Wednesday, November 25, 2015


The Teleological argument – the argument from Design - for the existence of God is the most common theistic argument. We find thousands of examples of teleology (purpose): life, consciousness, freewill, the fine-tuning of the laws of the universe (gravity, etc.), the cell, and the genetic code, all of which defy any natural explanation.

The argument goes something like this: Intelligent design requires an intelligent Designer!

Against the many evidences of teleology or design, the atheistic naturalist has countered with "dysteleology." The naturalist believes that natural processes can explain all of the evidences of design. Dysteleology contends that there are many examples that defy intelligent, purposeful design like barren mountainsides, bad design (my bad back), and evil design (earthquakes, bacteria, tsunamis). As intimidating as these examples are, they are little more than mere distractions. Let me try to illustrate.

Imagine that you are part of a space probe to find any evidences of intelligent design on Mars. For a month you battle against the inhospitable Martian weather, and you find absolutely no evidence of intelligent design among the endless rocks and mountainsides. However, on the last day of the probe, you move a rock aside to find a tiny entranceway into the mountainside. There, you find a room containing what looks like book shelves. Upon closer inspection, you find rectangular objects, bound and containing pages upon which you find symbols. They are so regular, you understandably conclude that this is a form of Martian writing.

You run to tell your captain of your find, and he responds:

·       "Don't get excited about your finding. This can't prove the existence of intelligent life in the face of all the evidence against intelligent design that we've found during our one month search. In short, we have so much more evidence against intelligent design, that what you've found is of no consequence in comparison."

I hope that this reasoning sounds ridiculous It is! All the evidence that failed to show intelligent design doesn't negate the one piece of evidence in favor of intelligent design. That one piece of evidence must still be naturally explained! Similarly, if you find just one witness who saw John Wilkes Booth shoot Lincoln, this witness shouldn't be invalidated by a thousand who didn't see anything! The testimony of the one witness remains valid even in the face of a million who saw nothing. So too the evidence for intelligent design continues to speak even in the face of many things that fail to show signs of design!

The dysteleology argument for non-design faces other challenges. For one thing, it is difficult to impossible to prove that anything is purposeless and lacks intelligent design. For example, let’s take the human eye. Richard Kleiss was written that:

·       In order for our eyes to see, many chemical and electrical must take place in the proper sequence. Even more importantly, these reactions must happen almost simultaneously for us to see what is happening, while it is still happening… Biologists have found that the eye’s photochemistry is so fast that the first reaction in the sequence takes place in approximately 1/5,000,000,000 of a second. This is 500,000 times faster than our best film capabilities. (A Closer Look at the Evidence)

However, this marvel hasn’t stopped naturalists from pointing to a problem with a blind spot in the eye, claiming that a designer God wouldn’t have created such an imperfection. However, to convincingly make the claim that the eye doesn’t represent intelligent design, they have to demonstrate:

  1. That this “blind spot” is truly faulty and impedes vision. (I’m fine with it!)
  2. That this “blind spot” could have been eliminated with a better design.
  3. That the “better design” wouldn’t have come with its own set of prohibitive costs.
Of course, they cannot do this. Besides, dismissing the incredible design found in the eye is nothing short of callous. It would be like a caveman walking past an airplane taking off without batting an eye. However, the eye is a far greater marvel. Kleiss also writes:

·       Our eye processes 1.5 million bits of information simultaneously… They receive light images traveling 186,000 miles per second through the iris, which opens or closes to let in just the right amount of light. These images travel through a lens, made of transparent cells… The retina covers less than one square inch of surface, yet this square inch contains approximately 137 million light-sensitive receptor cells… Finally, the image is sent at the rate of 300 miles per hour to the brain for processing.

It is also ironic that naturalist can only resort to using God to disprove God. The number one argument of dysteleology is the problem of needless suffering, a repudiation of design.

Apart from the problem of determining that suffering is needless, the naturalist faces an even more formidable problem. He has to prove that there is something the matter with needless suffering. However, in order to do this, he needs to establish that there is an objective good which needless suffering violates. However, the naturalist can only offer his own subjective feelings about what is right and wrong. Logically, he can say no more than:

·       I don’t like what seems to me to be needless suffering. I can’t think of a good reason for it. Therefore, there cannot be a God.

If you are not laughing, be sure that God is!


According to Jesus’ teachings, it might appear that we should receive all of the Syrian refugees:

  • Love your enemies and pray for those who persecute you, that you may be sons of your Father in heaven. He causes his sun to rise on the evil and the good, and sends rain on the righteous and the unrighteous. If you love those who love you, what reward will you get? Are not even the tax collectors doing that? And if you greet only your brothers, what are you doing more than others? Do not even pagans do that? Be perfect, therefore, as your heavenly Father is perfect. (Matthew 5:44-48)
According to Jesus, it would seem that, even if a large percentage of refugees might radicalize, we are to love our enemies. How then can we Christians justify keeping them out of their nations?

Perhaps a distinction is necessary. There are different spheres of responsibility, which Jesus hinted at when He distinguished rendering to God what is God’s and to Caesar what belongs to Caesar. Consequently, it is possible to fulfill our obligation to God even as we rendered unto Caesar what is due to Caesar and uphold their responsibility to maintain safety and justice.

But how does this distinction pertain to the refugee question? Paul’s teachings reflected those of Jesus:

  • Bless those who persecute you; bless and do not curse. Rejoice with those who rejoice; mourn with those who mourn. Live in harmony with one another. Do not be proud, but be willing to associate with people of low position. Do not be conceited. Do not repay anyone evil for evil. Be careful to do what is right in the eyes of everybody. If it is possible, as far as it depends on you, live at peace with everyone. Do not take revenge, my friends, but leave room for God's wrath, for it is written: "It is mine to avenge; I will repay," says the Lord. On the contrary: "If your enemy is hungry, feed him; if he is thirsty, give him something to drink. In doing this, you will heap burning coals on his head." Do not be overcome by evil, but overcome evil with good. (Romans 12:14-21)
Clearly, there is a sharp distinction between what we should be doing and what God does. While we are to love our enemies and not seek revenge, God will do the avenging. He will repay evil with what it deserves. What a blessing this is! We can love others and leave questions of justice and punishment to God and His righteous wrath.

However, this wrath is not merely reserved for the final judgment. Instead, God has ordained government – the civil authorities – to execute His wrath, as Paul explains in the next verses:

  • Everyone must submit himself to the governing authorities, for there is no authority except that which God has established. The authorities that exist have been established by God. Consequently, he who rebels against the authority is rebelling against what God has instituted, and those who do so will bring judgment on themselves… For he is God's servant to do you good. But if you do wrong, be afraid, for he does not bear the sword for nothing. He is God's servant, an agent of wrath to bring punishment on the wrongdoer. Therefore, it is necessary to submit to the authorities, not only because of possible punishment but also because of conscience. (Romans 13:1-5)
The courts and penal system are not supposed to exercise love and forgiveness. This would undermine the entire justice system, the welfare of society, and even God’s just intentions to bring His wrath on evildoers. Instead, it is the justice system that allows us to live lives of love and forgiveness. It bears the sword so that we are freed from this responsibility.

In light of this necessary distinction, how then do we understand Jesus’ love teachings? His teachings were not intended to correct the Mosaic justice system. In fact, He never even spoke against the oppressive Roman rule. He never suggested that the Romans should give to whomever asks or that they should turn the other cheek. He understood that this wasn’t the role of government.

When Jesus did teach about the responsibility of government, it was church government, and it too wasn’t always indulgent:

  • “If he [the unrepentant] refuses to listen to them, tell it to the church; and if he refuses to listen even to the church, treat him as you would a pagan or a tax collector. I tell you the truth, whatever you bind on earth will be bound in heaven, and whatever you loose on earth will be loosed in heaven.” (Matthew 18:17-18)
While, on a personal level, we are to love even our enemies, church government was entrusted with a slightly different calling. The Church could punish by excommunication, even when the church consisted with only two others. However, this too was an expression of love – tough love! (This is a truth echoed in the Epistles, 1 Cor. 5; 1 Tim.1:20.) Yes, we are to give, but to give with discernment!

Although we personally might decide to endure some abuse for the sake of the Gospel, Jesus’ teachings suggest that we need not. We are free to bring our grievances to the Church or to the justice system, especially when the abuse might be expressed towards others, even our families.

Jesus never suggested that we should subject others to abuse. Instead, His teachings implied the legitimacy of protecting our household and community (Matthew 24:42-44).

Being as “wise as serpents but as gentle as doves,” we should extend ourselves to those in need. However, we should expect our government to fulfill their mandated task of protecting and providing peace and justice, as theologian Michael Brown has written:

  • The government should major on security; the Church should major on compassion. I don’t mean that the government should be harsh or that the Church should be foolish, but it is not the primary job of the government to care for the needs of refugees and it is not the primary job of the Church to provide national security. The government should do its very best to shut the doors on any potential terrorists, even if that means slowing down the process of absorbing refugees.

  • [Government] must assiduously work against the plague of radical Islam, even if the vast majority of Muslim refugees are not radicals.
Brown might be minimizing the problem of the refugees. It appears that the Islamic communities of Western Europe have become so radicalized that they have appropriated for themselves 100s or maybe 1000s of “no-go-zones,” mini-Caliphates, even transforming their host nations into rape capitals, despite the alleged majority of moderate Muslims.

Nevertheless, we must treat with courage and love those Muslims who are already residing in our nations, demonstrating to them the mercy of Jesus.

But we also have to be knowledgeable about the dangers. We are to be children of the light, exemplars of a wisdom that should nourish our neighbors and not subject them to rape and beheadings:

  • The teaching of the wise is a fountain of life, turning a man from the snares of death. (Proverbs 13:14)
  • The wise in heart are called discerning, and pleasant words promote instruction. Understanding is a fountain of life to those who have it, but folly brings punishment to fools. A wise man's heart guides his mouth, and his lips promote instruction. (Proverbs 16:21-23)
With wisdom, we can be a blessing to our community and glorify the Lord. Instead, by placing our community in jeopardy by insisting on the re-settlement of dangerous refugees in our community, we potentially bring disrepute upon our faith.

Monday, November 23, 2015


Here is my letter to a Facebook group which intends to block me:

I can certainly understand your annoyance and discomfort with me, since I am calling question to your Christian faith. However, there are things that are discomforting that are also necessary to endure, like the removal of a malignancy. Jesus had warned:

·       "Anyone who loves his father or mother more than me is not worthy of me; anyone who loves his son or daughter more than me is not worthy of me;” (Matthew 10:37)

Whenever we elevate a person or even ideas above Jesus and His teachings, we are not worthy of Him. What are the consequences? He continued:

·       “And anyone who does not take his cross and follow me is not worthy of me. Whoever finds his life will lose it, and whoever loses his life for my sake will find it.” (Matthew 10:38-39)

We might “find [our] life” through social or professional acceptance/approval, but Jesus warns that the price is high if we have placed anything above Him – We “will lose” our life.

When we fail to abide in His Word (John 15:7-), we risk losing our life:

·       "If anyone loves me, he will obey my teaching. My Father will love him, and we will come to him and make our home with him. He who does not love me will not obey my teaching. These words you hear are not my own; they belong to the Father who sent me.” (John 14:23-24)

You are certainly free to excommunicate me, and I will accept your judgment. I bear you no ill-will. Nor do I have any reason to look down on you. However, I would like you to consider this – That when you reject me, you might also be rejecting the Savior:

·       "If the world hates you, keep in mind that it hated me first. If you belonged to the world, it would love you as its own. As it is, you do not belong to the world, but I have chosen you out of the world. That is why the world hates you. Remember the words I spoke to you: 'No servant is greater than his master.' If they persecuted me, they will persecute you also. If they obeyed my teaching, they will obey yours also.” (John 15:18-20)

But perhaps I am distorting Scripture? Therefore, I would encourage you to pray that our Lord would examine you (Psalm 139) to see if you are bearing His Name in vain. My prayers go with you.

Sunday, November 22, 2015


“Truth” is often no more than a tool to manipulate. In fact, people are no longer outraged by the distortion of the truth for propagandistic purposes. For instance, one church bulletin included “A Message from New York City Muslim Leaders,” reading:

·       “The Majlis condemns the horrific attacks in Paris over the weekend on Islamic grounds… Like natural disaster, terrorism does NOT DISCRIMINATE based on religion, race, gender or age whether perpetrated by a state, group or individual. The world witnessed this type of INDISCRIMINATE BLOODSHED last week not only in Paris but also in Beirut, Kenya, Iraq and other places around the world.”

On the contrary, the terror was Islamic, it was discriminate against non-Muslims, as even the assailants cried out “Allahu Akbar,” and it does “discriminate based on religion.” The recent examples of this are in the hundreds.

It would have been more reassuring if, instead, these Muslim leaders had said, “We grieve that these assaults have been conducted in the name of Islam,” but they wouldn’t admit even that much. Either way, this is consistent with their doctrine of “Taqiyya,” which authorizes the Muslim to deceive the infidel, even with false shows of friendship.

However, what is doubly troubling is this – that there are churches that show so little regard for the truth, that they are complicit in this very obvious deception.


Transitional fossils, often called missing links, should be found in the fossil record. These forms should document the gradual evolution between the various species and phyla (reptiles, amphibians, fish, mammals). However, many claim that they are non-existent. For example, David B. Kitts of the School of Geology and Geophysics at the University of Oklahoma wrote:

  • Evolution requires intermediate forms between species and paleontology does not provide them…" (Thompson B and Harrub B, eds. Apologetics Press, n.d. Accessed October 21, 2008)
Many evolutionists have gone on record to agree with this assessment.

  • David Raup, who was the curator of geology at the museum holding the world's largest fossil collection (the Field Museum of Natural History in Chicago), observed: "[Darwin] was embarrassed by the fossil record because it didn't look the way he predicted it would.... Well, we are now about 120 years after Darwin, and knowledge of the fossil record has been greatly expanded. We now have a quarter of a million fossil species but the situation hasn't changed much.... [W]e have even fewer examples of evolutionary transition than we had in Darwin's time." (David M. Raup, "Conflicts Between Darwin and Paleontology," Field Museum of Natural History Bulletin 50 (January 1979): 22-23, 24-25)
  • One of the most famous proponents of evolution was the late Harvard paleontologist Stephen Jay Gould. But Gould admitted, "The extreme rarity of transitional forms in the fossil record persists as the trade secret of paleontology. We fancy ourselves as the only true students of life’s history, yet to preserve our favored account of evolution by natural selection, we view our data as so bad that we never see the very process we profess to study. In a 1977 paper titled "The Return of Hopeful Monsters", Gould wrote: "All paleontologists know that the fossil record contains precious little in the way of intermediate forms; transitions between major groups are characteristically abrupt."
  • The senior paleontologist at the British Museum of Natural History, Dr. Colin Patterson, put it this way: "Gould and the American Museum people are hard to contradict when they say there are no transitional fossils." (CreationWiki)
Anthropologist Edmund Ronald Leach claimed that:

  • Missing links in the sequence of fossil evidence were a worry to Darwin. He felt sure they would eventually turn up, but they are still missing and seem likely to remain so. ("Still Missing After All These Years." Evolution is Dead!, 2008 Accessed October 21, 2008.)
If one species descended from a parent species, a necessarily gradual process, we should be able to observe among the living species a gradual evolutionary continuum, and an entire array of transitional forms between cats, dogs, and cows. However, we do not! Even in the fossil record, we find no evidence of this. Evolutionist Michael Denton stated:

  • It is still, as it was in Darwin's day, overwhelmingly true that the first representatives of all the major classes of organisms known to biology are already highly characteristic of their class when they make their initial appearance in the fossil record. This phenomenon is particularly obvious in the case of the invertebrate fossil record. At its first appearance in the ancient paleozoic seas, invertebrate life was already divided into practically all the major groups with which we are familiar today. (Evolution: A Theory in Crisis, 3rd rev. ed. Adler & Adler. 1986, p. 162)
The absence of transitional forms is a very contentious issue. Understandably, evolutionists claim that there are transitional fossils. However, this assessment is based on their presuppositions and willingness to identify transitional forms where these forms might simply represent entirely different and unrelated species:

·       They are based on a comparison of selected parts, while often ignoring bigger differences. Sometimes the various types are represented only by fragmented fossil evidence. Often they will use what are called cousins when they can not find a fossil in the right place to be able to call it an ancestor. The gaps recognized by evolutionists are often at critical parts in the fossil record. (CreationWiki)

Jonathan Sarfati adds:

·       "Many of the alleged transitional forms are based on fragmentary remains, which are therefore open to several interpretations, based on one’s axioms. Evolutionary bias means that such remains are often likely to be interpreted as transitional, as with Gingerich, and is also prevalent in ape-man claims. But when more bones are discovered, then the fossils nearly always fit one type or another, and are no longer plausible as transitional. It’s also notable that alleged intermediate forms are often trumpeted in the media, while retractions are usually muted or unpublicized." (Sarfati, Jonathan. Refuting Evolution, Greenforest AR: Master Books, 2002. (p136-137)

As serious evolutions are voicing severe doubts with the theory of evolution, the church is adopting what is still mainstream in a vain attempt to reach their culture. The church has routinely resorted to this self-defeating strategy, having adopted geo-centrism and the “steady state” theory of an eternal universe in accordance with the science of their day. By pandering to our culture, the church has rejected our glorious and prophetic calling to be the light.