Category Archives: The Left
As part of The Arizona Conservative’s 10-year anniversary celebration, we re-post this story of a notorious Arizona abortionist who was sentenced to prison on 22 counts of sex abuse of his patients. This story defeats the leftist argument that abortion is a private matter between her and her doctor. Why? Because an abortionist is not her doctor. A doctor has an ongoing relationship of care-giving for women, but an abortionist does not. The abortionist merely shows up in a room to kill the child of a woman in a crisis pregnancy whom he does not know and has never provided “medical care” for. And then he leaves the room and his so-called “relationship” with the woman abruptly ends. And when the abortionist messes up and there are complications, the woman is carted off in an ambulance to a hospital where a real doctor provides emergency care and treatment. Return now to 2004 and the sentencing of the criminal abortionist Brian Finkel.
By Sue Widemark | January 2, 2004
Abortionist Brian Finkel was sentenced Friday to more than 34 years in prison and 99 years probation to begin when his incarceration ends, after a tearful speech in which he assured the court that he never committed sexual abuse. Late in 2003, Finkel had been convicted by a Phoenix court on 22 counts of sex abuse directed toward former abortion clinic patients.
“Because I am exercising my right to appeal doesn’t mean I don’t feel guilt,” Finkel, 54, said when asked by the judge if he had any remorse. “I feel guilt that the victims were so traumatized by the trial.” He also said that he was remorseful for not understanding the victims’ needs. “I was constantly being terrorized by domestic terrorists. I am not Dr. (Marcus) Welby,” he said, referring to the 1960′s TV show doctor.
Finkel admitted that he may have been blunt or even rude, at times, to the victims when he “counseled them about their bad relationships and poor life choices.” Finkel also stated that he cared about every one of his patients and was sorry that his efforts to examine them thoroughly had been misunderstood by the victims. Finkel then stopped rather abruptly, telling the court that his attorney said he was done.
Finkel’s attorney added briefly that Finkel had not done anything that any other gynecologist does not do in the course of an examination. He also cited “mitigating circumstances” — Finkel’s operating in a stressful environment and told the court that Finkel had helped thousands of women during the course of his career. Finkel added tearfully at this point that he was sorry he had embarrassed his wife of 31 years and his children and that he hoped to be reunited with them soon.
Presiding Judge Cates did not buy the mitigating circumstances. “I don’t know of any ‘Domestic terrorists,’” he said, adding that the victims had been traumatized by what Finkel had done to them and not by the trial which he felt had been conducted well. He complimented the work of the jury, saying they had listened carefully to all the evidence. “I was ready to accept whatever the jury decided,” said the Judge, “and they decided you are guilty of the 22 counts.”
Judge Cates added that what Finkel had done in the course of his examinations had not been in the framework of gynecology and that Finkel had violated one of the most sacred trusts in our society, the trust between a doctor and his patient. Addressing the “mitigating circumstance” of no prior criminal history, the judge said this would be negated by the fact that Finkel had been committing these crimes over a 15 year-period and just had not gotten caught previously. He said that he didn’t feel Finkel was declared guilty because of being rude, but if that had been the case, he would have been found him guilty on all 66 counts. Finally, the judge stated he did not feel that Finkel was the victim of any political agenda.
“On the positive side,” Judge Cates said, “I don’t feel Finkel is a danger to the community if he is not practicing medicine.” That being said, the judge reminded the court that Finkel had caused grave emotional and physical harm to his victims causing depression and fear. He did not feel that he saw any remorse in Finkel, commenting that “this does not look well for rehabilitation.”
Judge Cates patiently assigned a prison sentence to each count of sexual abuse, identifying all counts in the class 5 felony category. Some of the conditions of the lifetime probation will begin after incarceration. The judge forbade Finkel to drink any alcoholic beverages, ordered the payment of a probation fee of $50 a month for life, invoked a requirement to register in the national database as a sexual offender, revoked Finkel’s ability to work in the medical field, and issued a requirement that Finkel inform any future employer of his conviction as a sexual offender.
Finkel then stood by the bailiff, dressed in his wrinkled stripped prison outfit, his feet chained together as he waited for them to take him away to jail. (A request by his attorney to allow him to dress in a suit had been denied.) Gone was Finkel’s cocky demeanort. He will remain in the city jail for two weeks before being transferred to prison.
The atmosphere in the courtroom was tense. Observers seemed to be mostly victims and members of the media. Finkel’s wife sat in the front row, flanked by two physician friends. They joked loudly before the sentencing, one of the physicians saying in a somewhat booming voice, “My bets are he walks in six months.” The other physician shook hands with him on this. Their jovial attitude seemed to evaporate as they listened, grimfaced, to Finkel’s sentencing.
Finkel’s wife cried when Finkel said he was sorry to have embarrassed them. She soon dried her tears and following the sentencing, she was again joking with her friends.
Blaine, one of the prosecuting attorneys, said he felt the trial went well and was very pleased with the sentence and that he appreciated how Judge Cates considered each count separately.
“This started out to be a three-hour procedure,” one of the victims told the court before the sentencing, “and it has now drawn out to be seven years and will probably last for a lifetime. I don’t think Dr. Finkel knows how many people he has hurt.”
“I don’t think he got enough time, ” said the sister of one of the plaintiffs, Rose, afterward. “He could be back on the streets again,” she said, adding, “He is a sick, pompous man who still doesn’t understand what he did and how he has affected the lives of the victims. It’s been seven years since my sister saw him and she still to this day, cannot go to a gynecologist as she is so afraid of doctors, because of what Finkel did to her.”
Finkel, who performed some 20 percent of Arizona’s abortions each year and up to 30,000 total in his career, may not have much hope for a successful appeal. Judge Cates’ fair and careful handling of this case would seem to make a reversal of the verdict highly unlikely. But Richard Gierloff, the attorney for Finkel, said he will appeal the conviction.
“I hope he dies in prison,” said one victim, acidly, only for a moment conveying the deep suffering resulting from her encounter with Finkel, which will likely last a lifetime.
Whenever the economy tanks, people in Washington argue that the government should inject money into the economy to stimulate growth. If you think government is enormous now, Obama is agitating for even greater stimulus spending for trillions more in entitlements and make-work projects.
After the “Big Bang stimulus” totaling $4.7 trillion, unemployment remains at 9.1% and the economy has grown an anemic 1.3% (summer 2011 data). But the stimulus hasn’t failed, they say, the government just needs to spend a lot more and keep doing it until it works—the beatings will continue until morale improves.
The problem is, spend a trillion here and a trillion there and soon we run into some pretty big money.
What Is It and Where Did It Come From?
The idea of big government spending as national savior got started in the 1930s when the country was in the throws of the Great Depression. English economist John Maynard Keynes argued that the government could boost the economy if it borrowed money then spent it.
According to this theory, now known as Keynesian Economics, money would find its way into people’s wallets and then they would spend the money. This was supposed to “prime the pump” as money began circulating through the economy. One dollar spent is another dollar earned by someone else. (This is called the multiplier effect).
Following the Keynesian paradigm, Obama and the past Democratic Party-dominated Congress increased spending through the extension of unemployment benefits, the health care takeover, bailouts of financial institutions, bailouts of homeowners, increases in other entitlement spending and the funding of hundreds of billions of dollars for special interest projects. Since domestic consumer spending accounts for 2/3 of the U.S. economy, all this government spending should have spurred demand, which in turn should have created more jobs to meet the production requirements to meet this new demand. This demand-side economics has not created jobs.
Keynesian theory looks good on paper and it would be the magic spell for flagging economies everywhere if it didn’t have this one glaring logical fallacy. It overlooks the fact that the government can’t inject money into the economy without first taking it out. The theory only looks at half of the equation. As the government puts money in the right hand, it borrows money from the left hand. Government spending clearly benefits those people who receive the money, but there is no net increase in productivity and no increase in the national income (GDP).
GDP will appear to grow as long as the money doesn’t run out. Once the recipients have spent the money, the growth fizzles. The economic reaction is unsustainable because the private sector understands that the government “stimulus” stimulates nothing in the long term, so they will not invest in new products or new hiring.
How Does It Affect the Economy?
The Keynesian response is to say that there will be an increase in the overall available cash, which increases consumer spending rather than the money sitting idle. That’s wrong because the money doesn’t sit idle. Why? Because of a key economic axiom: savings=investment
When people are not spending, they are saving, but they don’t keep their savings in a cookie jar. It is in the bank, in real estate, in stocks and other various instruments, including U.S. Treasury issues.
But when the government gives money to someone to spend, that money is taken from someone else who doesn’t get to spend it.
This can come in two forms: taxation and/or borrowing. The results of taxation are obvious. The effects of borrowing are not so obvious. When the government borrows, it “crowds out” other types of investments. The government’s demand for money is high and generally the interest rates rise on the law of supply and demand. Higher interest rates translate to higher costs for businesses and consumers which can slow down growth. Investors and entrepreneurs are then less likely to borrow and so new ideas, services and technology which do provide sustainable employment, don’t appear.
Under the current circumstances of 2011, the crowding out phenomenon has not happened because the Federal Reserve injected trillions into the economy through two rounds of quantitative easing, or QE. QE is when the Federal Reserve buys back its bonds. The Fed’s own demand for bonds raises the price of the bonds, which in turn lowers their annual percentage yield. Since long term and medium term rates follow the Treasury bonds, these rates fall as well. This sounds like a good deal except “their ain’t no such thing as a free lunch,” as the late Milton Friedman said. The big flood of dollars without the increase in productivity is inflationary and the dollar loses its value. Inflation is here.
Nevertheless, businesses should be borrowing like mad but they’re not.
Excessive and ridiculous regulations, uncertainty about health care, corporate tax rates and cap and trade and other unlegislated environmental laws are terrible conditions for businesses and they will remain sitting on their cash in these terribly uncertain times until the heat dies down.
Keynesianism Has Failed: The Evidence
Keynesianism is a failure. Let’s look at the evidence.
During the Great Depression, Herbert Hoover increased taxes dramatically including the top tax rate from 25% to 63% (tax the rich), he imposed harsh protectionist policies such as the Smoot-Hawley Tariff Act, significantly increased intervention in private sector and most importantly from the Keynesian perspective, he boosted government spending, which he financed with debt, by 47 percent in 4 years.
Hoover entered office in 1929 with a small surplus and left office with a deficit of 4.5% of GDP. Growth went down and unemployment went up.
FDR followed the same approach. Top tax rate went to 79% [tax the rich], and government intervention became more pervasive and invasive. Keynesians, especially those in the Obama administration, point out that GDP did indeed grow under the New Deal, proving that stimulus works; and it will work again if the
government spends enough.
Looking at the graphs below, we can see that, under FDR, GDP remained pretty flat and unemployment remained staggeringly high until 1940. As Robert Reich is fond to saying repeatedly, “it’s not the deficit we need to worry about; it’s jobs.”
A Word About FDR and WWII Spending Keynesian enthusiasts will point out that from 1940 on, GDP grew and unemployment went down rather dramatically. I agree.
The biggest jump in debt, employment and GDP came from mobilization and participation in WWII, all financed by the government through debt and the taxpayer. As long as the war carried on, all these factors would continue to grow.
We need to remember several key points about this. First, GDP came from the manufacture of armaments and everything that went along with that. Resources are limited so in order to keep the war effort going, there was a lot of rationing, including, but not limited to, anything involving metals, plastics, nylon, rubber, gasoline, sugar and flour.
Two, the war effort employed millions of active duty and civilian members in every imaginable sector.
Three, unemployment increased after the war as hundreds of thousands of returning soldiers started looking for work.Four, and this is especially important for the years following 1945, was that after the dust settled, the United States was the last man standing. With infrastructure, factories and resources all but destroyed in Europe and in parts of East Asia, the world was America’s customer. It was not the WPA, or even the war effort, that got the US out of Depression. It was America being open for business when no other country could supply all that was needed by the rest of the world. Private sector and free market to the rescue.
Five, defense spending trickles throughout the commercial sector, and technological innovation comes from it that offers ongoing benefits to industry and consumers alike–the gift that keeps on giving.
And six: providing for the common defense is about the only thing the Constitution mandates the government to spend money on.
But when the government spends money on entitlements and special interests that produce nothing, as in O’s stimulus package, then sustainable growth and job creation will never happen, any more than it did with FDR’s WPA.
Another example: in 1972 Gerald Ford gave tax rebates that did nothing to grow the economy because the money did nothing to improve economic output.
On the international front, Japan tried to use Keynes to stimulate their stagnant economy but the only thing that went up was Japan’s debt, which had doubled during the decade.
Where Might This Economic Thinking Lead America?
The last point about the Keynesian approach is that government spending hurts economic output by misallocating resources. That is, the government chooses what gets developed in the economy rather than the free market which consists of businesses and consumers who decide what they want to buy.
If sound reasoning and all the data show that Keynesian is foolish economics, why does Obama want to keep trying the same approach over and over again? I don’t think that Obama has changed his mind about fundamentally transforming America. I think he is taking advantage of the recession to push his socialist agenda into place.
Either that or he is absolutely nuts.
SOURCE: Conservative Politics in the Progressive Era
Public schools, colleges, and universities throughout Arizona and across the nation are routinely teaching that Darwinian evolution is beyond dispute, that it is more “fact” than theory. They are merely upholding their secular humanist religion, and they could not be more wrong factually, historically, or scientifically. We have heard stories of students in Arizona public schools getting punished and downgraded for challenging the assumption of evolution. To learn the truth about this controversial subject, read the latest entry in the brand new series “The Arizona Conservative University,” our effort to inform parents and students that you are being gypped by public education, and schools are indoctrinating children in leftist agendas rather than offering honest, unfiltered education.
Despite what many people believe, evolution is not science. It is a belief system — a worldview. Evolutionists believe the world is about 4.5 billion years old, and some believe the cosmos is 15 billion years old. They believe that life progresses into more advanced stages and forms, and death is part of natural selection. Death and struggle led to man’s existence. Life formed in an upward progression.
The supposed age of 4.5 billion years of the earth is based on radiometric age determinations of meteorites. Radiometric dating methods are based on a series of assumptions, and thus the accuracy of the method depends on the reliability of these assumptions. These methods are highly questionable. Once it had been assumed that dating of meteorites had established the age of the solar system at approximately 4.6 billion years, evolutionists have clung tenaciously to that age, and they calibrate events in earth history accordingly. Gale, Arden, and Hutchison, however, have discovered serious problems with the data from meteorites and the assumptions on which ages of these meteorites were derived
Using this dating method, scientists measured the rock formations of several known volcanoes. Each was less than 200 years old. Their method yielded dates from hundreds of millions to billions of years. For example, lava flow from Kaupuleho, Hawaii, was known to be 168 years in age. Using the potassium-argon dating method, the dated prediction was 2.96 billion years! Six-year-old rock from Mount St. Helens tested out at 350,000 years!
Carbon-14 dating is a flawed method of dating things. Consider these examples of C-14 dating:
A freshly killed seal dated by C-14 showed it had died 1,300 years ago. (Antarctic Journal, vol. 6, [September-October 1971], p. 211.)
Living mollusk shells were dated at up to 2,300 years old. (Science, vol. 141, 1963, pp. 634-637.)
Living snails’ shells showed they had died 27,000 years ago. (Science, vol. 224, 1984, pp. 58-61.)
John Baumgardner, scientist at Sandia National Laboratory in New Mexico, said, “It is now well established that unmineralized dinosaur bone still containing recognizable bone protein exists in many locations around the world. From my own first-hand experience with such material, it is inconceivable that bone containing such well preserved protein could possibly have survived for more than a few thousand years in the geological settings in which they are found.
“I therefore believe the case is strong from a scientific standpoint to reject radiometric methods as a valid means for dating geological materials. What then can be used in their place? As a Christian, of course, I am persuaded the Bible is a reliable source of information. The Bible speaks of a worldwide cataclysm in the Genesis Flood which destroyed all air-breathing life on the planet apart from the animals and humans God preserved alive in the Ark. The correspondence between the global catastrophe in the geological record and the Flood described in Genesis is much too obvious for me not to conclude that these events must be one and the same.”
The most compelling argument against evolution as a science is the second law of thermodynamics–entropy. Entropy describes a physical law that proves matter moves from order to disorder. The process can be slowed or reversed temporarily by external sources, e.g., charging a battery. However, the battery will immediately begin to discharge if external energy is not provided. If Darwin had come up with the theory of Devolution, he would have been on the right track. During the past 6,000 years, man’s average life span has significantly decreased from approximately 600 to less than 80 years. Deadly viruses are being discovered daily that are reducing our potential life span. Evolutionists say the law of entropy only applies to closed systems in which no external energy is provided. Their argument is no argument at all. Introducing external energy would tend to make the system even more random–less ordered! Based on this proven theory, would cells mutate to more ordered and complex structures that eventually evolved into the most intelligent species on earth? Is there any element in nature, if left to itself, is not decaying? No, everything in nature is decaying … dying! You would think that positive cell mutation would have led to longer, instead of shorter, life spans for humans if we had mutated for billions of years.
Prior to the fall of man, nothing decayed. Man was originally created to live forever. Imagine, if Adam had not sinned against God, he would still be alive today. He would be over 6,000 years old. Unfortunately for us, Adam did sin, and the ground was cursed as a result. One man caused the second law of thermodynamics to be put in motion. Man’s body, as well as the earth itself, began a process of decaying.
If men had been willing to develop their scientific systems on the basis of biblical presuppositions, however, it should have been quite obvious all along that the basic physical processes were those of conservation and decay, as now formalized in the statements of the first and second laws of thermodynamics.
The conservation principle is strongly emphasized in the summary statement at the end of the period of creation, when the Bible says: “Thus the heavens and the earth were finished, and all the host of them. And on the seventh day God ended his work which he had made; and he rested on the seventh day from all his works which he had made. And God blessed the seventh day and sanctified it: because that in it he had rested from all his work which God created and made” (Genesis 2:13).
If evolution is true, there must be an extremely powerful force or mechanism at work in the cosmos that can overcome the powerful, ultimate tendency toward “disarrangedness” brought by the second law. If such a force is in existence, it would seem it should be quite obvious to all scientists. Yet, the fact is, no such force of nature has been found. A number of scientists believe the second law, when truly understood, is enough to refute the theory of Evolution. In fact, it is one of the most important reasons why various evolutionists have dropped their theory in favor of Creationism.
As scientists come to understand more of what is going on in this world, they find that our whole genetic makeup is degenerating. Mistakes in our genes are causing our physiology to have more and more problems. We are apparently not falling upwards.
This is all explained and long anticipated in Scripture, which attributes it to the entrance of sin into the world. At the end of the creation and making of all things, the Bible says that “God saw everything that he had made, and, behold, it was very good” (Genesis 1:31). There was no disorder, no lack of harmony, no decay and, above all, no death in the world as originally made by God. For the Bible-believing scientist, this can only mean that any evidence he finds in the present order of things, or in the records of the past, that indicates disorder and struggle, suffering, decay, and death, must necessarily be understood as entering the world after (not before or during) the six days of creation. Yet evolution is predicated on death and struggle for millions of years preceding man. Both claims cannot be true.
Specifically the Bible tells us that death resulted from the sin of the first man, Adam, who had been designated by God as master of the earth and everything in it. When he sinned, God pronounced a curse on both Adam and his dominion. “Cursed is the earth for thy sake” (Genesis 3:17). And from that day on, as the Scripture says: “The whole creation groaneth and travaileth in pain together until now” (Romans 8:22). The whole world, both the heavens and the earth, and all that in them is, are waxing old, as a garment (Hebrews 1:11).
There is no evidence of evolutionary change in the fossil record. Even Darwin himself admitted there was no evidence. In his book, Darwin wrote: “Geology assuredly does not reveal any such finely graduated organic change, and this is perhaps the most obvious and serious objection which can be urged against the theory [of evolution).” Darwin believed that evidence would eventually be found. Well, we’re still waiting.
Evolutionists and creationists agree that Neanderthals were normal humans. The Piltdown Man was a deliberate hoax that many believed for decades. After Piltdown Man, there was the Nebraska Man, reconstructed from a single tooth that was later determined to be from an extinct pig.
Evolutionists also say that the formation of rock layers, or strata, are proof enough that man was not here during the early stages of life on earth. They believe that each stratum took several hundred million years to form. If that’s true, then there should be no fossils in these strata. In order to create a fossil, there must be rapid and complete burial of the object that is fossilized. Many fossilized fish show their eyes bulging out and the impression of their scales in the rock formation. Other fossilized creatures show prey in their mouths as their images were frozen in time. Could these animals have been so well preserved that their decomposition would have waited hundreds of millions of years to complete? Try placing a dead fish out in the elements. How long do you think its body would remain preserved without any decay?
Trees up to 70 feet long have been found standing perpendicular to the two stratum levels evolutionists say took millions of years to emerge. Fossil impressions of a tree’s foliage have also been found throughout both stratum layers. If it took hundreds of millions of years for these strata to develop, are we to believe that these trees remained alive during this time period as they were covered by mounds of rocks and other debris. Only an instantaneous covering could have caused this phenomenon, such as the Great flood of Noah’s time.
Given the hundreds of millions of people who would have been on earth prior to the flood, evolutionists ask what happened to all of the dead bodies. They need not think very long for this answer. Over 95 percent of the fossils found to date are from marine animals. Also, 95 percent of the remaining 5 percent are plant fossils. Only 0.0125 percent include all vertebrates, and most of these are fish. Why are there not more land animal fossils?
During the Great flood of Noah’s time, the entire earth was reshaped. Initially, land was contained in one land mass — as described in Genesis. As the rain poured down, the earth split into two land masses. The movement of earth was like nothing that had been previously seen before or since. As massive amounts of earth poured into the sea, many sea creatures were instantly covered, creating the fossils of today. The vast majority of land animals were either thrown into the sea, or drowned. The bodies of most of the land animals that drowned and floated in the ocean for months disintegrated as they floated in the waters that covered the earth.
Today, evolutionists claim there are two possible reasons why no transitional fossil records exist: the evolutionary cycle may be so fast that we cannot see the transitions, or the fossils could be the result of two catastrophic events in time.
Archaeological evidence gives no support to the theory of evolution. The period prior to the third millennium before Christ is referred to as pre-history. Why is such a name given? Because, there is no legitimate archaeological evidence indicating man’s existence prior to this period. Man, without any historical progression, mysteriously appeared out of nowhere, creating highly intelligent civilizations throughout the land of the fertile crescent, along the Indus Valley of India and in the land of China. According to these pre-historians, man came out of the forests where he fought and searched for food. Suddenly, he acquired the knowledge that provided him with the skills to build massive pyramids and other structures. Surely there should be a logical progression of history chronicling the advancement of these civilizations. Is it possible that they could achieve such feats instantaneously? As noted by Albert Sippert, “There are no signs anywhere that these civilizations slowly evolved upward from cave men and above all, not from apes.”
Now, look into the mirror. Can you imagine that your body developed simply by chance? Can you envision the human body being developed just by chance? The body requires precise temperature and chemical balance to maintain normal functioning. 20 amino acids must be precisely arranged in perfect sequence for life to be possible. Did this happen by chance? Does it happen repeatedly by chance?
Science is knowledge. Scientific methods include measurement, observation and repeatability. Evolutionists admit their theory cannot be measured, nor has it been observed or repeated. Evolution defies proven physical laws. If man evolved from apes, he would continue to evolve into something else. If the theory of evolution was true, the scientific community should be able to find at least one species of animals that has a fossil record or a genetic link. The far-fetched theory that aliens placed man on earth is more plausible than the theory of evolution. Evolution defies rationality.
How and why did this theory evolve? Darwin was an atheist. He did not believe there is a God. With no scientific evidence, with no knowledge of DNA, he simply promoted an unoriginal idea — and other atheists have developed it into a religion. Now, even many Christians believe in this theory. No, evolution is not science! Evolution denies science. If taught at all, it should be taught by philosophers instead of scientists.
The theory of evolution will not be ignored, so we must be informed to expose it.
Modern evolutionists are known as neo-Darwinians. They believe in natural selection but discount the notion of evolution through use or disuse. They believe in evolution through mutations, or random changes in the genetic makeup. They point to various abnormalities as examples of genetic mutation. The problem with this theory is that the examples they cite are genetic disorders that hinder rather than improve a specie’s characteristics. Radiation and chemicals can indeed produce mutations, but these mutations are not beneficial to life. The neo-Darwinian has mistaken change for evolution. Each of us carries certain abnormal mutations in our genetic makeup.
The mathematical probability of evolution from single cells to man is beyond comprehension. Our bodies contain nearly 100 trillion cells. The odds of getting cells to mutate together is the product of separate probabilities. The odds for evolution of a horse from single cells was determined to be 1 in 103,000.000 . The end result of this mathematical study was that it was impossible for evolution to have occurred through mutation.
There is a new group of evolutionists known as Post-neo-Darwinians who, to a large extent, have conceded the mathematical impossibility. However, many of them now believe in miracle mutations that may have come about through changes in the environment.
Author Ken Ham, a Christian, says: “If man did not really fall into sin, there is no need for a Saviour. Evolution destroys the very foundations of Christianity because it states, ‘Death is, and always has been, part of life.’” The Bible says death began with Adam’s fall, the beginning of sin. Only one can be true, creation or evolution.
The media and public schools and universities assume evolution as the default “reality.” National Geographic, the Travel Channel, the Discovery Channel and other television media airing wildlife programs often assert that animals evolved in one way or another. Yet they never provide a shred of evidence or scientific proof to substantiate their claims. The purpose of this is to brainwash viewers to get them to think evolution is true and beyond debate. If you repeat a lie often enough, people will believe it.
“Many of us have been hoodwinked into thinking evolution has to do with science
and that you need to be a scientist to do anything to combat it,” Ham says. “But evolution is only a belief system, and you do not need to be a scientist to combat that. Christians who do believe in evolution must believe that evolution is still going on. However, God has said in His word that when He created everything He finished His work of creation and pronounced it good (Gen. 1:31-2:3). This is completely contrary to what evolutionists are telling us.”
Atheistic evolution is a belief system denying God‘s existence. We are allegedly a result of chance, the schools and scientists claim. No one owns us; we own ourselves. Non-Christians easily accept this view because the Bible tells us that men love darkness rather than light, as they are sinful creatures (John 3:19). Evolution has become one of the biggest barriers to people being receptive to the Gospel of Jesus Christ.
Ham asks, “Can the body of Christ really expect a great outpouring of God’s spirit in revival while we tolerate and compromise with a religious system (evolution) that was set up primarily to deny God the glory and worship due to Him as the great creator, judge and redeemer? If you reject God and replace Him with another belief that puts chance and random processes in the place of God, there is no basis for right or wrong. Rules become whatever you want to make them. There are no absolutes — no principles that must be adhered to. Reduced to moral relativists, people will write their own rules.
“As the creation foundation is removed, we see the godly institutions also start to collapse,” Ham says. “On the other hand, as the evolution foundation remains firm, the structures built on that foundation — lawlessness, homosexuality, abortion, etc., logically increase. We must understand this connection. People do not understand the foundational nature of the battle. Creation vs. evolution is the bottom line.
“There is a war going on in society — a very real battle. The war is Christianity vs. humanism, but we must wake up to the fact that, at the foundational level, it’s really creation vs. evolution.”
God’s creation of the cosmos, the earth, plants, animals, and man took place just as it is described in Genesis, only a few thousand years ago … with no need for qualification or apology.
Watch for additional T.A.C. University posts on this topic.
A district court in Phoenix has thrown out a lawsuit by the NAACP attacking Arizona law prohibiting race-based and gender-based abortions.
The law was passed as the Susan B. Anthony and Frederick Douglass Pre-natal and Nondiscrimination Act by the Arizona Legislature in 2011. The law invokes Class 3 felony charges for anyone who:
- Commits an abortion due to the race of the child or a parent.
- Uses force or the threat of force to intentionally injure or intimidate anyone for the purpose of coercing a race-selection or gender-selection abortion.
- Solicits or accepts money to finance a sex-selection or gender-selection abortion.
U.S. District Judge David Campbell ruled the law is constitutional, the NAACP lacked standing and failed to show injury suffered by anyone due to the law.
This lawsuit shows once again how liberal the NAACP is and that instead of defending the innocent lives of pre-born minority children it would fight against the fact that disproportionate numbers of minorities are aborting their children. In fact, many abortion factories are located in minority neighborhoods.