Josiah Concept Ministries

Another source of evolutionist irritation is museum co-founder Ken Ham, a 55-year-old former science teacher who may be the most engaging Australian to hit the airwaves since the Crocodile Hunter. [source]

That quote caught my eye on Ken Ham’s blog, so I read the article from the Indianapolis Star, and found what might be the first actual balanced commentary.  I have no comments, except to say “read the article.”  It is especially helpful if you don’t already know what’s going on, as it contains some pretty good contextual information.

Science vs. Religion

It’s difficult to believe that anybody could actually be opposed to a call for science and religion to team up.  The fact that the rallying call comes from a scientist, Martin Rees, not a religious figure, is actually touching.

Not surprising, the measure is opposed by a group led by Richard Dawkins.  What a shocker.  Dawkins gives his usual diatribe about religion leading to violence:

“If we are too friendly to nice, decent bishops, we run the risk of buying into the fiction that there’s something virtuous about believing things because of fate rather than because of evidence. We run the risk of betraying scientific enlightenment.”

Bishops themselves never killed anybody, but possibly made the world safer for “people who do kill people by extolling the virtues of faith as opposed to reason and evidence”.

Thank you, Dr. Dawkins, for all you do in the spirit of cooperation.

Scientology Targets Youth (again) 

Yes, they are at it again, this time in the US.

Recruiting youth is actually a necessity.  If you’re going to convince them that aliens from outer space descended upon the earth and attached themselves to our species, then you’ll need to hook them young.

Remember that a Creator existing outside of time because He invented time itself, as well as having no cause because He also invented cause-and-effect relationships, may seem no less fantastic to some, but is actually infinitely more plausible than the alien theory.  Don’t believe me?  Check out apologetics by William Lane Craig, who could explain this better than I could.  He uses this approach in his apologetics and has a number of excellent articles.

Tom Cruise, my challenge stands.

Not really, but I figure that if the Rational Response Squad can get so much darn publicity from debating Ray Comfort and Kirk Cameron on Nightline, maybe I should jump on the debate bandwagon.

I issue a challenge to Tom Cruise: debate me on the truth of Scientology on the talk show or television news magazine of your choice.  Christianity, God’s intervention to humanity through Christ, versus Scientology, the religion invented by a science fiction writer.  CT vs. TC.

That will probably never happen, I’m sure.  If it does, Mr. Cruise will probably insist on all kinds of strange conditions, like insisting I’m situated a foot and a half lower than him on stage, but design it so that it looks like our podiums are at the same height.  Although it would be easier if he would just stand on a phone book or something.  I wouldn’t object!

Speaking of Scientology, they’re targeting the youth of Great Britain with an eye to Glasgow, Scotland as their next “parish.”  It appears that recruiters will be going into universities to start a sort of “pyramid recruiting” scheme.

‘It [the documentary on Panorama] has led them to look at going into universities and colleges, much in the way the Moonies did, and target young people going through a stage in their lives when their minds are most vulnerable to suggestion.’ The church, which has its largest following in America, uses celebrity congregation members to promote itself, but has failed to achieve official religious status.

The environment in the world is ripe for cults to pick out their members.  With the Abrahamic faiths warring in the Middle East, each making what appears to the untrained eye an unsubstantiated claim to exclusivity, it’s no wonder faiths like Scientology (which stress the individual) grow faster than Christianity.  We shouldn’t expect any less than that.

Science vs. Religion seems to be making a comeback with Ken Ham again facing off with members of DefCon.  You know, I think it is a touch of irony that the group flew over the Creation Museum with a banner that said “DefCon says ‘Thou shalt not lie.’”  Ham thought it was tacky, but I thought it was rather amusing.

I’m going to postpone my series on War of the Worldviews until next week.  I think that this week will be better spent trying to find grant money to either open a business (freelance writing) or a nonprofit organization (Josiah Concept Ministries) so that I can settle into a role that will benefit our society much more than flipping burgers.

If you would like to help out with my endeavors and make a donation, please visit our donations page.  Any help in this area would be much appreciated!

Starting Sunday, I’m going to reread two or three chapters per day of War of the Worldviews by Ken Ham, as promised in earlier comments.  I’m just not sure anymore if a Young Earth model is the correct way to go based on science.  Old Earth models seem to fit science much better, and I want to see if a person can still hold a biblical theology with the Old Earth model.

As I reread the chapters, I’m going to post any relevant thoughts on the blog.

After that, in case you’re reading this, Pastor Steve, I’ll actually give the book back like I promised.

This weekend, I’m going to visit my nieces in Michigan, so I likely won’t be available Friday, Saturday, or Sunday.

The following week, I will start the long-promised series on the Four Horsemen of the Apocalypse.

Over the next two to three weeks, I will be seeking a publisher for my rebuttal to Discovery’s Lost Tomb of Jesus fiasco.  I don’t actually expect to make much (if any) money out of the deal, but it will be instructive (I think) to try.  Besides, I think I have enough of a readership that at least some people might be willing to spend a little money on my thoughts and apologetics.

I have to stop posting these Church of the Covered Dish strips. I just discovered that I actually have to pay to do that.  So, it looks like I’ll have to find an alternative way of filling up days where I’m just to beat to blog, or don’t have enough time to post an entry.  That will be a priority B next to finishing up my book and finding a publisher for it.

I just spent over two hours answering a post on Theology Web.  It has drained my will to blog.  So I leave with a little bit of Thom Tapp’s wit.  Enjoy.

I have yet to comment about Jerry Falwell’s death.  Though I mourned the passing of Bruce Metzger, since he did much more work in apologetics and textual criticism closer to my own passion for the Word of God, more than I did Dr. Falwell’s, it is still sad to see any man of God and brother in Christ leave this earth, even though I know it means that God is calling them home.

Dr. Falwell once told a graduating class from Liberty, of which my church’s youth pastor was a part of, that if Liberty ever stopped teaching the Scriptures properly that he wanted them to return under cover of darkness and burn the entire place down.

Of course, as our youth pastor points out, that only means that Dr. Falwell recognizes that the true legacy of Liberty isn’t the buildings but the teaching of a biblical theology from Scripture.  Though he may have said that in a rather run-around fashion, it was only one of many things that Dr. Falwell said that got people’s attention.

But the best attestation to Dr. Falwell was perhaps delivered by N.T. Wright (HT to Daniel from Anchor for the Soul):

Within the strange, large economy of God’s grace, which filters the truth of scripture through all of us imperfect interpreters, it may be that I make just as many mistakes as I think he did, but we are each called to be true to what we find in scripture and I have no reason to suppose he was not as obedient to that imperative as I struggle to be.  May he rest in peace and, with the rest of us, rise in glory where we shall look back on present disagreements like an adult looks back on childhood squabbles in the playground.

May God bless everyone who proclaims and defends His word.  Even those with whom I’m starting to disagree with on stylistic choices, such as J.P. Holding, Crystal (aka Little Pixie of Terror), “Mountain Man,” “Razorphreak,” and the others I’ve talked to in the course of this ministry.  God can use all of us imperfect humans, and that both humbles and amazes me.  It’s a stern reminder to “judge not, lest ye be judged.”

I’ve been following the arguments between Ken Ham, founder and director of Answers in Genesis, and DefCon (the Organization for DEFending the CONstitution). As I mentioned previously, DefCon is circulating a petition where scientists and citizens have both spoken out against the opening of Ham’s Creation Museum this weekend (as of May 21, the scientist petition has 3,085 signatures and the citizen petition boasts 15,023).

As the title suggests, I find it amusing when both sides are arguing, but they are both dead wrong. Neither of them sees it. And here I am, following it for no other reason than pure unadulterated amusement.

Both sides are repeating the same arguments, over and over again, on their respective blogs. Neither argument is convincing, or even right. Let’s look at DefCon first:

Let’s let America know what this museum is really about — institutionalizing a lie — and ensure that everyone recognizes that such campaigns to deceive our children are not acceptable.

Also, be sure to let everyone you know about the religious right’s anti-science campaign and our efforts to expose their true agenda. [source]

Yes, I’ve heard DefCon say over and over again, ad nauseum, that the Creation Museum is institutionalizing a lie. “Institutionalizing a lie” is their rallying cry. But what lies, exactly, are Dr. Ham’s museum promoting? Why are they confusing our children? See, the blog makes these claims repeatedly, yet not a shred of physical evidence is provided for these claims.

I suppose that we’re just supposed to automatically know that. Pass they psychic pills over to me so I can be in on this secret. That is, if you’re not too busy arguing from outrage!

Dr. Ham isn’t any better. A typical example from him:

In an emotionally charged negative article against the Creation Museum, a scientist who has not visited the Museum, has not read any of the teaching signs, nor seen any of the videos, wrote an opinion piece for the Cincinnati Enquirer newspaper, in which he used the following terms regarding the Creation Museum exhibits: “scientific fraud,” “lies,” “a travesty,” “false,” “misguided,” “misinformation,” “colossal unreason,” “hypocritical,” “misrepresent,” “bad science,” “manifestly false,” and “religiously motivated fraud.” [source]

While Ham correctly realizes that DefCon is arguing from outrage, he is seriously misinformed. The scientist to whom he refers, Dr. Lawrence M. Krauss, has not visited the museum, however, there are museum virtual tours online as well as a website with plenty of media information regarding the exhibits. The article referenced contains descriptions of exhibits that could only be detailed by an eyewitness–or someone who has talked to one such person. In fact, members of DefCon have visited this museum and offered their own reports.

Dr. Ham only seems to answer the naysayers who haven’t been to the physical museum, not the ones that have. And he always answers them by crying “argument from outrage” followed by “they haven’t even seen it yet!”

I, for one, would like to see the Creation Museum. I know that God has blessed me with a great gift of discernment, so I’m sure that if it’s a huge fraud I’ll know it after two or three exhibits. Mostly, I’d be interested to read any literature that they have on the problem of light–in a universe as vast as ours, in a 6,000 year old scenario, we’d never be able to see just to the center of our galaxy. Only objects 6,000 light years away would be visible, since it would take the light that long to reach our planet. Anything further, such as the center of our galaxy (50,000 light years), the opposite edge of our galaxy (100,000 light years), or a quasar (12 million light years) should not be visible.

Tracing known galaxies on a backwards trajectory assuming their current velocity and estimated positions to a common point of origin postulates a 15 billion year old universe. The sun’s own ratio of hydrogen to helium estimates 5 to 6 billion years. How would the Creationist Museum answer that?

Ken Ham’s book, The War of the Worldviews, convinced me to be a YEC. Now I’m doubting that proposition based on the fact that the book does something very similar to what DefCon is doing to the Creation Museum: argument by outrage. I think I’ll reread that book with a more careful eye to detail.

I want to go to the museum to see if any of these big issues are addressed honestly, or if they’re sidelined, figuring that the average person doesn’t know enough about science to make complicated issues like that a problem. Well, actually, I just want to play with the animatronic dinosaurs because I’m a big geek.

There are many conversations in the blogosphere that happen to be going on at the moment that I would like to join, but find myself without the time to do so.  Therefore, I just decided to do a round up of the best that’s out there, and add a few imperfect thoughts to the mix.

First, for those unaware,  Dr. Francis Beckwith, a respected theologian, has recently converted to Roman Catholicism.  I’m no friend of the church of Rome, but everything I have to say can be read here at Dr. James White’s blog.  It’s just so difficult to believe that someone who has spent his life studying the Bible can convert to a religion that preaches so much contrary to the book he professes to love and defend.  As Dr. White says, and as I (a former Catholic) can attest, there is no teaching of God’s grace or forgiveness.

I know I sometimes feel like the adulterous woman in John 8:3-11.  Except that I’m a man.  And I haven’t committed adultery.  That aside, I feel like I’ve laid before God, all my sins and iniquities there for Him to see.  And He says to me what Jesus said: “I don’t condemn you.  Go, and sin no more.”

It’s so powerful, the grace of God.  That He is willing to forgive those children of His who, like me, lay their sins before Him and repent–and then just say to us simply, “Go, and sin no more.”  How many times will He forgive us?  I assume the same number of times that Jesus told Peter to forgive a brother that wronged him: “Seventy times seven times.”  That’s a Hebrew idiom that means “infinity.”

All of this because of Christ’s death on the cross.

Rome doesn’t preach that.  In Rome’s gospel, we somehow have to clean ourselves first, we have to do something to earn our salvation.  Of course, we can never know for sure if we have earned our salvation; that’s the sin of presumption.  Instead, we have to trust  in a repeating sacrifice of the Mass, the “infallible” interpretations offered by the church hierarchy, the sacraments, and (of course) an indeterminate stay in purgatory.  Those may cleanse us of our sins.

Of course, the real gospel message is one of simple repentance and preparedness to do the good works of God: “For by grace you have been saved through faith. And this is not your own doing; it is the gift of God, not a result of works, so that no one may boast. For we are his workmanship, created in Christ Jesus for good works, which God prepared beforehand, that we should walk in them” (Eph 2:8-10, emphasis added).  The Jesus of the gospel saves perfectly, every time (Heb 10:14).  We need no other imperfect sacrifice, offered repeatedly on the altars of Roman Catholic churches everywhere, we only need Jesus (Heb 10:1).

Yet, Dr. Beckwith appears to believe otherwise.  I suppose we should pray that God will reveal His truth to Dr. Beckwith in His time, and that this move will demonstrate God’s glory in a way that would not otherwise be possible.  God does make all things work together for the sake of His people (Rom 8:28).

DefCon–an organization for the Defense of the Constitution–is taking on Dr. Ken Ham’s upcoming Creation Museum by circulating two petitions, one for academics and one for ordinary citizens, but to what purpose I cannot ascertain by reading the petition.  It only calls for opposition to the Creation Museum, not to shut it down.  It doesn’t even ask us to boycott it.

Ham has answered the critics on his blog several times by repeatedly using the catch phrase “They haven’t even visited it.”  Yeah, Doc, but they already know our arguments as literal-Genesis guys, same as we know their arguments as evolutionary biologists, right?  So they can guess what is in there.  Same as I can hazard a guess as to what would be in an evolutionary museum.

Aren’t both of us just yammering away the same way?  I mean, evolutionists say that evolution must be true because God didn’t create it, look at the similarities between species, look at the evolutionary tree, etc., etc.  It must be true because the alternative is God!

The creationists do the same thing.  It must be true because the Bible says so, we can explain similarities between species by common design, God’s law and judgment doesn’t exist with 4.6 billion year old Earth, etc. etc.  It must be true, because the alternative is evolution!

We all know that I’m a Young Earth Creationist, that I don’t believe in evolution, and that I work at Burger King.  So what?  I’m still looking at this argument with the eyes of a person who could be dead wrong, since more scientific evidence supports an Old Earth and universe.  I want to believe in a Young Earth since that fits more closely to what the Bible says, but perhaps in the case of Young vs. Old, we just don’t have enough evidence from either side to rule out any possibilities.

Logic forces me to believe in a Creator simply because an infinity of past events leading to the present isn’t possible.  “Infinity” is a concept, not a number to be used in equations.  Time is merely the result of this universe, specifically, planetary bodies orbiting large centers of gravity create what we know as “time.”  Before that, there was no duration, aging, or anything else associated with the passing of time.  God, existing in this eternity, created the universe (and with it, time).  It only makes sense that the Creator of something was never subject to it, since “it” didn’t exist before the Creator created it.

The challenge as a Christian becomes preaching sin, death, and judgment when we know that these concepts are tied to the Fall, but (in an Old Earth model) not unique to the Fall.  The position of Ken Ham and the entire AiG crew is to teach a literal account of Genesis, support a Young Earth model, and thus maintain the integrity of God’s Word.

I, as a Young Earth creationist, believe that some room must exist for science to work its wonders.  Why can’t there be a reconciliation between what one teaches, and the other says?  Many Old Earth creationists believe in the tenets of sin and judgment, and know why death occurs in relation to the Fall, just fine and dandy without having to be Young Earth creationists.

Maybe, instead of my previous post on changing over to Young Earth creationist, I should have stated that I want to believe it, but the jury is still out.  Of course, being an apologist, I hate wavering on any Biblical issue.  As the defender of God’s truth, I should have a position to defend.  Wavering doesn’t bode well for me.

Of course, I think it does if my motive is to come to the truth of what God is teaching.  I believe that the Christians out there will sympathize with that, but the atheists will see this as a weak point and fire both barrels at it.

And on a weird note, Westboro Baptist Church is getting sued for having a parody video on their website of “We are the World.”  That was such a cheesy song, but it did so much good for the world.  And, of course, that was back when Michael Jackson was cool.  Westboro is now using it to spread their message of hate.

The parody version, “God Hates the World,” is still available on the cult’s web page and the lawyers have issued statements that say it won’t come down.  Let the pissing contest begin!

Hmmm… Interesting title for a worship song.  Do their Bibles not have John 3:16 in it?  That is assuming they actually read the Bible, of course.

Ninety years ago, the Virgin Mary appeared to three children in Fatima. The apparition, since called “Our Lady of Fatima,” made three predictions to prove that she was who she claimed to be. One vision was a lake of fire. One vision was of Russia becoming Christian again. The third was never revealed, and has been the subject of much speculation.

Many accuse the Vatican of hiding details about the end of the world. The vision, according this group, revealed exact details about the end of the world. The Vatican has been accused of suppressing the details, hiding it from the general public. Why? To what point and purpose would they hide something like that?

It seems that when people ascribe certain behaviors to a group, especially a large and monolithic entity like the Vatican, they forget that such an organization acts in the best interest of all the people involved. In other words, there is a reason that they do everything that they do. There is no particular reason to hide this final vision, if it indeed was integral to the end times.

All of the Scriptural indicators of the end times are in place. If the Vatican has advanced knowledge that the rest of us don’t have, then now is the time to show it, so that all who call themselves Christians can be better prepared in the Tribulation. Of course, I’m a historicist, so I believe that the Tribulation is going on now as I (along with all the faithful) await the Second Coming of our Lord and Savior.

Of course the Vatican denies that they are hiding anything. The Vatican’s Secretary of State and second-in-command of the Catholic Church, Tarcisio Cardinal Bertone, explained that they are not hiding anything, and all of the visions have been revealed. The third vision, he explains, predicted the assassination attempt on Pope John Paul II. Not only has the former pope declared this, but it was confirmed by Sister Lucia (the last remaining Fatima visionary) on her deathbed in 2005.

This has all the makings of another anti-Catholic, conspiracy laden, historically false Chick tract.

Guess what the crazy part is? I believe that the Catholic Church is telling the truth. Why? Because to what point and purpose would they lie about something like this? If they really had inside information on the end of the world, it would help all of the faithful. If that is the purpose of the Church, to serve the faithful, then it only makes sense that if they had the information that they should share it.

There is, of course, a Scriptural reason I don’t believe that the vision of Fatima heralds the end of the world. Jesus said that no one knows the hour except the Father alone. Now, if Jesus didn’t know the appointed hour of the end times, why in the world would anyone believe that Mary knows?

Yes, I make fun of Chick tracts. They’re poorly drawn and evidence of a man with a deteriorating grasp on reality. But many of them are really good, they do present the gospel message in a readable and fun way, and they can become excellent witness tools if used properly. In the case of Mary, I couldn’t have said this any better myself, so I’m not going to try! Common sense forces me to disagree with the part of this tract that connects Mary to ancient pagan deities, but neither do I know enough comparative theology to authoritatively dissent with what Mr. Chick reports. I have a general enough grasp on ancient mythology to say with certainty that the deities (and their roles) are accurate as presented. It isn’t a great leap forward to assume that they are the foundation of the Marian dogmas. But I think that by taking Christ out of the limelight using devotions to Mary, as well as declaring the pope “Vicar of Christ” and each priest an “alter Christus” (another Christ) and declaring the sacrifice at Calvary an ongoing sacrifice in the Eucharist that the Roman Catholic system exerts control over the faithful by asking them to place trust in the Church and not in Christ.

I still don’t believe that the Church is suppressing details about this vision, as many authors and Vatican watchers suspect. But I do believe in the message of this Chick tract wholeheartedly: Rome’s gospel doesn’t save. Only Jesus Christ does that, perfectly with each life the Father calls to repentance, with the sacrifice offered once for all upon the cross.

I’m no fan of the Catholic Church, but I don’t believe that they are hiding anything about that either. I don’t believe it because if Jesus didn’t know the appointed time, there is no way Mary would. That Catholics even think that she might saddens me just a little bit.