Response to Critic of Intelligent Design
Critic: “The only substantive part of ID is as a negative argument that diametrically opposed to evolution, otherwise it has nothing of substance to offer science.”
Response: False on three points. i) ID is a positive argument that intelligence preceded and caused the origin of life. ID is an independent theory that would not necessarily be true if evolution were proven false. ii) ID is not diametrically opposed to evolution, if “evolution” is defined as “change over time.” ID is diametrically opposed to the theory that living things originated from random events. iii) The goal of ID is not to “offer” something to “science,” the goal is the same as that of science. . .to seek the truth concerning our origins. ID is a testable theory that can be falsified in exactly the same way as the theory of evolution.
Critic: “Imagine teaching ecology in school without a fundamental understanding of Darwinism and evolution. What would ID tell these students, other than the showing and teaching these alleged students the incredible complexity of nature? What’s the explanation for these systems and their numerous interactions? God did it of course. Cool huh? Sorry, that’s not science”
Response: Straw-man argument. Both ID and Darwinism seeks to learn how these systems and their numerous interactions work. The only difference is ID says an intelligent being is responsible, Darwinism says random chance is responsible. If you push any Darwinist far enough, they will say “random chance did it.” Cool huh. . .But that’s not science either!
Critic: “I challenge any ID proponent to demonstrate a single predictive model that ID can make regarding living organisms and their present day ecosystems. “There are no models, the ID proponents got nothing but faith.”
Response: Predictive model: Animals were designed by an intelligent designer and have genetic limits outside which they are no longer viable. These limits will constrain the fossil record to be composed of clearly delineated familial forms rather than transitional forms. Experimental evidence: the fossil record.Now it’s your turn. Please explain the cambrian explosion in purely Darwinian terms.
Critic: “I have my faith too but the difference is I don’t subject you to it.”
Response: False. We are constantly subjected to atheistic and naturalistic explanations of our origins even though these explanations require a great deal of faith. Moreover, you impose your faith on others in a condescending and arrogant manner suggesting you are unaware of the assumptions on which your faith is based.
Critic: “Science is not faith but a way of reasoning”
Response: True if by “science” you mean the scientific method. False if by “science” you mean currently accepted theories. Darwin’s theory of the origin of life requires a great deal of faith that foes far beyond simply “a way of reasoning.”
Critic: Simple question: sum up for me how ID describes the functionality and modeling of an ecosystem?
Response: Simple answer. Almost exactly the same way evolutionists would describe the functionality and modeling of an ecosystem.
Critic: “[ID] can’t use competition and evolution to describe the changing ecosystem or fluctuating species populations.”
Response: Straw man argument. All ID theorists believe that competition and survival of the fittest occurs in a changing ecosystem. Long before ID or the theory of evolution, mankind was aware that populations could be manipulated through breeding and artificial selection-this is even part of Darwin’s premise in origins.
Critic: “What would ID have to say? Wow, this is so complex, forget about understanding this, this had to be an intelligent designer at work. And that’s fine but it’s not science and you can’t do anything with it.
Response: Straw-man argument. The history of modern science rests on the backs of scientists who believed in ID. Complexity in nature did not lead them to say “forget about understanding this,” instead it drove them to understand it further because they believed the more the learned about nature, the more they were learning about the designer. Mendel, the father of modern genetics, was a monk!
Critic: Reconciling your faith should never be an easy exercise and we don’t need to give people another excuse not to think.”
Response: True. What greater excuse is there to not think deeply about something than to believe it came about by an infinitesimally small, accidental, random event. In my experience human beings don’t spend a lot of time trying to understand random, rare events (might I get struck by lightning on a sunny day?), but take very seriously purposefully designed events (could I get electrocuted if I touch this live wire?). Evolutionists are the ones that don’t want to have to think. They prefer to make straw-man arguments, make false assumptions, and throw around condescending statements rather than wrestling with the faith they have placed in a dying theory.
Increasing in Him,
Galyn Wiemers
Topics: General | 8 Comments »
The Movie - “Expelled: No Intelligence Allowed”
Toni and I finally went to Ben Stein’s movie after talking about it for two weeks. The highlight came when Richard Dawkins, the author of “The God Delusion”, renounced the existence of God while referring to anyone who accepts intelligent design as an idiot but in his next breath said that one of the most probable explanations for the existence of life on our planet was that it originated when life was planted here by aliens. What? Isn’t that in itself a form of intelligent design, although, not an intelligent idea! It is clear some scientists are no longer practicing science but are instead promoting ideologies and defending their own world views. The good news is truth is eternal but a lie can not endure. This explains the why atheists and evolutionist are scrambling.
See the website here: http://www.expelledthemovie.com/enterflash.php
See the movie trailer here http://www.expelledthemovie.com/playground.php
Increasing in Him,
Galyn Wiemers
Topics: General | 6 Comments »
Diversity With Unity
In the Wednesday night Bible study we have been going through First Corinthians verse by verse. This week we recorded the 40th message and finished chapter 12. The theme of First Corinthians 12-14 is spiritual gifts but Paul focuses on encouraging diversity while maintaining unity. Reading through these chapters we see Paul instructing the Corinthians to pursue and develop the wide variety of gifts that are available, but at the same time stressing the importance of unity. Each gift has the same source (God) and purpose (the common good).
“There are different kinds of gifts, but the same Spirit.There are different kinds of service, but the same Lord.There are different kinds of working, but the same God works all of them in all men.” (1 Corinthians 12:4-6)
Paul uses the image of the human body which “is not made up of one part but of many.” (12:14) Our body is made up of many, many parts. But as Paul says, “though all its parts are many, they form one body.” (12:12)
Diversity with unity is the goal. Diversity simply for the sake of being different is pointless and distracting. Diversity without a common goal or a focused purpose can become destructive. Our human body functions because all the diverse parts work together on whatever goal is set before it. When the body runs, all the parts contribute in their diverse way. When the body sleeps they all have to unite in the process.
How worthless would our body be if all we had for a body were a mouth or many mouths? This body would be lacking diversity. But, what if we had a wide range of diversity in parts but had no unity. In this case the foot would walk away, while the stomach stayed at the table and the head slept on the couch? In this case the benefits of diversity where lost due to the lack of unity of purpose.
Our bodies, our families, our churches and our nation thrive when there is diversity with unity. But, each is destroyed if those diverse parts are encouraged to be diverse with no concern for unity.
God designed diversity to serve the common goal. He did not design diversity to serve itself. So much of what is called diversity today has no benefit for the common good. With all the talk of diversity we should, like our bodies, only accept the diversity that empowers the common goal of the church or the nation.
Diversity that is self-serving is a cancer.
Increasing in Him,
Galyn Wiemers
Topics: General | Leave a Comment »
New Nationalism is Replacing Globalization
In yesterday’s Wall Street Journal (4/28/08) a front page article explained a new trend of governments around the world to turn inward to nationalism while turning their backs on globalization. In the past we have seen borders, cultural boundaries and trade barriers fall but “the era of easy globalization is certainly over”. The market is a key factor. The World Wide Web (www.) is itself being pressured to replace .org and .com with equivalent key board characters that would “put many sites behind curtains to users from abroad.” This is an interesting development considering the information in the blog I wrote on Sunday (4/27/08). God has established the world to operate with some basic divinely established institutions. One of these is nationalism. A natural, effective world requires nations. Globalization will not work.
Increasing in Him,
Galyn Wiemers
Topics: General | Leave a Comment »
Divine Institutions
In Genesis 9 God establishes government to maintain order and justice in the world of man. In Genesis 10 God establishes nations, or nationalism, as a buffer zone between societies to help prevent false philosophies and corrupt morals from spreading like a cultural cancer through the earth. These two institutions were set in place by God in addition to the first three divine institutions established for the well being of mankind: individual freedom (or, responsibility), marriage and family. These five institutions that God established for the well being and peace of mankind were:
- individual freedom
- marriage
- family
- government
- nations
It will be interesting to listen to the radio, read the newspaper, join in conversations or watch the internet over the next few weeks to see how many times these five institutions are attacked in our own society. You will hear of activist groups demanding their individual freedoms and rights but refusing to be responsible. One out of every two marriages ends in divorce and many more couples live in a marital wreck, while others try to redefine marriage in a way that is corrupt and worthless to society. The traditional family unit is on its way to becoming a minority because of the collapse of marriage and individual responsibility. The terms “father”, “mother” and “parent” could be illegal in California when SB 777 was signed into law. It is easy to see the government is more interested in power and service to its self than in maintaining order and justice in our society. The most tragic of all concerns is our lack of national pride and the wave of anti-Americanism that seems to be a growing trend among Americans. Who told us we were a bad country? We pump more money and services to the world than any other country in the history of mankind! We should be proud of our nation and defend it by advancing the institutions that made it a great benefit to mankind: responsibility, marriage, family, government, and nationalism.
United States Is Largest Donor of Foreign Aid
Increasing in Him,
Galyn Wiemers
Topics: General | Leave a Comment »
Candidates and Freedom
The other night in church a friend told me he always judges the presidential candidates by listening for the one who promises to do the least for him. This evaluation technique is based on the concept that no one is more concerned about us and our families than we are. Neither is anyone more capable of spending our money more effectively than we are. His logic is solid. No president and no government can do as much for a man than that man himself. It seems that very few people think this way. If you listen to the candidates talk or listen to people talk about the candidates the focus is on what the candidates promise to do for people and what they promise to give people. These candidates have nothing to give us except what they have already received from us. There are no candidates telling us, “If I am elected I will stay out of the way so the citizens can take full advantage of the freedoms and opportunities this country offers.” Are we really waiting for government to solve our problems? Are we waiting for government to make us moral? Provide us with work? Educate us? Feed us? Heal us? Think for us? Evaluate movies, video games, music, opinions and religion for us? Legislate right and wrong for us? Are we willingly giving away our freedom? In this election we are demanding the candidates take more of our freedoms away and do it quicker!! Individual responsibility is the absolute bedrock of democracy. To allow our selves to be irresponsible is to disqualify ourselves for the freedoms that come with a democracy.
Increasing in Him,
Galyn Wiemers
Topics: General | Leave a Comment »
Marines
Toni and I are flying to San Diego tomorrow to be at our son Justin’s graduation from basic training for the marines. He will graduate with honors and with a promotion as a private first class. He has been training for the last thirteen weeks. Justin is planning on making the marines a career. We are excited to see him and proud of what he has done. I am looking forward to him telling me his stories and letting me know what it is really like. Justin has done something I never imagined myself doing. It is a great honor when a son out does his father. Congratulations, Justin! I am proud of you!
Increasing in Him,
Galyn Wiemers
Topics: General | 1 Comment »
Reality of Noah’s Flood
We have been going through the book of Genesis for the past eight months in church on Sunday mornings. A couple of weeks ago we finally reached the Flood of Noah. It is always amazing to me how accurate, scientific and practical the Bible is. All the stumbling blocks that stand in the way of believing the Flood happened just as the Bible says are removed with honest study and investigation.
On Sunday mornings we have already seen that the dimensions of the ark are proportionately accurate for a floating barge and there was plenty of room for all the animal families or species on the ark. Also, many ancient cultures including Greeks, Egyptians, Russians, Cree Indians, Cherokee Indians, Aztecs, Peruvians, Fiji Islands, Hawaiians, Chinese and many more from every inhabited continent have relayed an ancient account of this flood with many similar details. This, of course, is possible since every culture would have had its beginning when Noah’s three sons left the ark to repopulate the earth.
The account of how the flood occurred is another discussion that puts this event right into the realm of reality. Genesis 7:11 says:
“on that day all the springs of the great deep burst forth, and the floodgates of the heavens were opened.”
The Hebrew word for “burst forth” is “baqa” and is the same word used to describe the earthquake that swallowed Korah’s rebellion in Numbers 16:31. In Psalm 78:15 it refers to the splitting of the rock in the wilderness for water (Ex. 17:6). Click the link below to watch a very interesting presentation of how the Flood could have occurred when the earth surface split. The results of the Flood are part of our world today. It is worth mentioning that there will be another shaking of the physical earth in the future (Isaiah 24:19-21, etc.).
Click this link to watch a short, interesting video of the physical cause and results of the Flood: http://www.thetaxpayerschannel.org/graphics/creation/fonte23.mov
Increasing in Him,
Galyn Wiemers
Topics: General | Leave a Comment »
Galyn Responds to 5 Questions
QUESTION: Our current lesson is “The Second Coming of Christ.” I asked the students (in the chronology of all end times events) when will the second coming take place. One student said, “After the temple is rebuilt.” Maybe I’m forgetting something basic, but I can’t think of a scripture that refers to the temple being rebuilt between now and the second coming. I understand what happened in 70 A.D. and the prophecy surrounding that event, but is there scripture relating to this student’s answer?
RESPONSE: In the pre-millennial view the 7 year tribulation takes place. 1 Thes. 2:3-9 says the man-of-lawlessness will set him self up as God in God’s temple and the Lord Jesus will overthrow him by the splendor of his coming. More details are given in Revelation and Daniel. This is the temple that will be rebuilt by the Jews for the tribulation. They will be allowed to offer sacrifices there for 3 1/2 years before the A.C. says he is God and takes over for the final 3 1/2 years. A sign of the times then would be the rebuilding of this temple. The Jews have already constructed the furniture (I saw some this summer in Jerusalem) and they have pre-cut, pre-formed walls to move in and set up the temple very quickly once the Muslim Dome of the Rock is removed (or, some other arrangement is made.) The Jews, of course, do not believe the end times will occur as the Christians do, but they are walking in the very steps of prophecy as they plan their own agenda. Many Christians that do not believe in either the rapture, or the tribulation, or even the millennium will say the temple in Revelation is the temple that was destroyed in 70 AD and these prophecies are already fulfilled. We still have to work 1 Th. 2:4 and 8 into the equation which seems to put these events right before Jesus’ second coming. Some say Jesus “coming” was in 70 AD when the temple of that time was destroyed. I also believe this was the Lord “coming in judgment” but not his second coming where he overthrows the anti-christ.
QUESTION: I think this is a light-hearted question, but another student asked me, “Why did God plan the Millennium.” I understand where the Millennium fits into the eschatology, with Christians reigning with Christ, and Satan being bound (?), but I don’t have any specific answer to why. To me it’s kind of like asking why God created flies (yes I know they digest waste and feed frogs, etc.), but if you have anything to offer, I’ll pass it on.
RESPONSE: The reason for the Millennium ties together many loose ends of scripture and God’s plans. First, man was to rule and have dominion. This ended quickly in the Garden. The Seed of the Woman, a man/Messiah, was promised who would crush the kingdom Satan and in Hebrews 2: 5-9 the writer quotes Psalm 8:4-6 where it says that God put everything under man’s feet, but yet we do not know or see everything subject to man in our present condition. The writer goes on to say, “But we do see Jesus. . .now crowned with glory and honor.” So mankind yet has to experience their fullness on earth, this will only be accomplished through the man Jesus Christ the savior and the king of the whole earth (Zechariah 14:9) Second, God chose Israel to fulfill certain parts of his plan. Many of these purposes and promises have not been fulfilled. They will be in the earthly kingdom of God where Jesus will reign as king. Third, there have been several phases in history where man has had to live and interact with God. The plan and means of salvation has always been the same, but God’s way of dealing with man and testing man has been altered. The Millennium is the final phase of God’s dealing with man. Mankind will live on the earth under the government and personal rulership of Jesus Christ. The apologetics of the millennium will not be like our apologetics. In our age we often have to try to prove the existence of God, or the deity of Jesus Christ. In the millennium the existence of God and the Lordship of Jesus will not be a hot topic of conversation for very long considering Jesus physically present and will be stationed in Jerusalem where people from all nations will travel to hear his explanations and teaching. Isaiah 2:2-5:
“In the last days the mountain of the Lord’s temple will be established . . .all nations will stream to it. Many peoples will come and say, ‘Come, let us go up to the mountain of the Lord. . .He will teach us his ways’. . . The law will go out from Zion, the word of the Lord from Jerusalem. He will judge between the nations.”
But, even in this environment multitudes will rebel and reject the Lord and his ways. Thus proving that man’s problem is not that he wasn’t sure if there was a God. Nor was man’s problem his confusion about who God was or if Jesus really was the Lord. These things will all be obvious. Man’s problem is his rebellious sin nature that must be recreated or born again. Man’s problem is not God but himself. There are other reasons for the importance of the millennium but I have mentioned these three: the successful reign of man on earth, the fulfillment of Israel, and man’s final test.
QUESTION: I am familiar with all the scriptures that deal with Church Leadership and being the man of one wife, and I lean toward believing that means that you are only married once and never divorced (to qualify to be a church leader), unless your spouse is deceased then re-marriage would qualify, but I know there are several other interpretations. So please briefly share your beliefs, because the kids’ thoughts seemed to be all over the place.
RESPONSE: This is one of those questions that I can give 2 or 3 answers for but I have not settled in my heart my convictions. For me it is kind of like women in the ministry or woman being silent in church. I can give an answer but that answer really doesn’t match my convictions or the way I operate. Why is this? I may be ignorant; I may be too liberal; I may be a product of my culture. I may be immature or need my mind renewed to the word of God. Maybe I am in rebellion to God and need to get saved. The same is true when I answer this question. Several years ago I pastored a church and I went to a district meeting with the district pastors. They asked me if I would ever to a wedding ceremony for a couple where one of them had been divorced. I replied that it depended on the circumstances. Were they having an affair with the person they now wanted to marry? I’d say no, don’t marry them. Did their husband abandon them with two young children before she was saved? I’d say yes, if the young mother of two has found a responsible believer, marriage would be an answer to prayer. The self-righteous district pastors said “never”. I responded by asking them who officiated all the weddings of the people in our denomination who were remarried divorced people? Easily 1/3 of the congregation I inherited had been remarried after a divorce earlier in life and several were teaching Sunday school. I told them that they could play their little doctrinal game but clearly very few of them were following it. Now, concerning your question: Some scholars say the text could be saying “husband of one wife at a time” or “husband of one wife, ever”. If it means “husband of one wife, ever” are we supposed then start making assumption for the Law of Moses which allowed marriage after the death of a spouse. In that case the concept is “husband of one wife, ever, unless the wife dies” which is basically saying, “husband of one wife at a time.” I do not know the answer to this because I can not settle my convictions. In my mind there are just too many exceptions. Clearly, if a pastor has an affair, he has disqualified himself to lead people and present the truth. But, what about King David? (Two things, he was a king and not a pastor and he was not in the church age, but does that matter?) What about Moses? Zipporah left him or was sent away (Exodus 18:2, “After Moses had sent away his wife Zipporah” – “sent away” is a Hebrew verb used later for divorce) and later Miriam got leprosy because she was critical of Moses and his Cushite wife (Num. 12:1). Some say “Cushite” was a term of contept for Zipporah his Midianite wife. It is also possible the Zipporah had died in Midian and Moses was free to marry. But, reading it for what it says, Zipporah left and went back to Midian and Moses had a wife from Cush (from the southern Nile valley.)
QUESTION: What was the actual mode of action for salvation in the Old Testament? We know that ultimately they are atoned by Christ’s blood, justified by their faith, and reminded of sins (and maybe somewhat temporarily cleansed) by sacrifice and the law, with their hope in the covenants and the prophecy, but if salvation was by faith, did the Gentiles technically have just as much access to salvation (belief) in the old testament as the Jews? We know about the people of Ninevah, and a few other examples of God interacting with the gentiles in the Old Testament, but this only complicates the question. And assuming that there was eternal security in the Old Testament, how does this coincide with the temporary visitations of the Holy Spirit?
RESPONSE: A quick response to this very good question is that people of all ages (Old and New Testament) are saved the same way: Faith in Jesus Christ. We who live after the cross look back historically to the cross and believe the promise of God. We know historical facts like the name of the Christ, his mode of death, when he lived on the earth, etc. Those who lived before the cross looked forward historically and believed the same promise of God. They may have understood there was the “seed of the woman”, or, the one from the family of Abraham, or, the Son of David, or, the suffering servant of Isaiah 53. They did not know his human name, how he would die or the exact date or location of his death but they did know he would be a man, that he would die and that the necessary events would take place according to God’s own promise sometime in the future. In summary, we believe the Christ (“anointed one) came; they believed Messiah (“anointed one”) would come. In the church age we have Bible teaching. In the age of Israel they had the tabernacle rituals for teaching and the maintenance of truth. We are not saved by Bible teaching but by believing what is presented. They were not saved by sacrifices but by believing what the sacrifices presented or represented. Yes, God commanded them to offer sacrifices just like God commanded us to teach his word. It is true that many Jews began to trust the rituals as means of salvation. It is also true that the church age is filled with people who believe that going to church puts them in right standing with God. It is painfully true that our nation is filled with people who have spent their whole lives sitting in church pews on Sunday morning but have no idea what they are doing there. Likewise the Jews who spent their entire lives offering up animals to God could live and die with no idea what the sacrifices meant. Many Jews did not understand the rituals. Many people in church do not understand the Bible.
QUESTION: What can you tell me about “Dual Covenant Theology”, and about the doctrinal views of John Hagee, TV evangelist and pastor of Cornerstone Church in San Antonio, TX? I have read several opinions online about Dual Covenant Theology, but until I heard John Hagee preaching on TV, I was totally unaware of it. What is your opinion of this man’s ministry?
ANSWER: I have always liked John Hagee and read some of his books. I have seen very little of him on TV. His view of “Dual Covenant Theology” is held by others also, but I think it is a corrupt view of the Old Testament covenant and poor interpretation of Paul’s writings of the New Testament. I understand dual covenant theology to mean that the Jews are “saved” because they are God’s chosen people through Abraham and the covenant from Mt. Sinai but all other people (the Gentiles) must come to God through Jesus and have faith in Christ. This is a completely wrong view of Jewish salvation, I think, with the simplest proof, besides the clear teaching of the New Testament, being that Paul, Peter and John had to place faith in Christ for salvation yet they were Jews. I do not know what Hagee is thinking when he teaches this or how he came to these conclusions (besides misinterpreting scripture) but I am sure he must have some pretty good evidence and also some scripture to prove his point. I have not really sat down to study it or to try to disprove it because I think it is so clearly off base.
Increasing in Him,
Galyn Wiemers
Topics: General | 1 Comment »
Roman vs. American Taxation
According to the Professor of Classics at the University of Oklahoma that I am listening to on audio CD, the Romans paid taxes that were equivalent to two days of work each year. In 6 AD a group of delegates from Judea petitioned Augustus to annex Judea to the Roman province of Syria. When this was done the Jews then came under a similar tax code that required they pay two days of earnings each year as taxation.
I compare this to the United States in 2008 and our Tax Freedom Day on April 23 (Still 22 days away!). This is the day that Americans will have made enough money to pay all their taxes including federal, state and local. This amounts to 114 days (82 days of labor plus weekends) to satisfy our tax requirements. (The good news is this is three days less than 2007.)
I find it hard to believe that the Romans could run an empire on 2 days of taxation and we are getting ready to hit the $10 trillion debt mark as a nation while we are taking 31% of our citizen’s earnings each year. I am still checking these numbers and verifying this comparison. I don’t want to believe that mathematically and financially it was better to be annexed to the Roman Empire than to be a free American. Some one say it ain’t so!
Increasing in Him,
Galyn Wiemers
Topics: General | 1 Comment »