The Empty Tomb.

The Empty Tomb

We have before us today the open sepulcher, the bewildered alarm it caused, and the faith it both elicited and excited. John’s Gospel comes to a conclusion in chapter 20 with a proclamation of Jesus’ victory over death and then is followed in chapter 21 by an epilogue.

Each Gospel writer stresses certain aspects of the discovery of the empty tomb. John began his resurrection story with a testimony of how he came to personal faith in the Resurrection by considering the evidence found in the open tomb. The empty tomb bore witness to a physical or bodily resurrection of the Lord Jesus Christ. Contrary to cult heresy our Lord was raised in the same body He was crucified in. He is risen.

“For in Him we live and move and have our being…”

Non-Judgmentalism Examined

 

Non-Judgmentalism Examined

reblogged from:https://precepts.wordpress.com/2007/12/23/non-judgmentalism-examined/

December 23, 2007 in Righteousness

There is an increasingly large movement in our country today that might best be described as non-judgmentalism. This movement is defined by a way of thinking that states that we have no right to judge the actions of anyone else, no matter how immoral or sinful we believe them to be. Those who ascribe to non-judgmentalism feel very open, forgiving, and loving by holding this position. Those who do see fit to condemn the actions of others and believe that they should be called into account for their actions are said to be unloving, harsh, and judgmental.

I recently entered a discussion with a friend regarding whether or not we have a right to judge others regarding their moral behavior, particularly sexually. My friend suggested that we shouldn’t judge others, whereas I insisted that we not only should, but we have no choice in the matter. My friend sent me a series of verses dealing with judgment calculated to get me to reverse my position. I went through each verse and offered my commentary on them. I hope this discussion may help you in seeing the Biblical basis for condemning sin. Let us examine the first verse.                             finger

-Proverbs 29:26 — Many seek the ruler’s favor, but every man’s judgment cometh from the Lord.

Thus we are immediately confronted by the question, “What is judgment?” Most people have an idea in their heads of what this word means, but is this really what the Bible means when It uses the word?

What does this passage mean when it says that every man’s judgment cometh from the Lord? I believe this with all my heart, and I know that it is true. However, just this verse alone is not enough to establish what the word “judgment” means.

-Hebrews 12:23 — To God, the judge of all…

God is the Judge of All. Compared to him all judges of men, such as those mentioned in the book of Judges in the Bible, are just shadows. But what is a judge? We have people we call judges in our governments today, but are they the same thing as the judges mentioned in the book of the Bible? An examination of that book, I think, would reveal to us that they most certainly are not.

-Acts 17:31– He shall judge the world with righteousness…

This presents to us the truth that the One Who is the Judge of all will one day use His authority as the Judge of All to judge the entire world with righteousness. Again, though, we cannot know exactly what this means until we establish what it means to judge.

-Romans 14:13 — Let us not judge one another…

We must be careful with this verse, and note its context. If we will look at what Paul is talking about here, we will see that it is ceremonial laws, like eating meat (verse 2) or keeping holy days (verse 6.) We are not to judge our fellow believers in things like these. However, we must be very careful that we do not take this farther than we should. For the Holy Spirit speaks by this same author, Paul, and says in I Corinthians 5:9-11: “I wrote to you in my epistle not to keep company with sexually immoral people. Yet I certainly did not mean with the sexually immoral people of this world, or with the covetous, or extortioners, or idolaters, since then you would need to go out of the world. But now I have written to you not to keep company with anyone named a brother, who is…” Then he goes on to list the classes of people, and finishes with, “—not even to eat with such a person.” At that time, eating with a person indicated friendship with that person and a kinship of spirit. Therefore, this verse tells us that we are not to let anyone think that we are friends with someone who is perceived as a brother (that is, a fellow believer,) and yet who does certain things. These are (verse 11,) a fornicator (that is one who has sex outside of marriage,) or covetous (that is one who desires things that rightfully belong to others and not to himself,) or an idolater (that is one who worships anything other than God,) or a reviler (that is an abusive person,) or a drunkard (that is one who allows himself to enter a state of stupor through the use of either alcohol or other drugs,) or an extortioner (that is one who forces money or other things from another person for his own personal gain.) Anyone who is called a fellow-believer but does these things we should utterly reject as friends, and be most careful not to be associated with them. This is by the commandment of Scripture! Would this be judging them, I ask?

-Hebrews 10:30 — For we all know him that hath said, Vengeance belongeth unto me, I will recompense, saith the Lord. And again The Lord shall judge his people.

I agree that believers should not try to take vengeance on others.

-Matthew 7:1 — Judge not, that ye be not judged!

Some people take this verse to mean that we are not allowed to make any sort of moral decision judging the rightness or wrongness of other peoples’ actions. If they hesitate to put it quite that boldly, then they will say that we should not publicly make such decisions. Yet, let me say that if this means that we should not condemn others when they do wrong or else others will condemn us when we do wrong, then I would say that I feel perfectly free then to condemn others when they do wrong because it is my earnest desire that others will likewise condemn me when I do wrong!

If I were to fall into sin, forgetting what I know of God and His desire for me, and were to start living with someone outside of marriage, would it be my desire that people would ignore that? Would I really wish that others would say, “Oh, I can’t judge him. I’ve sinned as well, so I just don’t want to say anything.” Would it be my desire that all my friends would act like it was okay? Not at all! I would hope that all of my friends would be bitterly disappointed in me. I would hope that they would openly declare to each other that what I had done was wrong. I would hope that they would come to me and lovingly but firmly remind me that what I was doing was wrong, and suggest that I turn from my sin and repent and return to God and what I know is right.

But I would hope for even more than that. You know, I love the head of my Sunday school department. He is a great guy, and I respect him a lot and I know he respects me as well. But if I were to commit this sinful act, I would hope and pray that he would come to me and gently but firmly inform me that I would no longer be allowed to teach my Sunday school class. Why? Because the act I had committed was an affront against God, and I should not be allowed to stand up as an example to these children when I am living in open rebellion against the God I’m claiming to serve. I also love and respect our church music director. But, if I were to commit this sin, it is my earnest desire that she would come to me and tell me that I was no longer welcome in our church band. Why? Because the sin that I had openly entered into would exclude me from performing even such a small service as a representative of our church.

But even greater would be my expectations of my parents. I would hope that they would come to me and express to me their deep sorrow and disappointment at my actions. I would hope that they would absolutely forbid me to ever sleep with my girlfriend under their roof until I married her. I would expect in such a case that they would strongly urge me to stop my sinful actions and to do what was right and end this sinful and destructive behavior.

But I would not only expect this of those who would talk to me about it in person. If any child should ask his parents about what I had done, I would hope that his parents would tell him that what I did was wrong, that it was a sin that God forbids, and that I needed to turn away from my sin and ask God for forgiveness and start doing what was right again. I would hope that other people in discussing my actions would all agree that what I had done was wrong, that I had known better and that I had sinned against God, and that they would agree that I needed to return to God in repentance and ask His forgiveness and then do my best to live up to the responsibilities that my guilty actions had incurred upon me. I am not against being judged by people in such a manner. If I had truly done such a thing, then I would be most disappointed if all these people did not react and treat me in this way!

So if this sort of action is what I will receive if I make the same sort of determination about others who do things like this, then I say that I am open and ready for anyone to condemn me if I were to act in such a manner. I would not want to avoid it. If everyone I knew had a deep enough appreciation for what is right and what is wrong to rightfully condemn me if I were to do such a thing, then I would praise God and say that it would be a very good thing! Yet I do not think that that is what that passage is talking about. God does not want us to refuse to recognize sin as sin. He Himself urged His prophets to warn those who had fallen into sin to repent! And I think that we would be doing rightly if we were to do the same thing. How disappointed I would be in my parents if they did not even love me enough to grieve if I did such a thing! If they did not even love me enough to come to me in bitterness and disappointment and urge me to stop what I was doing and return to what is right! How disappointed I would be if none of my friends saw fit to condemn me and urge me to repent! If none of the leaders of my church cared enough about me to remove me from my positions of leadership and demand of me a return to what is right and good before I could ever participate in such things again! If this is truly the case, that no one would treat me like this, then I would have to say that I do not have true friends, and that I am indeed a most lonely individual. But I do think that there are people who care about me, and I do think that there are plenty of people who care about me enough that they would warn me and condemn me were I to do such things.

So is this what that verse is really saying? That we have no right to ever decide that what someone else is doing is wrong? No, I do not believe that for an instant. That is not what is meant by “judge” in that verse. “Judge” in the Bible does not mean to make a personal determination as to the rightness or wrongness of someone else’s actions. It does not mean that I am not allowed to decide if someone is a fornicator, an idolater, a covetous person, a reviler, a drunkard, or an extortioner. I can most certainly make a determination about such things, particularly if I see them with my own eyes! And once I have determined that a person, at least a believer, is one of these types of sinners, then it is my duty before God to refuse friendship with such a person. So if we are not to judge, then this must not be judging, for we are specifically told to do it!

If you desire to find out the truth about judging, I would suggest sitting down with a Bible concordance and looking up the words “judgment” and “judge.” I do not think you will have to look up many occurrences before you will start to get an idea of what God means when He uses the words “judgment” and “judge.” But I do not believe that He means to decide in your heart whether what someone is doing is right or wrong, or to declare publicly your beliefs on whether or not what someone is doing is right or wrong. I think a study of the occurrences of this word in Scripture will bear me out.

You cannot ascribe a meaning to a verse that is contrary to other passages of Scripture! If Matthew 7:1 means we should never make decisions about whether or not someone’s actions are right or wrong, then how can I Corinthians 5:11 say that we are to avoid people who act in certain sinful ways? That would have us refusing to befriend people who do certain wrong things that we haven’t actually decided are wrong since we’ve refused to judge them! But that makes no sense, and is, in fact, impossible. This leaves us with two possibilities:

  1. We are interpreting one or the other passage incorrectly, either not understanding the context or the words used.
    2. There was a change in dispensation and the earlier statement is no longer true. I am a firm believer in the concept of progressive revelation. That is, I believe that God reveals more and more truths in the Bible as time goes on that He had not revealed earlier. Sometimes, the new truth will cancel out the old truth. For example, the commandments to keep the holy days are canceled out by the statement that we are not to judge each other regarding any holy day. So, if this were the case, then Christ’s statement in Matthew was made several decades before that made in I Corinthians, so we would have to conclude that the statement of Christ is out of date and that the statement in I Corinthians is the truth for today. I am not saying I believe this, but only that this is a possibility.

That concludes my correspondence with my friend on this issue. Let me close by saying that I don’t for a minute believe that my friend doesn’t make determinations about the rightness or wrongness of other people’s actions every day. Everyone must do this. We are constantly judging the motivations of others even as we are talking with them. Surely no one would urge a child to be non-judgmental if a stranger pulls up to the curb and offers him candy if he will climb in the car! Surely no one would urge his daughter to be non-judgmental if she was asked to go on a date by a serial rapist! And can we really say that we do not judge others? No one can truly say that! This argument of non-judgmentalism is not for the purpose of being kind and loving. It is made for the purpose of excusing sin! That is the primary reason for this current argument. But sin is not to be excused by us, as it can only be truly forgiven by God. If we truly believe that what God says is wrong is wrong, then we should not bury our heads in the sand and pretend that someone is not sinning when he commits that wrong action. No, God tells us what is right and wrong so that we can make this determination correctly whenever we need to. But the Bible calls this discernment, not judgment. We would do well if we would call it by the same term.

Do Ya smell that?

withouts

                                    Is it too late to learn something useful?

Image

Not philosophy but Christ.

Many are and have been sounding the alarm as watchmen on the wall to the latest antics of the Postmodern/Emergent group of professing Christians. These self-proclaimed elitists’ who proclaim the Word of God to be extinct and needs to be sooped up to meet the need of the social gospel of today’s degenerate life styles.

I would add the Apostle Paul’s words in Colossians 2:6-10. As you therefore have received Christ Jesus the Lord, so walk in Him. Rooted and built up in Him and established in the faith, as you been taught abounding in it with thanksgiving. Beware lest anyone plunder you or take you captive through philosophy and empty deceit, according to the basic principles of the world, and not according to Christ. For in Him dwells all the fullness of the Godhead in bodily form; and you are complete in Him, who is the head of all rule and authority.

The Word of God stands as what it is and always will be, the eternal Word of God. Heaven and earth will pass away, but My words will by no means pass away. Matt.24:35.

The supposed reason for this new approach is to reach generation X and the disillusionment with the instructional church (the graveyard of the lifeless churches in this country). The Word of God is sufficient to all peoples in all generations in all cultures.  There is the faulty reasoning for all the worldly elements likened to a centipede type of theology with its many-segmented pods each bearing their own philosophy of the world.

Into this maze comes a trail of truth to dispel the heretical teachings that put firm feet on the ground of shaky theology. It is a documentary entitled: Emergent/Emerging Church Documentary by Elliott Nesch. There is a You tube video: https://youtu.be/OF-CHA4Z2FQ.

 

 

 

 

 

Love the size of a chocolate heart, and an arrow in the seat of affection.

ORIGIN OF VALENTINES DAY

Why no smile Val?

Why no smile Val?

The origin of Valentine’s day has a really deep connection with romanticism and love. Is the day in which the lovers show their feelings to the person they love, sadly on these modern times it has become like most of the holidays, something materialistic and commercial?

The origin of Valentine’s day goes all the way back to the days of the Roman Empire, when Emperor Claudius II was the ruler. In an attempt to have more soldiers for his army, he tried to recruit every man possible, but when he saw that the men refused to leave their wives and family, he decided that all marriages should be forbidden.

But there was a priest who was loved in Rome by everyone, who thought it was unfair for young lovers not get married and share their life with the person they love. The name of the priest was Valentine, and he started to marry couples in secret. When Claudius II found out about the secret marriages, was furious and ordered that Valentine should be put in jail, where he spent the rest of his life. When he died his friends recovered his body and buried it on a churchyard in Rome.

One more version says that Valentine used to help everyone, even Christians, this was forbidden by the Emperor, who put him in jail. While he was prisoner, Valentine felt in love with one of the jailer’s daughter, and every day he used to send her love notes signed: “From Your Valentine”. Sadly, one day the Emperor ordered that he should be beaten up with cubs to death, it is believed that he died on February 14th, and to honor him, Pope Gladius set aside this date. But the King Henry VIII declared the day officially a holiday on 1537.

As time passed by Valentine became a Saint for all the lovers, and people around the world started to celebrate love during this day. Also some people believed that the first person of the opposite sex who one met the morning on February 14th, would be that person’s Valentine.

We talked about why it is celebrated love in this day, but let me tell you now the origin of Valentine’s day letters and poems: Supposedly the tradition of send poems on Valentine’s day started thanks to a Frenchman, Charles Duke of Orleans around 1415, who was made prisoner during the Battle of Agincourt.

For various years he sent poems or as we know them now “Valentines” to his wife back in France. The first commercial Valentine card appeared in 1800, they started just with poems, but later some art was added to give it some more romanticism.

Some Valentine’s day facts are that is the second most important holiday in the U.S.A and other countries, being the most important Christmas, and that is celebrated in just a handful of countries, but I bet there are some interesting things you did not know about this holiday. Next it’s a compilation of the most interesting and:

VALENTINES DAY FACTS ABOUT CUPID

Who Me? Nah.

Who Me? Nah.

  • In Roman Mythology Cupid it’s the son of Venus, Goddess of love, in Greek mythology is better known as Eros and his mother its Aphrodite.
  • Cupid is known as a mischievous child with wings, whose arrows would pierce the hearts of his victims, making them fall in love.
  • The significance of Cupid shooting his arrows it’s that love always manifest like a spell, and when Cupid appears blindfolded it is because always love its blind.
  • The first drawing of Cupid on one of the “Valentine cards” was made on the fifteenth century. It showed a knight and a lady with Cupid sending an arrow to the knight’s heart.
  • Cupid has no relation whatsoever with the life of St. Valentine, and its used only as a symbol because he is the God of Love.

VALENTINES DAY FACTS ABOUT GIFTS

  • The first box of chocolates made specially for Valentine’s day was produced by Richard Cadbury in the 1800’s.
  • In the U.S.A. 15 % of women send themselves flowers on this day.
  • Red roses are related to love because the color red stands for romantic strong feelings.
  • The best Valentine gift ever give its the Taj Mahal in India, which was built in the memory of the Mughal Emperor Shahjahan’s wife.
  • In wales, spoons were made out of wood, and given on Valentine’s day. The favorite decorations were hearts, key holes and keys, which meant: “You unlock my heart”.

RANDOM VALENTINES DAY FACTS

  • The heart its the most common symbol of this holiday, because it was believed that the soul lived inside of it.
  • The only countries that celebrate Valentine’s Day are: U.S., Mexico, Canada, Australia, UK and France.
  • People believed that if you signed your Valentine letter with other than the line “From your Valentine”, you would have bad luck for the whole year.
  • The x became a synonymous of kiss, because during the medieval time, when people could not write even their name, they used to put an X, then kissed it to prove they were honest.
  • The women on the old days believed that if they saw a Robin flying on this day, they would marry a sailor, if they saw a Sparrow, they would marry a poor man, but would be happy, and if Goldfinch was what they saw, they would marry a rich man.

Teach the controversy

Two years after Intelligent Design advocates lost a key court battle, some biology classrooms and ID supporters are finding a balanced approach to evolution that-so far-is lawsuit-proof

By MARK BERGIN

Posted July 21, 2007, 12:00 a.m.

For 15 years Doug Cowan has taught the scientific evidence for and against Darwinism to biology students at Curtis High, a large public school several miles southwest of Tacoma, Wash. Over that time, the popular teacher and athletic coach has drawn periodic criticisms from community activists and local media. But he has faced no lawsuits and never worried over losing his job.Evolution

Students in Cowan’s classes praise his balanced presentation. And parents rarely, if ever, raise objections. “I haven’t heard a thing,” he told WORLD. “Kids think it’s really neat that I’m allowing them to weigh the evidence from both sides and make their own informed conclusions.”

Throughout the country, many other attempts to teach evolution critically have faced stiff opposition. Educators and school board members have lost legal battles and even their jobs. What makes Cowan so different?

“I don’t teach alternative theories, because that’s not part of the curriculum,” he explained. “There aren’t a whole lot of alternative theories other than design theory, but that’s not in our curriculum. So unless a kid asks specifically about it, I don’t deal with it.”

Instead, Cowan deals more thoroughly with Darwinism than most existing biology textbooks, using resources from outside the standard evolutionary syllabus: Darwin on Trial, Icons of Evolution, Darwin’s Black Box, Evolution: A Theory in Crisis. Cowan says the ideas he draws from these extra texts engage his students, challenging their ability to analyze and discern truth from competing sides of a controversial issue.

This fall, the 34-year teaching veteran will restructure his evenhanded presentation around a new textbook from the Seattle-based Discovery Institute. Explore Evolution: The Arguments for and Against Neo-Darwinism (Hill House Publishers, 2007) does not address alternative theories of origins but succinctly lays out the scientific strengths and weaknesses of the most critical elements of Darwinism. “It’s made my work a lot easier,” Cowan said.

Explore Evolution encapsulates a “teach the controversy” paradigm that the Discovery Institute has advocated for the better part of the past decade. Over that time, the institute has advised school boards against the inclusion of Intelligent Design in their science standards. Some boards have heeded that counsel; others have not.

In 2005, a now famous board in Dover, Pa., attempted to mandate the inclusion of ID in ninth-grade biology classes. Backed by the ACLU, parents sued and won a landmark decision in which a federal judge ruled that ID was religion, not science. The shockwaves of that decision reverberated nationwide and have quieted other efforts to push ID into schools.

But the Dover lawsuit also highlighted the effectiveness of the Discovery Institute’s approach. State school boards in Pennsylvania, South Carolina, New Mexico, and Minnesota along with local boards in Wisconsin and Louisiana have adopted science standards that encourage critical analysis of Darwinian Theory. To date, not a single lawsuit has challenged such standards.

“This is an approach that if I were a Darwinist I would be particularly frightened of,” said John West, associate director of the Discovery Institute’s Center for Science and Culture. “The policy that we’ve recommended turns out to be the precise common-ground approach we said it would be. It reduces the decibel level; you don’t get sued; you get good education; and the Darwinists don’t have a leg to stand on.”

In the wake of the Dover ruling, many committed Darwinists declared victory for an uncritical approach to teaching evolution. But, in fact, the ruling has worked to galvanize a previously disjointed movement. Whereas many teachers and school boards might previously have shunned the “teach the controversy” strategy in favor of the more bold step of introducing ID, those groups and individuals are now more willing to listen.

John Calvert, managing director of IDnet, praises Explore Evolution as “enormously important.” Since 2005, his organization has focused its efforts on bringing critical analysis of evolution into classrooms, not ID.

In past years, groups like IDnet might have rallied around another new textbook scheduled for publication this fall: The Design of Life, a rewrite of the ID-advancing classic Of Pandas and People. Like Explore Evolution, this 360-page text presents the scientific weaknesses of Darwinism, but it also goes further in outlining the case for ID. Authors William Dembski and Jonathan Wells lay out such noted design arguments as irreducible complexity and specified complexity.

The Design of Life publisher Jon Buell, president of the Foundation for Thought and Ethics, has no illusions of his textbook cracking public-school curriculums in the wake of the Dover ruling. “Our book, we fully expect to be taught in university courses,” he said. “We will not market to public schools.”

Teach the controversy” Continued…

By MARK BERGIN

Issue: “When the base cracks,” July 21, 2007
Posted July 21, 2007, 12:00 a.m.

Prior to the Dover case, Of Pandas and People broke into public biology classrooms in 22 states over its two-decade run. Now, Explore Evolution offers the latest real hope for a text critical of Darwin to repeat such success. West told WORLD that one state school board has already expressed interest in using the new textbook, though discussions remain in the preliminary stages.

“We expect a lot of teachers to use it, including public-school teachers, to help them teach evolution better,” he said. “In fact, we already know some of those where the school may not be purchasing 30 copies, but the teacher is using it to build their lesson plan.”

Despite not mentioning ID, Explore Evolution has received sharp criticism from the Discovery Institute’s usual opponents. PZ Myers, a biology professor at the University of Minnesota Morris, and author of the highly popular Darwinist blog Pharyngula, rails against the text as “a dirty, dishonest book in a slick package.”

In a cursory review of the 159-page volume, Myers charges that it fails to represent the case for Darwinism accurately and presents complex subjects superficially: “The biology part is shallow, useless, and often wrong, and the critiques are basically just warmed over creationist arguments.”

Similarly, writers on the influential evolution blog The Panda’s Thumb have dismissed Explore Evolution as a “creationist textbook” that seeks to hide its true enterprise of “religious apologetics.”

Most of the book’s five authors are not unfamiliar with such charges. Stephen Meyer, Scott Minnich, and Paul Nelson are fellows of the Discovery Institute and well-known advocates for ID. Ralph Seelke, a professor of microbiology at the University of Wisconsin-Superior, is an outspoken critic of Darwinism. The fifth contributor, Jonathan Moneymaker, provided technical writing assistance.

Without a Darwinist representative, that panel has drawn predictable questions as to the textbook’s objectivity. How can skeptics of Darwinism be trusted to represent faithfully the strongest evidence for a theory they oppose?

But Explore Evolution does not purport to provide comprehensive outlines of Darwinian arguments, leaving that up to most every other biology textbook on the market. The preface to this new text explains that its summary accounts of the case for Darwinism are meant to recap briefly what students have already learned elsewhere. The focus of the book is to present new information as to why the theory of evolution remains scientifically controversial.

Though supportive, IDnet director Calvert does not share the Discovery Institute’s optimism that this new textbook and the approach it embodies will significantly dent the uncritical Darwinist dogma currently taught in most public schools. In February, he emerged from a long political battle in Kansas where attempts to mandate the critical analysis of evolution fell short.

Opponents of the new Kansas science standards argued that any criticism of Darwinism amounts to thinly veiled ID, which according to the Dover ruling amounts to thinly veiled religion. The state school board agreed, effectively determining that any scientific challenge to Darwinian evolution violates the Constitution’s Establishment Clause.

That blow to the “teach the controversy” approach has left Calvert skeptical: “I don’t think the Discovery Institute’s textbook is going to have any traction until we get the Dover court decision reversed. Until we get a legal decision on our side, things will keep getting worse.”

Doug Cowan disagrees: “The schools want to have critically thinking kids. And you can’t be a critical thinker if you hear only one side of the story.”

 

Darwin’s Doubt

Darwin’s Doubt, Intelligent Design and Evolution. 51HU+39VlcL._SX327_BO1,204,203,200_

All of the modern evidence we have destroys any idea that any simple life can evolve into complex life forms. There is no molecular basis for evolution. There is no fossil evidence for evolution. There is no medical evidence for evolution. Every speck of data shows genetic degradation leading to extinction.

The Evidence That Darwin Could Not Explain

Charles Darwin knew there was a significant event in the history of life that his theory did not explain. In what is known today as the “Cambrian explosion,” many animals suddenly appeared in the fossil record 530 million years ago without apparent ancestors in earlier layers of rock. In Darwin’s Doubt, Stephen C. Meyer tells the story of the mystery surrounding this explosion of animal life and makes a compelling case for the theory of intelligent design as the best explanation for the origin of the Cambrian animals and the biological information necessary to produce them.

With a new epilogue responding to critics.

 

The controversy has not ended in spite of solid scientific evidence. The courts ruled in favor of no intelligent design–yet one teacher, Doug Cowan  dares to present an alternative approach being taught in a school that cuts the rug out of another banning of intelligent design and allows students to think and decide for themselves.

As the saying goes: tune in tomorrow for part two.

 

Previous Older Entries