One of the fundamental aspects of Taoism is its exploration of the existence and nature of the Tao.  The Tao is shrouded in mystery, so there is no specific way to define it.  In essence, it is a force that underlies all existence. It is believed that by becoming more in tune with the Tao, we can reach harmony with the universe.  This should be done via the principle of wu-wei.  Wu-wei advocates doing something because it is a natural action, as opposed to doing something that goes against the natural purpose of something or someone else.  Stated simply, wu-wei is performing an action because it comes naturally.  By aligning ourselves with the Tao through this “purposeful inaction” of wu-wei, Lao Tzu taught that the Tao would be able to work through us to achieve harmony.

Taoism holds that the Tao is divided into two parts — the Yin and the Yang — that are constantly opposed to yet interact with one another.  For example, where the Yin side represents dark, cold, and good, the Yang side represents light, hot, and evil.  This idea is represented by a circle with two halves, one white and one black, curling into each other.  While the opposite sides are opposed to each other, together they create balance and harmony.  Everything is believed to have a Te, or inner connection with the Tao.  Because the Te for one person, animal, object, etc. may be different from that of another, the characteristics present in one Te should not be imposed on that of another.  Doing so will cause the oppressed to resist, thus disrupting the harmony of the Tao.  According to Taoism, people should respect the different Te that others possess and abstain from imposing their own viewpoints on others.

Taoism teaches that while there is a degree of chaos and disorder in the world, this chaos can be remedied by aligning oneself with the Tao.  As one is aligned more with the nature of the Tao, he achieves peace and harmony in himself and helps bring order to society.  However, because good and evil are not only coexistent, but also considered mutually dependent, this harmony is achieved with no regard for moral absolutes.  After all, if the Te of each person is different, what if the natural flow of the universe would require someone to perform horrendous atrocities, all in the name of maintaining the balance of the Tao?  Since it is considered more worthy for balance and harmony to be achieved through the Tao, this is a necessary price that must be paid.

Taoism provides no standard for moral absolutes, and therefore no way of knowing justice.  The Tao is supreme, and allowing it to produce balance and harmony is considered the highest order.  However, approaching reality with such a relative attitude  towards moral standards is extremely dangerous.  If people are supposed to follow their Te in order to achieve harmony with the Tao, then we need to understand what the true nature of man is.  Regardless of whether man should pursue harmony with the Tao or not, his natural character is going to come out.  One can look at the world as a whole to see what happens when man follows his natural character.  It’s not pretty.  A look at the newspaper or news channel provides clear evidence that we live in a fallen world.  Taoism would argue that the deterioration we see in society is a result of falling out of harmony with the Tao.  The irony is that by telling people to follow their natural character, Taoism is encouraging the perpetration of brokenness and pain.  It fails to take into account man’s nature: fallen, helpless, and incapable of achieving perfection on his own (Romans 3:10-18).

“for all have sinned and fall short of the glory of God, and are justified by his grace as a gift, through the redemption that is in Christ Jesus, whom God put forward as a propitiation by his blood, to be received by faith….” (Romans 3:23-25)

God’s Word tells us what man’s true character is.  Man is sinful, and he has fallen short of God’s glory. He has no way of being justified on his own.  Even so, God sent his Son, Jesus, to pay the price for man’s sinfulness and rebellion towards Him.  The payment of Christ’s blood is sufficient for man’s sinfulness and satisfies God’s justice. Christ gave his life as a gift of grace, to be received through faith in Him.  As a result, no one can claim that through his own works he is justified in God’s sight (Ephesians 2:8-9).  Seeking to bring harmony to the universe by looking within oneself will only further the depravation in the world around him.  The only way man can be rescued from the vicious consequence of sin and death is to look beyond himself, placing his faith in Christ.

“Scripture quotations are from The Holy Bible, English Standard Version®, copyright © 2001 by Crossway Bibles, a publishing ministry of Good News Publishers. Used by permission. All rights reserved.”

While the history of the Jewish people reaches much farther back in time, the term “Judaism” will be used to refer to the system of beliefs that developed in Jewish culture between 200 BC and 70 AD.  From 200 BC on, new traditions and ways of life developed that moved Judaism further from the religion of ancient Israel.  One of the primary developments was the impact of the office of the rabbi — a Jewish leader who holds religious authority.  After the destruction of the Temple in Jerusalem in 70 AD, rabbis became the authorities for establishing religious traditions and laws.  As a result, Judaism is heavily influenced by the teachings and insights of these leaders.

While much of Judaism was heavily influenced by the teachings of the early rabbis, the religion has since divided into three major groups — Orthodox, Reform, and Conservative.  Orthodox Judaism places a heavy emphasis on tradition and strict adherence to the Law of Moses, as interpreted by the rabbis.  When the Enlightenment swept across Europe during the eighteenth century, many Jews felt the best way to preserve their identity was to pursue modernization.  The denomination of the faith that this movement gave rise to was eventually termed Reform Judaism.  Because of its emphasis on innovation and modernization, this branch is more liberal than the other two.  Finally, Conservative Judaism takes a more middle-ground approach.  While not as strict as Orthodox, Conservative Judaism does have some liberal elements as well.

Regardless of the denomination, Judaism maintains the basic premise that man is naturally good.  As a result, man is supposedly able to earn his salvation.  Whether that be ultimately realized in the legacy a person leaves (Reform and Conservative) or in a future physical resurrection (Orthodox), man is believed to be capable of achieving it on his own.  However, man isn’t in that kind of situation.  Romans 3:23 says that “…all have sinned and fall short of the glory of God,”.  Psalm 14:2-3 provides an Old Testament reference, as well:

“The Lord looks down from heaven on the children of man, to see if there are any who understand, who seek after God.  They have all turned aside; together they have become corrupt; there is none who does good, not even one.”

When addressing the Jewish religious leaders on one occasion, Jesus put it a bit more bluntly:

“Woe to you, scribes and Pharisees, hypocrites!  For you are like whitewashed tombs, which outwardly appear beautiful, but within are full of dead people’s bones and all uncleanness.  So you also outwardly appear righteous to others, but within you are full of hypocrisy and lawlessness.” – Matthew 23: 27-28

While Jesus was addressing the hypocrisy of these leaders, the diagnosis of the human condition is the same.  Despite any attempts at attaining righteousness on his own, man’s efforts to earn salvation are like whitewashing a tomb.  People may appear to be good by the things they do and the ways they live, but their hearts are “desperately sick” (Jeremiah 17:9).

When God led the Israelites out of Egypt, He made a covenant with them.  That covenant required them to observe numerous laws and regulations.  However, many years after the Israelites had taken possession of the Promised Land, the nation that had been so magnificent under David and Solomon’s reign split in two.  Eventually, both Israel and Judah would turn away from the Lord, be invaded by a foreign nation, and taken into captivity.  Despite their unabashed apostasy, God promised the establishment of a new covenant:

“Behold, the days are coming, declares the Lord, when I will make a new covenant with the house of Israel and the house of Judah, not like the covenant that I made with their fathers on the day when I took them by the hand to bring them out of the land of Egypt, my covenant that they broke, though I was their husband, declares the Lord.  For this is the covenant that I will make with the house of Israel after those days, declares the Lord: I will put my law within them, and I will write it on their hearts.  And I will be their God, and they shall be my people.  And no longer shall each one teach his neighbor and each his brother, saying, ‘Know the Lord,’ for they shall all know me, from the least of them to the greatest, declares the Lord.  For I will forgive their iniquity, and I will remember their sin no more.”
Jeremiah 31:31-34

The new covenant that God promised was ultimately realized in His Son, Jesus. When Jesus died on the cross, He paid the price for every sin committed by every human being.  Whereas the sacrifice of animals was required to sanctify a person under the old covenant, Jesus’ death freed us from sin and is able to “…purify our conscience from dead works to serve the living God.”  (Hebrews 9:13-14)

“Therefore he is the mediator of a new covenant, so that those who are called may receive the promised eternal inheritance, since a death has occurred that redeems them from the transgressions committed under the first covenant.”
Hebrews 9:15

Judaism proclaims that good works are required for salvation to be obtained.  However, the covenant that God has made with mankind through Christ leaves no room for us to obtain salvation on our own.  It is only by His grace and mercy that we can ever receive eternal life.  (Titus 3:5-7) Because of his sinful nature, man maintains the belief that he can better himself on his own power.  While the “word of the cross” (1 Corinthians 1:18) may seem foolish to many, it is the only hope that mankind has for eternal redemption.

“Scripture quotations are from The Holy Bible, English Standard Version®, copyright © 2001 by Crossway Bibles, a publishing ministry of Good News Publishers. Used by permission. All rights reserved.”

The term “Islam” means “submission”.  Consequently, a follower of Islam is known as a “Muslim”, or “one who submits (to the will of Allah)”.  In order to please Allah and gain entrance to paradise, Muslims must have their good works outweigh their bad works here on earth.  Though their entrance to paradise is determined by Allah alone, Muslims may make progress toward this goal by following the “Five Pillars” of Islam.  The Five Pillars are: 1) reciting the Shahadah (There is no God but Allah, and Muhammad is his prophet), 2) praying five times a day, 3) giving alms, 4) regular fasting, and 5) if financially and physically able, making a pilgrimage to Mecca.  Additionally, Muslims hold the Quran to be the sacred word of Allah.  Certain other scriptures are accepted as well, but only the Quran is believed to have endured uncorrupted.

Because Muslims must perform good works in order to gain entrance into paradise, Islam is yet another religion that relies on the belief that man is basically good.   After all, if man were able to save himself by his own deeds, he must be perfectible by his own power.  As a result, if performing good works and following the Five Pillars are what make one good enough to gain entrance to paradise, man must be intrinsically good.  However, who determines what is “good enough”?  According to Islam, only Allah knows for sure.  One might spend their entire life as a devout Muslim, but still not perform enough good deeds to satisfy Allah.  While it might be satisfying to attempt to achieve salvation, what if all of one’s good deeds still weren’t good enough?

God understands our nature better than we do.  He realizes that we are sinful, lost, and totally incapable of performing enough – indeed, any – good deeds on our own power.  In essence, left to ourselves, we’re hopeless. However, in His infinite and unfathomable grace, God sent His only Son, Jesus, to live a perfect life on earth and to die for our sins.  His death paid the price for our sins – in full.  Consequently, if we accept His gift of grace, God accepts Christ’s death as payment for our sins.  Because it must rely on someone’s own deeds, Islam can only hope to cover over one’s sins with good works – much like covering an ink blot with white-out.  You might not be able to see it, but the blot’s still there.  It hasn’t been taken away. The question isn’t how many good deeds one must perform.  The problem lies in what must be done about the bad deeds. If the bad deeds can be taken away, the situation is resolved.  Islam can only hope to use enough good deeds to cover the bad ones.  Christ’s blood is sufficient to pay for every one.

While many may not consider Secularism to be a religion, it nonetheless holds a number of basic beliefs.  Fundamentally, Secularism denies the existence of God and seeks to provide an explanation for life apart from His sovereign rule.  As a result, it strives to explain reality only by the use of science and natural laws.  The belief that God doesn’t exist produces a number of additional consequences as well.  Without God, there is no standard of morality, no purpose or meaning to existence, and no afterlife.  Secularism holds that we only exist for the here and now, with no hope for an eternal future.  Therefore, any form of “salvation” is simply what one makes of life.  If there is no life after death, then the best thing one could do is to live their life to the point of maximum enjoyment.  Apart from any purpose or solid moral foundation, all of life becomes relative.

Needless to say, Secularism and Biblical Christianity are entirely at odds.  Secularism places its foundation solely on scientific reasoning, while Biblical Christianity is grounded on God’s Word.  Many would claim that because Secularism is supposedly able to explain reality by only natural means, Christianity’s acceptance of the Bible makes it entirely irrelevant.  However, they neglect to understand that true Biblical Christianity doesn’t discount scientific reasoning or natural laws.  In fact, those things would be unable to exist apart from a sovereign creator God.  If there was no omnipotent Creator over the universe, how could order be brought to chaos?  What about the Second Law of Thermodynamics, which states that the amount of disorder within a system can’t decrease, but can only increase?  Biblical Christianity doesn’t discount scientific reasoning.  Rather, it makes it possible!  Additionally, claims of moral relativism are completely illogical, as they contradict themselves.  If I say that all truth is a matter of opinion, is my statement true?  Secularism attempts to explain reality apart from God, but, upon serious consideration and honest analysis, it is entirely unable to provide a reasonable explanation.

If you’d like to explore the evidence for the reliability of the Bible, check out the “Apologetics” tab in the category menu to the left.  There’s also a series of posts addressing evolution in this section as well.

The central focus of Buddhism is the denial of desire.  According to the Buddha’s reasoning, desire is the root of all suffering.  The reason we experience pain is because we desire things.  Therefore, if we are able to end desire, we can also eliminate suffering from of our lives.  When we reach the point that desire no longer has a hold on us, we become enlightened and enter a state called “nirvana”.  While there are different variations of Buddhism that outline different doctrines, the goal of attaining nirvana is the same.  According to Buddha, salvation (nirvana) can be attained by following a list of teachings known as “The Four Noble Truths”, as well as “The Eightfold Path”, a list of characteristics and disciplines one should develop in their life.

Although some of the principles taught by Buddha are worthy goals to live by (doing good deeds, living a morally upright life), they fall short of satisfying the true need of every human being: freedom from sin.  Seeking to be free from desire in order to eliminate suffering is an impossible task.  After all, if one decides to eliminate desire in order to get rid of pain, aren’t they desiring to do that?  Pain is an inevitable part of life in a fallen world.  There is simply no way to dodge the presence of pain.  Suffering will still be present, regardless of how much one seeks to put an end to desire.

Buddhism’s teaching of becoming free from desire is inadequate because its focus is fundamentally flawed.  Pain is present only because the world itself (and consequently humanity) is broken.  Instead of focusing on a consequence of this brokenness, we need to look to its origin.  Pain and suffering are present because man rebelled against a holy God.  (Genesis 3) However, redemption is found in the death of Jesus Christ.  (Romans 3:21-24) By understanding that we are hopelessly lost and unable in any way to save ourselves (John 14:6), our eyes are opened to the truth of the Gospel, where true, eternal freedom from pain and suffering will certainly be found.

Many people today would claim that all religions are basically the same; that while they have their differences, all will eventually lead to the same place.  These folks would likely consider one’s religion to be of no more consequence than their favorite soda or sports team.  In the secularized society we live in today, religion has been downgraded significantly.  Instead of holding a place of reverence and awe, religion has been relegated to a point of mere preference.  As a result of this attitude, many people have fallen out of touch with the numerous differences in doctrine that various religions hold.

In the next few posts, we’re going to take a look at several religions.  Contrary to the view of many, we will see that there are in fact significant differences among these different belief systems — whether it be in the belief in an afterlife, the terms of salvation, the nature of God, the nature of man, etc.  Once we’ve briefly explored many of their basic doctrines, we will contrast them with Biblical Christianity.  As we delve into the foundational beliefs of these religions and uncover their bedrock assumptions, pay close attention to how they specifically clash with Christianity.  Once we’ve finished the series, we’ll take a closer look at the common thread that runs through every religion contrary to a Biblical Christian worldview.

With that said, there’s one last thing I want to point out.  In light of 1 Peter 3:15 — where we are called to give a reason for the hope within us — it can seem extremely daunting to believe that we would have to study every single belief system in order to understand how to defend our faith against it.  However, as we will see at the end of this series, there is a much more “efficient” way to address the beliefs we come into contact with. Even so, this still doesn’t give us the freedom to take a “Cliff’s Notes” summary approach — we need to be willing to dig deep into understanding other belief systems.  We need to be willing to do the research on Islam so that when we meet a Muslim, we can better relate to his position.  Paul did this with the Athenians in Acts 17. Through prior research and understanding of the culture he was in, Paul was able to effectively speak to the people in the Areopagus.  We too need to be ready to address those in our culture.  Over the next few weeks, we’ll take a closer look at just how we can do that.

It doesn’t take long to realize that the content of what Hollywood, record labels, and even publishers are producing doesn’t exactly line up to Biblical standards. Consequently, it shouldn’t be surprising that many Christians are advocating that we stay away from such industries altogether. If followers of Christ are supposed to be in the world but not of it (Romans 12:2), then how should we approach the situation?

The answer that is often offered to this situation is partially complete, but doesn’t address it entirely. True, Christians are supposed to be set apart from the world and its sinfulness. That’s an uncompromisable fact. However, what about the call to be salt and light? (Matthew 5:13-16). Instead of allowing the culture to degrade and rot away, we should be willing to jump in and make a difference. Living as a Christian doesn’t require isolation from the world. Rather, it calls for a different approach.

“Finally, brothers, whatever is true, whatever is honorable, whatever is just, whatever is pure, whatever is lovely, whatever is commendable, if there is any excellence, if there is anything worthy of praise, think about these things.”
Philippians 4:8 (ESV)

Although the content of the art, literature, music, movies, etc. that our culture produces is oftentimes unbiblical, there are certainly glimmers of light. Maybe it’s a movie that communicates a Christian worldview through the way it portrays honor or commitment to family. Maybe it’s a song that supports the sanctity of marriage without stooping to lewd language. Maybe it’s a piece of art that uses an abstract medium to express a Biblical truth. When observing the culture, we need to view and analyze it through Philippians 4:8. By doing so, we will be able to see the true, honorable, just, pure, lovely, commendable, excellent, and praiseworthy aspects of the things it produces.

Even so, just identifying things that correspond to a Philippians 4:8 view won’t fit the bill. If we are to be salt and light, we need to be willing to engage the culture as well. How so? Christians can certainly fulfill this mandate by serving in artistic industries and communicating a Biblical worldview, but not all of us are called to make movies or write novels. For those of us who aren’t on the front lines, we need to do our part in supporting those who are. By seeking out and supporting content that meets the criteria of Philippians 4:8, Christians can take steps toward furthering a Biblical worldview in the culture.

“Scripture quotations are from The Holy Bible, English Standard Version®, copyright © 2001 by Crossway Bibles, a publishing ministry of Good News Publishers. Used by permission. All rights reserved.”

Okay, here it is, the fourth and final post in our series on evolution. In the past three posts we’ve taken a look at a basic introduction to evolution and its credibility as a scientific theory. After considering the evidence against evolution, it’s pretty safe to say that its reliability is at the very least highly questionable. That raises a very interesting question: If there are so many problems with evolution, why is it still taught and accepted as a fact? Moreover, why aren’t opposing theories like Intelligent Design and Biblical Creation taught alongside it? After all, in real science, the facts are allowed to be interpreted through opposing theories. In the end, the theory that best explains the facts — and not the other way around — is accepted.

The reason that evolution is still accepted as fact, the reason evolution is still taught as the truth is not because of its stellar credentials. It is because evolution is a foundational aspect of an entire belief system (worldview). Evolution provides a premise for how life originated without requiring the existence of a Creator. As a result, since there is no room for a Creator in an evolutionary-based worldview, people have no accountability to Him. We would therefore be free to do as we pleased with no lasting, eternal consequences, since we would essentially be extremely intelligent animals that somehow attained consciousness. That makes things kind of convenient if one doesn’t want to believe in God, doesn’t it? No responsibility, no eternity, no worries, right?

Contrary to what some may believe, ideas do have consequences. Good ideas have good consequences, bad ideas have bad ones. So what kind of consequences does evolution produce? If people are nothing more than cosmic accidents that are highly evolved, then they really don’t have any basic value. After all, what value does an accident have? Accordingly, if people have no value, then the value of life is extremely low. Practices like abortion, euthanasia, genocide and others can simply be justified as steps that need to be taken to thin out “human weeds”. People have no obligation to the well-being of others, since there is no higher standard to appeal to. People are their own standard. Therefore, everyone would be logically justified in doing whatever pleased themselves, regardless of the cost to others. Our only focus in life should be to consume and enjoy, plowing over anything that gets in the way of our desires. Morality does not exist, since there is no higher standard for people to refer to than themselves. Some may argue that morality has evolved with people, since it was considered a valuable genetic trait that furthered the human population. However, this doesn’t fit very logically with the evolutionary belief system. If I’m here as an accident, then I don’t have any obligation to anyone else. Therefore, I am here for no one else but me. If something will make me happy, then it is in my nature to get it, no matter the cost to anyone else — even if it costs them their life. Someone might tell me that I shouldn’t do something for myself because it would endanger or disadvantage someone else, thus throwing a kink in evolutionary progress. However, since I am naturally selfish, I wouldn’t really care about furthering the evolution of my kind. I would exist for myself, and my ultimate goal would be to make myself happy.

The truth is, people do feel an obligation to a higher standard, whether they want to accept it or not. If we truly stooped down to hold such a low value of ourselves, life would become utter chaos. Tragically, many buy this belief system hook, line and sinker. The result: empty, unfulfilled lives that constantly try to cover their loneliness with material wealth and sensual indulgence. Regardless of how much they try, regardless of how much they gain, it is never enough. If evolution were true, there would be no void, there would be no loneliness. Our selfish pursuits would provide satisfaction. The satisfaction would eventually wear off, but we would just mechanically go back for more. Humans are more complex than that, though. When the satisfaction wears off, there is a deeper longing that just can’t be effectively ignored. We can try, but its gnawing never fully goes away. Humans aren’t materialistic creatures. They have desires that can’t be fully answered by material things. In that case, what does one get when they go beyond the material? They must consider the supernatural.

Humans are spiritual beings. They can’t be fulfilled with simply food, shelter and rest like any other animal. They need something deeper. They need something that fills the “void of loneliness” that exists in every person. Materialistic evolution cannot explain this need. People can deny its existence, and many can therefore ignore it effectively. However, they are unable to live in absolute consistency with an evolutionary worldview. They hold moral convictions, whether they believe in morality or not. They consider the welfare of others. They treat other people with value, although an evolutionary worldview cannot make sense of this. Evolution degrades humans to a place beside the animals, but it fails to satisfactorily explain what makes humans superior to animals. Could it be that people were created in the image of God? Wouldn’t that explain why life is given value, why morality is important, why we would seek to be considerate of others? If something was created, wouldn’t its Maker have inserted some level of value in His work? God did. He considered his creation to be of such high value, though it was tainted with sin, to be worth the life of His only Son, Jesus. That’s how valuable life is. Evolution considers humans to be material accidents, whereas Christianity identifies humans — all humans — as beings with unspeakable value.

Consider the evidence. We must decide for ourselves which worldview to believe in. However, remember that ideas always, always have consequences. Know the consequences that a worldview will produce. Never commit to a path before first knowing where it will end.

“There is a way that seems right to a man, but its end is the way to death.”

Proverbs 16:25

“Scripture quotations are from The Holy Bible, English Standard Version®, copyright © 2001 by Crossway Bibles, a publishing ministry of Good News Publishers. Used by permission. All rights reserved.”

          Just how much do you appreciate having eyesight? Why does the Oriental sweetlips decide not to chow down on a blue-streak wrasse? How in the world could life possibly start from non-life? I could list quite a few similar questions, but we’ll just take a look at these three for the time being. Although it will be far from a conclusive overview, I think the answers to  these examples will give us a better understanding of the credibility of believing in divine creation. Likewise, I think that they will also point out just how problematic a belief in evolution truly is. This post is obviously not written from a neutral position. I will confidently state that I believe a sovereign God created the universe. However, I hope that after these questions are addressed, it will be easier to see why I have an ample amount of assurance that a sovereign God created the universe. 

            Let’s start off with the human eye. Just how amazing is this little wonder? The human eye is capable of performing automatic aiming, focusing, and aperture adjustment maneuvers in a split-second. It is capable of focusing on an object with the diameter of a fine hair and makes about 100,000 motions every day. A number of finely-tuned muscles and nerves all work together to develop the clear and focused images that make up our sense of sight. So how likely is it that all these amazing capabilities accidentally fell in place so perfectly as to form a fully-functioning human eye? Dr. R. L. Wysong, a Creationist who formerly believed in evolution, calculated that the probability of an eye forming by chance is 1 in 10²²⁶ (The Creation-Evolution Controversy, Inquiry Press, 1981, p. 308). That’s a “1″ followed by 226 zeroes. To put this in perspective, there are between 10⁷⁸ and 10⁸² atoms in the entire known universe. The odds of an eye forming by chance are tremendously higher than that! And those are just the odds for the eye alone! Think about all the other organs, tissues, and other parts of the human body that would have to evolve alongside the eye! Even the numerous “basic” organs that are essential for life couldn’t evolve separately, because they would not be able to function individually. Needless to say, those odds would be absolutely monstrous. 

            Moving on to exhibit number two, we come across the blue-streak wrasse and the Oriental sweetlips, two fish that have an unusual relationship — with names to match. This odd relationship is more formally labeled a “symbiotic” relationship. In plain English, this means that the wrasse and the sweetlips help each other out. The Oriental sweetlips is a predator fish, so as the day goes along it begins to accumulate plaque and gunk on its teeth. Eventually, the sweetlips heads over to a “cleaning station” manned by blue-streak wrasses. The sweetlips opens its mouth and allows the Wrasses to swim inside and eat out all the plaque and buildup that are stuck to its teeth. As a result, the Wrasses get a free meal, while the sweetlips’  teeth remain healthy. Now here’s the question. Why doesn’t the Oriental sweetlips take a golden opportunity and turn the unsuspecting wrasse into an appetizer? After all, if nature is all about natural selection and survival of the fittest, this bad boy has the wrasses right where he needs them. One could argue that the sweetlips eventually realized how it was actually beneficial to allow the wrasses to clean his teeth, but that goes contrary to the evolution-based belief that all organisms are in a competition and struggle for survival. The sweetlips is bigger, so it ought to take advantage of every opportunity to eat the wrasses. These kinds of relationships are not exclusive to the Oriental sweetlips and the blue-streak wrasse. They occur throughout all Creation. It could be suggested that these animals eventually stumbled upon the realization that these interactions were beneficial. However, I think that it is much more plausible to believe that such relationships were ingrained in these creatures by a sovereign Creator. 

            Last but not least, I’d like to consider an especially challenging dilemma that evolution must face. How did life originate from non-living materials? This is where the language can get really technical and the facts and figures start flowing quite freely, so I’ll just give a simple explanation and leave the complex stuff to the experts. You can follow these two links: (Link 1 Link 2) if you want to dive into those complex explanations. Anyway, the answer is really straightforward: life just doesn’t appear out of nowhere. In fact, the idea that life could originate from non-life — more properly called “spontaneous generation” or “abiogenesis” — was disproved by the famous French scientist Louis Pasteur around 150 years ago. Ironically, this occurred right around the same time Charles Darwin was proposing the possibility of evolution! You can’t throw a bunch of different chemicals together and expect a cell, much less a slug, to pop out. However, this has to be true in order for evolution to have even a chance at getting off the ground. After all, if life didn’t originate by intelligent design, then chance, time, and natural processes all had to work together to combine non-living chemicals in precisely the right order so that life could initially exist.  

            I know this post has dragged on a bit more than I usually allow, so thanks for sticking through it! These are just some of the many examples I can provide that call into question the trustworthiness of evolution. Contrary to what is generally believed, evolution is not a fact. On the contrary, it is a very troubled belief system that suffers immensely from a lack of evidence in support of its position. Just because it appears that the majority (or at least the sources with the most influential voices) support evolution does not make it true. If the facts don’t line up, don’t accept them. Otherwise, if the truth is distorted, horrible and disastrous consequences can result. We will take a look at the consequences that evolution has generated, as well as their cure, in the next and final post.

Check out these links for more interesting info!

Article about the human eye

The Creatures and Biological Structures Evolutionists Don’t Talk About!

          In the last post we looked at a quick introduction to the theory of evolution and its two “sub-categories”: micro-evolution and macro-evolution. Remember that micro-evolution states that organisms change within their species, while macro-evolution claims that organisms develop from one species to a completely different species. In this entry we’ll take a closer look at macro-evolution. While it may seem pretty obvious that organisms change within their species (some cats have long hair, some have short hair, some lizards are larger than others, etc.), it is quite a different belief that those same cats or lizards could become something like a horse or a bird.  

            Usually, when someone mentions evolution, they are referring to the idea of macro-evolution. Throughout this post and the remaining posts in this series, whenever I refer to “evolution”, “macro-evolution” is the belief I have in mind. I personally find it kind of confusing to distinguish between the “micro” and “macro”, so we’ll keep it simple and just call it evolution. If I do refer to “micro-evolution”, I’ll be sure to point out the distinction. With that said, let’s take a closer look at the initial response to Charles Darwin’s controversial theory. 

            When Darwin first proposed his theory of evolution in the mid to late-1800′s, it sent shockwaves throughout society. Those who denied the existence of God finally had a groundwork and an explanation for the origin of life. Because Darwin’s idea relied only on a matter-based beginning for life with no hint toward the supernatural, atheists, deists, and others who deny God’s existence or involvement with the world had a belief system they could hold up and proclaim as fact. Evidently, there was no longer any need to explain how a supernatural, all-powerful being created the universe. The universe itself had simply come into existence, and somehow we came along with it. 

            Although Darwin’s beliefs were initially very convincing in light of the secular scientific knowledge he had access to, it needs to be pointed out that our current scientific knowledge has advanced quite a bit beyond what was understood in his day. New discoveries in the fields of biology, microbiology, chemistry, and other branches of science have since brought up very valid points of debate. How could life have arisen from non-living matter? How could all of the chemical ingredients necessary for  life have been present — by chance —at the right time and in the proper order? In all fairness to Darwin, many of the facts we have unearthed were not known during his lifetime. However, the idea of evolution is still alive and well today, despite mounting evidence that increasingly threatens its credibility. We will consider one such example in this post, followed by a few more in the next. 

            One of the most deceptively “simple” organisms in all of nature is the cell. During Darwin’s time, cells were essentially considered to be small blobs filled with a jelly-like substance. Only after microbiology took a closer look at these little wonders did their phenomenal complexity come to the surface. Far from being an inactive mass of goo, the cell is an extremely intricate organism that is very crucial for life to exist. Functioning in a variety of tasks, the details surrounding how these tiny life forms function is a study in itself. To get a brief introduction to just how amazing the cell’s role is, check out this video.