Does a worldview have to be livable?

from here: http://creation.com/does-worldview-have-to-be-livable

Published: 8 May 2010(GMT+10)

Following Lita Cosner’s reply to Canadian correspondent Samroon R. about his questions concerning Hitler, the Dalai Lama, sin and salvation, Samroon responded:

Is our pride attributable to the first man’s sin? Your beliefs about whether we are descended from Adam will affect not only your view about a “sinful nature”, but your entire worldview.

Dear Lita,

Grace to you in Christ. Thank you so much for the reply. You really helped me think clearly. May God bless you richly with wisdom and understanding. Anyways some questions again.

Do you believe that a worldview or philosophy, if true, has to be liveable. Suppose if a worldview denies freedom to human beings can we say it’s a false worldview since it denies a basic need of human beings such as Islam or suppose in Buddhism to attain nirvana or to reach a spiritual higher level you have to give up desiring which is not humanly possible since trying to reach nirvana has started as a desire in the heart. So do you think we can judge a worldview if it’s true or not by checking if it’s liveable or not. I hope you see what I mean.

And during evangelism when people are presented with the truth of Jesus Christ sometimes they would believe what they want to believe rather than what they should believe. Do you think this is because of the pride we humans have and this pride is there because of the original sin? Would you agree that God allowed that we inherit sin nature without our own choice so he can teach us submission which is opposite of pride? What is your take on this—I would be looking forward to your response.

Thanks & God bless you!

In Christ,

Samroon

Lita Cosner answers:

Dear Samroon,
I believe that the ‘livability’ of a worldview is evidence for its truth. For example, there is a worldview that says men are perfect, and only want education or wealth or whatever else to achieve this state. We can see that it is patently false when we see that the most educated and wealthy people, far from being the most benevolent and kindest, are sometimes capable of committing the worst sort of atrocities.

G.K. Chesterton actually used this as one of his main defenses for the truth of the Christian faith. To paraphrase his argument in from Orthodoxy, it’s not that one thing proves that Christianity is true, it is that everything fits when one presupposes Christianity. When one assumes the basic tenets of the Christian faith, everything from the huge philosophical questions concerning where we came from and why we’re here, to the everyday problems of why little Johnny keeps pulling his sister’s hair, come into focus. Any worldview may fit a few truths in it; Islam can explain a few things about the condition of humanity, and the Eastern religions might have a little truth in them too; it’s very hard for anything to be completely wrong at every single point. But this is like a stick fitting a hole in a rock; it is something that could easily happen by accident. Chesterton argues, however, that the way Christianity fits reality is more akin to a key fitting a lock; and when a lock fits a key, we can be sure that it is the right key.

I think there are any number of reasons why people claim that they can’t accept the Gospel; for some, it is the problem of evil. For others, it is that they like living with their girlfriends and they don’t want a moral system that will tell them that it is a sin. For some, they don’t want to be told that there is such a thing as sin. But I think that all these reasons can be described as symptoms of the main problem: the desperate wickedness of the fallen human heart. The unregenerate man is utterly hostile to God and His truth, which is the reason why no one is able to come to Him without the influence of the Holy Spirit. Not only can’t he come, he doesn’t want to, and that is why it is a culpable offense. Not only does he have a fallen nature that will sin and cause him to be hostile to God, he cooperates with it at every stage.

I think that there would have been far better ways for God to teach us submission than to cause us to inherit a trait that makes us utterly hostile to Him and incapable of submission to His will. Rather, our sin nature is something that we inherit by default because we are descended from the first sinner, Adam. We cannot submit to God until He regenerates us with the indwelling of the Holy Spirit, and even then not fully; we remain sinful as long as we are in the fallen creation, and we have to wait for the Resurrection for the complete defeat of sin.
I hope these further answers have been helpful for you.
Sincerely,
Lita Cosner
Information Officer
Creation Ministries International

from here: http://growingleaders.com/blog/3-mistakes-we-make-leading-kids/

Three Huge Mistakes We Make Leading Kids…and How to Correct Them

February 15, 2013 — 496 Comments

Recently, I read about a father, Paul Wallich, who built a camera-mounted drone helicopter to follow his grade-school-aged son to the bus stop. He wants to make sure his son arrives at the bus stop safe and sound. There’s no doubt the gizmo provides an awesome show-and-tell contribution. In my mind, Paul Wallich gives new meaning to the term “helicopter parent.”
While I applaud the engagement of this generation of parents and teachers, it’s important to recognize the unintended consequences of our engagement. We want the best for our students, but research now shows that our “over-protection, over-connection” style has damaged them. Let me suggest three huge mistakes we’ve made leading this generation of kids and how we must correct them.

1. We Risk Too Little

We live in a world that warns us of danger at every turn. Toxic. High voltage. Flammable. Slippery when wet. Steep curve ahead. Don’t walk. Hazard. This “safety first” preoccupation emerged over thirty years ago with the Tylenol scare and with children’s faces appearing on milk cartons. We became fearful of losing our kids. So we put knee-pads, safety belts and helmets on them…at the dinner table. (Actually I’m just kidding on that one). But, it’s true. We’ve insulated our kids from risk.
Author Gever Tulley suggests, “If you’re over 30, you probably walked to school, played on the monkey bars, and learned to high-dive at the public pool. If you’re younger, it’s unlikely you did any of these things. Yet, has the world become that much more dangerous? Statistically, no. But our society has created pervasive fears about letting kids be independent—and the consequences for our kids are serious.”
Unfortunately, over-protecting our young people has had an adverse effect on them.
“Children of risk-averse parents have lower test scores and are slightly less likely to attend college than offspring of parents with more tolerant attitudes toward risk,” says a team led by Sarah Brown of the University of Sheffield in the UK. Aversion to risk may prevent parents from making inherently uncertain investments in their children’s human capital; it’s also possible that risk attitudes reflect cognitive ability, researchers say.” Sadly, this Scottish Journal of Political Economy report won’t help us unless we do something about it. Adults continue to vote to remove playground equipment from parks so kids won’t have accidents; to request teachers stop using red ink as they grade papers and even cease from using the word “no” in class. It’s all too negative. I’m sorry—but while I understand the intent to protect students, we are failing miserably at preparing them for a world that will not be risk-free.
Psychologists in Europe have discovered that if a child doesn’t play outside and is never allowed to experience a skinned knee or a broken bone, they frequently have phobias as adults. Interviews with young adults who never played on jungle gyms reveal they’re fearful of normal risks and commitment. The truth is, kids need to fall a few times to learn it is normal; teens likely need to break up with a boyfriend or girlfriend to appreciate the emotional maturity that lasting relationships require. Pain is actually a necessary teacher. Consider your body for a moment. If you didn’t feel pain, you could burn yourself or step on a nail and never do something about the damage and infection until it was too late. Pain is a part of health and maturity.
Similarly, taking calculated risks is all a part of growing up. In fact, it plays a huge role. Childhood may be about safety and self-esteem, but as a student matures, risk and achievement are necessities in forming their identity and confidence. Because parents have removed “risk” from children’s lives, psychologists are discovering a syndrome as they counsel teens: High Arrogance, Low Self-Esteem. They’re cocky, but deep down their confidence is hollow, because it’s built off of watching YouTube videos, and perhaps not achieving something meaningful.
According to a study by University College London, risk-taking behavior peeks during adolescence. Teens are apt to take more risks than any other age group. Their brain programs them to do so. It’s part of growing up. They must test boundaries, values and find their identity during these years. This is when they must learn, via experience, the consequences of certain behaviors. Our failure to let them risk may explain why so many young adults, between the ages of 22 and 35 still live at home or haven’t started their careers, or had a serious relationship. Normal risk taking at fourteen or fifteen would have prepared them for such decisions and the risks of moving away from home, launching a career or getting married.

2. We Rescue Too Quickly

This generation of young people has not developed some of the life skills kids did thirty years ago because adults swoop in and take care of problems for them. We remove the need for them to navigate hardships. May I illustrate?
Staff from four universities recently told me they encountered students who had never filled out a form or an application in their life. Desiring to care for their kids, and not disadvantage them, parents or teachers had always done it for them.
One freshman received a C- on her project and immediately called her mother, right in the middle of her class. After interrupting the class discussion with her complaint about her poor grade, she handed the cell phone to her professor and said, “She wants to talk to you.” Evidently, mom wanted to negotiate the grade.
A Harvard Admissions Counselor reported a prospective student looked him in the eye and answered every question he was asked. The counselor felt the boy’s mother must have coached him on eye-contact because he tended to look down after each response. Later, the counselor learned the boy’s mom was texting him the answers every time a question came in.
A college president said a mother of one of his students called him, saying she’d seen that the weather would be cold that day and wondered if he would make sure her son was wearing his sweater as he went to class. She wasn’t joking.
This may sound harsh, but rescuing and over-indulging our children is one of the most insidious forms of child abuse. It’s “parenting for the short-term” and it sorely misses the point of leadership—to equip our young people to do it without help. Just like muscles atrophy inside of a cast due to disuse, their social, emotional, spiritual and intellectual muscles can shrink because they’re not exercised. For example, I remember when and where I learned the art of conflict resolution. I was eleven years old, and everyday about fifteen boys would gather after school to play baseball. We would choose sides and umpire our games. Through that consistent exercise, I learned to resolve conflict. I had to. Today, if the kids are outside at all, there are likely four mothers present doing the conflict resolution for them.
The fact is, as students experience adults doing so much for them, they like it at first. Who wouldn’t? They learn to play parents against each other, they learn to negotiate with faculty for more time, lenient rules, extra credit and easier grades. This actually confirms that these kids are not stupid. They learn to play the game. Sooner or later, they know “someone will rescue me.” If I fail or “act out,” an adult will smooth things over and remove any consequences for my misconduct. Once again, this isn’t even remotely close to how the world works. It actually disables our kids.

3. We Rave Too Easily

The self-esteem movement has been around since Baby Boomers were kids, but it took root in our school systems in the 1980s. We determined every kid would feel special, regardless of what they did, which meant they began hearing remarks like:

• “You’re awesome!”
• “You’re smart.”
• “You’re gifted.”
• “You’re super!”

Attend a little league awards ceremony and you soon learn: everyone’s a winner. Everyone gets a trophy. They all get ribbons. We meant well—but research is now indicating this method has unintended consequences. Dr. Carol Dweck wrote a landmark book called, Mindset. In it she reports findings about the adverse affects of praise. She tells of two groups of fifth grade students who took a test. Afterward, one group was told, “You must be smart.” The other group was told, “You must have worked hard.” When a second test was offered to the students, they were told that it would be harder and that they didn’t have to take it. Ninety percent of the kids who heard “you must be smart” opted not to take it. Why? They feared proving that the affirmation may be false. Of the second group, most of the kids chose to take the test, and while they didn’t do well, Dweck’s researchers heard them whispering under their breath, “This is my favorite test.” They loved the challenge. Finally, a third test was given, equally as hard as the first one. The result? The first group of students who were told they were smart, did worse. The second group did 30% better. Dweck concludes that our affirmation of kids must target factors in their control. When we say “you must have worked hard,” we are praising effort, which they have full control over. It tends to elicit more effort. When we praise smarts, it may provide a little confidence at first but ultimately causes a child to work less. They say to themselves, “If it doesn’t come easy, I don’t want to do it.”
What’s more, kids eventually observe that “mom” is the only one who thinks they’re “awesome.” No one else is saying it. They begin to doubt the objectivity of their own mother; it feels good in the moment, but it’s not connected to reality.
Further, Dr. Robert Cloninger, at Washington University in St. Louis has done brain research on the prefrontal cortex, which monitors the reward center of the brain. He says the brain has to learn that frustrating spells can be worked through. The reward center of our brains learns to say: Don’t give up. Don’t stop trying. “A person who grows up getting too frequent rewards,” Cloninger says, “will not have persistence, because they’ll quit when the rewards disappear.”
When we rave too easily, kids eventually learn to cheat, to exaggerate and lie and to avoid difficult reality. They have not been conditioned to face it. A helpful metaphor when considering this challenge is: inoculation. When you get inoculated, a nurse injects a vaccine, which actually exposes you to a dose of the very disease your body must learn to overcome. It’s a good thing. Only then do we develop an immunity to it. Similarly, our kids must be inoculated with doses of hardship, delay, challenges and inconvenience to build the strength to stand in them.

Eight Steps Toward Healthy Leadership

Obviously, negative risk taking should be discouraged, such as smoking, alcohol, illegal drugs, etc. In addition, there will be times our young people do need our help, or affirmation. But—healthy teens are going to want to spread their wings. They’ll need to try things on their own. And we, the adults, must let them. Here are some simple ideas you can employ as you navigate these waters:

1. Help them take calculated risks. Talk it over with them, but let them do it. Your primary job is to prepare your child for how the world really works.
2. Discuss how they must learn to make choices. They must prepare to both win and lose, not get all they want and to face the consequences of their decisions.
3. Share your own “risky” experiences from your teen years. Interpret them. Because we’re not the only influence on these kids, we must be the best influence.
4. Instead of tangible rewards, how about spending some time together? Be careful you aren’t teaching them that emotions can be healed by a trip to the mall.
5. Choose a positive risk taking option and launch kids into it (i.e. sports, jobs, etc). It may take a push but get them used to trying out new opportunities.
6. Don’t let your guilt get in the way of leading well. Your job is not to make yourself feel good by giving kids what makes them or you feel better when you give it.
7. Don’t reward basics that life requires. If your relationship is based on material rewards, kids will experience neither intrinsic motivation nor unconditional love.
8. Affirm smart risk-taking and hard work wisely. Help them see the advantage of both of these, and that stepping out a comfort zone usually pays off.

Bottom line? Your child does not have to love you every minute. He’ll get over the disappointment of failure but he won’t get over the effects of being spoiled. So let them fail, let them fall, and let them fight for what they really value. If we treat our kids as fragile, they will surely grow up to be fragile adults. We must prepare them for the world that awaits them. Our world needs resilient adults not fragile ones.

A commonly misinterpreted verse: Jeremiah 29:11

from here: http://4simpsons.wordpress.com/2013/03/21/a-commonly-misinterpreted-verse-jeremiah-2911/ 

 

Posted on March 21, 2013

Captain Buzzkill is back, ready to irritate some people by highlighting a popular but commonly misunderstood Bible verse!  But we can’t ignore 2 Timothy 2:15: Do your best to present yourself to God as one approved, a worker who has no need to be ashamed, rightly handling the word of truth.  Getting Bible verses wrong isn’t a felony, but if we love God and our neighbors we’ll want to be careful with his word and humbly change our views once we realize we’ve been mistaken.
Here’s the verse:

Jeremiah 29:11 For I know the plans I have for you, declares the LORD, plans for welfare and not for evil, to give you a future and a hope.

I used to misinterpret it. I can’t remember the last time I heard it used correctly. It is one of the top 10 searched verses on biblestudytools.com and often seen on blogs, Facebook, t-shirts, mugs, etc. as a blanket promise that God has great worldly things planned for you (jobs, health, etc.) or as a general message of consolation.  But even if part of the message is technically true (yes, God does know the plans He has for you), is that what the specific passage really means?
It is a fantastic verse in its context, but people rarely use it the correct way.  Reading just a little more of chapter 29 makes a big difference:

Jeremiah 29:1 These are the words of the letter that Jeremiah the prophet sent from Jerusalem to the surviving elders of the exiles, and to the priests, the prophets, and all the people, whom Nebuchadnezzar had taken into exile from Jerusalem to Babylon.

For starters, verse 11 is part of a letter written to some specific people in rather unusual circumstances.

Jeremiah 29:4 “Thus says the Lord of hosts, the God of Israel, to all the exiles whom I have sent into exile from Jerusalem to Babylon . . .
Jeremiah 29:10–11 “For thus says the Lord: When seventy years are completed for Babylon, I will visit you, and I will fulfill to you my promise and bring you back to this place. For I know the plans I have for you, declares the Lord, plans for welfare and not for evil, to give you a future and a hope.

That specific promise isn’t for all people at all times, or even all believers.  The more you read of chapter 29 – and chapters 28 and 30, for that matter — the more obvious the real meaning becomes.  If you are an Israelite living in Babylonian captivity over 2,500 years ago, then that promise is all for you.  Otherwise, you should consider the context.
And how would the commonly used theme be reconciled with passages like John 16:33, where Jesus promises tribulation rather than prosperity?  (“I have said these things to you, that in me you may have peace. In the world you will have tribulation. But take heart; I have overcome the world.”)
And as commenter Bridget noted, how do you reconcile the popular view of that passage with the Holocaust, the persecution of Christians in the early church and beyond, or even a glance at the newspaper?
But don’t be disappointed!  There is actually a great message in Jeremiah 29:11: God is merciful and loves to forgive.  God makes huge promises and keeps them. He controls the future.  He knew exactly what would happen 70 years later.  The Israelites were taken into captivity because of their rebellion and worship of false gods, but God promised to bring them back. And He did. But He did not make a generic promise to all people and at all times to prosper them.  That message is foreign to the text.
Some people share that verse with non-believers as if it applies to them, but that gives a false sense of security. God’s real message to them is the opposite. If they don’t repent and believe, what are his plans for them?  They will spend eternity in Hell.  It is hard to imagine a bigger difference than a blanket promise to prosper you versus a promise to send your unrepentant self to Hell.
But does that mean that we don’t have words of encouragement for people?  Not at all!  There are 31,172 verses left in the Bible, with plenty of words of compassion.  If you want to encourage people, try Matthew 11:28-30 instead:Come to me, all who labor and are heavy laden, and I will give you rest. Take my yoke upon you, and learn from me, for I am gentle and lowly in heart, and you will find rest for your souls. For my yoke is easy, and my burden is light. That points them to Jesus, and it applies to believers and unbelievers.
Or you can encourage and comfort believers with the correct application of Philippians 4:13 (another commonly misinterpreted verse) by reminding them that they can be content in any situation if they do everything through Christ.
So should you be a Bible-nanny and whale on people who misuse this or other verses?  Should you interrupt the sermon if your pastor reflexively uses that passage?  Of course not.  But I encourage you to be careful when reading any passage and gently point out the correct meaning wherever you can.  (“Why yes, God does know the future and He does make and keep great promises, just like He did to the Israelites in Babylonian captivity.”)
And you should read or listen to the Bible daily so that you regularly cover all of it.  You’ll be surprised how often you look at popular verses differently when you see them in their proper context.
As often happens, the real meaning of the verse is better than what we wanted it to mean.  So feel free to use the verse, but explain it properly.  It isn’t some lame consolation prize to teach that God knows and controls the future, and that He makes and keeps enormous promises — such as his promise to adopt you, forgive all your sins and eternally bless you if you repent and trust in Jesus.
Always read more than just one verse!  In fact, my rule of thumb is that if I don’t know the general context of a verse then I shouldn’t be quoting it.

The frightful level of thought control in American academia

from here: http://creation.com/review-free-to-think-caroline-crocker

A review of Free to Think: Why Scientific Integrity Matters by Dr Caroline Crocker
Leafcutter Press, Southworth, WA, 2010

Reviewed by John Woodmorappe

Dr Caroline Crocker, according to the opinions of many of her students, was an outstanding biology teacher. She was falsely accused of—horror of horrors—teaching creationism in class. Actually, all she had done was point out some of the weaknesses of evolutionary theory. For this, she was first demoted to teaching lab classes, and then—surprise—her contract was shortened and not renewed. Her dismissal for ‘teaching creationism’ was a kiss of death for her career. She found it very difficult to get another teaching job. She took legal action to fight the blatant discrimination that she had experienced, but her lawyer instead lost his reputation for helping a Darwin-doubter.
This book is not an easy read. There is so much detail that the reader may find it tedious. On the other hand, the documentation given to support its claims is exhaustive. Specific events and conversations are presented in minute detail. This work intersperses the author’s experiences with particular biology lessons. Profuse online and written references are included. Several appendices in the book include a glossary, copies of emails and letters from students (names blacked out to protect privacy), letters from faculty heads leading to Crocker’s dismissal, letters related to the grievance process, legal documents regarding the case, etc.

The challenges of being a new college teacher

The author describes how she became a college teacher in biology, and how she strove to make her classes informative and interesting. She told students who worked or had other commitments that they should not be taking her course if they do not have the time to study for it. If they found her policies unfair, they could withdraw from her course in favor of another one.
Crocker also had to deal with students who cheated on tests, and with students who wanted to pressure her for a grade that they had not earned. At one point in time, near the end of the grading period, she was repeatedly harassed by a gentleman who tried to get her to raise his grade. Eventually, she had to have the campus security escort him away from her. However, he did learn his lesson. He later took another course with her and, having learned how to apply himself, earned a high grade for that course.

Challenging evolutionary shibboleths

Crocker, while teaching biology classes, showed the fallacy of Kettlewell’s peppered moths as evidence for evolution. The proportion of dark and lighter moths varied, but they remained moths. What’s more, it turned out that the moths had been nailed to tree barks before being photographed; they do not habitually land on trunks. The actual cause for the shift from a gray-majority to black-majority moth population remains unclear.
She also discussed antibiotic-resistant bacteria. They remained bacteria. The same can be said for the Galápagos finches. Urey–Miller origin-of-life experiments do not even begin to account for the origin of life and its complexity.
All along, Crocker emphasized the fact that scientific theories, including ones that seemed unquestionable, get thrown out in the face of new evidence. She cited some examples.

ID is not religion

Cocker briefly showed some slides that illustrated the concept of Intelligent Design, but did not dwell on this topic. Despite being mischaracterized by its detractors as such, Intelligent Design is not creationism in disguise, nor is it, in of itself, a religious concept (though, of course, it can have theistic implications, just as evolution can have atheistic implications).

In fact, the recognition of design in nature does not, itself, lead to the identity of the designer. For instance, Crocker cites the SETI (Search for Extraterrestrial Intelligence) project. Attempts are made to distinguish random radio signals from those purposeful ones made by an extraterrestrial intelligence. This clearly is no religious exercise, nor endorsement of any religion. The nature of any putative extraterrestrial intelligence is irrelevant to the fact of any such intelligence. Who knows? It may be beyond our understanding or even our imagination.
Even simple everyday examples lead us to understand what is purposeful action and what is not, and it has nothing to do with religion. An example is given of a dead man found in the forest. Up to that point, his death may have been thought accidental or deliberate. An arrow is found in his chest. It could still have been an accident, or it could have been deliberate. Finally, a set of arrows is found embedded in his chest. Clearly, everyone knows that it was a deliberate act of murder. Crocker asks the student how they know this. “We just know”, they answer.
The non-religious nature of ID has other practical implications. Crocker adds:

“Even Einstein, although not a believer in a personal God, firmly believed that the physical laws governing the universe exhibited evidence of design. He used this principle to guide his work, ‘When I am judging a theory, I ask myself if I were God, would I have arranged the world in such a way?’” (p. 198).

In the modern ID movement, Dr Steven Fuller and Dr David Berlinski are examples of members who are not theists at all.

Embedded biology lessons

Apart from evolution-related issues, this book contains illustrated short biology lessons throughout the text. This in informative, but, to some readers, may serve as a distraction from the main subject of this book. The embedded biology lessons include those related to the function of T-helper cells and the immune system, DNA and protein synthesis, how to solve a chemistry problem (with numbers included), dominant and recessive traits, DNA use for solving crimes, intracellular communication, etc.

An outstanding teacher faces discrimination

By all objective measures, Crocker became an outstanding teacher. She got grants, and did other work far beyond what was required of her. She developed teaching materials that were used by other teachers. Her students consistently praised her, notwithstanding her strictness with tardiness and cheating.
It is humorous to see how, to this day, certain evolutionists continue to deny the obvious fact that her contract non-renewal was a blatant act of discrimination. To begin with, there was an ongoing demand for biology teachers at this school, so her contract non-renewal could not possibly have had anything to do with her services no longer being needed.
Dr Carter, her supervisor, in a meeting with Crocker, told her that there were complaints that she was teaching creationism. No proof was presented as to when and how she had taught creationism. In fact, the complaints were not even in writing. Numerous students then wrote letters categorically refuting the accusation.
The normal grievance procedure was not followed. Neither Carter nor any of the other faculty ever observed her actually teaching. Carter simply told her, out of the blue, that, from now on, she could only teach lab courses. In a later hearing, he said, correctly, that it was his prerogative to assign a teacher to lab courses. However, Crocker comments:

“But this completely begged the issue of him withdrawing me from teaching the lecture at the last minute, after the catalog had been published, and then telling me and others that the reason for it was to discipline me for teaching creationism” (p. 113).

(Imagine a department leader telling a professor that he was exercising his prerogative to assign teachers to lab courses, but doing so because the professor was black.)

www.sxc.hu/profile/fanf

Figure 1. Are universities really bastions of academic freedom?

This was only the beginning. It really got ugly when her professional file got tampered with. Her original 3-year contract was removed, and replaced with a 9-month contract. (Unfortunately, circumstances at the time had prevented her from making her own copy of the original 3-year contract). According to this bogus latter contract, she was already out of a job. Crocker was shocked at the brazen corruption involved in destroying evidence by tampering with her file and replacing the valid contract with a bogus one.
Although Crocker’s mind was centered on teaching, and helping students, and she disliked conflict and confrontation, she decided to pursue legal action to fight the discrimination that she had experienced. An attorney, Edward, prepared a case pro bono. Evidently, his law firm was bought out, and he was terminated. Perhaps ironically, Edward was unable to get another job, likely because he was tainted with the Darwin-doubting label.
Later, the ACLJ (American Center for Law and Justice) could not help her because her eviscerated file had prevented a credible legal case from being constructed about her situation.
As an aside, imagine what would happen if there was so much as a hint of suspicion about a professor’s contract not renewed because he/she was a Communist, a homosexual, or a habitual mocker of Christianity. Well-funded ‘civil liberties’ organizations would come to his/her defense in an instant.
Crocker tried and tried to get another teaching position. Despite her exemplary qualifications, she usually did not get as much as a response. She suspects that she had been blacklisted on the Internet.

Protecting science?

Although those who oppose any challenge to evolution profess to be defending science, they, ironically, are doing just the opposite. Crocker comments:

“We are being stifled into a politically correct ideology and scientists are being motivated more by fear about their reputations and hunt for money than by curiosity. Freedom of inquiry is allowed only within the context of accepting the ‘fact’ or neo-Darwinian evolution. This will have a huge negative impact not only on science, but also on our well-being and economy. One needs only to remember the consequences of Lysenkoism to understand” (p. 182).

She adds: “Science has immense potential for good or evil—I do not like the idea of giving over all scientific decisions to those who do not believe in academic freedom or scientific objectivity … ” (p. 194).
The stifling of free inquiry has practical implications, as Crocker relates:

“What about the all-important freedom to think in an unrestricted fashion in research institutes and university classrooms? In the United States, our inventiveness and ability to think outside the box is a large part of what makes us competitive in the global marketplace” (p. 182).

The dogmatic promulgation of Darwinian orthodoxy is widespread. Crocker says:

“The suppression of academic freedom and scientific objectivity is not just found at GMU. During the Louisiana House Educational Committee hearings on SB 773 in Baton Rouge in May of 2008, Bryan Carstens, a Louisiana State professor spoke proudly of how he and 59 other biology professors at LSU have signed a document confirming their public agreement with evolution. Since I was present at the hearing, I recall a revealing exchange when a house member wryly asked him what would happen to someone who refused to sign. The silence was deafening” (p. 185).

In spite of all the pressures to conform, several hundreds of qualified scientists from all over the world have signed a statement questioning the ability of neo-Darwinism to account for living things. It is regularly updated, and can be found online.¹ Of course, secularist fanatics will self-servingly dismiss all of them regardless of the facts. There are also many other scientists, known privately to Crocker, who have verbalized doubts about evolutionary theory but keep their views private for fear of their careers—well justified as Crocker’s experience shows.
Evolutionists excuse the actions against Crocker by asserting that academic freedom, and freedom of speech, does not allow one to say whatever one wants. If so, then who is to decide what the limits of expression are? Considering all the inflammatory and provocative statements college professors have made with impunity (especially against Christianity,² and in favour of Communist and Islamofascist murderers), this takes on further significance.

Conclusion

Lawyer Ben Stein said it best, on the back cover of this book:

“A chilling true life story of how free speech and free inquiry rights have simply vanished in a large swath of the academic community. This story would be depressing in a 1950’s Iron Curtain country. Unfortunately, it’s a contemporary American story and far more upsetting for that reason. This shutdown of the search for truth is not something that could happen. It DID happen.”

Dr Caroline Crocker has founded an organization dedicated to preparing college students for careers in science. It is called the American Institute for Technology and Science Education (AITSE), and can be accessed online.³
The kind of discrimination featured in this book will continue as long as evolutionists can get away with it. How long before believers wake up and start fighting back on a large scale for their rights?

Abortions vs miscarriages

from here: http://creation.com/abortions-vs-miscarriages

Published: 17 March 2013 (GMT+10)

Some pro-abortionists think that since there is not as much overt campaigning against miscarriages as there is against abortion it invalidates the pro-lifer’s claim to care about the well-being of unborn babies. Is this right? Cory D. from the United States writes:

sxc.hu/ugaldew

A friend of mine sent an article in support of abortion [Ed.—Link removed as per feedback rules]. I believe the biblical concepts that life begins at conception and that taking an innocent human life is wrong; therefore I think it follows that Christians need to oppose abortion.

However, this article brought up an argument I’ve never faced before. It claims that if the reason someone opposes abortion is to save the lives of unborn babies, there should be more of an effort to save the unborn babies who die naturally. It concludes that because the attention given to abortions far outweighs that given to miscarriages, opponents of abortion are being inconsistent.

I found this to be the most difficult argument to refute. Should there be 5k’s for miscarried babies like the author suggested? I would appreciate any help you can provide.

Sincerely, 

Cory.

CMI’s Lita Cosner responds:
Dear Cory,
I always find it interesting that people use other dying babies as an argument against the pro-life position: “Well, these babies die, so why do you care about this other group of babies that are being brutally killed?” I can’t speak for all pro-lifers, but I care about premature babies, small victims of child abuse, women in desperate situations who may be unable to care for another child without help, and all the other groups that are used to try to make pro-lifers feel guilty about speaking out against murdering babies in the womb.

The pro-life issue revolves around abortion for a reason—it is the single biggest threat to the baby in the womb.

Many miscarriages result because something went wrong in fertilization, or there was some error in the developmental process which means that the baby could never have made it to term. There are instances now where in utero surgery can help the baby survive, and pro-lifers would fully support such measures. We also support the development of technology to help save the lives of babies born earlier and earlier; I think when smaller and smaller babies are being saved thanks to advances in their care, that’s a win for everyone. If the goal is to save as many babies as possible with medical advances, putting funding into refining in utero surgery and premature neonatal care would be the way to go, given that so many miscarriages are impossible to prevent (but of course preventing miscarriages, where possible, is great too—it’s not an either-or thing). But the babies that are killed by abortion are usually healthy and need no extraordinary medical care to make it to term; they just need to be allowed to develop in their mothers’ wombs. Seeking to prevent people killing them, people who are acting with deliberate intent to end their lives, is obviously and categorically different from the medical/biological things that happen in this fallen world. If I lived in the Jim Crow South last century, would it be wrong for me to speak up about black men being lynched and civil rights workers being attacked and killed, because other people die from drowning in swimming pools? That’s how ridiculous this argument sounds to me, to be honest.
I consider myself holistically pro-life; I support anything that will help women make the decisions that keep them from having the ‘unwanted pregnancy’ in the first place (and if part of that equation is, ‘Don’t sleep around with men you barely know’, is that such a terrible thing? Women are rarely empowered in such circumstances), pregnancy centers that provide resources for low-income and other at-risk women to provide alternatives to abortion, and programs that help women take care of their babies, or put them up for adoption if that’s their choice. But the pro-life issue revolves around abortion for a reason—it is the single biggest threat to the baby in the womb.
Sincerely,
Lita Cosner

For a Season

FROM HERE: http://www.wisdomhunters.com/2013/03/for-a-season/

There is a time for everything, and a season for every activity under the heavens. Ecclesiastes 3:1

 Most everything in life is for a season. Jobs are for a season. Relationships are for a season. Hobbies are for a season. Homes are for a season. Small children and teenagers are for a season. Grandchildren are for a season. Youth is for a season.  Economic upturns and downturns are for a season. Family vacations are for a season. Formal education is for a season. Income generating years are for a season. Good health is for a season. Life on earth is for a season.

Perhaps you find yourself in a season within a season. You are eager to move on to a new stage of life, but the Lord still has lessons for you to learn before you transition. Or, you may not want to let go of where you are for fear of what lies ahead in the next chapter of your life. Either way, Jesus will show you the right way, and He will walk with you through the process. So, enjoy this season (do not wish it away), slow down, engage with God and all He wants you to experience.

Even the stork in the sky knows her appointed seasons, and the dove, the swift and the thrush observe the time of their migration. But my people do not know the requirements of the Lord. Jeremiah 8:7

What does the Lord require of you in this season? You have an 18 year span of time for your child to be under your roof and under your direct influence and authority. Now is the time to travel less at work or not at all, so you can be all there for your son or daughter. Moreover, it is stressful as a mom to give 24/7 emotionally, physically and spiritually. But, your sacrificial love carries Christ’s love into the life of your child.  Yes, the intensity of parenting is for a season.

Is it time to let go of your role at work? It may be better stewardship for a leader with a different gift mix to be responsible. Don’t wear out your welcome. It's better to transition out on friendly terms than to be forced out in resentment. The peak of your performance is the best time to prepare for a new season of service. Wisdom watches for the winds of change and rides them on the wings of faith. Hold this season with an open hand and your next season will be significant!

Praise be to the name of God for ever and ever; wisdom and power are his. He changes times and seasons; he deposes kings and raises up others. He gives wisdom to the wise and knowledge to the discerning. Daniel 2:20-21

from here: http://creation.com/attacks-accusations

Personal attacks and accusations but no substance

Published: 23 March 2013 (GMT+10)

In response to the author’s road-trip report where creationism was on trial, a skeptic, David Q. (USA) e-mailed us, claiming that one of our associate speakers Phil Robinson is brainwashed and teaching blatantly false information. The e-mail appears first in its entirety, then interspersed with Phil Robinson’s responses:

David Shankbone, Wikipedia

Arguments about God can become very heated.

This is directly to Phil Robinson. If you haven’t spent so much of your life and “education” (I use the term loosely) to brainwashing yourself or teaching yourself blatantly false information, I doubt that you would be as arrogant as you are. I just saw a video claiming that atheists aren’t willing to debate so-called educated theists. I challenge that thought and propose an argument to you. You are the one making the positive claim, so prove to us that your god is true. I won’t accept anything less than vetted, peer-reviewed sources. Your bible is less than a fifth-removed anecdotal tale of some extremely primitive and non-scientific accounts of how people who didn’t even understand the mechanics of child birth trying to understand how the universe works. Alternatively, I can present THOUSANDS of argument that disprove your specific cult, oops I meant sect, of christianity, or whatever the hell you believe in.

Let me state my mission here. I am firmly against the believing in junk science. Actually, let me retract that statement a bit. “id’ or creationism (they don’t deserve to be capitalized) cannot be categorized as junk science. Junk science may actually start off with scientifically viable hypotheses whereas “id” or “creationism” are absolute delusional and idiotic stances. Your stance that the bible (not sure which version you’re referring to) is the true, LITERAL account of how we began is absolutely laughable. I can disprove the story of genesis in my sleep yet you think that you want to debate real educated atheists? If you simply want to argue for god then I present you with a question that is unanswerable to your kind, “Which god?”

Phil Robinson responds:

This is directly to Phil Robinson. If you haven’t spent so much of your life and “education” (I use the term loosely) to brainwashing yourself or teaching yourself blatantly false information, I doubt that you would be as arrogant as you are.

Hi David,
For someone who, as far as I am aware, has never met me, perhaps if wanting to engage in some meaningful dialogue, an insult is not the best way to open? However, if you are trying to equate arrogance with exclusivity, then you are heading down the wrong path. Explaining and defending the truth of biblical creation and in turn the Bible and the Gospel, and presenting it as the truth, is not arrogant, but it is exclusive. Truth by definition is exclusive, as it excludes all falsehood. In the Bible we read that Jesus is truth and that everyone on the side of truth listens to him (John 18:37); so faith in Jesus is exclusive. He himself said, “I am the way, and the truth, and the life. No one comes to the Father except through me.” (John 14:6).
Have you ever studied the Bible’s prophetic accuracy concerning the truth of Jesus? My personal favourite can be found in Isaiah 53 which accurately describes Jesus’ vicarious suffering and death for our sins. Isaiah 53:9 reads, “He was assigned a grave with the wicked, and with the rich in his death”. In the original, the Hebrew the word for wicked (rashayim) is plural, and the word for rich (ashir) singular. This prophecy concerning Jesus was written more than 700 years before it occurred and yet we know that he was crucified with a thief on either side of him—and thus assigned a grave with the wicked (Matthew 27:38)—and that he was buried in the tomb of a rich man, Joseph of Arithamea—and thus with the rich in his death (Matthew 27:57–60). This is only one of hundreds of examples. For more reasons to believe the truth contained in the Bible see here. The reason I am so concerned about telling people the Good News of Jesus Christ and defending biblical creation is that there are eternal consequences for peoples’ souls. My desire is that they find peace with God now as they turn to him and repent of their sin. Explaining this to people is love, not arrogance.

However, on this issue, critical thinking has all but been banned in our secular education system.

In my own undergraduate and postgraduate studies I was certainly not brainwashed as my lecturers and professors were definitely not advocating a biblical position on Creation. In fact, some of them were even hostile to Christianity in general. It was because of this that, during my academic years, I read very widely on the issue of Creation/evolution and examined fully what people told me, looking at their biases, presuppositions and the evidence they were presenting. It was through reading the Bible, prayer and critical thinking that I came to the position I now hold. However, on this issue, critical thinking has all but been banned in our secular education system. The brainwashing is occurring in schools and universities not creationist churches. For example, in 2008 evolutionist Prof. Michael Reiss, the Royal Society’s director of education, had to resign under firm pressure within days of merely suggesting that creationism and ID could be discussed in classrooms! You can also read how the evidence for biblical creation is now being censored in UK schools. To get a fuller grasp you might also want to read Dr Jerry Bergman’s Slaughter of the Dissidents or view the documentary Expelled for further examples of how anyone who questions the evolution mainstream paradigm is treated.
I can only presume that the ‘blatantly false information’ that you are talking about refers to the kind of information that you find on the CMI website. The thing that I have always treasured about CMI is that they use the biblical principle of “as iron sharpens iron, so man sharpens man” (Proverbs 27:17), and thus the information put up on the website is very carefully examined before being published. Perhaps you could have given an example of ‘blatant falsehood’ from one of the fully searchable 8,000+ articles rather than just be vague?

I just saw a video claiming that atheists aren’t willing to debate so-called educated theists. I challenge that thought and propose an argument to you.

While it’s hard to comment on the particular video that you viewed, I am aware of numerous times when atheists have refused to debate both educated theists and creationists; for examples see here. One personal example I can share is when speaking with Professor Donald Prothero in April 2012 at Lipan Point, Grand Canyon. When I asked him if he would speak to a creationist geologist, someone trained in his own particular field, about the Grand Canyon he replied, “I wouldn’t waste my time, I have a life”. This is not a scientific argument, but one of simple ridicule which is seen over and over again, and is hardly credible. The truth of the matter is that atheism, evolution and all that it pretends to be simply does not stand up to scrutiny, as a proper examination of this website and the resources available on it reveal.

You are the one making the positive claim, so prove to us that your god is true. I won’t accept anything less than vetted, peer-reviewed sources.

You ask for proof, but then say you will only accept it on your own terms. Do you really seek the truth or have you already decided what way to live your life? You have set a standard that will prove nothing as you expect the very people who publish in secular journals, who reject the Bible, to prove it to you.
However, in saying that, you will find that the Bible which is God-breathed (2 Tim 3:16) and every word true (Psalm 119:160), in a very different way, is the most reviewed source that you will find. Millions have testimonies of experiencing the knowledge of salvation through Jesus Christ by reading its pages and seeing the truth contained in it. I heartily recommend it to you. Have you ever studied it for yourself? You will also find that CMI produce their own peer-reviewed Journal of Creation and, as explained earlier, all web articles are carefully checked and pass through an editorial process before being published. For arguments on the existence of God see here and for understanding that you cannot disprove God see Probably no God?

Your bible is less than a fifth-removed anecdotal tale of some extremely primitive and non-scientific accounts of how people who didn’t even understand the mechanics of child birth trying to understand how the universe works.

I can clearly tell that you are indeed quoting peer reviewed sources yourself with an argument like that! I missed the references though—did you forget to include them? In regard to the Bible being less than a fifth removed anecdotal tale, Dr Clark Pinnock sums up rather nicely what is actually the case: “There exists no document from the ancient world witnessed by so excellent a set of textual and historical testimonies, and offering so superb an array of historical data on which an intelligent decision may be made. An honest man cannot dismiss a source of this kind. Skepticism regarding the historical credentials of Christianity is based upon irrational fear”.¹ The historical accuracy of the Bible has been proven time and time again, showing that it is not “less than a fifth removed-anecdotal tale”. For example, in the 1800s, critics of the Bible argued that the Hittite empire, known only from the Bible, never existed. While this was an argument from silence, it was nevertheless hurled at Christians. In the late 1800s a range of ancient documents were found in Egypt and Turkey with references to the Hittites and, in 1906, the ruins of the Hittite empire were discovered, silencing the critics. Evidence for long-forgotten empires, historical events and persons in history contained within the Bible are frequently shown to be accurate, even in respect of persons only receiving the briefest of mentions; an example is one of Nebuchadnezzar’s court officials, Nebo-Sarsekim mentioned in Jeremiah 39:3, found to be mentioned in a recently deciphered clay tablet in the British museum. For further examples you may wish to read a very interesting interview with archaeologist Dr Clifford Wilson.
In regard to the mechanics of child birth the Bible appears to be quite clear. For example, right in the beginning, in Genesis, in respect of Eve and her first born Cain, Genesis 4:1 states, “Adam lay with his wife Eve, and she became pregnant.” That childbirth would involve pain (Genesis 3:16) and, while pain is a spectrum, from being present during child birth and having talked with a range of women who have been through it, I have never come across one who described it as totally pain free. Lastly after becoming pregnant, she then, “gave birth to Cain” (Genesis 4:1). Adam and Eve understood perfectly what was going on as they fulfilled God’s command to be fruitful and multiply (Genesis 1:28). Instead the truth is that you have failed to present even a syllable of evidence that the Bible writers did not understand the mechanics of childbirth! This is an accusation with no substance and, to be fair, you wrote to us, so you should really have taken the time to explain why you chose to state this.
Regarding the cosmos, the Bible was able to record more than 4000 years ago that God, “Hangs the earth on nothing” (Job 26:7), literally “it floats in space” which we now know to be the case.

Alternatively, I can present THOUSANDS of argument that disprove your specific cult, oops I meant sect, of christianity, or whatever the hell you believe in.

And yet you have presented none. You have simply used a tactic called elephant hurling, throwing out the statement “I can present thousands of arguments” to give the impression that you have weighty arguments, but in actual fact you have presented nothing but fact-free assertions. In regard to what we at CMI believe, our statement of faith may be found here, which you could have taken the time to read, outlining the core tenets of the Christian faith as they always have been. For examples of Church Fathers who believed in biblical creation see here and here; an example of one of the great leaders of the 16th Century Reformation, John Calvin, is given here, and you can also read here what Jesus taught in regard to the age of the earth.

Let me state my mission here. I am firmly against the believing in junk science. Actually, let me retract that statement a bit. "id" or creationism (they don’t deserve to be capitalized) cannot be categorized as junk science.

A mission? Sounds like a religious zeal? Well we actually have two things in common here: I too am firmly against believing in junk science. That’s why I try to educate people in regard to the fallacy of evolution. I would also agree that biblical creationism and the concepts behind ID² cannot be categorized as junk science. Like evolutionary belief, biblical creation is a world-view, but one which is supported by true science as the many well documented articles throughout this website testify. There are plenty of examples of evolutionary junk science though, such as the continuing belief that life came from non-living matter, despite this contradicting the known laws of science. Or slightly further on in the story, how did sex originate? This is a question that evolutionists never seem to address. Just how did useful male and female sexual organs evolve just at the right time? A part evolved sex organ would be useless and selected against. For more questions that the junk science of evolution cannot answer see Question Evolution!

Junk science may actually start off with scientifically viable hypotheses whereas “id” or “creationism” are absolute delusional and idiotic stances. Your stance that the bible (not sure which version you’re referring to) is the true, LITERAL account of how we began is absolutely laughable.

I presume by further mocking you now hope to a score a point. Do you realise that you have actually said nothing of any substance but simply made derogatory statements? Genesis is written as a historical narrative and not as a scientific text book; however the scientific statements that it does make are accurate in all respects. While Genesis can never be scientifically proven, it is demonstrably consistent with the evidence around us. For example the evolutionary model would not have predicted that everyone on the planet would be traced back to one woman, Mitochondrial Eve, and that there would be three main mitochondrial DNA sublineages. However, this is fully concordant with the Bible which states that we all came from Eve, the mother of all living (Genesis 3:20), and then from the three wives of the sons of Noah (Genesis 9:18,19).

It is also impossible for evolutionists to explain how dinosaur soft tissue can exist in bones which they say date to 65MYA+.

We also know that sedimentary rocks, laid down in processes that we do not see today, i.e. sometimes over many hundreds of kilometres over the earth’s crust, contain marine fossils even on the highest mountain tops, such as Mt Everest. Many of the fossils contained in these rock layers are exquisitely preserved and soft bodied indicating that they were formed very quickly. This fits very well with what we would expect to find after a catastrophic world-wide flood, which the Bible teaches occurred in the time of Noah. It does not fit well with the secular uniformitarian view that the rocks were built up by slow and gradual processes over millions of years. It is also impossible for evolutionists to explain how dinosaur soft tissue can exist in bones which they say date to 65MYA+. The existence of well-preserved dinosaur tissue, however, is easily explained within a biblical creationist framework, as this would be understood to be just a few thousand years old.

I can disprove the story of genesis in my sleep yet you think that you want to debate real educated atheists?

And yet you have not.

If you simply want to argue for god then I present you with a question that is unanswerable to your kind, “Which god?”

Rather than being unanswerable this is actually one of my favourite questions and one that I ask people all the time when I am out evangelising. You see there is only one true God (Isaiah 44:6). He makes himself known to us through His Word, the Bible. However a lot of people have created their own gods which exist only in their imaginations—gods that allow them to live how they want, and they still get to a heaven in the end; gods who will look favourable upon them and their families and not punish their sin; gods who are not personal to them, but distant, and who don’t really bother much with them or affect their daily lives. However these ‘god’s are not real and have no power.
Rather the Bible presents the one true God who, in His omnipotence, formed the universe by His command (Hebrews 11:3). He has no equal (Isaiah 40:21–31), and cannot be deceived or mocked as He knows all your ways (Galatians 6:7). He who wants to interact with the mind that he has given you in a fully intelligent way (Isaiah 1:18), and knowing that we could not save ourselves from our sin, sent His Son, Jesus Christ, to pay the price for our sins (John 3:16). I hope that you, “Stop trusting man, who has but a breath in his nostrils. Of what account is he?” (Isaiah 2:22), “take refuge in the Lord” (Psalm 118:8) and come to true repentance and knowledge of saving faith through Jesus Christ.
Every blessing,
Phil

The root of our ecological crisis

by Preston Bristow

from: http://creation.com/the-root-of-our-ecological-crisis

Summary

Christianity has been called arrogant toward nature and charged with being the historical root of our ecological crisis. It is therefore appropriate that we not only explore the Christian and Biblical basis of land conservation and stewardship, but go beyond that to ask the question, ‘What is the root of our ecological crisis?’ The following article addresses this criticism by presenting land conservation and stewardship from a Biblical worldview and challenges Christians to apply the Biblical principles of Christian stewardship to the use of God's Creation.

Crimes against nature

In 1967, Lynn White, an historian from the University of California, published an article in Science magazine entitled ‘The Historical Roots of Our Ecological Crisis’.¹ In his article, White maintained that because modern science and technology are products of Western culture, and because Western culture has at its roots in Christian attitudes and principles, and because Christianity is arrogant toward nature and views nature as having no reason for existence except to serve mankind, then Christianity bears a huge burden of guilt for our current ecological crisis. Lynn White’s article, while published over 30 years ago, is considered in academic circles to be the definitive indictment of Christianity for crimes against nature. And modern conservationists and environmentalists, although they may not remember Lynn White, generally hold the view that Christianity is environmentally unfriendly. It is worth examining in some detail the allegation that Christianity is arrogant toward nature.
The portion of Scripture most quoted by critics who consider Christianity to be arrogant toward nature is found in Genesis:

‘And God created man in His own image, in the image of God He created him; male and female he created them. And God blessed them; and God said to them, “Be fruitful and multiply, and fill the earth, and subdue it; and rule over the fish of the sea and over the birds of the sky, and over every living thing that moves on the earth”’ (Genesis 1:27–28).

These two verses tell us three critical points about the Christian and Biblical bases of land conservation and stewardship.

1. Human beings did not evolve from non-human primates, but were created in the image of God. Men and women are more than merely very complex and highly evolved apes. They possess physical attributes that are not shared by animals, such as an erect posture, hands with a highly developed opposable thumb that can do work, faces capable of expressing great emotional feelings, and a brain and tongue capable of articulate speech. More importantly, they possess spiritual attributes not shared by animals, such as a moral consciousness, the ability to think abstractly, an understanding of beauty, emotion, and the capacity to know and worship God.
2. Human beings are commanded by God to be fruitful and to populate the earth. Men, women and children are this world's greatest resource, not its greatest liability. Estimates of the world’s human carrying capacity, that is, how many people this world can sustainably support, are meaningless unless we answer the question of how many people can be supported at what level of material affluence and habits of consumption. While the six-fold increase in world population over the past two centuries has been alarming, our world is currently undergoing a demographic transition. The United Nations recently estimated that 44% of the world's population live in countries where the fertility rate has fallen below the replacement rate, and demographers are now predicting that world population will peak within 50 years and then decline, perhaps sharply, with potentially serious consequences.²
3. God entrusted humans to be the Earth's stewards. To subdue the Earth and rule it, while not phrased in politically correct speech, is analogous to the process of gardening. For a garden to be a success, the soil must be broken up, seeds planted, the initial seedlings thinned, the young plants watered, weeds pulled, and pests controlled, but in the end there is a harvest. Gardening involves subduing and ruling a small patch of wild nature to yield a benefit useful to people. The Scriptures even tell us that it was God who planted the Garden of Eden as a home for the first man and woman (Genesis 2:8)—as if providing an example for us to follow. On a worldwide scale, subduing and ruling is like managing and administering. Humankind has been given the honor and privilege of managing and administering God’s creation, with the expectation that we will do it responsibly.

If Christianity is not to blame, then what is the root of our ecological crisis? Interestingly, the answer to that question—and a solution—can be found in an examination of the historic roots of the environmental movement itself.

For usufruct alone

It has been said that the international environmental movement had its beginnings in the rock-strewn, clear-cut, soil-depleted fields of the state of Vermont, USA., with the birth of George Perkins Marsh in Woodstock, Vermont, in 1801.³ George’s father, Charles Marsh, was Woodstock’s first attorney, a Calvinist and admirer of legendary preacher Jonathan Edwards and something of a naturalist himself. In 1864, while US Ambassador to Italy, George Perkins Marsh published Man and Nature, the first book to attack the myth of the superabundance and inexhaustibility of the earth. Man and Nature has been called the ‘fountainhead of the conservation movement’,⁴ and his legacy is honoured at Woodstock's Marsh-Billings-Rockefeller National Historical Park, the only US national park to focus on the theme of conservation history and the changing nature of land stewardship in America.
Perhaps the best known quote from Man and Nature is, ‘Man has too long forgotten that the earth was given to him for usufruct alone, not for consumption, still less for profligate waste.’⁵ Except for the use of the obscure legal term usufruct, which can most simply be translated as ‘fruitful use’, Marsh’s words are as powerful and relevant today as they were 137 years ago. They are also Biblically and theologically correct. Having defined the symptom, Marsh also correctly defined the cause as human indifference, shortsightedness, selfishness and greed.
Marsh once wrote to a friend that he held it a ‘duty to adhere to the religion of one's cradle until one finds a less objectionable one, which I have not.’⁶ In other words, he accepted the principles of Christianity but had not experienced its life-changing power. Like many who embrace Christianity only part way, Marsh underestimated the selfishness of our fallen human character, and the need for a changed heart and mind before people can do what is right. Instead, Marsh’s antidote for wanton destruction and profligate waste was enlightened self-interest, science and reform by benevolent imposition. This is what environmentalists have continued to do for the past 135 years: encourage conservation, seek technological solutions and press for government regulations. It’s been a losing battle, and our world ecological crisis continues to deepen.⁷

Frugal Vermonters

Human selfishness, greed and carelessness are moral problems that require a moral solution. A change of morals requires a change of the mind and the heart, and it is only God who can change minds and hearts. Listen to the promise God gave King Solomon:

‘If My people who are called by My name will humble themselves and pray, and seek My face and turn from their wicked ways, then I will hear from heaven, will forgive their sin, and will heal their land’ (2 Chronicles 7:14).

An example of this principle at work can be illustrated through the story of the state of Vermont, which has been called the ‘birthplace’ of conservation stewardship in the USA, and not only because George Perkins Marsh was born there.
After the Vermont territory was opened to European settlement, following the end of the French and Indian War in 1760, wildlife was all but eradicated due to very heavy trapping for furs, the forests being stripped for logging and for farming, and the barren hillsides being over-grazed by merino sheep. By 1850, in less than 100 years, Vermont had become an ecological wasteland.⁸ Then something almost miraculous happened. Over the next 100 years, from 1850 to 1950, Vermont was transformed from an ecological basket case to a special place with a picturesque pastoral landscape known the world over.⁹ How did this happen? The conventional answer is that the American West opened up following the Civil War, marginal and high elevation farms were abandoned, the human population stabilized and the land was allowed to recover.
Economic stagnation and loss of population, however, usually lead to a downward spiral into poverty and ignorance. In Vermont, the opposite happened. Why is that? I believe it is because Vermont got religion. When the pioneers and the adventure seekers headed West, most of whom were deists anyway, those left behind turned to God in a deeply devout, Yankee sort of way. Although it seems to go unmentioned in contemporary versions of Vermont history, Christian conversions and a turning toward God swept Vermont before and after the Civil War.¹⁰ In fact, Vermont’s first tourist publication, issued by the Vermont Bureau of Publicity in 1911, was entitled: Vermont, Designed by the Creator for the Playground of the Continent.
The life of Vermont's communities during this period was centered on the church and the Protestant work ethic. The Protestant work ethic is misunderstood today. It is often bemoaned that the longer hours Americans are now working represents a return to the Protestant work ethic. The real reason Americans are working longer hours and holding down multiple jobs is because they want more money to buy more things! One of the better definitions of the Protestant work ethic is actually found in the Vermont Constitution, which states ‘a firm adherence to justice, moderation, temperance, industry, and frugality are absolutely necessary to preserve the blessings of liberty, and keep government free’ (Chapter I, Article 18).¹¹
Vermonters of this period of recovery from ecological disaster were a frugal people. When I arrived in Vermont 30 years ago, you could still hear the expression ‘Use it up, wear it out, make it do, or do without.’ Today, that kind of thinking is greeted with amusement, ridicule or even contempt. Moderation and frugality combined with work is a fundamental tenet of Biblical Christianity which is practised for the benefit of the community as a whole.¹² Under the Biblical model, hard working and frugal people are content, are not a burden on society or their neighbors, and willingly give of their excess to help others in need. It also happens that hard working and frugal people are good stewards of their land and resources, who live a more sustainable lifestyle in the context of the natural world around them.

Christian stewardship

Why is it that Christianity does not have this earth healing effect everywhere it reaches? I propose two reasons, which I lay at the foot of all Christian believers as a challenge to their basic assumptions and thinking about this world and their place in it.
The first challenge is to our almost unqualified embrace of the current economics of growth and consumerism. Traditional capitalism’s emphasis on work and the rewards of honest labor, restrained by Christianity and the Bible’s many admonishments against greed and covetousness, produced great benefits for the good of society. Today, with Christianity relegated to the margins of society, the economics of growth and consumerism are spiralling upward unchecked, driven by relentless advertising and promulgating a worldview based upon dissatisfaction and craving. We are daily bombarded with appeals that we will be happier if we buy more things that we don’t really need, that soon wear out, that bring only fleeting pleasure, and ultimately leave us in greater debt. This drive to earn more so we can get more has resulted in a booming economy, but at a disastrous cost to the human spirit and world ecology.
The second challenge is to our assumption that this world does not matter in the eternal scheme of things. It is interesting to note that the bestselling Christian fiction series of all time is the Left Behind series by Tim LaHaye and Jerry Jenkins, which is about the last days.¹³ The minds and hearts of Christians are focused less on this life and more on the life to come, and rightly so. Biblical prophecy predicts the destruction of this world and the creation by God of a new heavens and a new earth. If this world and everything in it is headed for destruction, then why should we worry about some ecological degradation along the way?
The answer to these challenges is found in a right understanding of Christian stewardship. Christian stewardship is based on the concept that everything we have was given to us—our health, our emotions, our intellect, our talents, the social and economic benefits into which we have been born, and all we do or earn or make with what God has given us—all ultimately are gifts from God for which we cannot take credit. In fact, because God created everything, He owns everything and they are only on loan to us. We are not owners but caretakers. And as the Biblical parable of the Talents¹⁴ tells us, we will be held accountable to God for what we do with the resources He has entrusted to us.
Frederick and Julia Billings, and their granddaughter Mary French Rockefeller, were professing believers in Jesus Christ and understood the concept of Christian stewardship. It was their implementation of the principles of George Perkins Marsh at Marsh’s boyhood home that led to its becoming a national historical park dedicated to conservation stewardship. It was their spirit and example that surely contributed to Woodstock being recognized as the prettiest small town in America.¹⁵ They demonstrated through a century of careful management their belief that stewardship of God's Creation does matter! If we treat this world shabbily to meet our greed, our pleasure, our convenience, or our supposed materialistic, consumptive and consumer-driven needs, we are not glorifying God as the Maker of Heaven and Earth.

Creation groans

Scripture hints at a mystical and even more compelling reason to care for His Creation. In Romans 8:21–22, the Apostle Paul writes the following very curious and profound statement:

‘… the creation itself also will be set free from its slavery to corruption into the freedom of the glory of the children of God. For we know that the whole creation groans and suffers the pains of childbirth together until now.’

The historical creeds and confessions of Christianity emphasize that not only the souls but also the bodies of those who trust in Jesus Christ will be resurrected and transformed into renewed, perfected and glorified bodies.¹⁶ The resurrection of the physical body was emphasized by the New Testament writers and the historic creeds and confessions of Christianity because of the Gnostic heresy. The Gnostics maintained that only the spirit went to heaven and so it didn't matter what immoral actions were committed in the physical body. Christians are guilty of a type of modern day Gnosticism if they maintain that, because we are heaven bound, it does not matter what we do to this physical earth. According to the Apostle Paul, not only will our bodies be resurrected but the very creation itself, in some mystical way, will be transformed and renewed, actually reborn, and freed from the effects of the Curse, the Flood and human abuse.

Conclusion

Biblical Christianity, far from being the root of our ecological crisis, in fact offers not only a credible explanation for our ecological crisis but also the very solution to our ecological crisis. As the popular author Wendell Berry has stated it, our ecological crisis is a crisis of character, not a political or social crisis.¹⁷ Enlightened self-interest alone is not sufficient motivation for fallen human beings to deny gratification and sacrifice desires. The religion of consumerism is a spiritual problem, and we must fight fire with fire. Spiritual problems require spiritual solutions. Jesus Christ can transform our fallen and sinful natures, and truly change our character and our values. The promise of eternal happiness with Jesus Christ can free us from relentless pleasure seeking in this life, and can give us the peace of knowing that this corrupted and abused world will be redeemed and made perfect forevermore.

References

1. White, Jr., L., The historical roots of our ecological crisis, Science 155(3767):1203, 1967.
2. For a readable explanation of this demographic transition see Singer, M., The population surprise, The Atlantic Monthly p. 22, August 1999 and also the home page of the Population Research Institute at <http://www.pop.org>.
3. Albers, J., Hands on the Land: A History of the Vermont Landscape, MIT Press, Cambridge, MA, p. 196, 1999.
4. Mumford, L., The Brown Decades: A Study of the Arts in America, 1865-1895 (1931) rev. ed., Dover, New York, 1955.
5. Marsh, G.P., Man and Nature (1864), Lowenthal, D. (Ed.), Harvard University Press, Cambridge, p. 36, 1965.
6. Lowenthal, D., George Perkins Marsh: Prophet of Conservation, University of Washington Press, Seattle, p. 375, 2000.
7. Conflicted as Marsh may have been in his faith, it is important to note that the man behind ‘the fountainhead of the conservation movement’ did not embrace the ideas of his contemporary, Charles Darwin, who sought to locate man as part of nature. As Marsh wrote to his publisher, ‘nothing is further from my belief, that man is a “part of nature” or that his action is controlled by the laws of nature …’ (Lowenthal, Ref. 6, p. 291).
8. For a readable portrayal of the cultural forces that produced the Vermont of today see: Klyza, C.McG. and Trombulak, S.C., The Story of Vermont, Middlebury College Press, Hanover, NH, 1999; also Albers, Ref. 3.
9. Vermont has been recognized by National Geographic Traveler (October, 1999) as one of the top 50 places to visit in the world, and the National Trust for Historic Preservation (USA) has placed the entire state of Vermont on its list of America’s ‘Most Endangered Historic Places’ (June, 1993).
10. While not flatteringly told, a confirmation of Vermont’s evangelization can be found in: Lee, W.S., Go tell it on the mountain, The Green Mountains of Vermont, Henry Holt, New York, 1955.
11. A copy of the Constitution of the State of Vermont can be obtained at the Vermont Legislative Home Page at <http://www.leg.state.vt.us/statutes/const2.htm>.
12. Nash, J.A., Toward the revival and reform of the subversive virtue: frugality; in: Chapman, A.R., Peterson, R.L. and Smith-Moran, B. (Eds.), Consumption, Population and Sustainability: Perspectives from Science and Religion, Island Press, Washington, 2000.
13. The Left Behind series is published by Tyndale House Publishers, Wheaton.
14. See Matthew 25:14–30.
15. Waugh, K., The prettiest small town in America, Ladies Home Journal, p. 170, October 1998.
16. See the Apostle’s Creed and the Westminster Confession of Faith of 1647, Chapter XXXII, among others; based on 1 Cor. 15:51 and 1 Thes. 4:16–17.
17. Berry, W., The ecological crisis as a crisis of character; in: The Unsettling of America: Culture and Agriculture, Sierra Club Books, San Francisco, 1996.

Preston Bristow has a B.S. (High Distinction) in botany and plant pathology from the University of Maine. He has been a conservationist and land steward for more than 20 years, and is an elder at the First Congregational Church of Woodstock, Vermont. He is interested in learning of other landscapes healed and transformed through Christian stewardship.