates as follows:

• 28 Episcopalians,
• 8 Presbyterians,
• 7 Congregationalists,
• 2 Lutherans,
• 2 Dutch Reformed,
• 2 Methodists,
• 2 Roman Catholics,
• 3 Deists.

There was one whose preference is unknown to historians. This makes roughly 5 ½ percent so-called Deist signers. One needs to remember, whoever signed this document, they were there to represent the American people, not themselves.
The three so-called Deists were Hugh Williamson of North Carolina, James Wilson of Pennsylvania, and Benjamin Franklin also of Pennsylvania. All three had studied for the ministry. Williamson was licensed by the Presbyterian Church and had conducted church services. Strict Calvinist parents raised James Wilson. He was buried in an Episcopal churchyard and had his children baptized in that Episcopal Church. In his law lectures at the College of Philadelphia, he declared, over and over, that law comes from God. He recognized law promulgated by reason and the moral sense, or natural law. He also referred to law promulgated by the Holy Scriptures and called Revealed Law. His recognition of revealed law is inconsistent with Deism. He also said that we discover the will of God “by our conscience, by our reason, and by the Holy Scriptures.”
People today are so brainwashed by secular thinking, they seldom ask the critical question, “What is the theology of the Declaration of Independence?” It clearly refers to people being “endowed by their Creator with certain inalienable rights…” It speaks of “the Laws of Nature and of Nature’s God.” Blackstone and Locke used this expression some time prior to the writing of the Declaration. Contrary to popular conception, this is not the language of Deism. To properly grammatically construe this phrase, we must realize it refers to the “Laws…of Nature’s God.” This is not something derived from observation. The only way we can know this is through Revelation. The Declaration also refers to”….a firm reliance on the protection of Divine Providence.” Whoever signed it, this is a Christian statement, not a Deistic one. Even the simple statement: “In God we trust” on our currency is contrary to Deistic thinking.
One massive body of evidence generally ignored is the various preambles to the state constitutions, particularly the original 13 colonies, but even most of the later preambles right down to the 1890”s. They invariably make some reference to being grateful to God and trusting to His providence. One can scarcely be grateful to the God of Deism any more than you can be grateful to a giant iceberg for being incredibly cold. Along the same lines of misconception, the philosopher, John Locke (1632-1704) is proclaimed as the principal source of ideas for the American Revolution. This again, involves several distortions. By describing him as a philosopher, they seek to imply that he was not a religious person, and if he had any religion, it was probably Deism. This is simply not true. Locke grew up in a Puritan family. He was the son of a Calvinist lawyer who fought on the side of the Puritans in the English Civil War. He was a staunch and fervent Christian. The very notion of “separation of powers” which he helped to build into American constitutional thinking is founded on the Christian doctrine of the sinfulness of humanity. Original Sin was also not a doctrine strongly believed in by the Deists.
In addition to this, there were many influential people involved in the ferment of thinking which led to the writing of the Constitution. Locke was only one of them. Indeed, in some ways, he appealed to Puritans as representing a sort of lowest common denominator statement of their ideals. Of very great importance were numerous Puritan preachers, especially in New England whose names are seldom mentioned today. This included John Witherspoon, Samuel West, Jonathan Mayhew, Abraham Williams, and John Tucker, The three denominations most involved in this were Presbyterians, the Congregationalists, and the Baptists, The British name for the Revolution was “The Presbyterian Rebellion.”

The American Revolution was, in many respects, a continuation of the English Civil War. That war and its aftermath, led to several important works, among them Samuel Rutherford’s Lex Rex, Algernon Sidney’s Discourse on Government, and the Vindiciae Contra Tyrranos. Underlying this was the work of John Calvin and John Knox. In addition to this, various writers including Montesquieu’s The Spirit of the Laws, Blackstone’s Commentaries, and even Grotius’ The Law of War and Peace played a part in this milieu.
Virtually, all the founding fathers at one time or another made very strong statements to the effect that this is a Christian nation. At the great Constitutional Convention it was Benjamin Franklin, the so-called Deist, who called for prayer, declaring in ringing tones that, “God governs in the affairs of men.”

Was America Founded as a Christian Nation?

There is such a massive body of evidence concerning America's Christian founding one scarcely knows where to begin. The enemies of Christianity are fond of making assertions as absurd as "There is no sand in the Sahara Desert!" Then they demand that to prove it you should document each grain.
One particular document often cited is the Treaty of Tripoli. It is claimed Washington signed this treaty and that article 11 declares: "...the government of the United States is not in any sense founded on the Christian Religion,-- as it has in itself no character of enmity aginst the law, religion or tranquility of Musselmen."
The treaty was negotiated in 1796 between U.S. officials and the Dey of Tripoli and the Dey of Algiers to secure safe passage for American ships through the waters near the Barbary coast of North Africa. The copy of the treaty currently in circulation bearing Washington's signature is a fraud. Washington never signed this teaty. It never reached the president's desk until after March, 1797, when John Adams was president. The Senate approved it on June 7, 1797, and presidentAdams signed it on June 10th of that year. Washington had nothing to do with it. The real treaty does not contain thoe words.
George Washington is another important figure in Americas founding often characterized as a Deist. However we have many statements showing his religious views., both as as statesman and as a person. For example, the first proclamation of a national day of thanksgiving, October 3, 1789: "Whereas, it is the duty of all nations to acknowledge the providence of Almighty God, to obey His will, to be grateful for His benefits, humbly to implore His protection and favor...that we might then unite in most humbly offering our prayers and supplications to the great Lord and ruler of Nations, and beseech him to pardon our national and other transgressions; to enable us all, whether in in public or private stations,to perform our several and relative duties...to promote the knowledge and practice of true religion and virtue,...and, generally, to to grant unto all mankind such a degree of temporal prosperity as He alone knows to be best."
Washington believed that good government is a blessing from God. Nations ,that is, governments, should acknowledge and pray to God, and nations should seek forgiveness from God both for national transgressions as well as individual trans gressions. This is not the faith of a Deist and this proclamation certainly shows the marks of a Christian nation, not a secular one.
Virtually all of the founders of this country believed that the constitution would only work if America continued to have a strong religious faith. John Adams believed the French Revolution was doomed to failure because French immorality could not sustain a free nation. He said: "Our constitution was made only for a moral and religious people. It is wholly inadequate for the government of any other." In another place he said that America must sustain moral qualities to remain free: "There must be a positive passion for the public good, the public interest, honor, power and glory, established in the minds of people or there can be no Republican government, nor any real liberty;..." John Adams believed that Christianity must be thecornerstone of Republican government. His biographer, Page Smith, says that he : "showed in many ways an extroadinary consistency throughout his life. In his fundamental convictions - the moral basis of life, the need for religion, the authority of a Devine Being, the necessity of balance and refinement in government, his orthodox view of the nature of original sin, his veneration for the law, his belief in the civilized as opposed to the "natural" man - in all these, he was remarkably steadfast. Insights achieved in his early twenties remained with him to his death almost threequarters of a century later;..."
It is a pity there is not space to quote more of the founders`of this country. The fact that so many of them were ministers of the Gospel speaks for itself. Yes, America founded as a Christian nation, a fact proved by the strong Christian assertions of their founders.
Turning for a moment to Thomas Jefferson, the alleged Deist, Jefferson clearly believed that this was a Christian nation and that the constitution would only work if it remained one:"Can the liberties of a nation be thought secure when we have removed their only firm basis, a conviction in the minds of the people that these liberties are...the gift of God? That they are not to be violated but with his wrath?" Jefferson clearly, while not an orthodox Christian, was certainly not a Deist and firmly believed this was a Christian nation subject to the judgments of God.
In conclusion, we must look briefly at the preambles of the state constitutions, virtually all of which revealed the Christian charater of the American people. As late as 1892 the preambles of all 44 states continued to reflect this character.
Starting with Delaware, The first state: "Through Divine goodness, all men by nature have the rights of worshipping and serving their Creator..." Pennsylvania "...grateful to Almighty God for the blessings of civil and religious liberty, and humbly invoking His guidance,..." New Jersey "...grateful to Almighty God for the civil and religious liberty which He hath so long permitted us to enjoy and looking to Him for a blessing upon our endeavors..." Georgia "...relying upon the protection and guidance of Almighty God..." Connecticut "acknowledging wth gratitude, the good providence of God,..." Massachusetts "...acknowledging with grateful hearts the goodness of the great Legislator of the universe, in affording us in the course of His providence,...a new constitution of civil government...devoutly imploring His direction..." Maryland "...grateful to Almighty God for our civil and religious liberty,..." South Carolina "...grateful to God for our liberties..."
Continuing in the order of admission with New Hampshire, the 9th state, we can see that some of these preambles did not stop with simply a passing reference to Almighty God or His providence but very theological indeed: "...morality and piety, rightly grounded on evangelical principles, will give the best and greatest security to government, and will lay, in the hearts of men, the stongest obligations to to due subjection; and the knowledge of these as most likely to be propogated through society by the institution of thepublic worship of the Deity." Virginia, the 10th state, sets forth a philosophy of tolerationw which, nevertheless, is Christian. It begins with: "That religion or the duty which we owe to our Creator, and the manner of discharging of it,...it is the mutual duty of all to practice Christian forbearance, love and charity toward each other." New York, the 11th state "...grateful to Almighty God for our freedom..." North Carolina "...grateful to Almighty God, the Sovereign Ruler of Nations...acknowledging our dependence upon Him for the continuance of these blessings to us and our posterity,..." Rhode Island "...grateful to Almighty God...looking to Him for a blessing upon our endeavors..." Vermont once again goes into an elaborite theory of toleration which is, nevertheless, definitly Christian, and by no means a Deistic statement It acknowledges: "Almighty God" and that "every sect...of Christians ought to observe the Sabbath or Lord's day, and keep up some sort of religious worship, which to them shall seem most agreable to the revealed will of God."
This takes us through the first 14 states. Virtually all the rest of the preambles down to Arizona, the 48th state, which says "...grateful to Almighty God for our liberties,..." reflect this sort of language. This should prove to any reasonable person the Christian character not only of the founding of this nation but in its continuing history.