Matthew 10:24 “The disciple is not above his master, nor the servant above his lord.”
‘As Christians, and especially as Christian parents, many of us have negative comments to make about what happens in school science lessons. In so many areas, it is often easier to criticize and break down than to build up something new. Many years ago, I came across a fascinating yet simple curriculum model idea that would be of considerable help in many Christian education situations.
In their book, Fighting the Secular Giants, Stephen Thomas and David Freeman outline their ideas for a so-called Trinity Curriculum Model. The three-part framework sees the Father as the source of all things, Jesus as the means of demonstrating God’s love to the world, and the Spirit as the fulfillment. Thomas and Freeman are wise enough to state that this is not an analogy of the Trinity because analogies of the Trinity always fall short of the full Trinitarian doctrine.
For example, suppose we are teaching children about the water cycle. The source concept is that God is the provider of all the water needed for creation. The water cycle therefore reveals God’s wise provision. The means would be the usual experiments about the water cycle, boiling water, condensing the steam, building charts, diagrams, and maps of the process. The fulfillment will be to see how much each student has learned about the process, especially that they have understood what this tells us about God.
‘SNAKE LOVER DEMANDS REVERSE EVOLUTION. Alan Pan, an engineer based in Los Angeles USA has designed and built a device that enables snakes to walk on four legs. The device consists of a long tube open at both ends that a snake can crawl into. Attached to this are four robotic legs, each fitted with servomotors. The walking pattern is programmed into a laptop and the device can be activated wirelessly using a tag attached to a keychain. Alan Pan’s video shows him taking a snake for a walk in the device with the activating tag attached to the device like a dog leash. In order to get the robotic legs to move in reptile-like manner Pan studied the gait of western three-toed skink (Chalcides striatus), a species of lizard with four tiny legs. According to Pan, “They might be the closest thing I could find to an actual snake with legs.” According to evolutionary theory snakes used to have legs but lost them about 150 million years ago due to genetic mutations. After he and a professional snake handler persuaded a snake to crawl into the device and stay inside while it transported the snake on the robotic legs, Pan claimed “150 million years of evolutionary mistakes reversed in a single day”. Alan Pan also commented about snakes: “I actually feel bad for snakes; they lost their legs and nobody is even trying to find them – nobody except for me. When any other animal has deformed legs, humanity comes together to spit in God’s face and we built that animal awesome new cyborg legs.”’ References: Interesting Engineering 15 August 2022; Daily Mail 16 August 2022 ‘ED. COM. Don’t miss it – spitting in God’s face is the real agenda here. Yet this robotic device is a clever piece of engineering and Alan Pan should be congratulated for designing it. The fact that it took careful observation of reptiles walking, and creative design to make the robotic legs should remind Pan that real snake legs were the result of creative design by the God he despises, not the random evolution he has faith in. Furthermore, Pan’s device cannot be said to really give snakes their legs back as the snake is unable to control the device. We would warn Pan not to “spit in God’s face”. If Pan really believes God took legs off snakes, he should investigate why it happened. Snakes did not lose their legs by an evolutionary accident. It was a judgement for rebellion against God, who created all living things. See Genesis 3: 14. This same God, who is Jesus Christ, will hold all those who want to rebel against Him to account when He comes to judge the world. Therefore, we urge Alan Pan and anyone who watches the video about his device to put their faith in Jesus who is also the Saviour, before they have to face Him for judgement. Pan is correct in that snake leg loss is the result of genetic mutations, but that is not evolution. It is degeneration, and is one special part of the overall degradation of the world that occurred as a result of human sin and God’s judgement. There is evidence that serpents (as the Bible describes them) did have legs in the past. Some snakes, such as pythons, have tiny residual legs which can be used in mating, even though they cannot be used for walking. There are also fossil snakes that have tiny legs. See links below. Did you miss these questions? If God removed snakes’ legs at the Fall, why are there fossil snakes with legs? Answer here https://askjohnmackay.com/if-god-removed-snakes-legs-at-the-fall-why-are-there-fossil-snakes-with-leg/. Did snakes really lose their legs, as Genesis implies? Answer here https://askjohnmackay.com/did-snakes-really-lose-their-legs-as-genesis-implies/.’https://creationresearch.net/wp-content/uploads/2022/Enews/enews-20220824.pdf
‘The Justices wrote that the previous law was incorrect. It had forced “a theory of life” on the nation, defined by the passing of “an arbitrary point in a pregnancy”.
In the June 24, 2022 Supreme Court decision that overturned the 50-year-old mandate for nationwide legalized abortion, there were many excellent points of truth. But the incorrect theory of life is critical and brings up another one of the great evils of evolution theory – underlying as it does so much of what is called “a culture of death”.
The Roe v. Wade Court of 1973 had coined the term “trimesters”. It was a word invented to allow for the dehumanizing of an unborn person during the early stages of pregnancy, and thus the purposeful taking of the life. Justice Harry Blackmun admitted it was their invented “framework”1 so that they could arbitrarily divide the abortion code into three different time-frames. By doing this, they attempted to deal with the inconsistency of allowing abortion when the killing of a human being is murder. There were to be no exceptions for abortion in the first trimester of pregnancy – considered essentially a “non-human” phase of pregnancy.
The theory that human life is not present from the beginning of pregnancy owes its modern basis to the Theory of Evolution. True biological science actually affirms that each individual of any species must start their life-cycle as an exact copy of the progenitor cell. This is understood from the routinely proven biological principles of “Fixity of Species” and the “Law of Biogenesis”. Furthermore, the Bible tells us repeatedly in Genesis 1 that all created life will reproduce in no other way except “after its kind”.
You might give people in the early 1970s – especially under the pressure of the sexual revolution and women’s liberation – an excuse to have abortions. Both ultrasound scans and genetic science were not as developed as they are today. People learned they could use “science” – taught through the Haeckel embryo drawings – to argue that a fetus was not truly a human life. It is an excuse you will hear to this very day – another great evil, given “scientific support” by the pseudo-science of evolution.
Zoologist Ernst Haeckel drew his infamous embryo drawings in the year 1874. He was a zealous proponent of Darwin’s theory of evolution, and he proposed that human embryos retraced their evolutionary history as they grew in the womb. He coined the technical terminology for this supposed retracing of evolutionary history as life develops: “ontogeny recapitulates phylogeny”. Indeed, Charles Darwin himself was convinced of Haeckel’s argument. In fact, he declared that the similarity of vertebrate embryos in their earliest stages – which he thought demonstrated their descent from a common ancestor – was “the strongest single set of facts” supporting his theory!
You can see in Haeckel’s presentation of embryos three rows of eight different species – fish, salamander, tortoise, chick, hog, calf, rabbit and human. By separating them into three rows – showing early, middle and late stages of development – Haeckel conveniently created three divisions for the Roe v. Wade Court to split its ruling into three “trimesters”. In this way, evolution once again promoted a culture of death – as it has in undergirding Nazism, Communism, eugenics, and other false and godless philosophies.
For over 150 years, the drawings have been used in textbooks to proclaim evolution. Yet, they are known frauds with Haeckel’s “embellishments”. For instance, he drew the mammalian embryos with gill slits in place of wrinkles. There are no perforations like gills in the mammalian embryos! And yet, Haeckel said the embryos were going through a “fish” stage of development.
Even the late renowned evolutionist Stephen Jay Gould wrote in 2000: “We do, I think, have the right to be both astonished and ashamed by the century of mindless recycling that has led to the persistence of these drawings in a large number, if not a majority, of modern textbooks.”
But let’s continue to think critically about the argument. What kind of proof is mere similarity? Is similarity of appearance sufficient evidence in a court of law? Or do we need better evidence to draw a conclusion – like fingerprints and DNA? I suppose if you go back all the way to fertilized egg cells, all life would look pretty similar on a macro scale – though hugely different genetically. And, if a developing baby is not “viable” until a more “independent” stage, is a baby not human until his arm and leg lengths are of adult proportions? Or maybe until she can speak? Or when he can feed himself?
We rapidly descend into infant sacrifice, for which the pagan nations around ancient Israel were judged, the Bible says. And we actually have many advocating for essentially that in our society today! On May 16, 2022, for example, after news of the pending decision had been illegally leaked, all 49 Senators of one political party voted for the most radical abortion bill proposed in the history of the United States Congress – including abortion right up to birth.
Like so much agenda-driven “research”, Haeckel did his work with an end-point in mind. In that sense, he was like anthropologist Margaret Mead and entomologist-turned-sexologist Alfred Kinsey. They both laid “scientific” groundwork for increased sexual promiscuity and deviancy through the last century. Both did “research” with an agenda driven by their own deviancy, desired outcomes and evolution-supported worldviews. Both are now thoroughly debunked.2,3 And both have been used for years to justify conclusions desired by those who push a godless and/or subversive agenda of sexual license – as has Roe v. Wade.
1 Desanctis, A., “Little Known Facts about Roe v. Wade”, National Review, Jan 23, 2017.
2 Freeman, D., Margaret Mead and Samoa: The Making and Unmaking of an Anthropological Myth, Harvard University Press, 1983.
3 Reisman, J.A. and Eichel, E.W., Kinsey, Sex, and Fraud: The Indoctrination of a People, Huntington House, 1990.
‘Many people today do not seem to realize that the same poisonous philosophy (evolutionism) that justified killing under Hitler1has also infected the American abortion mentality.
According to documents released in February 10, 1992, “Joseph Mengele, the Auschwitz death-camp doctor known as the ‘Angel of Death’ for his experiments on inmates, practiced medicine in Buenos Aires for several years in the 1950s. He ‘had a reputation as a specialist in abortions,’ which were illegal.”2 It should not be surprising that one who extinguished life at Auschwitz would practice a similar grisly crusade on life in the womb.
Humans Emerging From Embryos?
Carl Sagan encouraged the fiction that life in the womb traces an evolutionary history. We “must decide,” he wrote, “what distinguishes a human being from other animals and when, during gestation, the uniquely human qualities—whatever they are—emerge.”3 He compared the appearance of the developing embryo to “a segmented worm” and added that “something like the gill arches of a fish or an amphibian…become conspicuous, and there is a pronounced tail.” The face becomes “reptilian… (then) somewhat pig-like.” Eventually, it “resembles a primate’s but is still not quite human.”
In the article, evolutionary thinking offered yet again “justification” for extinguishing life thought to be subhuman. This, of course, is pseudo-science and nonsense. The science of genetics has confirmed that the embryo is identifiably human from the moment of conception.
Sanger—“Babies in the Womb”!
Another insidious development occurred earlier in the century (about the time Hitler himself was forming his ideas). It involved Margaret Sanger (1879–1966), the founder of Planned Parenthood (a major promoter of abortions in America today). She has been given the unusual title, “Father of Modern Society.”4 Her evolutionary mentality will be documented below, but first there should be a consideration of her views relating to abortion.
In her Woman and the New Race, Sanger offered a conflicting message about this issue. On the one hand she wrote, “I assert that the hundreds of thousands of abortions performed in America each year are a disgrace to civilization.”5 Pro-lifers would heartily agree! She even referred to “babies” in the womb—not using the now “politically correct” term, fetuses: “There will be no killing of babies in the womb by abortion.”5
Her message was inconsistent, however. Not only did Linda Gordon, author of Woman’s Body, Woman’s Right—a major work dealing with the history of birth control in America—indicate that Margaret Sanger “defended women’s rights to abortion,”6 Sanger herself, in the very volume denouncing abortion already cited, wrote, “The most merciful thing that the large family does to one of its infant members is to kill it.”5 This hardly sounds pro-life.
Whatever may be said of Sanger’s confused views, her legacy is an organization that certainly encourages and participates in the killing of thousands and even millions of, to use her phrase, America’s “infant members.” What was it about her philosophy that allowed for this?
“Defectives,” “Dependents,” and “Morons”!
Hitler’s link to evolution has already been documented.1 He put survival-of-the-fittest into action, and millions of “unfit” people died as a result. Many Americans believe that something comparable to what happened under the leadership of Hitler is happening now in America. “Babies in the womb,” most of them healthy and fit, have been slaughtered by the tens of millions in the United States of America—1.21 million in 2008 alone!11
What some may not realize is that the same poisonous philosophy that infected Hitler also influenced Margaret Sanger. She said Charles Darwin observed “that we do not permit helpless human beings to die off, but we create philanthropies and charities, build asylums and hospitals and keep the medical profession busy preserving those who could not otherwise survive.” Her view was that such philanthropies and charities were “ameliorative” at best, and that some so-called benevolences were “positively injurious to the community and the future of the race.”
Her following words (content-wise) sound like they could have been spoken by Adolf Hitler himself: “The most serious charge that can be brought against modern ‘benevolence’ is that it encourages the perpetuation of defectives, delinquents and dependents. These are the most dangerous elements in the world community, the most devastating curse on human progress and expression.”
One wonders how far Sanger would like to have taken her eugenics. She reported a study of the United States Army and concluded that “nearly half—47.3 percent—of the population had the mentality of twelve-year-old children or less—in other words, that they were morons.”7
On the racial dimension, Linda Gordon (cf. above) quotes from a letter written by Margaret Sanger to Clarence Gamble on October 19, 1939: “We do not want word to go out that we want to exterminate the Negro population and the minister is the man who can straighten out the idea if it ever occurs to any of their more rebellious members.”6 Many years prior, Sanger said, “Whether or not the white races will be ultimately wiped off the face of the earth depends, to my mind, largely upon the conduct and behavior of the white people themselves. (Applause.)”8
Birth control for Sanger was “nothing more or less than the facilitation of the process of weeding out the unfit.” A eugenist, she defined the field as “the attempt to solve the problem from the biological and evolutionary point of view.” She wanted to change things “to the construction and evolution of humanity itself.”8 She advocated applying “a stem and rigid policy of sterilization and segregation to that grade of population whose progeny is already tainted, or whose inheritance is such that objectionable traits may be transmitted to offspring.”9 Revealing pro-choice tendencies, she went on to promote the notion of giving “certain dysgenic groups in our population their choice of segregation or sterilizations.”8 Ms. Sanger assumed “the evolutionary process of man”10 and argued that the “intelligence of a people is of slow evolutional development”5 She hoped for a motherhood that would refuse “to bring forth weaklings.”5 Such a motherhood “withholds the unfit brings forth the fit.”5 She wrote of “woman’s upward struggle”5 and described the “lack of balance between the birth rate of the ‘unfit’ and the ‘fit’” as “the greatest present menace to civilization.”7
Rejection of the Only Solution!
The Lord Jesus Christ sanctified life in the womb by living there Himself for nine months (Is 49:5, cf. Lk 1:35). He also created every womb that was ever made (Jn 1:3). As the promised “seed” of the woman (Gn 3:15), He came to rescue daughters (like those for whom Margaret Sanger expressed concern throughout her writings) from their burdens of pain, suffering, sin, and death. He came to set them free (Jn 9:36), and many women would testify that they have indeed been set free and will be set free even from death.
Margaret Sanger, however, wrote of a different Jesus—“a Jesus who (would) not die upon the cross.”5 In place of the real Jesus who understands suffering intimately, she chose the hollow shell of evolutionary “science.” Sadly, she wrote, “Interest in the vague sentimental fantasies of extra-mundane existence, in pathological or hysterical flights from the realities of our earthiness, will have through atrophy disappeared, for in that dawn men and women will have come to the realization… that here close at hand is our paradise, our everlasting abode, our Heaven and our eternity.”7 But how is Margaret Sanger qualified to make such pronouncements?
Her present bodily “abode” is very undesirable (coffin? charred remains?), but Jesus is alive with a resurrected body in heaven! After He was resurrected, He proclaimed, “I am He that liveth, and was dead; and, behold, I am alive for evermore, Amen; and have the keys of hell and of death” (Rv 1:18, KJV).
Jesus’ teachings about the future, contrary to Margaret Sanger’s preachings, were neither “vague sentimental fantasies” nor “pathological,” and they will never “atrophy.” Heaven and earth may pass—but His words will never pass away (Mt 24:35). He emphatically said, “I am the resurrection, and the life: he that believeth in me, though he were dead, yet shall he live: And whosoever liveth and believeth in me shall never die” (Jn 11:25–26, KJV).
Conclusion
The evolutionary mentality behind abortion is bad science and leads to bad ethics. On the positive side, Margaret Sanger did encourage attention to a very important subject—to what she called “the titanic strength of the sexual instinct.”7 Indirectly, she was affirming the Scriptural truth that “love is strong as death; jealousy is cruel as the grave…Many waters cannot quench love, neither can the floods drown it: if a man would give all the substance of his house for love, it would utterly be condemned” (Sgs 8:6–7, KJV).
She sought to promote birth control. The ultimate need, however, is for Holy Spirit control. The Lord Jesus Christ, after receiving from the Father the promise of the Holy Spirit, shed Him forth upon the earth for the benefit of His followers (Acts 2:33). The only way an unbeliever can experience this loving presence and control is to bow the heart in repentance and faith before the Sovereign Creator-Savior, Jesus Christ.
(This article is an update of one originally published in Impact #27, May 1992, by the Institute for Creation Research, El Cajon, CA. Reprinted by permission of the author.)
Notes
1. Paul G. Humber, “The Ascent of Racism,” Impact (Institute for Creation Research, February 1987). 2. Nathaniel C. Nash, “Mengele an Abortionist, Argentine Files Suggest,” The New York Times, February 11, 1992, p. A8. 3. Carl Sagan and Ann Druyan, “Is It Possible To Be Pro-Life And Pro-Choice?” Parade Magazine, April 22, 1990, pp. 5, 7. 4. Elasah Drogin, Margaret Sanger: Father of Modern Society (New Hope, Ky: CUL Publications, 1989). 5. Margaret Sanger, Woman and the New Race (New York: Brentano’s Publishers, 1920), pp. 44, 45, 63, 126, 159, 226, 229, 232, 234. 6. Linda Gordon, Woman’s Body, Woman’s Right (New York: Grossman Pub., 1976), pp. 223, 332–33. 7. Margaret Sanger, The Pivot of Civilization (New York: Brentano’s Publishers, 1922), pp. 8, 25, 103, 113, 123, 170-171, 263, 275–76. 8. Raymond Pierpoint, Editor, Report of the Fifth International Neo-Malthusian and Birth Control Conference (London: William Heinemann [Medical Books] Ltd., 1922), pp. 31, 199. 9. Margaret Sanger, “A Plan for Peace,” Birth Control Review, April, 1932, pp. 107, 108. 10. Margaret Sanger, Editor, “Self Preservation,” The Woman Rebel, April 1914, p. 16. 11. See http://www.guttmacher.org/pubs/fb_induced_abortion.html (accessed December 14, 2011).’https://biblearchaeology.org/research/contemporary-issues
OUT OF THIS WORLD! Did you know that the moon is moving away from us? When astronauts went to the moon, they left mirrors on the surface so that laser light could be sent to the moon, bounce off the mirror, and return to the earth. We can measure the time this round trip takes so accurately that the exact distance to the moon can be measured within a fraction of an inch. The moon is moving away from us at about 2 inches/year (called lunar regression). This means the moon is getting farther away each year, and as we go back in time, the moon was closer to the earth. At this measured rate of recession, the moon would have been touching Earth less than 2 billion years ago. It is commonly taught by evolutionists that the moon exists because material spun off of the earth as it was forming about 4.5 billion years ago. Astronomer Edouard Roche long ago calculated that from Earth’s surface to 11,500 miles out, any object would be torn to pieces by Earth’s gravitational forces. Therefore, the belief that the moon came from material originating from the earth has enormous problems because it would have been torn to pieces. Also, if the moon were truly 4.5 billion years old, it would be much farther out in space than the distance we see today. God created the moon on Day 4 less than 10,000 years ago – which means it has only moved a mere ½ mile since creation. The simplest explanation is that the moon is not that old. The moon’s distance from Earth testifies that it is young. “The belief that the moon came from material originating from the earth has enormous problems”https://mailchi.mp/435ebacf7a37/not-of-this-world?e=8233d90bcd
Psalm 119:89-90 “For ever, O Lord, thy word is settled in heaven. Thy faithfulness is unto all generations: thou hast established the earth, and it abideth.”
‘There are those that claim that Evolution is a scientific theory. Scientific theories can be subject to the scientific method. If the same test or experiment is carried out under the same conditions, on different days or locations, the results should still be the same.
The existence of scientific methodology suggests that ideas, referred to as science, actually divide under two headings. The first of these would be the testable, repeatable scientific ideas, which refer to situations here and now. These can be referred to as Observable or Operational Science. This is, in fact, the real science. Not only is there nothing unbiblical about Operational Science, we can insist that such science would not be possible without a rational, biblical worldview.
The other scientific heading would be Historical Science. This is the type of science that refers to one-time, single events that allegedly happened in the past. Because these events are one-time events, they are not repeatable, nor are they falsifiable, because we do not have a time machine to go back and test things. Evolution must fall into this second category. Therefore, the alleged event, when non-living molecules got together to form a living cell, cannot be repeated. Evolution is not testable, and is therefore not Operational Science.
On the racial dimension, Linda Gordon (cf. above) quotes from a letter written by Margaret Sanger to Clarence Gamble on October 19, 1939: “We do not want word to go out that we want to exterminate the Negro population and the minister is the man who can straighten out the idea if it ever occurs to any of their more rebellious members.”6 Many years prior, Sanger said, “Whether or not the white races will be ultimately wiped off the face of the earth depends, to my mind, largely upon the conduct and behavior of the white people themselves. (Applause.)”8
Conclusion
whatyareckon 