(Disclaimer: Some articles and links to articles published in this ezine may contain false doctrine. They are included due to some valuable content. The fact that they are printed here does not mean that we accept or endorse their doctrine. All writings of men, including ours, should be carefully compared to the New Testament writings.)



Visit the new Piedmont, Alabama church of Christ website at: www.piedmontcoc.org.

The book of Genesis was written by Moses some 2550 years after the creation. That statement is contradicted by some, concerning both the writer and the time. Nevertheless, it is my stand. He could not possibly have written it without inspiration from God. But neither could anyone else at any other time. Regardless of when it was written or by whom, it has to be accepted as a very ancient document. It was written at a time when the accumulation of knowledge was very small in any of the areas such as science, geography, physics, chemistry, and so on.

Aside from all this, it has proven accurate in every case that has been proven either way since that time. With vast accumulations of information in the above mentioned fields, there can not be a single word of Genesis proven wrong! It went virtually unquestioned for some 3,200 years until the early 19th century A.D. About 1830, Sir Charles Lyell published his "Principles of Geology" promoting Uniformitarianism which is completely contradictory to Catastrophism, a term describing geological deposits, etc as related to the world wide flood. And with the advent of Darwin's theory and book, "The Origin of Species", the Genesis account came under severe scrutiny. Self proclaimed intellectuals, philosphers, and many scientists jumped at the opportunity to try and destroy the creationist views. Read the following quote from "All About Genesis"

It wasn't until late in the 20th Century that Uniformitarianism was finally disproved by such observed geologic features as poly-strata fossils, misplaced and missing geologic layers, lack of erosion between layers, the deficiency of bioturbation, undisturbed bedding planes, the limited extent of unconformities, soft-sediment deformation, well preserved surface features between layers, etc. Although Catastrophism has been vindicated by the weight of recent scientific evidence (including the abundant marine fossils found atop every mountain range in the world), many geologists tenaciously cling to the Uniformitarian paradigm. And so, tragically, Uniformitarianism -- with its alleged Geologic Column based upon the assumption of uniformity -- is still taught as fact in the public schools and the general media today.

The current public debate over the legitimacy of various theories on the origin of life and whether or not they should be taught as science is healthy. At least in debate there is the opportunity for ideas to be considered and compared; which is something that most atheists, agnostics, and even some religionists are apparently not willing to tolerate in the context of a science classroom. Why?

The National Academy of Sciences explains its view in the conclusion of its 1999 publication, Science and Creationism: "The claim that equity demands balanced treatment of evolutionary theory and special creation in science classrooms reflects a misunderstanding of what science is and how it is conducted. Scientific investigators seek to understand natural phenomena by observation and experimentation. Scientific interpretations of facts and the explanations that account for them therefore must be testable by observation and experimentation."

The Academy further clarified: "Creationism, intelligent design, and other claims of supernatural intervention in the origin of life or of species are not science because they are not testable by the methods of science.... This contrasts with science, where any hypothesis or theory always remains subject to the possibility of rejection or modification in the light of new knowledge."

That last quote seems so objective and open minded. Yet, those who contend that the spontaneous generation of life from nothing is good science are quite intolerant to suggestions that we are here by design. They claim that their intolerance is because designer theories are not science which can be observed and tested. Yet, the Academy also wrote: "Science is not the only way of acquiring knowledge about ourselves and the world around us. Humans gain understanding in many other ways, such as through literature, the arts, philosophical reflection, and religious experience." Is it possible that there are things outside of their narrow definition of science that might actually be helpful to science?

(Reprinted from 4th quarter 2005 Think On These Things)

It is with our passions, as it is with fire and water, they are good servants but bad masters...Aesop

It is the mark of an educated mind to be able to entertain a thought without accepting it...Aristotle

Isn't it strange that such meaningful terms as vex and it's tenses are used so little nowadays? Vex (vĕks) v., vexed, vex·ing, vex·es.

(1) To annoy, as with petty importunities; bother.
(2) To cause perplexity in; puzzle.
(3) To bring distress or suffering to; plague or afflict.
(4) To debate or discuss (a question, for example) at length.
(5) To toss about or shake up.

I reckon I vex easily. I must, because I stay vexed just about all the time. Solomon, later in life said that "all is vanity and vexation of spirit" seven times! And he was much smarter than I. He said "all" and some times I get the feeling he was correct in that also. I can name you zillions of things, all the way from wads of crabgrass and dandelions in my lawn, my dogs (whom I love almost without reservation) and their imprudence with their daily routines, all the way up to politicians, evolutionists, and atheists. I grant anyone the right to believe anything they wish, but to push their agenda when they know full well they have no basis for it...vexes me.

Perhaps the most extreme vexation for me is that things like macroevolution, uniformitarianism and the like, are taught in our schools with impunity as scientific facts. When there is nothing scientific about either. Not only do they have zero empirical evidence for them, there is very strong evidence disproving them. Those who promote this have no basis for it except they have the upper hand. They are in control. And it vexes me that you and I do nothing more than complain about it. We don't even demand that our politicians state their positions on these matters. Let's do.

I can win an argument on any topic, against any opponent. People know this, and steer clear of me at parties. Often, as a sign of their great respect, they don't even invite me.

Skiing combines outdoor fun with knocking down trees with your face.