Praying Hands

© Original content written by James R. Carlson

praying hands 2

Original Artwork by Albrecht Durer (1508)

The story behind the artwork of the Praying Hands is one of love. The symbol of the folded hands represents prayer and so much more. It represents self-sacrifice and fidelity for the love of another. This symbol, used Albrecht Durer’s painting (1508), represents the devotion of man and the love of God.

Wedding rituals in medieval Europe borrowed traditions that were meant for other purposes. The ritual of homage where a vassal pledged himself to a Lord was accompanied by the symbol of hands being placed together, palm to palm, as a sign of dedication. This ritual was later used in weddings where the bride placed her hands together as the groom covered them with his own hands in a sign of mutual devotion and fidelity. Together, they would offer themselves in homage to the Lord Jesus in their bond of marriage.

This tradition was familiar to Albrecht Durer and these hands of homage and fidelity are famous in his painting of praying hands. It portrays an oath of fealty between the person praying and God. As God hears our prayers, He surrounds us with his Spirit and blesses us as we pray according to his will. This is a beautiful symbol of love and devotion between God and mankind. However, there is another story behind Durer’s famous painting.

When Albrecht was a little boy, he and his brother Albert made a pact to become artists. They agreed to toss a coin to see who would go to school and who would work in the mines to pay for the other boy’s education. They tossed the coin after Church and Albrecht won. He promised to pay for his brother’s tuition after graduating school 4 years later either with his success as an artist or by going down in the mines himself.

Sadly, when the time came, Albert had lost almost all use of his hands due to the hard working conditions in the mines. Albrecht tried to keep his promise but Albert refused. The hands that Albrecht painted were possibly of his brother’s broken fingers as a symbol of his fidelty. And although we typically see this painting and others like it as a symbol of prayer and devotion, it is a reminder of the fidelity of 2 brothers who sacrificed for one other.

The story of sacrifice is powerful. Jesus said that no greater love has anyone than to give his life for his friends. Jesus took upon himself the curse of our sin at the Cross and paid the penalty of death for us that me might be liberated from the slavery and bondage of sin. We can receive the gift of forgiveness and ask God to pardon us according to the work of Jesus on the Cross. God will forgive you in the name of Jesus who was broken for our sins. And as Jesus rose from the dead, He will give you a new life led by his Holy Spirit.

Praying for forgiveness is the Will of God for your life. Asking God is what prayer is all about. God is already devoted to you and simply seeks an opportunity to share His devotion with you. When you pay homage to God by asking Jesus to become the Lord of your life, you become married to a divine partner in the Spirit who will walk with you throughout all eternity. The story of praying hands is one of homage, devotion, sacrifice, and love.

Please pray this prayer:

God of heaven, I believe in Jesus Christ who died on the Cross for me. I believe that he paid for the penalty of my sin, which I admit I have done. I ask for your forgiveness of my sin and thank you for your love. Please bring me closer to you so that I may know you. By your Holy Spirit, please make in me a clean heart, a renewed spirit, and a right mind that I may do those things that are pleasing to you. Thank you God, Father of the Lord Jesus Christ, and now my Father in Heaven. Amen!


Review of Bill Nye’s Book, Undeniable (Part 1 of 5)

© Original content written by James R. Carlson

ham nye 1


Bill Nye, an evolutionist, and Ken Ham, a creationist, had a debate in February 2014 in which they discussed the topic of whether or not Creationism could stand in the modern context of science. Nye has taken the liberty to write a book, Undeniable (2014), in which he attempts to present a concise view of evolution. Nye presents his thesis of evolution with philosophical zeal but as I read his book I was struck with the fact that he never offered solid empirical evidence of evolution’s reality. Future debates should discuss the question of whether or not Evolution can stand in the context of modern (empirical) science. This review of Bill Nye’s book explores just that question.

Empirical Science – Real Science

First, let’s establish what modern science is. Apart from philosophical science, modern science is testable science called empirical science. Nye’s view of modern science follows the path of, “Observe. Hypothesize. Predict. Experiment.” (Chapter 25) ‘Observe and hypothesize’ is nothing more than building a thesis, which is the work of philosophical science (also called speculative science). ‘Predicting’ is nothing more than falsifying a thesis; the question is asked, ‘what will nature do if the thesis is true?’ And ‘experimenting’ is where the real work of science begins.

The empirical method actually can be summarized as ‘present a thesis,’ ‘falsify a thesis,’ and ‘test the thesis.’ The work of empirical science is focused on the test, from which we gain empirical data. Data is the foundation of modern empirical science. Empirical data yields empirical formulas (math) that are simplified with philosophical mathematical expressions and these expressions become the laws of nature or principles of science.

Engineers are familiar with empirical science. As an engineer, I apply the principles of science that are expressed in mathematical terms to develop technology. Engineering is applied science and engineers are applied scientists who use the mathematical principles of science in their work. The benefits of science are the result of engineering and technology.

So from the modern context of science, we should expect to see 1) Data, 2) Math, and 3) Technology. Unfortunately, Bill Nye focuses exclusively on presenting the thesis in terms of 1) Observe, 2) Hypothesize, and 3) Predict. He fails to expand upon what is required from a test.

Nye’s concept of science is that it should predict discovery, which is not 100% accurate. He fails to present empirical science in the framework of data and math. Galileo taught us to connect the math with the experiment (data) hence beginning the exercise of modern empirical science. Nye is focused on philosophical science and predictions that lead to hopeful discoveries. As a result, Bill Nye is not the ‘science guy’ but has become a ‘philosopher guy.’

  • Hopeful Discoveries

Bill Nye never follows the path of science discovery that comes from empirical tests. Instead of producing data and math from experiments that explain the laws of nature, which in turn produces modern technology, Nye presents an exhaustive rehearsal of philosophical ideas that he uses to build a thesis. And from the thesis, Nye presents what he calls ‘predictions’ that he thinks validates his philosophical viewpoint. As this misses the mark of real empirical science, we can review his long list of hopeful discoveries and see where they fall short of real empirical scientific investigation.

    • Gila Topminnow (Chapter 9)

Nye presents the Gila Topminnow from Mexico (poeciliopsis occidentalis) and cites the work of Robert Vrijenhoek as his source. Nye is convinced that the topminnow can change its reproduction capability from sexual to asexual and then back again if need be. However, this is not the case.

Vrijenhoek explains that the grandchildren of the topminnow can produce sexually or asexually but not both [<>]. The Mexican topminnow always reproduces sexually but a hybrid offspring from the topminnow produces offspring that can then reproduce asexually. Nye should review the basic facts here.

Not-withstanding Nye’s initial error, the idea that species can produce sexually or asexually is not a prediction of evolution but a fact of nature. The Bible even says that all life will reproduce according to its own kind, which science has proven it does. There is no problem with sexual or asexual reproduction in a creationist perspective and the topminnow is just one more example of the veracity of God’s Word.

  • Red Queen Principle (Chapter 9)

However, Nye thinks that the capability to improve upon the gene pool of a species is predicted by evolution as sexual reproduction is more capable of warding off disease than asexual reproduction. Nye uses the ‘Red Queen’ principle to explain his view.

Nye borrows the idea of the Red Queen principle, found in Alice in Wonderland, as a resource for his idea of sexual selection leading to a prevention of disease. In this fairy tale, the Red Queen said that it took a great deal of running just to stay in one place. He sees sexual reproduction as a continual exercise limiting disease whereas asexual reproduction does not. But this is not always the case when it comes to close siblings (as the Bible warns against).

The origin of the Red Queen principle came from biologist Leigh Van Valen in 1973, who proposed it as a principle in contrast to his law of extinction. It is used to present a treadmill view of genetic stability and not of evolution.

However, it is clear that God, who created organisms with DNA, provided for genetic stability as the treadmill effect is not a means of upward mobility but of keeping a species healthy. The idea of surviving in a rough environment is not unique to evolution and it is clear that genetics plays a role in keeping species healthy in any given environment. Unfortunately Nye is seeing things ‘through the looking glass.’

  • Walking ‘Fishapod’ (Chapter 2)

Nye considers the ‘fishapod’ (tiktaalik) to be a transitional form between fish swimming in the water and creatures walking on the ground. This hopeful discovery, however, has long been refuted as the available fossils do not show any ability of the skeletal structure to support its weight on the ground.

The idea of transitional forms is certainly a part of the evolutionary tale. However, the Bible tells us that God made the fish that swim in the sea and the creatures that walk on the ground. There is no need for transitional organisms in a biblical world view. And as evolution requires them, there are many examples of such discoveries that lead to disappointment for evolutionists.

  • Walking Whales (Chapter 20)

Nye also thinks whales once walked on the land before going into the sea. A whale has a horizontal tail, so it must have been above ground at one time, he thinks. Then it went into the sea and kept the shape of the horizontal tail. That is a foolish tale based on philosophy. Fossils, however, tell a different story.

Nye presents the species Ambulocetus as a transitional form leading to the evolution of whales from land to sea. However, fossil remains do not show a connection between the pelvis and the spine that could provide any support for the creature walking on the ground. The so-called missing link is missing bones just like the tiktaalik. Strike 2 for this type of hopeful discovery.

  • Dino-to-Bird (Chapter 20)

Nye, like many evolutionists, believe that Archaeopteryx, discovered a few years after Darwin published his book, Origins (1859), was a discovery that validated the theory of evolution as a transitional form of bird from dinosaurs. It is dated at 150 million years old and is consider by some to be the first true bird to evolve from dinosaurs. Evolutionists claim that there were earlier transitional forms and Nye hopes to convince you that he has these hopeful discoveries ready for your review.

Nye’s first attempt at convincing the reader is with the fossil of velociraptor mongoliensis (meaning ‘fast thief from Mongolia’). However, this fossil is dated at 80 million years old and is younger than Archaeopteryx by 70 million years. How can the precursor to Archaeopteryx be younger?

Also, the supposed quill knobs of the raptor are found only on one fossil bone and are not clearly defined like quill knobs on other fossils of real birds [<>]. The fact that this is the only evidence of raptors having anything to do with feathers is a poor foundation for the dino-to-bird thesis.

Another raptor to be mistaken as a bird was actually a bird that was presented with the tail of a dinosaur added to it. Archaeoraptor liaoningensis was a composite of two separate species. As told by Xu Xing:

Archaeoraptor appears to be composed of a dromaeosaur tail and a bird body.

[National Geographic, 2000]

The idea of transitional forms required by evolution is not required by creationists. The need for hopeful discoveries are driving people to extreme misinterpretations of fossil remains and at times to outright forgeries of fossils.

  • Monkey-to-Man (Chapter 33)

Nye compares the DNA of man and monkey to find similarity in our makeup as a prediction of evolutionary thesis. Human DNA is 97% similar to mountain gorilla DNA and 98.8 % similar to chimpanzee DNA. This is no empirical proof but an association of data used to present a thesis. There is no conclusion of real science but a suggestion leading to hope for one.

Nye also speculates that modern man is only a fraction of a percent different from those who preceded him in the ancient past (Neanderthal Man, etc.). However, modern fossil evidence [Marvin L. Lubenow; Bones of Contention] proves that there is a unity of ancient mankind as the time periods in which various species of man lived are beginning to merge together into one time period. Nye misses this key element of the unity of mankind as ancient and modern man are one. Nye is likely to be familiar with the many hopeful discoveries of ancient man (Lucy, Peking Man, etc.) that are based on forgeries.

  • Monkey-to-Man (Chapter 32)

Nye is also familiar with the inherent racism in evolutionary thinking. The idea that various races developed over time leads to some modern humans being lower on the scale of being closer to monkeys whereas others are higher on the scale. If Nye wants to believe in the descent of man from monkeys, he has to accept a degree of racism in his views.

However, Nye takes a page out of the creationist book to argue for an African Eve that will calm the storm of charges against evolution and its long past with scientific racism. Ironically, if not hypocritically, Nye dismisses the Biblical view of Adam and Eve and presents his own view of the unity of mankind. His lengthy argument for the distribution of color (aka race) is interesting but the unity of mankind cannot come from evolution; only racism can come from evolution. It is clear that the only true perspective that offers a non-racist view is creationism, not evolution. And the hopeful discovery here cannot be used to validate evolution but creationism.

  • The Miller Urey Experiment (Chapter 35)

Nye is sparked over the famous Miller/Urey experiment, which for many evolutionists represents an empirical validation of a speculative thesis. An electric spark supposedly created life in a primitive ocean and atmosphere and was modeled by the famous experiment. Sadly, this type of evolutionary hype is typical of people who blindly accept the tenants of their faith without questioning the source. This hopeful discovery in the lab was not a unique experiment that validated a predictive theory but a repeat of an older experiment from which the theory was based.

Stanley Miller was a grad student of Harold Urey and conducted chemical experiments in which he was able to synthesize amino acids in a solution that resembled the evolutionist’s perspective of an ancient ocean and atmosphere. This experiment was based upon the Oparin/Haldane thesis. However, history records that Miller was not the first to conduct this type of experiment.

In 1913, 40 years before the experiment conducted by Stanley Miller, Walther Loeb conducted a similar experiment in Germany in which he synthesized amino acids in solution. Loeb, however, was not searching of the origins of life. Miller later gave Loeb credit for his work in producing amino acids, although it is rarely touched upon by those reviewing this topic.

In 1927, E.C.C. Baly of Liverpool England published his work in which he produced amino acids in a solution of NH3 and H20 and an atmosphere of CO2. J.B.S. Haldane read this paper and 2 years later (1929) published an article on the “Origin of Life,” citing Baly’s work. Haldane speculated that from a reduced (CO2) atmosphere amino acids could be generated that might produce life. The Oparin/Haldane thesis was based on experiments already conducted long before Miller did his work in 1953.

The truth is that the Miller/Urey experiment did not validate a speculative thesis but was based upon earlier experiments that subsequent theses were based upon. Experiment leading to thesis and then leading to experiment is not the process of predictive theories being validated. This is neither an example of empirical science or a hopeful discovery.

This hopeful discovery is more like grandma making chicken soup, daughter writing down the recipe, and granddaughter following the recipe to make soup that tastes just like grandma used to make. Miller just followed a recipe for amino acid soup (Umm Umm Good).

The experiment is simple enough. Of the 20 naturally occurring amino acids, 18 amino acids are composed of the 4 basic elements of H, N, O, C. So to begin making amino acid soup, you use need to start with a basic stock of atoms for amino acid soup (H, N, O, C) in the form of molecules (NH3, H20, H2, and CH4). Then cook (add energy to) this stock of soup (temperature and cooking times may vary). As a result of the added energy, the atoms will split off of the molecule when hot and after cooling they will randomly recombine with other atoms into new molecular combinations. This process is called ‘dissociation and recombination.’ Nothing spectacular here.

The Miller/Urey experiment did not create life from non-life but amino acid (prebiotic) soup. This is the soup that emergent life would need to eat for breakfast if it emerged or it would die of starvation. Subsequent proof has been presented by creationists that life cannot start from amino acid first theory or even protein first theory [<>]. And because the Miller/Urey experiment synthesized both right and left handed amino acids, these amino acids could not produce proteins that are based only on right handed amino acids.

So there are numerous flaws to the idea of life coming from non-life that were never addressed by this famous experiment in 1953. And far from being an empirical validation of a predictive thesis, it is an example of experiment leading to theory leading to experiment. A hopeful discovery that is more wishful thinking than anything else.

  • The Penzias and Wilson Discovery (Chapter 2)

Nye claims he personally met Robert Wilson, who along with Arno Penzias, made the modern discovery of the cosmic microwave background radiation (CMB, CBR, or CMBR). This is another hopeful discovery that Nye presents thinking it establishes the origin of the universe and validates the Big Bang theory. However, upon closer scrutiny, we can see another picture of predictions based in part upon earlier measurements of data that only seem to be validated by later measurements of data.

In the late 1930s and early 1940s, scientists like Walter S. Adams and Andrew McKellar were studying the phenomena of background radiation in space. In 1941, McKellar used Adams’ data to derive a background temperature of 2.3 K in the microwave band of 2.6 mm. This was the first time the microwave background radiation was accurately recorded; and it was more than 20 years before the famous Penzias and Wilson discoveries.

Although McKellar’s discovery went largely unknown, Fred Hoyle used McKellar’s information in 1950 when refuting George Gamow’s work [The Observatory (Vol. 70, p. 194-197 (1950)), a review of a book coauthored by George Gamow and C. L. Critchfield titled, “Theory of Atomic Nucleus and Nuclear Energy-Sources” (1949)] on predicting the background temperature along with his speculations about the cosmic expansion of the universe.

All of the major researchers in the field of cosmology, Gammow, Alpher, Herman, Dicke, etc. would have been familiar with McKellar’s work through Hoyle’s review. As a result, work on the Big Bang theory led to predictions of a temperature from 5 K to 50 K in the microwave band in several publications over the course of several years following.

The measurements made by Penzias and Wilson in 1964 were not an attempt to verify the Big Bang theory or cosmic expansion; Wilson didn’t even accept the idea of cosmic expansion. Penzias and Wilson were working at Bell Labs when they made their measurement of 3 K for the CBR that was a constant source of noise in the background. A friend of Penzias and Wilson, who knew the cosmologist Robert Dicke, made the connection between discovery and prediction. Since then, the cosmologists have hailed the Penzias/Wilson discovery as their own hopeful discovery.

The association of measurements with the Big Bang theory is a hopeful discovery that has yet to prove anything. Although claimed as a proof of the Big Bang and cosmic evolution, the discovery of Penzias and Wilson was nothing more than a later measurement similar to an earlier measurement, with a set of predictive theories in between the measurements. Evolution is not a predictive theory as much as a hopeful one; one of faith.

Although Bill Nye presents a mountain of information to support his thesis of evolution, his arguments are primarily philosophical. In the end, Nye fails to validate his thesis empirically. Far from being the ‘science guy,’ Bill Nye has now become the ‘philosopher guy.’

Author Bios

  • Bill Nye

Bill Nye is a graduate of Cornell University with a BS in Mechanical Engineering. While at Cornell, he attended an astronomy class taught by Carl Sagan. Nye later worked with Boeing in Seattle, Washington where he produced training films that he starred in. Bill Nye has enjoyed his lengthy career as a science educator working in many television comedy roles and even Dancing with the Stars. His experience with ‘edutainment’ includes his role as the ‘science guy’ in his popular TV series.

Nye has recently become the Executive Director of The Planetary Society, an organization dedicated to exploring planets in our solar system. Nye is also involved in the popular science of Global Warming and has his own Climate Lab at the Chabot Space & Science Center in Oakland, California. Nye is also involved in the Committee for Skeptical Inquiry, a secular humanist organization attempting to expose scientific errors. Nye’s recent book, Undeniable, has drawn praise from people whose skepticism runs against the ideas of Creation Science. Nye continues to appear on TV and write on subjects of interest.

  • James Carlson

James Carlson is a graduate of the University of Texas at Austin with a BS in Aerospace Engineering. He was a student of Hans Mark, former Deputy Director of NASA (mentor of Sagan), who recommended Carlson for an internship with NASA Ames. Carlson is currently a test engineer with the White Sands Missile Range and tests military hardware. He uses the test process to capture data, reduce data, and present data in reports.

Prior to earning his bachelor’s degree in engineering, Carlson was a History major with a minor in Religious Studies. The history of ideas is his passion. He has studied the evolutionist creationist debate for more than 30 years and his writing background includes research into the long history of ideas that led to evolution. His 1,000 page manuscript, The Evolution of Evolution: A Theory in Chaos, presents the extant record of history to prove that evolution is an idea born of ancient myth. Carlson’s subsequent work, The Alchemy of Evolution, proves that evolution is an idea born of medieval European alchemy.

Alchemy of EvolutionPurchase this book online.

The Baptism with the Holy Spirit

© Original content written by James R. Carlson

Spirit Baptism

The Upper Room

The Baptism with the Holy Spirit is an often misunderstood event in the Christian life. It is not salvation nor is it sanctification. It is the empowerment of God to the believer in Christ to serve in the ministry God has for them with the power of God for service.

After Jesus was risen from the dead he spoke with his disciples concerning the Baptism with the Holy Spirit.

21 Then said Jesus to them again, Peace be unto you: as my Father hath sent me, even so send I you.

22 And when he had said this, he breathed on them, and saith unto them, Receive ye the Holy Ghost:

[John 20: 21-22]

Jesus breathed on them symbolizing the event that would later take place in the Upper Room. When we are given the ministry to share the gospel of Jesus Christ, we are not supposed to serve God in our own ability, called the flesh, but in the ability of God with the power of the Holy Spirit.

Just before Jesus ascended into heaven, he spoke to the disciples once again about the Baptism with the Holy Spirit.

8 … ye shall receive power, after that the Holy Ghost is come upon you: and ye shall be witnesses unto me both in Jerusalem, and in all Judaea, and in Samaria, and unto the uttermost part of the earth.

[Acts 1:8]

The Baptism with the Holy Spirit is not a spiritual gift for our consumption or pleasure, it is a means by which we serve God. And the focus of our service is our Lord Jesus Christ and the furtherance of His kingdom.

When the disciples were in the Upper Room they were praying and God fulfilled the promise of the Baptism with the Holy Spirit as Jesus has told them.

1 And when the day of Pentecost was fully come, they were all with one accord in one place.

2 And suddenly there came a sound from heaven as of a rushing mighty wind, and it filled all the house where they were sitting.

3 And there appeared unto them cloven tongues like as of fire, and it sat upon each of them.

4 And they were all filled with the Holy Ghost, and began to speak with other tongues, as the Spirit gave them utterance.

[Acts 2:1-4]

This passage is often misquoted as it is mistranslated from the Greek. Let’s break it down to see what is actually happening in the Upper Room.

  1. The disciples were dwelling in one house.
  2. Then came the sound of a might rushing breath (this is in the Greek), not a wind.
    1. The breath filled the whole house where the disciples were.
  3. Verse 3 is poorly translated.
    1. The word appeared means gazed intently.
    2. The word cloven means different.
    3. The word tongues means languages.
    4. The word fire means lightening.
    5. The word sat means to dwell.
    6. So the disciples gazed intently at each other as they spoke on different languages as the speed of lightening.
    7. And the breath dwelt with all the disciples in the house.
  4. The disciples were filled with the Holy Ghost speaking in other languages as the Holy Spirit led them.

This series of verses is actually very poetic.

  1. The disciples dwelt in one house.
  2. The breath of God filled the house.
  3. The breath of God dwelt with the disciples in the house.
  4. The breath of God filled the disciples in the house.

The first mention of the gift of tongues is in this series of verses in Acts 2. The notion of flames of fire is false as it is not supported by the original Greek text. Instead we see a picture of the sudden ability to speak in a foreign language very rapidly like lightening.

The Baptism with the Holy Spirit was more than an event in the life of the disciples. They were speaking in languages during the feast of Pentecost where Jews from all over the world came to celebrate. These pilgrims in Jerusalem now heard the gospel of Jesus Christ in their own language as the disciples were led by the Holy Spirit to proclaim the gospel of Christ.

The Baptism with the Holy Spirit is a special event and blessing in the life of the believer. We do not ask for it to consume it on ourselves but wait for God to fill us with his Holy Spirit so we can serve him in the ministry of the gospel of Jesus Christ. We already have salvation by believing in the work of Jesus on the Cross for the forgiveness of our sins. And the work of sanctification is already begun in the life of every believer. The Baptism with the Holy Spirit is not needed for salvation or sanctification but for service to God in the ministry God appoints to us.

Please pray this prayer:

God of heaven, I believe in Jesus Christ who died on the Cross for me. I believe that he paid for the penalty of my sin, which I admit I have done. I ask for your forgiveness of my sin and thank you for your love. Please bring me closer to you so that I may know you. By your Holy Spirit, please make in me a clean heart, a renewed spirit, and a right mind that I may do those things that are pleasing to you. Thank you God, Father of the Lord Jesus Christ, and now my Father in Heaven. Amen!

How to Vote

© Original content written by James R. Carlson


Did you ever wonder how you should vote? Most people are not political junkies but are concerned about the issues we face as a nation locally, statewide, and again nationally. Here are some suggestions that will help you decide how to vote.

First, let’s recognize that there are different ways to vote. Some people vote for candidates from a particular political Party. That is certainly one way to vote. Others do not choose to affiliate themselves with either the Republican or Democrat Party and vote for the candidate of their choice either way. These are independent voters.

The truth is that both major political parties capture roughly 1/3 of the vote from people in an election totaling 2/3rds of the vote. That leaves 1/3 for the independent voter. So after all the political activity behind the scenes within a political party, the vote one casts for a Party candidate or independent of what Party one is affiliated with, every vote influences a voting block of 1/3. As each person only has one vote, each person has the opportunity to share in the outcome of an election as either a Republican, Democrat, or Independent voter. No one’s vote counts more than anyone else.

So when you go to the poll to vote, you’ll have many choices to make. You may elect to vote a straight Party ticket. Many ballots have this option available to you. You can choose to vote for all Republican or Democrat candidates. Or you may choose each candidate individually without selecting the Party you are supporting.

Some people do both. Some mark in the Party candidates they support and then fill in every bubble that is next to the Party candidate. In the days before electronic voting, people were encouraged that if they did vote for a Party’s candidates, they should mark the straight Party ticket they supported and then fill in the spot beside those candidates.

The reason this was done is because even though a straight ticket was selected, you have the option of making a few changes to the straight Party candidate selections. You could vote for all the Party’s candidates with a straight Party vote and then select one or a few you didn’t support as you marked the opposing Party’s candidate for one or more races. So, if you intend to vote only for one Party’s candidates, be sure to mark them all besides using a straight Party vote.

Then there are those races where there are not contests between Party candidates. Often there are races between Libertarians and one of the major Party’s candidates. If you vote a straight ticket, you’ll still have to mark these when your Party does not have a candidate in the race.

Opposition votes can also be registered on the ballot. You can make a straight Party vote and then mark all the Party’s candidates on the ballot with the exception of those whom you do not support. That way every candidate in your Party will have your support but you may not have a conscious conflict about voting for someone in your Party you may object to.

Many people do not understand that voting for one Party or another is important. Political parties share political viewpoints that characterize how the government is run. The rule of law is what all office holders, formerly candidates, have to obey. But the direction the government takes through new law and policy and Court decisions is determined by the political philosophy in power. If you want more tax and spend policies from the liberal left, you should vote Democrat. If you want less, you should vote conservative and/or Republican.

I have voted Republican for 30 years. However, I may support a Democrat candidate who supports my views. Why would I vote for a Republican who behaves like a liberal when I can vote for a Democrat who behaves like a conservative? I would like to see more Blue Dog Democrats run for election. If a Democrat can oppose elective abortion and reduce the burden of tax and spend policies on our nation, I’m inclined to vote for them. And I do not vote for a Libertarian who is socially liberal and fiscally conservative. When there is no Republican candidate on the ballot for a particular race, only a Democrat and a Libertarian, I always vote for the Democrat.

So how will you make your decision on Election Day? You do not have to follow my political affiliation with the Republican Party but I do encourage you to be conservative in your political outlook – socially and economically. But no matter what, you should vote. It is your duty and privilege as an American.

Free Press Ad – The Alchemy of Evolution

Evolution is nothing new. 17th century Alchemy became 18th century Transformationism that later became 19th century Evolution.

Buy This Book Online

In the 17th century, alchemists believed that the same material substance that was in the species of lead was in the species of gold, just in different forms. In the 19th century, people believed that the same material substance that was in the species of an amoeba was also in the species of man, just in different forms. Through the process of the transformation of species, lead could be turned into gold and an amoeba into a man.

In the 17th century people believed in spontaneous generation, a biological form of alchemy. Evolution is a 19th century version of biological alchemy. Today in the 21st century, we have lost the roots of evolution’s origins. The Alchemy of Evolution restores the roots of this modern theory of biological alchemy. This book is available for purchase online. Get it today!

The Rule of Law is Black and White

© Original content written by James R. Carlson

B&W Gavel

The recent loss of life who were killed by police officers and other police officers that were killed are tragic. There is no justice in the aftermath of revenge shootings in Dallas just as there was no apparent justice in the killing of a Black man in Baton Rouge. Beyond tragedy was the irony that as the “Black Lives Matter” protesters were raising their hands saying, “Don’t Shoot,” snipers began shooting peace officers and Black protesters. In the end we should learn that all lives matter – Black and Blue.

The rule of law is not just for white people but for all people. The Reverend Doctor Martin Luther King Junior led the Civil Rights movement to bring the equal protection of the law to Black people. The hallmark of Dr. King’s work was peaceful protests that obeyed the rule of law. The success of Dr. King was to bring the rule of law to people of color who had not enjoyed the justice that the law can bring and the protection of liberty that it stands for. The Law says that Black Lives Matter and the police are there to enforce the Law.

Black lives do matter and so too do Blue (police) lives. The fictional narrative of “don’t shoot” is misleading many misinformed people to protest the actions of police who are dealing with people who are confronting the police instead of obeying them. The police are not here to not shoot people; if you comply with what the police tell you to do, they will not kill you. The Black man who hit the White officer in the face in Ferguson was shot because he attacked the police. He did not raise his hands in innocence saying “don’t shoot.” That is pure fiction.

We should take Black lives at face value and value them without concern about their face color. The law should protect not kill Black lives. There are many examples of needless killing of Black (and White) people but these are exceptions and not the rule of law enforcement. The time for political protest is not when the police pull you over. The police have a job to do and it is a part of their job to protect you as well as themselves. If these people obeyed the police 100%, they would not be shot or killed.

The rule of law is black and white; right is right and wrong is wrong. There is no justification for the death of people who are obeying the law and those enforcing the law. The law is for everybody. There is no exception to this rule. The rule of law is not interested in what your skin color is but what your behavior is. Behave with the police and the law will be on your side. Hit a cop in the face and the law will not be on your side. Fight the police because your upset about people getting shot and you might get shot too. Can it be clearer?!!!

We mourn the loss of lives, Black and White. We will pray for those families who have lost loved ones. We as a nation are in mourning. Let us pray that God will give America a new morning where we respect the rule of law, officers of the law, and people whom the law is supposed to protect. Pray for our country as we are in crisis.

Here is a prayer you may pray:

God Bless America. Help protect us with your divine light. Help us with your Holy might. Protect us from the evil that is dark and often found in the heart of misguided people. Give us your light to see the truth and give us the strength to do the truth. Protect Black lives that do matter and help the police who are here to protect us all. Thank you for your unbiased love. Thank you and again, please God, Bless America.

My Country Tis’ of Thee – America’s First National Anthem

© Original content written by James R. Carlson

Bible and Flag

One hundred years before the national anthem that Francis Scott Key wrote (The Star Spangled Banner) was approved in 1931, “America” (My Country Tis’ of Thee) was the national anthem of America. First sung in public in 1831, it was modeled after the British anthem “God save the Queen.” The principles espoused and celebrated for 100 years in this song represent the heart of the American people during that time.

The song begins with the phrase, ‘My country, ’tis of thee…’ meaning that the United States of America was born of the power of God – Tis of Thee (God). This song praises the blessings of liberty that were given to us by God at our founding. The conclusion of this song identifies God as the ‘…author of liberty, to thee we sing.’ God is the reason why the United States was born but why we have liberty as a nation.

Our liberty has never been one of license. The contemporary libertarian philosophy (social liberalism and fiscal conservatism) is one of pseudo-anarchy that dismisses morality in pursuit of liberty. Our first national anthem presented an understanding that our liberty was based upon morality and God’s Holiness when it said, ‘…long may our land be bright, with freedom’s holy light…’ We don’t have the freedom to do whatever we want. We have the freedom to do what is right! That is what self-government is all about. Not doing whatever you please but behaving yourself in the sight of God so that you don’t need a government to govern your behavior.

The United States was born as a nation “with a firm reliance on the protection of divine Providence” [Declaration of Independence]. The original national anthem included a prayer asking God to ‘protect us by Thy might…’ As a nation we prayed for God’s continued provision and divine Providence for the defense and security of our nation.

The song ended with the phrase, ‘Great God our King.’ We were no longer under the mighty hand of the kings and queens of England but under the King of Eternity – God Himself would protect us.

This anthem has endured for 185 years since it first began. As we celebrate the 4th of July, let us sing it with heartfelt thanks to the Founder Father of our nation and Protector of our liberty – God. Thanks be to God our King for His many blessings. May they continue to endure.


Lyrics to My Country Tis’ of Thee


My country, ’tis of thee,

Sweet land of liberty,

Of thee I sing;

Land where my fathers died,

Land of the pilgrims’ pride,

From ev’ry mountainside

Let freedom ring!


My native country, thee,

Land of the noble free,

Thy name I love;

I love thy rocks and rills,

Thy woods and templed hills;

My heart with rapture thrills,

Like that above.


Let music swell the breeze,

And ring from all the trees

Sweet freedom’s song;

Let mortal tongues awake;

Let all that breathe partake;

Let rocks their silence break,

The sound prolong.


Our fathers’ God to Thee,

Author of liberty,

To Thee we sing.

Long may our land be bright,

With freedom’s holy light,

Protect us by Thy might,

Great God our King.