The spiritual side of health from a solid foundation of creation teaching.
Species often explode suddenly into life, as in the Cambrian explosion, which even Darwin found to be a problem for natural selection. Some of them do not persist beyond the age to which they are adapted. That does not require an explanation. But others just settle down to long eons where they don't change much, no matter what the environment. And "stabilizing selection" does not account for that. The cockroach, for example, is still around and still easily identifiable after perhaps 350 million years. The 350-million-year-old coelacanth fish and the 300-million-year-old horsetail grass survive largely unchanged.
The English word "pastor" today is most often used in front of a person's name as a title of someone in a leadership position within a church or religious organization. But is this common title used so often in modern culture really biblical? Would believers in Jesus Christ in the First Century, among whom are the writers of the New Testament portion of the Bible, have used this term as a title, representing leaders and authorities? Who will follow the one true Pastor Jesus, who is the rightful owner of the one true flock, and tend to his sheep under his leadership? Who will pray in faith with the power and authority of Jesus to affect true healing for the multitudes that are suffering in the 21st century? Who will deal with the disease and effects of sin and receive the forgiveness from Jesus that cleanses and heals?
What do you enjoy more? Giving a gift, or receiving one? If you are like most people, you enjoying giving gifts to others more than you do receiving gifts. However, the joy you receive back in seeing someone accept your gift is 100% dependent on that person deciding to receive it. If they don't take it, they rob you of the joy you receive in giving the gift. Did you know that your unwillingness to receive gifts could keep you from entering the kingdom of God?
Perhaps the greatest leap of blind, uncritical and unquestioning faith that I see among well-educated people today is something called scientism. Scientism is the belief that science is the best and only trustworthy method to discover truth. Supernatural explanations are a priori ruled out. The result is atheism dressed up as science.
After a 3-Year investigative journalism study of Planned Parenthood, the Center for Medical Progress released its videotaped exposé filmed on July 25, 2014. The video shows two actors posing as employees of a human biologics company discussing with Dr. Deborah Nucatola, Planned Parenthood Federation of America’s Senior Director of Medical Services, how Planned Parenthood sells the body parts of aborted fetuses, using partial-birth abortions to supply intact body parts. Selling and buying fetal body parts is against federal law, a federal felony punishable by up to 10 years in prison and a fine of up to $500,000. Planned Parenthood denies that they are selling fetal body parts, and claims that the money discussed is related to transportation costs.
Over the past half-century, Artificial Intelligence has been all the rage among computer scientists, and among many other scientists and philosophers and the general public. Can machines think? Is it possible that a computer could have intentions and desires and understanding of its own? Many otherwise well-informed people have taken it for granted that machines are capable of thought, particularly if a substantial level of complexity is reached. Several philosophers and scientists have argued that AI is not possible -- machines will never be capable of thought. They are right to deny the possibility of AI. The arguments against AI are several.
The "science" of eugenics in America's past history resulted in racism, forced sterilization, forced vaccination, and tyrannical government policies all in the name of developing a "superior" race of people. In Germany, the "science" of eugenics was used by the Nazi Party to "eliminate" over 11 million men, women, and children. The term "eugenics" has fallen out of favor and is no longer a politically correct word to use, because of its negative stigmatization. But has the philosophy behind "eugenics" simply been replaced with the "new science" of genetics, and the mapping of the human genome? Is there reason to suspect hidden motivations of certain groups who want us to be convinced that our genes, and only our genes, control every aspect of our health and well-being? Can we trust everything we hear about the benefits of genetic research? Is there a dark side to genetics? Is America heading down the same path that eugenics led us in the past, and that led Nazi Germany up to World War II?
The word Eugenics means "good genes." Eugenicists believe that principles of Darwin’s theory regarding “the survival of the fittest” can be used to support the elimination of weak and undesirable people from society. When Adolf Hitler applied Darwin’s theory of evolution and the principles of eugenics to the goals of the German state, the result was the murder of eleven million men, women and children. These lives were sacrificed in the name of eugenics. Eugenicists were seeking to improve the conditions of life for humanity by creating a “superior” race of people. The eugenics movement had a very dark side, which led to social control, loss of reproductive freedom, and the loss of life. Should we be concerned that modern genetic science might have a dark side as well? Will the fruit of genetic research be misused by ill-intentioned people to gain control over others as happened with eugenics in the past? Has modern genetics completely severed itself from its roots? Or, might it become the tool that will be used to try to control the lives of certain groups of people in America today, such as those who refuse vaccines?
Is evolutionary theory "critical" to medicine? A poll of doctors from 2006 found that at least 34 percent of U.S. physicians think intelligence played a role in the origin of humans. That's a very significant portion of doctors who support intelligent design. On the flipside, evolutionary science has hindered medical research by promulgating the now-defunct concept of "junk DNA". That's the evolution-based idea that most of the DNA in human cells is useless junk. It's now known that the vast majority of our DNA has function, but evolution discouraged research into "junk DNA." In this regard, with its faulty understanding of "the human person" as being the result of strictly blind physical mechanisms, evolution has obstructed "advances in medicine." Many other examples could be given. For another, evolutionary science has wrongly assumed that many organs are "vestigial" and thus unnecessary or unimportant. Those organs include the appendix, tonsils, coccyx, and thyroid. It's now known that each of those organs plays an important role in human physiology. By presuming nonfunctionality or reduced functionality in these organs, evolutionary science did great medical damage to many patients.
In my talk, I not only gave an answer to the question "What Should Politicians Say When Asked About Evolution?" but I first explained why it is a difficult question for many politicians, especially conservative ones, to answer. There are three main reasons. First, the term "evolution" can mean several different things, ranging from (1) the scientifically uncontroversial idea of "change over time" (think of small-scale variations in the shape and size of Galapagos finch beaks) to (2) the more controversial notion of universal common ancestry (think of Darwin's tree of life) to (3) the increasingly controversial idea that the mechanism of natural selection and random mutation have produced all the forms of life we see today without any guidance or design. The last meaning of "evolution" is what Richard Dawkins calls the "Blind Watchmaker" thesis.