Happy Hallowed Evening

© Original content written by James R. Carlson

Print and Post the text below on your front door tonight just like Luther did 498 years ago. Oh, and be sure to hand out candy to the kids too. Its ok to have fun.

___________________________________________________________________________

Martin Luther

Nailed 95 Sermon Notes

on a Church Door in Germany

October 31, 1517,

the Night before All Saints Day.

(A Hallowed Evening)

Here are some notes for this year!

  1. God Loves You.
  2. Jesus Forgives You.
  3. Ask God to forgive your sin.
  4. God Hears You when You Pray.
  5. The Bible says, Jesus Love You!

Go to Church Sunday and Discover

God’s Forgiving Love

___________________________________________________________________________

Social Security – A Promise to Keep

© Original content written by James R. Carlson

Money put into the Social Security system has all been spent. It is being run like a Ponzi scheme, which is an investment fraud that pays returns to its investors from new capital paid by new investors, rather than from profits. This works as long as there are more people putting money into the system than drawing it out. The day is fast coming when the ratio of payers to payees will be 1:1. The tipping point when this ratio is less than one to one will lead to bankruptcy and more broken promises.

The Social Security program has not kept its promises. We need to keep the promises we made to an older generation and not make promises we cannot reasonably expect to keep to a younger generation. Keeping promises to grandma and grandpa doesn’t mean we have to lie to the grandchildren. Social Security can be secured for those who are retired but not for those who have not yet begun to work. We can turn off Social Security for 15 year olds and younger but keep it for 55 year olds and older.

This will create a generation of ‘tweeners’. This group between 15 and 55 may be given a buy-out option from their payments into Social Security, in part or on whole. Many proposals suggest giving people a partial buy-in to the Social Security system while investing some of their money into IRAs or other retirement accounts. Some proposals for ‘tweeners’ would allow a partial return on investment with Social Security where older people get a smaller percentage of their money back and the younger get a larger percentage of their money back. This will incentivize the younger to leave Social Security while encouraging the older to continue to pay into the system.

Be sure, the system will go bankrupt in less than 10 years. There is no way to avoid this. It is at the tipping point where America has to guarantee the promises made by paying the Social Security checks from the general fund. At that point, there will be no Social Security system other than a financial promise to pay recipients, a promise we need to keep.

New Deal or Raw Deal

The New Deal began as a promise to provide jobs for American workers. The work ethic was strong in America but work was not available to many. The promise of delivering jobs developed into new promises of leveling the income of workers with rich people through redistribution of wealth or socialism. Then socialism developed into welfare state’ liberalism where people who didn’t work could get government benefits without paying into the system. The idea of a new deal began with providing workers jobs but the deck was soon reshuffled and more cards were dealt to those who didn’t earn the benefits they received.

Fiscal conservatism developed in the 1930s and 1940s as a response to the New Deal to eliminate socialism and ‘welfare state’ liberalism. However, the idea of facilitating the work ethic was not directly challenged. Providing relief for taxpayers who pay for the Progressive policies of the New Deal, which includes Social Security can come in the form of facilitating the work ethic while dismissing socialism and ‘welfare state’ liberalism. Doing this also means facilitating the fiscal conservative movement.

Social Security was meant to provide a safety net for those who retire from the work force. It has since become an entitlement where people who didn’t work gained an income in a retirement program where they never retired from work because they don’t work. Paying into the Social Security system has become a means to pay for the lifestyles of some who either cannot work or refuse to work. Turning off payments to those who never paid into the system is another measure of securing the promises we made to those who did work for a living.

Further improvement to the system can be made by giving incentives to those who are receiving Social Security benefits and choose to work into their retirement years. Anyone who retires wants to be productive but according to their schedule and not the schedule of another boss. Being one’s own boss may mean working 0, 5, 10, 20, 40 hours or more a week. Giving these people a financial break in taxes they pay and the fines they now have to pay for working while retired are two more examples of solutions that can secure this system for workers who are genuinely retired.

Giving income tax breaks up to $100,000 (not more) above the income retirees receive from Social Security means they continue to pay Social Security taxes at regular rates, improving upon the source of income for Social Security. Giving them another break from the penalty of reduced Social Security payments (a virtual fine) for working in their retirement years incentivizes them to work without worrying about lost Social Security income. As the elderly helped build the Social Security system based upon their own good hard work ethic they’ll be working to help fix the system in their retirement years once again based upon their own good hard work ethic.

Conclusions

It’s time America rescues itself from the tired “vote for me” lies that the political left wing of America presents just to get re-elected. We do not have to elect Progressive politicians who say they want to fix the system they in fact have broken by over burdening it with more and more payees while taking more and more money out of it for other liberal programs. The greediest people in America are the people in Congress who can’t keep their hands off our money that we have in our pockets (taxes) or the money that is in the Social Security trust fund.

The Democrats, by and large, have broken their promises to the American people. Social Security is called the 3rd rail of American politics because it is the power rail for electric trains that can kill you if you touch it with your hand. However, it has also powered that proverbial electric train carrying politicians with their broken promises into elected office and the halls of power. They got elected based upon their promises but they didn’t secure the Social Security system for American workers. That train is headed for a wreck.

In the final analysis, there is no escaping the fact that Social Security is going bankrupt! It is time to turn off Social Security in a phased approach. Keeping promises to an older generation and not making promises to a younger generation we cannot keep. We need to promote the values of the work ethic that people based their trust in as they paid into the Social Security system. We don’t need to rescue a failed system used only to promote the Democrats into public office. We need to rescue the American people who trust in the Social Security system as a retirement account.

Halloween – The un-Holiday

© Original content written by James R. Carlson

When I was a child, Halloween was a time to dress up, go to parties, and get free candy. What could be more fun? I cannot fault anyone for wanting to have a good time but the tradition of Halloween has changed from a Holy Day, or Holiday, to an unholy day. The change in emphasis of this holiday has led to the further corruption of American society. Although it has become a witness to all things evil, we can still celebrate it with respect to what is Holy.

Halloween is celebrated on October 31. All Saint’s Day celebration, also known as All Hallows Day, begins on October 31 with All Souls Day and ends on November 1. Shakespeare called this Hallowmas and others have called this Hallowtide. This is a Christian celebration that commemorates those who were faithful in Christ who have since departed for heaven. As a celebration commemorating those who are considered Holy before God in Christ, this was originally a Holy day or holiday. The hallowed evening (eve or een) before All Saints Day has since become Halloween.

On October 31, 1517, Martin Luther nailed his Ninety-Five Theses, to the front door of the Church in Wittenberg, Germany. His work outlined the beginning of the Reformation of the Christian Church in Europe. The publication of Luther’s Ninety-Five Theses on the All Souls Day meant that people would be able to read it on the days the Church was open for All Saints Day. Luther objected to the notion of indulgences that Catholics suffered under, which if they attended Church on this holiday they might receive an indulgence; Luther meant to give them something better. This day is commemorated in many Protestant Churches as Reformation Day.

In Mexico, ancient pagan traditions have merged within Catholic traditions to facilitate the day of the dead. Some of Latin American cultures include the adorning of the bones of the dead in celebration of departed loved ones. Many Latin American cultures have various rituals or rites that do not originate with Biblical Christianity. None-the-less, the day of the dead coincides with Halloween in these countries and the traditions have merged.

In the United States of America, the traditions that came from pagan Europe have come to dominate the festival of Halloween. Gone is any trace of a Holy Day as witchcraft, sorcery, characters in horror movies, and other dark spiritual characters are portrayed the night of Halloween. The entire culture of America has separated from the idea of Holiness of October 31 as Halloween has become a celebration of Satan and all things demonstrably evil.

I do not suggest that families with children isolate themselves in a corner on the evening of All Souls Day. However, I do recommend that families and Churches resurrect this holiday and make it Holy. Sponsoring parties with candy and costume is not evil. Celebrating the Reformation and the victory that God gave us over death by faith in Christ Jesus are excellent themes to consider. Dressing up as Bible characters or Holy characters of history reinforce the idea of what we should remember on All Souls Day. Praising God for departed family members, telling stories about loved ones departed, and the future for young people who may continue the traditions of family are other topics for discussion. Our culture is not lost, it just looks like it.

I honestly hate Halloween. I used to turn the lights out in my house and put signs up telling people there is no free candy here; but that left me in the dark and without satisfaction. Now, I buy a bag of candy and give it to the kids who ring my bell saying, “trick or treat.” I don’t see these kids as evil demons but like me when I was little, just having a blast getting free candy while dressed up as a clown. You can have a good time without emphasizing the dark side of modern Halloween. Let’s work to rebuild our culture one Holy Day at a time. God Bless You.

 

Silly Ad – Just for Fun

© Original content written by James R. Carlson

Play or Sing to the theme song of “Beverly Hillbillies”

 

Come and listen to a story about a man named JEB [John Ellis Bush]

A poor Republican who barely kept his Party fed,

And then one day he was shootin’ at this dude,

And said Donald Trump, you’re totally crude.

A poor debater, foul mouth – total-ly!

 

Well the first thing you know JEB was a conventioneer,

He said, “Vote for me and I’ll get you there”

The convention said, “You belong in Washington”

So he loaded up his truck and moved to D.C.,

Republicans, President and Congress – The Republican Hillbillies.

 

Play music lick.

Show Republicans scrambling around.

Cut to JEB at the President’s desk

JEB moves a candelabra to the side of the desk

JEB says, “I wish my brother George was here.”

Finish hillbilly music and fade to black.

 

Islamic Terrorism is Killing Moderate Muslims

cl© Original content written by James R. Carlson

The rise of militant Islam has led to unforeseen consequences. The goal of Islamic terrorists is to kill Jews and Christians and institute an Islamic caliphate across the world. As ISIS and Al Qaeda force people to either submit to their brand of Islam, leave the country, or be beheaded, moderate Muslims are becoming disillusioned. Although a few submit to calls of radicalism, many are leaving Islam as the witness of radicals causes them to rethink their beliefs. Many moderate Muslims actually lose their life to Muslims who don’t respect their brand of Islam. As a result, Islamic terrorism is killing entire populations of moderate Muslims both physically and spiritually.

The attacks on the twin towers in NY City by Islamic terrorists on September 11, 2001 killed more people than they thought about. Among those who died in the attacks on 911 were Muslims who worked in the world trade center. More recent examples of Muslim on Muslim violence can be seen in Syria and Iraq where moderate Islam is being overrun by radical Islam. Many Muslims who do not share the extremist views of terrorists lose their lives when they refuse to submit to their radical brothers. Although there is a flood of refugees from Syria flowing into Europe, radical Islam continues to kill those moderates who are left behind.

Many people think that the God of Islam is the same as that of Judaism and Christianity but nothing could be further from the truth. Islam began when Mohamed tried to merge the religions of his community into one religion; these religions included Judaism and Christianity but this is where the similarities end. When we explore the history of Islam, a different view of the Islamic religion comes into focus and we can see why moderate Muslims are losing ground to their terrorist brothers.

Allah – A Lunar Deity

From the Bible we learn that God gave Abraham a revelation to follow Him and leave the land of his father behind. Abraham became the universal father of faith in obedience to the Spirit of God. In leaving the old world of idol worship behind, Abraham established a pilgrimage that we can all follow in life. Jews followed God in to and out of the land of Egypt and into the land of Israel. Christians follow God by faith in His son Jesus Christ; by faith Christian leave the old life of sin and enter into a new life with God. These examples of biblical faith in following the revelation of God is central to the religions of Judaism and Christianity. Islam, however, began with Mohamed building a synthetic religion that tried to incorporate the religion of his father’s with those of Judaism and Christianity.

The father of Abraham lived in Ur of the Chaldees and earned a living making idols of a moon god. Abraham left the gods of his father and followed God into the land of promise. Abraham begat Isaac and Isaac begat Jacob whose name was later changed to Israel. The land of Israel is the home of the Jews who are the descendants of Abraham.

The father of Mohamed lived in the Arabian Peninsula near the area of Mecca and was named after a moon god called Allah. Mohamed grew up surrounded with the worship of this moon god. Also in the land of his father were 360 gods who were also worshiped at Mecca once a year. Judaism and a form of gnostic Christianity were also present in Mohamed’s world.

Mohamed was familiar with the Jewish religion and all the other religions of the Arabian Peninsula. Similar to the example of Abraham, Mohamed attempted to lead people away from polytheism to worship only one God. But this god called Allah is not the God of Abraham. Mohamed claimed to be a prophet of God but as he presented himself to the Jews with his synthetic religion, he was rejected by the Jews as a false prophet. After Mohamed’s supposed revelation was rejected by those who followed God according to the revelation given to them by the God of Abraham, Mohamed sought to punish the Jews ever since.

There is a reason why the Jews of Mohamed’s world did not accept Allah as the god they should follow. History records that before the moon god of Mohamed’s father was called Allah, it was called the god Sin; the Wilderness of Sin and the Sinai was named for this god. And before it was called Sin, it was called the god Baal. From the Bible we know that Jesus called the devil Beelzebub, which is the Greek form of the word Baalzebub, which comes from the name of the god Baal. Far from being the God of Abraham, Allah was nothing more than a medieval (7th century) name for the devil or satan. No wonder why people who follow Allah kill Jews and Christians in the name of God?! Now, they’re killing those who simply have a different view of Islam.

False Gospel

Mohamed did not know how to read or write but heard many stories throughout his life from the religions of his region. Among them were stories that came from the Gnostic Gospels, which are false gospels. These were forged copies of accounts of the life of Jesus that often denied Jesus’ divinity and work for mankind on the Cross. Mohamed was so impressed with these stories that he included them in the book he dictated called the Quran.

In the Gnostic Gospels we find at least two stories that are also in the Quran. The first is the story of Jesus making a bird out of clay* while a young boy and when he breathed on it, it came to life and flew away. The second story is of Jesus sneaking off the Cross instead of dying on the Cross. The Quran includes this story in its pages and through it the Quran denies the atoning death of Jesus on the Cross.

The Gospels of the New Testament tell us that Jesus died on the Cross for the sins of mankind. Jesus rose from the dead showing his death on the Cross actually paid for the sin of mankind and was accepted by God for the forgiveness of sin. By believing in Jesus we can be forgiven of our sins; this is the salvation of our souls. Simply pray and ask God to forgive you and He will. The strongest evidence that the Quran is not of God is its denial of salvation that God gave to us by faith in Jesus on the Cross. The Quran prevents Muslims from accepting the salvation of God in Jesus and radical Muslims even kill those who turn to God by faith in Christ Jesus. A false god and a false gospel are a central to the Islamic religion.

God’s Workman – A False Messiah

Traditional Islam teaches that Mohamed was born of human parents and then led by Allah to become a prophet. However, moderate Islam is now being challenged by radical views that say Mohamed was the first person created by the light of Allah and then became the workman of Allah through which all else was created in the universe. This is very similar to the workman of Plato but it is also putting Mohamed into the role of a false messiah.

The New Testament tells us that Jesus is the son of God and the light of creation and the Messiah of Israel. Through the light of Christ Jesus people can live a new life led by the Spirit God. Christians are taught by the Word of God and the Spirit of God to share God’s love, forgiveness, and grace to others. The light of God by faith in Jesus Christ leads people out of the darkness sin. Sadly, following Mohamed as a false Messiah leads people into a darkness that promotes killing people in God’s name.

The Death of Moderate Islam

Perhaps the most striking fact about Islam today is the destruction of those who want to believe in being peaceful Muslims. This moderate faction of Islam is born from the teachings of Mohamed’s life when he attempted to join Jewish, pagan, and Christian religions into one. He asked people to join his new synthetic religion peacefully but the Jews he reached out to denied him. Later, he forced people to submit to his new religion by the sword. This latter example of Islam has had as lasting an influence on radical Muslims as the former had on modern Muslims. Sadly, moderate Islam is not fighting back and the radical terrorists are killing any idea of a peaceful Muslim religion.

Al Qaeda, ISIS, the Muslim Brotherhood and other Muslim terrorist groups are simply following the work of Mohamed’s later life. They require people to submit to their view of Islam or lose their lives. Islam as a word actually means to submit, which for Mohamed and radical Muslims means you will submit to the sword if you don’t submit to Mohamed’s god. This type of Islam, although genuine to those who practice it, is repulsive who have lived their lives thinking they could be peaceful or moderate Muslims.

Peaceful Muslims have found it difficult to be identified with the religion of terrorists. As a result, many Muslims are leaving Islam as the Islamic terrorists are defeating any notion that there is such a thing as a peaceful Islam. Islamic terrorists not only kill Muslims who do not share their particular view of Islam, or turn to God in Christ Jesus as their savior, they are destroying any remnant of a moderate Islam. As a result, moderate Islam will be a thing of the past.

Conclusions

Islam began as Mohamed’s vision of a new world religion. Following a synthetic text called the Quran, Islam began as an attempt to link all the world’s religions into one. But as we’ve seen, the call of God on the life of Abraham was to leave the religion of his fathers, whereas the call of Mohamed to his followers was to embrace the religion of his fathers that worshipped the moon god called Allah. Having been denied by the Jews in his attempt to create a new religion, Mohamed turned from peace to war killing all who did not bow down to his Allah.

Ultimately, subjugation to the sword is what Islamic terrorism is all about. Peaceful Muslims are helpless to stop it. The goal of Islam is world domination and subjugation. Terrorism in the name of God is the purpose of many who follow Mohamed in the name of Allah. However, killing the infidel (unfaithful) now includes killing faithful Muslims who do not go to the same extremes that radical Muslims do. Killing in the name of Allah shows that the Islamic terrorist are servants of darkness instead of the light of God.

Although moderate Muslims are helpless to stop the rush of Islamic terrorism, God still offers salvation and the forgiveness of sin to those who turn to Jesus. A simple prayer is all that is needed to receive the forgiveness of sin and salvation that God has to offer. You begin a new life in the light of God’s love by saying this prayer:

God, I believe you gave Jesus your Son to die on the Cross for my sins. Please forgive me of my sins and lead me into a life of righteousness according to your Word led by your Holy Spirit. Thank you for your love and for making me a child of God by faith in Jesus. I accept your salvation for me in my life. Thank you!

*The passage mentioned comes from a pseudepigraphal text, not from one of the gnostic gospels. I added this correction instead of editing the work.

 

Medicinal Marijuana – A Recreational Drug

© Original content written by James R. Carlson

Medical marijuana has received mixed reviews but most people who support it do so because they buy into the idea that it is a drug not of choice but of necessity. However, medical marijuana is not medical but recreational. The fact that people have chosen to call it ‘medical’ doesn’t hide the fact that it a means of skirting around the issue of legalizing marijuana. I have no problem with legal medical drugs to help patient’s needs but medical marijuana in its present form is neither legal nor medicinal.

Pharmacies stock their shelves with drugs in front of and behind the so-called ‘counter.’ In the front of the store people can buy drugs over the counter because they are meant to be used by people who have no particular medical background. Behind the counter, pharmaceutical drugs are distributed by pharmacists who are licensed to give people medicines that a doctor is licensed to prescribe. Apart from this process of doctor, pharmacist, and patient, we have a violation of the law.

Throughout the country, people have been attempting to find a legal route around the use of illegal drugs like marijuana. They believe that if they get a doctor to prescribe the drug and a pharmacist to distribute the drug, they are somehow covered legally. The problem with this is that it is not enough to follow the doctor, pharmacist, and patient process to be legal. The process described above began with the stock of drugs at a pharmacy behind the counter coming from pharmaceutical companies, not from a farm or some drug dealer.

Marijuana sold in the United States typically comes from growers who grow it illegally and do not go through a legal process to distribute it. Baggies filled with ‘weed’ are not representative of the type of medicines produced by pharmaceutical companies. Drug companies work towards removing impurities from the drugs they distribute to limit the side effects that come from them but medical marijuana is smoked to the point where cancer kills the patient more than any illness they’re trying to pacify with a pain killer.

If and when drug companies take the plant that is developed legally and refines the chemistry for use by people in a real need of a pain killer, we may finally declare that the process of doctor, pharmacist, and patient is finally legal! This is the right way to legalize marijuana and provide a resource for those who are truly ill. Instead of advocating medical marijuana we should advocate pharmaceutical marijuana.

However, those who are ill should not self-prescribe pharmaceutical marijuana. The difference between using medical marijuana and pharmaceutical marijuana is that most people in favor of medical marijuana want to self-prescribe a drug they’re familiar with as an illegal drug that they buy ‘over the counter’ from illegal drug dealers. Even though they may find a doctor who may prescribe it and a pharmacy to distribute it, they’re still self-prescribing a drug they can enjoy recreationally.

Smoking, toking, dragging, and bonging are all methods of playing with a drug recreationally; putting drugs into candy and brownies is no different. Pharmaceutical marijuana, on the other hand, requires a proper diagnosis of illness that a doctor treats medicinally. The proper legal distribution of pharmaceutical marijuana requires a doctor’s diagnosis and not self-diagnosis with a distribution from ‘behind the counter.’

Another problem with using legal marijuana, medical or not, is the idea that it is processed through the body just like alcohol. Getting drunk is different from getting high. The consequences of drunk driving are tremendous. The consequences of driving high are the same. The difference between the two is that getting high with marijuana lasts longer than the effects of getting drunk. Driving the day after getting drunk may mean you’re driving sober but driving the day after getting high does not. People who use alternative drugs for recreational purposes, even though they may call it medical, has consequences for public safety.

One should not drive or operate heavy machinery or do other work that puts the public at risk if they use marijuana for any reason. The medical diagnosis that leads to a prescription for pharmaceutical marijuana should come with a loss of the ability to use equipment that puts others at risk so long as they use the drug. If the purpose of using pharmaceutical marijuana is to treat illness, then other concerns are secondary. The law should respect the medical side of the prescription and the patient should respect the legal prescription to keep everyone safe.

It is not hard for anyone to see that medical marijuana is nothing more than a smoke screen for avoiding legal proscriptions against illegal drug use. While some people think they can play with the law society instead we should require the law be fully applied. The law already requires the process of doctor, pharmacist, and patient but it also requires the manufacture of prescribed drugs to come from licensed pharmaceutical companies. So the final process that the law presently requires for legal distribution of medicine is pharmaceutical drugs, prescribed by doctors, distributed by pharmacists to patients. Any break in this legal chain of manufacture and distribution is grounds for legal prosecution.

Medical marijuana is nothing more than an excuse for recreational drug use.

 

Evolution – A Philosophy and Religion of Science

© Original content written by James R. Carlson

Science begins by testing a philosophical thesis. There are many ways to develop a philosophical thesis but the truths of science derived from experimental science not philosophical science. Results from empirical tests will either validate or invalidate a philosophical thesis. The by-products of experimental/empirical science are data and math. When principles of science are discovered, they are based upon the data and math discovered in the empirical tests. And from the principles of empirical science, new technology can be built. Evolution, however, cannot be tested. In fact, evolution has never been validated by empirical science, which means there are no products of data and math based upon experiment, which also means there are no principles of science that lead to new technology. As a result of the lack of empirical validation for evolution, evolution remains a philosophical thesis that many still choose to believe in.

A philosophical thesis can be developed in many ways. Religion can inform one’s philosophy about nature and philosophy is often used to support religious ideas about the natural world. A thesis may be based upon a religious or irreligious viewpoint but science does not test religion; science can only test a given philosophical thesis. Some think that science can prove or disprove a theistic or atheistic viewpoint but this betrays a misunderstanding of what science is and does.

I spent many years researching the subject of evolution and I’ve written two books on the topic of evolution (see below) from a perspective of the history of science.

The Evolution of Evolution: A Theory in Chaos

The Alchemy of Evolution

From my research on these books, I have discovered that evolution is modern day mythology and modern day alchemy. I have also discovered that despite the claims of many, evolution remains a philosophy of science and a religion of science.

Evolution is a Philosophy of Science

You may be shocked to learn that Charles Darwin’s only earned college degree was in Theology. He failed in his medical studies and began working towards a career as a member of the English Clergy. Darwin also enjoyed working in the field of natural science and planned to continue his private studies while working in the Clergy.

Darwin’s work as a theologian and natural scientist led to his search for a mechanism of species variations that would provide a more naturalistic view than that provided by traditional natural theology. Darwin studied and was a fan of William Paley’s work entitled, “Natural Theology,” but he disagreed with Paley’s belief that God divinely intervened into the activities of nature and species variations. Whereas Paley advocated divine selection, Darwin advocated natural selection; natural selection then became Darwin’s natural theology.

Darwin’s book titled, Origins, was a book on natural theology with a focus on the variation of species. Darwin opened his book with a quote from William Whewell, a natural theologian, showing his purpose for writing. Whewell used the philosophical tool of induction to promote his views of natural theology and Darwin followed his example within his Origins. Darwin’s thesis was presented using the philosophical tool of induction but as induction is used to build and present a thesis, it cannot validate that thesis. Empirical science then is left to test this thesis to see if nature agrees with it.

Darwin continued to work towards validating his thesis but failed to do so in his long career in the 19th century. He came up with the idea of pangenesis but this was disproven by his cousin Francis Galton as a result of his experiments on rabbits. However, the new science of heredity was named genetics based upon the term of pangenesis. In following Darwin, the Neo-Darwinists of the 20th century also failed to validate a genetic mechanism of species transformations. In fact, evolution has never been validated by empirical science. This fact escapes many people in science, the media, politics, religion, and education who continue to support the idea of evolution.

Testing Darwin’s thesis of biological evolution requires falsifying the thesis to see if nature will confirm the thesis. The central thesis of Darwin’s evolutionary hypothesis is the transformation of species, which when falsified will require changes in species from one type to another by means of genetic action. However, all empirical data shows that changes in species are minor variations resulting only in changes in characteristics (some beneficial and detrimental). Never has there been an observable change from one species to another.

All changes in bacteria render bacteria, all tests of fruit flies still produce still fruit flies, changes in moths lead to more moths, variations in finches lead to finches, turtles remain turtles, lizards are all lizards, dogs are still dogs, and cats are still cats with an abundance of varieties. The whole set of data from empirical science proves that there are no transmutations only simple mutations. Empirical science has no evidence for the transformation of species; therefore, empirical science has invalidated evolution.

Some, however, say that it takes millions of years for species to change. Then how do you test this in a lab setting? After 100 years of studying the fruit fly in the lab all the results produce more fruit flies. And after 50,000 generations of bacteria have been studied, there is nothing more than bacteria to show for all the changes. The fact that millions of years cannot be tested by empirical means is further evidence that evolution is not empirical but philosophical science. One may argue for their philosophical perspective as much as they want but calling it science without a single data point is pointless. Evolution is only a philosophy of science but many refuse to let this bother them and continue to believe in it.

Evolution is a Religion of Science

Evolution is also a religion of science. It is no wonder that many Christians who believe in God as Creator also believe in evolution as the supposed mechanism of God’s creation. Evolution began as Darwin’s view of natural theology but Darwin did not include God as an actor within nature to cause changes in species. Darwin left the door open for atheists to adopt his view of natural theology based upon a materialist view of nature. As a result, atheists have taken ownership of evolution and turned it into an atheistic religion.

Although the 19th century ideas of theistic evolution included ideas of vitalism, entelechy, and teleology as mechanisms for species variation, 20th century atheistic evolution changed these ideas into new ones of self-complexity, self-organized criticality, hyper-cycles, auto-catalysis, etc. The vitalism of the 19th century was replaced with a naturalistic/materialistic view of nature that did not include a spiritual component of life. Theistic views of nature have been remade into modern atheistic views.

Ask anyone inside scientific circles if they believe in evolution. Unless they are guarded in their response they will usually answer – yes. Evolution is a belief central to the thinking of most people connected with the scientific community. But most of these people are unfamiliar with the particular issues related to evolution and are only taught that science has proven evolution is real, which it has not. Belief in evolution is required by peer pressure for everyone in scientific circles; if you want to be taken seriously in science you have to believe. However, this belief betrays the fact that evolution is not real but religion.

Many people in science also believe in science. However, science is not a religion, it is a tool. And like a hammer used for driving nails into wood, science is a tool used to test philosophical views of nature and build new knowledge about the natural world through testing. It would be foolish to believe in a hammer and it is equally foolish to believe in science.

From the tool of empirical science, testing a thesis renders the products of data, math, and technology. Empirical data from a test becomes the empirical formulas that are expressed as the principles of science. These principles of science are expressed in approximate mathematical terms and become the foundation for engineering; engineering by definition is applied science. From the application of science we get new technology. But as evolution has never been validated empirically, nor can it be tested fully, there is no data, there is no math, and there is no technology based upon evolution. It should be easy for anyone to search for any technology that is based upon evolution to prove the contrary. However, upon finding that there is no technology based upon evolution one should conclude it is because evolution is not real!

One’s belief in evolution as a science does not make it science. Science is not what one says it is, thinks it is, or believes it is; science is not a tautology, philosophy, or a theology. Science requires real work by testing a thesis to validate or invalidate a philosophical thesis such as evolution. Evolution has never been validated empirically (experimentally) and remains as a philosophical perspective of science only. But as scientists and others continue to believe in it, it has taken on the model of a modern day religion.

Conclusion

The Courts have ruled that public schools are not allowed to present religious viewpoints in science classrooms. Even if a creationist perspective is presented to balance the views of evolution, the Court has ruled against it. Although the No Establishment clause of the U.S. First Amendment is supposed to prevent the government from giving preferential treatment to one religious sect over all others, the U.S. Court system has allowed evolution to be taught to the exclusion of other viewpoints. However, evolution and creationism are both philosophical and religious views of “origins.” And as a result of the Courts decisions, they have given preferential treatment to the religious views of origins of evolution as the only viewpoint allowed in government run public schools. This violation of the No Establishment clause should be challenged and the science curriculum of public schools changed to reflect a truly non-preferential application.

Let’s look at it this way. Instead of teaching cosmology, cosmogony, and metaphysics, public school science curriculum should teach biology, chemistry, and physics. The speculative views of origins (philosophical or religious) should remain a part of a parent’s responsibility and right to teach their children with supplements to public school curriculum. But the empirically validated views of science that show students how to test a thesis, gather data, associate math with the data, and render the math into scientific principles should be what public school science courses teach. Biology expressed mathematically with genetics, chemistry with equations, and physics with kinematic principles have all been empirically validated and rendered as scientific principles in mathematical terms. This is what is needed in public school science classes.

It is time to remove both evolution and creationism out of public schools and require the teaching of science in science curriculum. The teaching of the philosophy and religion of science may be reserved for college electives but it has no place in public schools. It may be a novel concept to teach empirical science in science classrooms but that should be the focus of anyone no matter what they believe in. Again, science is a tool and learning its proper use will benefit everyone.

In the end, evolution cannot be tested or validated empirically. If you disagree, show me the data, show me the math, and show me the technology; put up or shut up! Evolution cannot do this and fails the test because evolution is not real science. In the end, evolution is only a philosophy and a religion of science.

Homosexuality – A False Gospel

© Original content written by James R. Carlson

Civil and Religious freedoms are under assault in America. The homosexual agenda is clashing with people whose lives are based upon moral principles taught from the Bible. In the Bible, God defines sodomy as sin; homosexuals who practice this sin define their lives by it. However, homosexuals and heterosexuals who practice homosexual sex (sodomy) chose to deny that they are practicing sin. This denial of sodomy as a sin requires the homosexual community, et al, to propagate their lifestyle, based upon this sin of sodomy, as legitimate. The resulting clash between Christians and homosexuals then is a clash of perspectives about sin and our obligation to God. One view leads to the forgiveness of sin, the Gospel of Jesus Christ, and the other to the enabling of sin, the false gospel of homosexuality.

Jesus forgave the woman caught in the act of adultery and did not condemn her but he made it clear that she should go and sin no more (John 8:11). Jesus’ life and passion was for the forgiveness of sin. Jesus made it clear that those who practice sin become the slaves of sin (John 8:34). His passion was so great that He obeyed His Heavenly Father’s Will to die on the Cross for the sins of mankind and liberate us through his sacrifice for sin. Liberation from sin is what the Gospel of Jesus Christ is all about but the homosexual community cannot accept that nor can they accept that like the rest of us, they are sinners too in need of God’s forgiveness of sin.

Homosexuals claim they cannot stop their practice of sodomy (same sex relations) and that their basic nature compels them to perform as they do. Although they think they are simply coming out of the closet to be who nature made them to be, they are actually acting according to the bondage and slavery of sin they have surrendered to. This bondage has corrupted their behavior and their thinking; and they expect society to share in their mental illness.

God loves the homosexual but does not enable the sins of mankind. The love of God forgives the sins of mankind in order to enable us, by His Holy Spirit, to live a life of righteousness empowered by Him. The conflict between the forgiveness of sin and the enabling of sin is becoming a problem in America as the political agenda of the homosexual community is clashing with people who hold to Biblical moral truths.

The examples of persecution against Christian chaplains, businesses, and government officials who live the morals they believe in is growing in our country. The problem is that it will not go away by wishful thinking. The solution to this growing problem is the promotion of the sincere Love of God presented by the Gospel of Grace that offers everyone the forgiveness of sin.

To know God in truth you must approach God on His terms. Simply pray to receive the forgiveness of sin that Jesus died on the Cross to give us. Say this prayer in your heart knowing that God will hear you and answer you when you pray according to His Will:

God in Heaven, I admit that I am a sinner. Please forgive me of my sin based upon the sacrifice that Jesus gave on the Cross for my sin. I ask that you empower me to live a life that is right in your sight by the power of your Holy Spirit. Please forgive me and please lead me into a new life with Jesus. I believe you raised him from the dead and ask that he become Lord of my life. I thank you for hearing me, for answering me according to your Will, for loving me, and for making me a child of God. Thank you!

Secular Tyranny

© Original content written by James R. Carlson

Atheists do not promote religious freedom. There are no leaders from the community of non-believers who have a goal of facilitating those who do believe in God. The whole premise of atheism is to withdraw from a belief in God. Instead, atheism seeks to remove theism from shaping society’s mores and government; atheism works to change the theistic culture that society has based its civil institutions on. When given power and authority within our shared republic, atheism seeks a secular tyranny to dismiss religious freedom and rule society without respect to moral values.

We are often told that atheists are people, unlike most people, who do not believe in God. We are told that they are put upon by those of us who do believe in God. We are told that atheists should share in our theistic religious freedoms so they may exercise their belief that God does not exist. Given this definition, atheism shares in our nation’s religious freedoms but does not promote them for anyone but themselves.

Atheism is nothing more than a branch of theism and one sect in a theistic community. Atheism is in fact sectarian. God, however, is often seen by atheists as sectarian because God and religion are associated with each other; but this is only a jumble of atheistic thinking. God is revered by all religious sects, including atheism, as the general focus of their religion. Whereas all religious sects seek to add particular definition to the meaning of God as a person, atheists seek to define God as a person who is “not real.” Atheists and theists all focus on God and contrary to atheist rhetoric, God is non-sectarian. Any reference to God in general terms is non-sectarian. The idea of sectarian and non-sectarian is important as the Court bases its decision on the meaning of these terms.

The First Amendment of the U.S. Constitution says:

Congress shall make no law respecting an establishment of religion, or prohibiting the free exercise thereof; or abridging the freedom of speech, or of the press; or the right of the people peaceably to assemble, and to petition the Government for a redress of grievances.

Early ideas of No Establishment meant that the U.S. government could not establish one sect or religion above all others. Sectarian laws were those laws giving one sect an advantage over other sects. Non-sectarian meant that government did not prefer one sect over others and each had equal access to governmental agency. This old idea of sectarian/non-sectarian, however, is lost.

Today, ‘sectarian’ means ‘religious’ whereas ‘non-sectarian’ means ‘non-religious’, like atheism (sic). Following the atheist perspective, the American Court system has agreed to the idea that God is sectarian but atheism is non-sectarian. This reversal of perspective has lasting consequences for American society and government. A new social political agenda among atheists is to secularize society and government by law without respect to moral values trained by religious principles.

The Declaration of Independence originally declared that government was instated among men to secure the rights that God the Creator gave to mankind. God as Creator also gave us the knowledge of what is right, written in the Declaration as the Laws of Nature and of Nature’s God. The same God who gave us our rights also taught us the value of what is right. According to this perspective, there is no right to do what is wrong.

Of course, atheists oppose this idea and preach sermon after sermon about how bad it is for government to be based upon moral rights that are instructed by religious conviction. They argue that a woman has a right to choose even if the choice is morally wrong. However, God gave every woman the right to choose and the responsibility to do what is right. Atheists who reject the Creator God also reject the morals of God and the balance of rights and responsibilities.

Many (not all) atheists share a goal of secularizing America. They can often be heard crying about a violation of the separation of Church and State. Yet these atheists do not know who God is do not know where this principle originally came from and what it requires of the law and morality.

Thomas Jefferson wrote to the Danbury Baptist Association in 1802 saying:

Believing with you that religion is a matter which lies solely between Man & his God, that he owes account to none other for his faith or his worship, that the legitimate powers of government reach actions only, & not opinions, I contemplate with sovereign reverence that act of the whole American people which declared that their legislature should “make no law respecting an establishment of religion, or prohibiting the free exercise thereof,” thus building a wall of separation between Church & State.

Many think that Jefferson was the first person to advocate the separation of Church and State  principle, but he wasn’t. Jefferson was the first to equate the First Amendment’s religious clauses with the idea of Church and State separation, but it was Roger Williams who first said that God erected a…,

“…hedge or wall of separation between the garden of the church and the wilderness of the world.”

Jefferson quoted Williams’ “wall of separation” phrase when writing to the Baptists of Danbury, Connecticut, because Williams’ was the first to establish a Baptist Church in North America in his colony of Rhode Island. The early Baptists revered Williams. And as Williams’ based his principle of separation on the 10 Commandments, so too did Jefferson.

In reference to Romans 13, Williams said:

“…the Spirit handles the duties of the saints in the careful observation of the second Table, in their civil conversation or walking towards men, and speaks not at all of any point or matter of the first Table concerning the Kingdom of the Lord Jesus…”

The first tablet (Table) of the 10 Commandments represent man’s duties to God (Commandments 1-4) whereas the second tablet (Table) of the 10 Commandments represent man’s duties to mankind (Commandments 1-4). The separation of Church and State meant that government had authority to make law and govern society based solely on the second tablet but not the first. Based upon the moral code of the second tablet, the separation of Church and State was never the separation of Morals and State.

Borrowing from Williams, Jefferson again said to the Danbury Baptist Association in 1802:

Believing with you that religion is a matter which lies solely between Man & his God, that he owes account to none other for his faith or his worship, that the legitimate powers of government reach actions only, & not opinions, I contemplate with sovereign reverence that act of the whole American people which declared that their legislature should “make no law respecting an establishment of religion, or prohibiting the free exercise thereof,” thus building a wall of separation between Church & State.

Jefferson borrowed Williams’ principle of separation saying that government should “reach actions only” (2nd tablet) “and not opinions” (1st tablet). This he said before defining the religious clauses of the First Amendment’s as “a wall of separation between Church & State.”

Atheists do not promote religious freedom but religious tyranny by dismissing the moral values society holds that are instructed by the principles found in the Bible. Instead of supporting the theistic foundation of the Judeo-Christian ethic that defines the moral foundation of the civil laws that govern society with, atheism seeks to undermine those foundations.

All too often atheists think they can dismiss theistic moral values by simply calling for a separation principle. However, the separation of Church and State requires civil laws to be based upon moral principles and limits the actions of people where there is no right to do what is wrong. These are 2nd tablet principles associated with the separation of Church and State that Williams and Jefferson both espoused.

When the Courts support the religious and political agenda of atheists, who seek to secularize America through judicial action, they are establishing the religious sect of atheism in preference to all other sects. This act of sectarianism is one example of many where atheists seek to dominate American society and change the way government does its job.

Religious freedom is being lost as the secularist goals of atheism gain favor in the Court, contrary to the No Establishment clause of the First Amendment. In the end, atheists are in violation of the separation of Church and State principle when they seek preferential treatment for their religious views and ask the government to establish their way of thinking above all others.

Environmental Maniacs – Environmaniacs

© Original content written by James R. Carlson

How often do you hear about the responsibility we have to preserve wildlife, nature, and the environment? It is a constant drum beat by those who perhaps took God literally when He said to subdue the earth and take dominion over His natural creation. To do this requires a massive amount of power, which if distributed throughout the world to the billions of humans on the planet, would mean we all take responsibility for the small part of the world around us. Unfortunately, environmentalists are drawn to this power like a drug and are treating the issue of the environment like a political party in search of political power. In the process they have become high on the narcotic of power and have dismissed their responsibilities for preservation. As a result, they have become environmental maniacs – environmaniacs.

Since the days of preserving the nature reserves of Yosemite, Yellowstone, and other beautiful national parks, conservationists have discovered that they have a huge amount of power. Since the days of Muir, environmentalists have begun to return to nature in a sort of love fest that actually worships the natural world around us. Some like John Denver even sing about their love for nature and promote their pantheistic religion under the guise of a love for god. Their god, however, is not the Creator who told us to subdue the earth but the earth itself. Worshipping creature instead of creator these environmentalists have become fools.

Religion and politics are powerful draws to the human soul. Mankind respects both disciplines, which are a part of the 9 basic intelligences of mankind. However, people hate a fraud who deceives them for personal gain. The person who promote a truth to be more pure than their opponent cannot always be presumed to have a motive to be more pure than their opponent. We are witnessing in America the drive to put the religion of environmentalism into power to a degree that is challenging the U.S. Constitution and the very freedoms we all enjoy.

Take global warming for instance. Recently Dr. David Evans of the Australian Greenhouse Office said that the mathematical computer model used by the United Nations was wrong. Manmade CO2 is not in the driver’s seat for global warming and has little to do with it. As most of the work on global warming is based upon computer models and not actual scientific data (see my Polar Warming post), the computer models were set up incorrectly, he said, which led to incorrect predictions. However, the advocates of global warming do not seem daunted by this news as their drive is to conquer the world for the environmentalist cause. Power is their goal, not the environment.

In the caliph of liberalism (California), the government was asked to allow farmers to use the central water supply of that state to irrigate more than half a million acres of farm land. They were denied. The caliph said that endangered species of fish called the delta smelt might get injured or killed if pumps were used to irrigate crop lands. This decision in the middle of a drought is devastating. The caliphs of could in fact rescue these fish into fish farms in a responsible action of animal husbandry. But instead of what makes sense, the environmentalists chose to exercise power instead of what was good for fish and farmer alike.

In the most extreme example of environmental misuse of power I can think of, environmentalists of California refuse to allow people to clear forests of underbrush and cut fire roads in the forest. They say that doing so would disturb the natural environment. However, the underbrush is kindling for a spark to become a flame that begins forest fires and the roads are useful to put these fires out if and when they begin. But when thousands of acres of forest lands are destroyed by fire, these environmentalists claim that it was just an act of nature. How absurd! The environment is being destroyed as a result of environmentalist policies. These people are beyond power mad, they’re insane. They’re willing to sacrifice nature in defense of nature. This is why I call environmentalists maniacs – environmaniacs.

Not all environmentalism is bad however. I worked for a company that did scientific work to ensure that landfills were properly maintained. We did real testing in a lab of various liners that prevented the pollution of the water table and made reports based upon the data. But the religious political side of modern environmentalism has gone crazy. They have trashed common sense and are a source of pollution in nature, religion, and politics.

There is a point where we need to step back and ask the question, “Are these really the people we should follow?” If the environment is truly the objective of environmentalism then why is power being concentrated into the hands of the few instead of the many? I don’t mind voluntary recycling but eventually we may go to jail for not throwing trash into the right bin. Let’s remove power from the work of preserving nature and see who steps forward then. As long as the drug of choice for environmentalists is power, we can throw responsibility into the trash can. It is time for the adults take the lead!