History and Howard Zinn

I recently had a conversation with a couple of my neighbors at the bus stop prior to putting my sons on the bus to get them on their way to school. It was a terrific conversation - I love getting to know people - hearing their opinions and ideas and sharing their joys and sorrows and the experiences in their lives. The conversation turned toward education, and how history is taught in our schools. There are significant portions of American history that are not taught, or that are taught incorrectly, and one of the topics brought up was the author Howard Zinn. His history book, A People's History of the United States, is the most popular history book ever written, and it is hugely biased, and in fact wrong on several points. The feedback I got from the people I was speaking with was 'Oh, history is always biased - people write what they want to write that fits their viewpoint.' NO, NO NO! That's how bad historians write! And even if historians do write that way, generally thoughtful people don't accept their biased viewpoints as fact - and we should at the least present both sides of any issue if one side is biased when we are teaching our children. Unfortunately that does not happen in our school systems. There is rarely unbiased teaching going on.

For those of you who have read Howard Zinn, here are some facts about his writing from discoverthenetworks.org:

The author of more than twenty books, Zinn is best known for writing A People's History of the United States (1980), a Marxist tract that describes America as a predatory and repressive capitalist state -- sexist, racist, imperialist -- that is run by a corporate ruling class for the benefit of the rich. The book claims to present American history through the eyes of workers, American Indians, slaves, women, blacks, and populists. A People’s History has sold more than a million copies, making it one of the best-selling history books of all time. Despite its lack of footnotes and other scholarly apparatus, it is one of most influential texts in college classrooms today -- not only in history classes, but also in such fields as economics, political science, literature, and women’s studies. Professor Zinn announced the overtly political agenda of A People’s History in an explanatory coda to the 1995 edition: "I wanted my writing of history and my teaching of history to be a part of social struggle. I wanted to be a part of history and not just a recorder and teacher of history. So that kind of attitude towards history, history itself as a political act, has always informed my writing and my teaching.”

In A People's History, Zinn describes the founding of the American Republic as an exercise in tyrannical control of the many by the few, for greed and profit: “The American Revolution … was a work of genius, and the Founding Fathers ... created the most effective system of national control devised in modern times, and showed future generations of leaders the advantages of combining paternalism with command.” By Zinn’s reckoning, the Declaration of Independence was not so much a revolutionary statement of rights, as it was a cynical means of manipulating popular groups into overthrowing the King to benefit the rich. The rights which the Declaration appeared to guarantee were “limited to life, liberty and happiness for white males” -- and actually for wealthy white males -- because they excluded black slaves and “ignored the existing inequalities in property.” (In other words, they were not socialist rights). Zinn's book contends that Maoist China was “the closest thing, in the long history of that ancient country, to a people’s government, independent of outside control”

Are you kidding? Maoist China? That was the government that started the Cultural Revolution that killed millions and still today suppresses the free expression of speech and religion? For those of you who enjoy Zinn, think again.

Quantum Theory and the New Relativism

I don't know how many out there have heard of Quantum Theory and the concept of Schroedinger's cat, but the topic actually came up in a facebook discussion I had and I wanted to blog about it.

Schroedinger's cat is a representative analogy that attempts to concisely describe the concepts behind quantum theory. In quantum theory, all possibilities- even mutually exclusive ones, coexist and have a reality of their own. Schroedinger's cat is a quantum cat, in an opaque box, with a switch in it that will either feed the cat food or feed the cat poison. The switch is triggered by the random decay of a radioactive sample - if the decay particle hits one switch, the cat is fed food. If the other, poison. The quantum science comes in in the act of observation, which in itself affects the experiment and by itself determines the state of the cat. In a quantum world, the cat is both/and alive/dead. When we observe the cat, he becomes one or the other.

This experiment has never been executed, and does not exist in either the observable or quantum worlds - but it is an example of what has been observed in quantum physics.

At the fundamental level, quantum theory is, indeed, a collection of mathematical formula used to describe the indescribable world of subatomic particles. The following is a terrific laymen's description of the theory and its development.

http://www.thebigview.com/spacetime/uncertainty.html

What is so striking about this theory is not the theory itself - it is essentially confirming what Christianity has always taught - that we cannot know the mind of God (Isaiah 55:8). Much of the subatomic world seems to change with the method or means used to observe it, however, like Einstein and several others - I just think we haven't learned the proper way to observe its true nature - much like we cannot think exactly like God.

That being said, our current culture's love of relativistic morality has taken cues from quantum theory and attempted to apply that theory to concepts of truth and what is right and wrong. What I saw on facebook was a person taking the concepts of quantum theory and applying it to the concepts of moral truth and tolerance. Unfortunately, he contradicted himself within his own discussion and effectively abrogated his own argument, however, his initial foray into the topic is worth repeating simply for its shock value.

The assertion goes something like this: since Reality exists only in our observation of it, concepts of right and wrong only exist in relation to our observation and assertion of what is right and wrong. In the dialog I had, the person in question then explained this by saying that he believes a certain type of gas is good, and his wife believes a certain type of gas is bad. He says that both ideas are true, because no matter what he says to the contrary, his wife sees the gasoline and its effect on her vehicle as bad.

I have to point out that this is a summarized view of his argument - but it captures the gist.

Most of what is wrong with this starts with extrapolating our inability to effectively observe atoms into the world of morality and ethics. There is no correlary, as our world of morality is not measurable in the physical sense at any level - I cannot say my right thought is 3 inches long. This might seem to be a ridiculous statement until you dig deeper into what quantum theory's goals and pursuits are - they are not attempting at any level to do anything other than describe the different states of matter. Morality doesn't come into their realm of discussion. Applying quantum theory to discussion of right and wrong is like trying say 'love is about as big as a grapefruit, but smaller than a watermelon'. Its ridiculous. You cannot measure moral values with physical measurements. Again, as I write this it seems ridiculous, but this is exactly what the relativistic fringe is attempting to do.

When pressed, we all have moral absolutes. We all have a strong grasp of what is right and wrong in our realms of endeavor. We also have conflicts in our views of what is right and wrong. We must stand on that ground - it is intellectually dishonest and eminently desctructive to allow diametrically opposing viewpoints to go unchallenged - this is relativism. Additionally, it is immoral to reject other people's ideas simply because they conflict with your own - this is bigotry. True and lasting peace comes with a dialog driven by intellectual honesty and principle, and backed with a plan for resolution if the opposing viewpoints cannot be resolved. We must defend our lives from people whose goal is to destroy us. Any idea about 'tolerance' that rejects right and wrong is intolerant of solutions, community, and lasting peace - it allows for bigotry, hatred and inflexible thinking to continue to exist and to breed destruction.

Lord, Save Us From Your Followers

I had the distinct pleasure last night of watching a film by Dan Merchant called 'Lord, Save Us From Your Followers'. It is a documentary of his travels around the United States trying to dialog with people about christians and Christianity. His perspectives were nothing new, and the ideas he represents are not new to the Christian community as a whole; however, it was astounding to me how fundamentally blind many of the christian people he interacted with were to the world at large.

Those christians that were clearly engaged in the culture and were making a difference were the ones that were getting their hands dirty. Here in Portland, there is a ministry Mr. Merchant highlights called 'Bridgetown Ministries' that perform 'Night Strikes' under the Burnside bridge - a place where a significant number of destitute people spend their time because the Portland Rescue Mission, the Union Gospel Mission and the Salvation Army are all located proximal to the area, and the bridge itself provides shelter from the weather. Being a 'Christian Ministry', it would be easy to assume that these 'Night Strikes' are filled with prosletyzing and preaching. This is not the case - the ministry provides hair cuts, clothing and most striking of all is the foot washing. The voluteers come and provide the homeless with a hands on foot washing - just like Jesus did with his 12 disciples that lived, breathed, and ate with Him when He lived on this earth in human form. What is even more surprising is that one of the volunteers is quoted as saying the foot washing is difficult for her not because it is dirty, or smelly or gross - but because she has to wear protective gloves. She was homeless and was treated as untouchable by people she interacted with and she feels that using the protective gloves enforces that feeling some homeless have of being 'untouchable'. Wow.

For those of you out there that are christian - I am not going to try to tell you that what you are doing is wrong, but if all you are doing is making sure your bills are paid and your stomach is full you aren't following Jesus. Try getting dirty in the streets with the destitute and you will find yourself closer to God than you could ever be anywhere else.

Sometimes 'Nice' is not 'Good'

Early in my married life I was under the mistaken impression that God had it in for me to be a pastor. I love church (little c) and all that comes with it - the people, the ideas, and oh yeah - God. I go to church to meet God - not to say that I can't meet Him elsewhere; He is everywhere after all. At church, He comes to us in a special way. The scriptures say that 'where two or three are gathered together in My name, I am there in the midst of them.' (Matt. 18:20, NKJV) He promises, without question, His literal presence whenever we gather together as believers in His name. That is what makes church special - and makes Church (big C) decidedly un-special; but that's another topic for another time.

Considering the fact of God's literal presence in our midst, one would think we would experience church differently. After all, the very creator of all things is there with us - shouldn't we sing louder, or dance better, or experience more miracles or something? It could be argued that a worship experience that lacks vitality is evidence for the fact that a church is not actually meeting in Jesus' name. After all, His presence in our lives is transforming - isn't it? Churches (little c) I have attended sometimes begin to work to leverage that idea when they find their Sunday mornings coming into a slump - their people seem bored. They begin to expend much effort making the 'big show' on Sunday something to remember and to insure a positive experience for their congregants. They justify this by saying 'this is the way the big boys do it down the block; the churches out there with 10,000 - 15,000 members - in those churches its all about lights and music and video and drama and, and, and,'...Jesus? Not so much.

My point is really very simple, but is hard to accept for those of us whose lives have gone through a transformation because we know where we have been - and it didn't look pretty. We know that what Jesus' offers is better than anything we ever had and we expect our lives to feel different - its difficult because when we start living our lives after we know Jesus, all of those 'nice' feelings go away and reality sets in. Life is, after all, life. Our mistake is in refusing to accept that reality; we sometimes start faking it to try to get those 'nice' feelings back. The staggering thing about this is that the reality I am asserting we refuse to accept is truly a completely new reality - we are new beings; reborn as children of God. Nothing in our past lives compares to what Jesus has opened up for us. Its just that it doesn't feel that way - and that feeling (or lack thereof) creates all kinds of goofiness in the name of Jesus.

I can already hear the nay-sayers response, and several of them are from the Word of Faith movement. 'If you speak it, the tongue has the power of life and death and you are speaking death to yourself - Mr. Yonko. Your life SHOULD feel different - you are a Kingdom Kid now - put on your crown and start behaving like you are saved!' Nonsense. Speaking the truth of the reality you see is the first step to understanding the True Reality - and the True Reality I love in today hasn't put any crown on my head. The biggest downfall of folks that hold on to that verse from Proverbs (18:21) is their eminent inability to see the forest for the trees. The forest is beautiful, but it is full of trees that have nasty pokey needles on them. The 'good' of that forest is that we are strangers here. The world, created by God, was originally beautiful and still has glimpses in it of God's beauty - but it has been and continues to be corrupted in equal parts by both man and Satan and his minions. Our home is in a different land, and trying to assert that the life we have today is anything similar to what our life will be when He returns cheapens that new life that is coming.

Perhaps I am being too harsh on those that hold to the truth of Proverbs 18:21 - we can, after all, build people up and tear them down with the words we speak. The problem is, if you gnash your teeth and tell lies to someone whose ears are only attuned to the truth of God's word, all of the 'death' in your tongue will come to naught. Case in point is Stephen - first martyr after Jesus death; he never believed the lies the Jewish council he was brought in front of told about him - he held on to the True Reality to his death (Acts 7:54). That was good - it most decidedly was not 'nice', and it certainly didn't feel good. In the end, the words of his tongue brought him death, even though they were truth. No - in the True Reality, Stephen was brought to the real life - and Jesus was there waiting for him.

You see, we put way too much focus on today - we try to make ourselves have all those 'nice' feelings we seemingly lost, and not step on each other's toes and we make our churches feel good so that tons of people come to them...and in the end, we lose all that is truly 'good'. Jesus is most certainly there in the midst of us, and His presence is truly transforming - but when we speak those words do they fit into our definition of 'nice' and what 'reality' is? Or do we hear Jesus and allow the transformation to complete its work, even in our perceptions, and speak those words knowing the true definitions that come from the True Reality? This life is a glimpse, a wisp, a puff of smoke - we have only so much time to do what Jesus has called us to do on this earth and all the effort we put into being 'nice' keeps us from being 'good'.

Read the scripture. There aren't very many 'nice' people immortalized in that text. They weren't all 'good' either, according to our definition of the word, but I believe that if we listen to Jesus and accept the True Reality our worship will be vital, and it won't change one bit. Our lives will be made holy - and we will simply be doing what seems natural. Our compassion will deepen because our focus is on Him, and not on us. We must begin to accept that Jesus is truly sovereign and that following Him sometimes just feels normal - and that is good.

The Cost of Spirituality

It's time to get real. The core of life is in our relationship with God. Having a relationship with God requires knowledge of who He is. Knowing who He is requires a little work, and the work is never something you think up to do, but it is something He guides you through to bring you into an understanding of who He is.

Isn't that the way it is with your friends? You don't get to know them by telling them how to behave and then fabricating interactions with them that substantiate a preconceived notion you have of who they are. You invite them to dinner; you call them on the phone; you play baseball with them; you give them gifts. You get mad at each other and you laugh with each other. As time progresses, you begin to know them more and your interactions move from superficially polite nothings to long walks through the valley of the shadow of death and inspiring flights through the ethereal worlds of the spirit that lift your soul and give you purpose. Your life becomes defined by the moments you have with those people you know and love.

God wants to be your friend. Understand me now, He is God and doesn't have anything in mind for your friendship but what is best for you - so in that sense He isn't anything like your next door neighbor or your mom or your best friend. He can't do anything for you but love you completely and He can't be anything to you other than God and all that that implies. He is perfect - which is a concept we will literally never understand. In His perfection He is just - the absolute definition of perfect justice; thus he must punish crimes against His order or He is no longer perfect. He is also love - the absolute definition of perfect love. In that He hates that He must punish us with death for the crimes we commit and so He sent His son Jesus. That is the simple gospel for those who don't know it - the gospel of the Christian religion, but also the pure truth of life.

I should probably stop right there - I am sure it galls some who may read this to hear me saying that the Christianity is the 'pure truth of life'. But hang in there - it gets better. Its not about Christianity at all - Christianity has, in fact, probably done more in the last century to dilute the pure truth of life than they have to advance it. There, now I have offended both sides of the fence and should probably stop ... but I can't. I am a glutton for punishment.

In our lives, we walk in a world created by the very God I described above. Jesus conveyed to us in the flesh a clear idea of who God is - perfect, just, loving - and He died (taking on God's punishment that needed to be meted out, like I mentioned above) so that we could crawl out of the hell hole we have created for ourselves in all of the mistakes we have made in our lives and have joy, peace, patience, gentleness, self control...a real life.

This all has nothing to do with Christianity (big C) and everything to do with christianity (little c). The thing that makes the difference is the case of the letter c - the word christianity has at its root the word 'christ' which is a greek word meaning 'anointed one'. In Judaism, the anointing they talked of was the anointing of leadership and they looked to the christ to lead them out of their subjugation to the Romans at the time Jesus walked the earth. The term 'christianity' simply means 'followers of the anointed one'. Our culture and our world has made 'christ' and Jesus synonymous, when they most certainly were not - Jesus was much more than just the anointed one. We took one aspect of His identity and made it our religion's defining term - of course we could have chosen worse aspects of Jesus' identity such as suffering one, lamb of God, or man of sorrows to identify with; my point is that Jesus was more. I think we are more apt in calling ourselves followers of the Way. This is the core of what Jesus was saying - its not religion; its the Way.

He was life - and the words He spoke were the way to life, which was the way to Him. Kind of circular reasoning; but bear with me. In truth, it isn't about the word 'Jesus' per se either - if He would have been a normal man and spoke the words He spoke, what He spoke would have given us the manual for an incredible life. What is the key to this is that its not about the word 'Jesus' but it is entirely about Jesus. The manual to life that he gave us is useless without the fuel of life to keep the engine running - and that fuel is Jesus.

You see, we are all really very much the same in the core of our being. We want life, and that more abundantly. Being molded from the same clay, we all have similar needs. Surprisingly, or perhaps not so surprising considering our similarities, we all really want the same things - joy, peace, patience, gentleness, self control. These are the things that have lead scholars to develop the theory that all religions in the world came from a single source, far back into the beginning of our pre-recorded history. I would contend that they are partially correct - our desire for joy, peace, patience, gentleness, and self control does have a root cause; because we are all molded from the same clay by the same God that died for us.

The gospel - the pure truth of life - is the most accurate description of the essence of who we are. Notice that that description does not include Christianity (big C). We use Christianity to help us get closer to that identity we have in the gospel under Jesus - its not about the church, the church is about IT. It is not about how much you give, but it is entirely about how much you give - without knowing or caring if anyone is looking.

If you are afraid to stand up in front of an audience and tell them the truth about who you are you are human - but if you don't come to grips with the truth of who you are in a way that is obvious for all to see you are a demon - and you will never have a part in the full life.

Jesus is about being real - not about Christianity (big C).

Another Facebook Discussion on Evolution

While I am usually pretty confrontational when it comes to debates and discussions about topics that matter to me, it is rare that someone with the credentials of the person that had this discussion with me blunders in so many ways. Most of his blunders are not obvious, and many that read this dialog will believe he did not blunder at all, but in the end it is up to you - the reader to decide. I think he blundered in the following ways, making the following presumptions:

1. Scientists make no assumptions about facts.
2. Evolution is provable and falsifiable
3. Science has nothing to do with God or faith
4. Order arises out of chaos
5. Evolution does not attempt to describe our origins.

What was more interesting is that he purported a belief in God - which he may have; the difficulty is that evolution in its current state and a belief in the Christian God is mutually exclusive - if you are intellectually honest with yourself. Sure, evolution occurs in nature - but God spoke and the world was made - he didn't sneeze and say 'Oh, look, an ape - perhaps we can nudge it into becoming human...'

Nick Yonko
Who is being hostile? I thought you were calling people who reject evolution as truth as 'ignorant'. Wasn't that in your post on the other facebook wall?

Respondant #1:
Nick, take a breath. Ignoring evidence is a great means for being hostile when one feels threatened.
Ignoring is the root of Ignorant: It allows people to react with emotion instead of engaging in honest dialogue.
I'm not saying everyone is ignorant who believes in ID: there are lots of reasons why people subscribe to one tribe or another.
I'm asking a reasonable question.

Respondant #2:
I.d. Is not science

Nick Yonko
OK - deep breath taken.

Nick Yonko
And yes, ID is not science - it is a presupposition taken to support the pursuit of a scientific explanation
of the origins of the universe. Similarily, evolution is not science - it is a presupposition that God does not exist
and that the world was created through anonymous processes - again with the aim of explaining the origins of the universe.

Nick Yonko
Here is a good article on Intelligent Designs origins:
http://www.faithandscienceresource.org.uk/id/rise_id.html

Respondant #2:
Evolution makes no claims about god whatsoever.

Respondant #1
Nick, again you are confused or patently ignoring by definition what science is.
The Scientific Theory of Evolution is certainly based on the verification of thousands of falsifiable hypotheses
using accepted scientific methods: Evolution is a process that results in heritable changes in a population
spread over many generations. Respondant #2 is correct and this CANNOT be dismissed or excluded
from any I.D. arguments: the theory of evolution does not make ANY claims about the ultimate origins of life -
only the observed transformations of species as indicated through many lenses at a number of levels of the biological sciences.
That "good" article is chock full of Straw Man arguments: they set up the opposition in a partial frame and
then use logic or other means to contrast it. This a political / rhetorical move and must be guarded against from all sides.
As evolution is simply "a process that results in heritable changes in a population spread over many generations" - it's pretty innocuous

Respondant #1
by the way, in teaching "Critical Thinking" courses, I use Intelligent Design and the Scientific
theory of Evolution as one lens to apply Critical Discourse. I have students read articles across the
spectrum (there are more than "two" sides here) and dissemble each author's arguments looking for
Point of View, Assumptions, Inferences, Alternate Explanations, and Applications.
I've taken Graduate Students to arguments at the School Board on contested books by I.D.
proponents and collected books and websites on this topic.... And I have NEVER yet seen I.D.
scientists successfully argue for their "alternate theory". It doesn't even come close to reaching the
astonishing breadth and depth of explanatory power as the Theory of Evolution. Rather,
the Kansas School Board would rather change the definition of Science, itself. Bad Science is
almost as dangerous as Bad Religion. But not quite.

Nick Yonko
No, I am not patently ignoring anything. And again, give me one instance in nature where macro-evolution
was un-falsifiably seen to occur? You are making the fundamental assumption that God does not exist, correct?.
I am making the fundamental assumption that he does. If you believe God does not exist, the only available
explanation for the origins of life is evolution. I am not going to try to convince you that what
you call science is Bad Science - macro-evolution is unfalsifiable because it has never been seen to occur; it is
unprovable for the same reason - however, logical assumptions based on the false premise of a missing deity
have given it credence in the absence of any other explanation.

If you would like, list some of the 'thousands of falsifiable hypotheses using accepted scientific methods'
the you purport evolution has behind it and I will answer them as best I can - with the presumption that God exists,
or at the very least without denying his existence.

Respondant #1
I am definitely NOT making the argument that God does not exist. What gave you the idea that I'm
arguing AGAINST God? That's ridiculous. The realm of science is strictly regulated to what is observable and
deducible. Seriously - that's what you BELIEVE is not true, but it is. Scientists are people and they believe all
kinds of things... but the process of science as a means for uncovering the nonintuitive, surprising,
even uncomfortable truth is undeniable. But they don't delve into matters of ultimate Truth.
That's for clergy and philosophers. Scientists postulate natural laws that explain how phenomena occur
without invoking the supernatural, Nick. That's science. Doing so does NOT, however obviate the supernatural
- because it only seeks to explain things by way of what we can actually observe. God is not directly observable.
That's why they call it Faith.

I do not deny God's existence and neither does the Theory of Evolution despite what you may insist.

Nick Yonko
Interesting - so, what does evolution accept as fact that it cannot observe? Anything?

Respondant #1
Scientists propose theories that fit the given evidence - some of which hasn't yet
been directly observed yet, yes. A theory is a good theory if it satisfies two requirements:
It must accurately describe a large class of observations on the basis of a model that contains
only a few arbitrary elements, and it must make definite predictions about the
results of future observations. The Special Theory of Relativity is an example... the Theory of Evolution is another.

A Scientific Theory doesn't "accept" anything as fact. But it's an accepted theory by most
scientists because the massive amount of evidence gathered from the geologic record and
studies of ecosystems, plant morphology, genetic sciences, biophysics, and the many other
biological sciences and their corollaries fits very well with the Theory of Evolution.
There isn't near the level of "speculation" or "alternative explanations" available like ID folks claim.
These are specious arguments.

Respondant #1
questions for you: how does I.D. purport to make any explanations about ANYTHING from a scientific perspective? Anything?

Nick Yonko
Science utilizes deduction to pursue theories based on assumptions made by the scientist in question.
If you truly believe that scientists make no assumptions of the facts based on presuppositions, you need
to revisit the history books. The evidence for Intelligent Design is in the very ecosystems themselves.
Nothing in nature spontaneously creates systematically ordered living beings without a prior cause.
Discarding logic in the face of 'evidence' is foolish - you must draw conclusions from the
evidence. No evidence stands alone without the applied logic of the scientist. That logic requires
presuppositions that the scientist then works to prove either true or false. Most scientists believe
God does not exist. I have given you a long list of scientists that do with signficant accreditations.
If you want scientific explanations go to them:
http://www.answersingenesis.org/home/area/bios/

Respondant #2
Lmao! This could be a comedy bit. Whos on first? Are you really telling him to be logical? Wow

Nick Yonko
Why shouldn't I? Since he is discarding the very principles of deduction he
is purporting to uphold by accepting as fact PRESUPPOSTIONS and ASSUMPTIONS
just as I am. At least I have the honesty to admit it.

Respondant #1
I've taken a bit of time to try to discuss with you the difference between Faith and the
aims and methods of Science in a fair and decent manner, Nick. No need to be so personal in
your indictments. It appears that in the course of this discussion you've drawn a few conclusions a
bout my character rather than to address questions in a civil way. Projecting your own judgments
about what you think I represent and conflating those with what I'm actually saying, you accuse me
of being an atheist, illogical, dishonest, and foolish. I could be one or two of those, sure. But it's telling
to me that you've paid scant attention in your replies to answers I've given to your questions. You can
be as angry as you like. Do you know what Occam's Razor is? It means that Deduction and Logic aren't
the only tools in the shed. If there is evidence of I.D. within the ecosystem... where? Just because
there might not be a Hand guiding evolution to create the puny humans doesn't mean that God does NOT exist

Respondant #1
Nick says: "Nothing in nature spontaneously creates systematically ordered living beings without a prior cause"...
this seems to be the point at which you jump off thinking that I'm not logical by not "accepting" this. But it's
demonstrably NOT TRUE my friend. Order DOES come out of chaos quite regularly all by itself and the mechanisms
for this have been under study for decades. If you would study Ilya Prigogine's work on NonLinear Dynamics (Nobel Prize),
or other physicists such as Richard Feynman, you might understand better than I can say it in a little Facebook Window.
These guys are not backwater scientists either. Oh - and about that - Read Kuhn http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/The_Structure_of_Scientific_Revolutions
... I'm FULLY aware that science changes based on what we know at the moment, based on the evidence that we have
and the prevailing cultural overtone. Yep, Science is messy and human and given to "herd mentality", ya got me there.
But faith is NOT scientific. period.

Respondant #2
Jon, are you familiar with the i.d. court case from dover? _i think the town is dover_It is fairly recent

Respondant #1
and ya know what? If you want to be a scholar, you should act more like a gentleman.
I've lost the motivation to continue this discussion following such un-Christian Like conduct. Have a good day.

Respondant #1
http://www.msnbc.msn.com/id/10545387/

Nick Yonko
I understand your anger, and have responded to your un-gentleman like accusations in kind. I am looking
forward to looking into the scientists you mention, and the data they present. If you truly believe I have
responded in a fashion that was different that how I was treated, I apologize. In closing this discussion I thank you for your time.

Nick Yonko
http://www.cscs.umich.edu/~crshalizi/notabene/prigogine.html

The New Atheism

For those that are unfamiliar with the term 'atheism', the term is defined by dictionary.com as 'the doctrine or belief that there is no God.' or more generally 'disbelief in the existence of a supreme being or beings.' While either of these definitions are suitable for the purposes of this blog, there is little doubt in my mind that today's atheist is focused on disbelieving the Christian God and not any other god.

Perhaps that assumption is driven by my ethnocentrism (dictionary.com: 'a tendency to view alien groups or cultures from the perspective of one's own.') However, Christianity is certainly not only the religion of the United States, but it is a religion of the world and has adherents in all cultures. Not surprisingly, most of those cultures find themselves coming together on the soil of the United States, thus my country becomes a type of petri dish of cultural conflict. If two cultures, religions, philosophies, or worldviews can conflict in some way, they do so in the United States, and frequently in the court of public opinion - ie. the media.

It seems that Christianity and its adherents are frequently at the center of those conflicts. I recently posted an article from the Family Policy Institute written by Joseph Backholm, their executive director (found here). A divorced couple set up a parenting plan for their child, and the father took issue with the child being home schooled. However, New Hampshire law only allows the modification of the parenting plan in fairly extreme circumstances. The judge ruled to modify the plan. The only issue at hand was the child's faith. I don't know if the father, who wanted the child to go to public school changed his faith, or if he even ever had any faith, or if the mother suddenly developed a Christian faith after the divorce. Whatever the case, the judge ruled that the child's faith was of significant enough harm to the child's well being that the parenting plan should be changed. It is a strange world that tells us that having faith in God is detrimental to our children.

Again, this may be me focusing on things in my world that are relevant to me, but the number of religious cases in this country that are tried in the courts that involve Christianity in the past year are, to my cursory count, well above 200 on the christianpost.com web site. Most frequently, the cases seem to be between atheists and Christians. Why is this the case?

There are several reasons that could be cited to explain this - some ludicrous and some valid; but I believe the best explanation is found in the words of Jesus himself: "Do not suppose that I have come to bring peace to the earth. I did not come to bring peace, but a sword." (Matt 10:34 NIV) Christianity, by its very nature, creates conflict.

Christianity is the religion of conflict, but not conflict by self initiated agression with an aim toward conquest or self aggrandizement - Christianity is about a clashing of spirits. Jesus never sought anyone's demise or physical destruction - unlike Islam. Jesus brings a sword because he puts the proverbial line in the sand. You are either for Him or against Him and adherents to the faith He created cannot and should not compromise the core tenets of their faith. Jesus did not allow it. He said "I am the way and the truth and the life. No one comes to the Father except through me." (John 14:6 NIV) For those that believe that Jesus is who he said he was, there is no other way to get to heaven but through Him.

What is so astonishing to me about this is that the very line in the sand that Jesus draws is the line that so many churches are attempting to blur in the name of "Seeker Friendliness" or "Cultural Relevance". Atheism has little to argue against in that type of environment. Atheists compare the soft, fruity Christianity of today with just living their lives the way they see fit and they don't see any benefit to adding all the Christian baggage to their lives. I can't blame them - no benefit and big cost - that doesn't sound like a good deal.

This type of faith is never what Jesus preached. He didn't want us to live the lives we have always been living and then just add baggage. No wonder atheists, and those that despise Christianity, are attacking it so vigorously. It isn't that Christianity hasn't done anything to garner the conflict - we have, and our leader, Jesus, was the one who took the first swipe at business as usual. It is that we have positioned ourselves like bratty young children saying 'I dare you to hit me!' and when they do, we sit back and run comfortable social clubs for them that they can come into when they please and spit on when it suits them. It's almost like we feel guilty for Jesus - trying to cushion the blow of His polarizing philosophies so that people don't get mad. What gives us the right?

Call me dramatic, call me hyperbolic, call me insane. The fact is, if we claim the name of Jesus we will draw conflict - and making our churches soft by making them "Seeker Friendly" or "Culturally Relevant" increases the conflict that comes our way because atheists and others that hate us see the weakness inherent in those positions. People don't want the church to be soft and easy to move in to - the church should be demanding and challenging; not by being hard-ass, but by being real and calling people to real faith. Life is hard and it draws its own challenges to us. The heros of the Christian faith did not consider making their parishoners comfortable as a very high priority but they called them to repentance on a daily basis.

We must change our churches by demanding change in ourselves so that we can bear real fruit and show our detractors that what we believe in isn't just baggage, but it is real. This does not mean they will suddenly love us - that isn't the point. The point is to bring people into relationship with the real Jesus Christ - not with our fancy social clubs. The two are NOT the same.

In the United States this is especially hard because we are so comfortable. Nothing here compels us to change because we have everything we need. If we were being persecuted on a daily basis, we would see miracles working in our lives like they do in China, Indonesia, and the Sudan - but we don't have that kind of test here in the U.S. - yet. Make no mistake, however, it is coming - Jesus promised it would "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 15:20). And to me, I think it is coming in a rush through the courts and the law and the media in ways we haven't yet seen and in ways we couldn't imagine.

In the end, the point is that we need to take off our Christian masks and start being real, no matter the cost - that is how we draw people to Jesus.