Arizona Governor Should Veto Anti-Gay Law!


by Jeremy Griffith
American Millennium Online

 Hi gang, Jeremy here with The American Millennium. I’d like to talk to you about this so called anti-gay law that passed recently in the state legislature of Arizona. The governor has the option of passing or vetoing the law, she’s expected to act on it by Friday and she’s getting a lot of pressure to veto this very controversial law.

So the state legislature has passed a law to allow business owners to deny service to homosexuals or people in the LGBT community for religious reasons. That is to say, photographers don’t have to shoot their weddings and bakers don’t have to bake them cakes. Before we get into what I think of this law, let’s listen to what Judge Andrew Napolitano has to say about it. He was talking to Tom Sullivan on Fox News Radio. Here is the judge.

So there you have it. I have to say I was waffling on this law a bit but after having heard the judge speak on the issue I have to agree with him at least partially. I think this a bad law and should be vetoed and I think that even if it isn’t it is probably unconstitutional and will probably face challenges at the supreme court level where it will likely be overturned. I can understand a business owners hesitancy to offer services to people who are outside their religious views like gay weddings and such, on the other hand I don’t want to see a class of people go without housing, food or essential services because they live a certain lifestyle different than my own.

So that begs the question, does a Jewish bakery have to provide non-cosure food to a customer who has a swastika tattooed on his forehead, or does a gay interior decorator have to provide services to a business that opposes same sex marriage; Does a Christian caterer have to provide food to a party thrown on the anniversary of Rowe v. Wade at the local office of Planned Parenthood? You can see how we can go to extremes here. Do we have the freedom to associate with whom we please or don’t we. I think it’ll be a mess either way.

More importantly I think we as Christians miss an opportunity to engage with people of another worldview if we just throw them out of or businesses. Jesus gave us what we call the great commission in that we are to share our faith with the world. We in essence are lifeguards of the world and we are ordered to educate, share and rebuke those around us as we share the Gospel. It doesn’t mean we all have to be Billy Graham or we have to yell at gay couples and tell them they’re going to hell. No! But when we see the drowning swimmer, do we judge is or her lack of planning, rebuke them for not learning to swim or for not wearing a life vest? No, that is not the time to judge, that is the time to throw the lifeline and as Christians, we are called to do that.

What it does mean I think that most of us have to be prepared to be like Andrew the Apostle who often lead people to Jesus and made introductions. I think when the opportunity is offered to engage with these people, we should, not with hate like the Westborough Baptists do but as Jesus did. Remember he often hung out with the riff raff, the tax collectors, prostitutes and sinners. That’s because he came to save us as many as possible from inevitable judgment. We need to be compassionate with these people and show by demonstration in our personal lives how Jesus influenced and changed us and thereby show them what awaits them if they commit their lives to him as well.

I think you should be subtle, business owners in your dealings with the LGBT community. Instead of throwing them out, offer a better deal and better quality service than what they would expect to get at a shop that endorses their lifestyle. A better cake for that wedding and better photos for the reception. Greet them with a smile and a handshake and show them how you are different you are than the world around them. Entice their curiosity. Put a Bible verse in your shop or on your business card, or a provocative saying that will spark a conversation: something like “My boss is a Jewish carpenter. Ask me how he changed my life!” Then be prepared to give a satisfactory answer. Remember Jesus wasn’t judgmental. I can totally see him at a gay wedding. When invited by Matthew the tax collector, he didn’t brow beat old Matt, he told stories and won people over with his words. That’s how we should act, toward everyone who crosses our path and that is how the Christian makes an impact on the world, one person at a time.

No one will darken the door to your churches before if they see the members acting like asses. And that’s my view.

If you have a different point of view or would like to comment about the new Arizona law, you can add your opinion to the comment section below.

Listen to Tom Sullivan’s full interview with Judge Napolitano on Fox News Radio here.

 

 

Share This:

Hold back on the feathers and tar: FCC abandons plan to embed monitors in American Newsrooms

by Jeremy Griffith
The American Millennium

 

Peter Firth from the movie, The Red October. FCC abandoned it's plan this week to embed government monitors in American news agencies.

Peter Firth from the movie, The Red October. FCC abandoned it’s plan this week to embed government monitors in American news agencies.

Just yesterday I recommended on this blog that newsroom editors, TV and radio producers, tar and feather (verbally) FCC monitors embedded into their newsrooms. It looks like that will no longer be necessary, as the FCC has backed off on this enormous government assault on the First Amendment.

This is a great victory for journalism and the First Amendment. (Damn, I was really looking forward to the tarring and the feathering!) Nonetheless, we must be continually vigilant against these kinds of assaults on our constitutional freedoms by big government. Someone in the FCC thought it was a good idea to place embedded spies inside American newsrooms to kind of steer their editorial decisions towards the types of stories they wanted covered, what they called the public’s Critical Information Needs. No one thought for a second that anyone would pay any attention or that there would be any blowback. They thought you were watching the Olympics. There was blowback however, and that’s a good thing.

National Review’s Tim Cavanaugh pats himself on the back in his recent article on this issue, as he was the one to first cover it back in October of 2013. We concede the point; Tim is a great American! Good job. Read his most recent article in the NRO here.

But the real hero of the day is Mr. Ajit Pai, the FCC commissioner who opposed his peers and rocked the boat by writing in opposition to the idea in an op-ed piece published in the Wall Street Journal last week. Mr. Pai is to be complimented on his efforts. It is a rare government official who will stand up for what is right rather than go with the flow. Thank you, Mr. Pai.

But lest we get too comfortable, let us read on into what Cavanaugh writes in his NRO piece. You see, the FCC is not done; they’re just regrouping. They’re still sending surveys to TV and radio journalism outlets, these based on race and ethnicity, with the controversial questions taken out and no threat of government intrusion in the form of spies in the newsroom. Says Cavanaugh:

“… a revised version of the survey could raise new concerns: that it will trade its now-kiboshed news questions for a demographic survey that might justify new race-based media ownership rulemaking.”

Quoting the FCC press release, Cavanaugh writes, “[I]n the course of FCC review and public comment, concerns were raised that some of the questions may not have been appropriate. Chairman [Tom] Wheeler agreed that survey questions in the study directed toward media outlet managers, news directors, and reporters overstepped the bounds of what is required. Last week, Chairman Wheeler informed lawmakers that that Commission has no intention of regulating political or other speech of journalists or broadcasters and would be modifying the draft study. Yesterday, the Chairman directed that those questions be removed entirely.”

Yay! That’s awesome. But what is this business about demographics and race-based media ownership rule making? It’s Political Correctness crap run amok! In order to get a new license for a TV or radio station, you’ll have to have female body parts or some sort of a tan. Ask anyone who drives truck in this country and they’ll tell you how PC rules have hampered the way they do business.

Now I’m all for diversity. But I don’t think that that is something we can produce with federal rule making. The best thing the federal government can do for diversity and entrepreneurship is to get the Hell out of the way and stop with the onerous regulations. These big government bureaucratic types will never stop trying to infringe on our rights and assert their control over every aspect of our lives. That is why we must do as Patrick Stewart suggests when the actor played Captain Jean-Luc Picard on Star Trek: The Next Generation. “Vigilence is the price we must continually pay!” he said, in order to preserve the freedom of the Republic. Actually he was talking about the United Federation of Planets, but the ideal is the same. Ok, I’m a total geek for making this reference, but you get my point.

Vigilance and pushback is what got the Ukrainians where they are today. Their daily protests in Kiev have resulted in a truce after over a hundred brave protesters lost their lives at the hands of government forces. The Parliament is calling for the removal of the pro-Russian president and is reverting to an earlier constitution limiting presidential power, just as the protestors asked for. The US government and big government types like Barack H. Obama have to be quaking in their boots watching this story unfold. Read about it on the Fox News website here.

So keep up the pressure patriots and take my advice: invest in pine tar and feathers now, just in case they become as rare as .22 caliber bullets. We can’t win if we don’t fight.

 

 

 

 

Share This:

Tar and Feathers: The Solution to FCC Overreach in American Media?


(Scene from HBO mini-series, “John Adams”.Warning, explicit!)

By Jeremy Griffith
The American Millennium

An example of tarring and feathering practice in Boston in 1773.

An example of tarring and feathering practice in Boston in 1773.

In pre-revolutionary Boston, I’m told, a public servant of the British Monarchy ran amok of local ship owners and shipping workers when he demanded that a load of British Tea be off loaded from a ship in the harbor. The incident led to the offending official being “Tarred and Feathered”. Perhaps they should bring back the practice for the FCC?

The Bostonians cried, foul! They said they didn’t want the tea as it represented the unfair taxation of the British crown on Bostonians. At the time it was the only tea allowed to be imported in the colonies and it carried a tax meant to help pay for British wars in the colonies which the Parliament thought it should be the colonists’ partial responsibility to pay. The Bostonians would have none of that and brought to a boiling point, decided to “tar and feather” the fellow, a barbarous and painful act in which boiling hot pine tar was applied to the bare skin followed by a load of feathers. The goal was to torment and humiliate the fellow as it was very painful to be doused in hot tar and it made one look quite ridiculous walking around with the feathers of a bird stuck to the skin. The victim was then “ridden on the rail”, where the victim was forced to sit on a rail and then carried around by other men in a parade of humiliation.

Fast forward to today! We are informed by FCC Commissioner Ajit Pai (a very American name, I must say!) that his colleagues in the Federal Communications Commission want to put “researchers”, read: government monitors, into television and radio news rooms around the country where they will in Pai’s words, “With its “Multi-Market Study of Critical Information Needs,” or CIN, the agency plans to send researchers to grill reporters, editors and station owners about how they decide which stories to run.”

Fun! When is this going to start? Mr. Pai informs us that the pilot program will begin in Columbia South Carolina this spring. Kudos to Pai for bringing this information to us. He correctly observes that the federal government has no business inserting itself in a constitutionally protected private organization like a television or radio news room. Says Pai, “Should all stations follow MSNBC’s example and cut away from a discussion with a former congresswoman about the National Security Agency’s collection of phone records to offer live coverage of Justin Bieber’s bond hearing? As a consumer of news, I have an opinion. But my opinion shouldn’t matter more than anyone else’s merely because I happen to work at the FCC.”

Well said, Mr. Pai! You can read the rest of Pai’s’ Op-Ed in the Wall Street Journal here. It a good, but disturbing read.

Robert Laurie of the Canada Free Press explains in greater detail what the FCC researchers will be doing. Apparently they’ve concocted eight Critical Information Needs of the populace at large, which they will use as guidelines they will be using in questioning news editorial boards about how they plan to satisfy those CINs. Says Laurie, “Their study would demand that news departments answer a series of questions designed to “ascertain the process by which stories are selected, station priorities (for content production quality, and populations served), perceived station bias, perceived percent of news dedicated to each of the eight CIN’s and perceived responsiveness to underserved populations.”

Laurie continues, “They also want to “understand the critical information needs of the American public. One of the issues addressed in the study is how these CINs are framed, and whether said framing does enough do give viewers the full context of the story.”
Laurie asked a very correct and relevant question regarding this intrusion by the Federal Government into Free Speech and Press. He asked, in a nutshell, what happens if the other party was to do this during their administration? Do you still think it’s a good idea?
You can read the content of Laurie’s article in the Canada Free Press here, where the publication’s stated motto is, “Without America, there would be no Free World”!

We are told that the FCC would send monitors to newspapers as well as a part of this study, even though they have no regulatory authority on newspapers as such. Participation is “voluntary” but the FCC issues TV and radio stations their licenses, which begs the question, what happens if these organizations are less than cooperative with this new government intrusion into their business? Will their license be yanked?

I have a suggestion to those who manage the respective news agencies: tar and feather the bastards!

Now I don’t mean to literally tar and feather them as was done in colonial days, but you might want to perform a little object lesson to get the FCC goon thinking about the ramifications of what he is doing. Take a vat of pine tar and heat it to boiling over a hot plate. Have Mr. or Ms. FCC Dude or Dudette sit by the hot plate and gently apply the tar to their hand or cheek with a cotton swab. Then apply downy feathers to the affected area. Ask the FCC rep this question: Do you like how that feels? Then by all means, come back tomorrow and will do the whole thing!

In that first meeting I recommend that you have your attorney present to “grille” the offending government rep on their understanding of the First Amendment with special attention paid to the concept of prior restraint. Remind them their boss in the big white house in Washington D.C. taught constitutional law for a decade before occupying his current office. Then ask what they believe their boss’s concept of the First Amendment and prior restraint is. Document their response on camera and post it on your website. Then conduct your editorial meeting and discuss you’re weekly stories. One story idea I humbly suggest for you editors and publishers: the new intrusion of the FCC into your editorial practices.

I have another suggestion, this one for patriots living in Washington D.C. Find the FCC offices and get together with some of your friends outside. Bring along some boiling pine tar and bags of feathers and wait outside. Have one of your members politely knock on the door of their office and inform whoever is there that you will be waiting for them outside. Document their reactions on video and post it to your blog. Let the cops who come to speak to you know that you are just gathering in protest and you have no real intention of torturing government officials, that your only real intent is polite observation of constitutional history and ramifications.

I think everyone should be disturbed by the return of government intrusion into the press. Already many Americans are frustrated at the pro-government bias in newsrooms today. Our only recourse, and it’s an effective one, is the free market. When the news doesn’t fit the needs of the consumer, we shut them off. It’s up to the news agency to figure out our needs, not the government and in a free market capitalist system, the market decides.

We don’t want to become a Russian satellite state, where the state owns and operates the media. The Constitution is a sacred declaration of our rights. It doesn’t grant our rights; it simply declares what should be a foregone conclusion, self-evident. This government has been assaulting our rights for years, as has the previous administration. It is up to the citizens of this country to wake up and take a stand, saying enough is enough.

Who is next on the FCCs’ list, bloggers? If they’re going after newspapers, where they have no authority, then the Internet and independent blogs are surely next. Welcome back net neutrality.

Here at The American Millennium, I am not suggesting we actually physically abuse unelected government officials in the manner depicted in the video above. I talk about this practice purely tongue in cheek to illustrate a point. I agree with John Adams as played by the actor Paul Giamatti, it is a brutal and illegal act. However, I do recommend that editors and producers publicly shame and humiliate the FCC regulatory monitors for their illegal intrusion into their newsrooms.

If Americans reacted so violently to a tax worth only a few pennies per cup of tea, then what will they do now with their constitutional rights being violated almost daily by an overreaching big government? Will we turn into the Ukraine, which is on fire as we speak?

These monitors should be educated on the strength of the constitution and the purpose of the amendments as put forth by The Framers. This is an incredible teaching point that those newsrooms should not pass on. If they do take a pass, then what happens to the freedom of press and of speech that we all once enjoyed?! Watch the fascinating example of the practice of tarring and feathering below from the HBO mini-series “John Adams”. I’ve also included an interesting discussion of the practice and history of tarring and feathering from Reddit here.

American Millennium creator Jeremy Griffith on the steps inside the Minnesota capitol in St. Paul. Griffith is a veteran of the Iraq war and part-time blogger. All opinions presented here are his own.

American Millennium creator Jeremy Griffith on the steps inside the Minnesota capitol in St. Paul. Griffith is a veteran of the Iraq war and part-time blogger. All opinions presented here are his own.

Share This:

Hagedorn Takes the Fight to Walz over Health Care

Jim Hagedorn, 1st District Republican Congressional Candidate, held a press conference in front of Rep. Tim Walz’s Rochester office to talk about the detrimental effects of Obamacare,(Affordable Health Care Act), on consumers, the City of Rochester, and the Mayo Clinic.

Below is the press release and video of the comments he made to the press Wednesday, Feb. 19, 2014.

Hagedorn is one of several candidates competing in a crowded Republican field who are vying for the opportunity to challenge Rep. Tim Walz-D for his 1st District Congressional Seat. The winner of a state Republican convention will move on to run against Walz later this year. The CD1 convention takes place on April 5, while the state convention takes place on May 30-31. For more information on upcoming dates, check out the Olmsted County GOP calander here, or check out their website at http://olmstedgop.org. 

Hagedorn – Rochester Obamacare PR

The American Millennium does not endorse any candidate or candidate’s campaign. The creators of the American Millennium stand for conservative free market principles and limited government. Candidates who want to discuss their views prior to the county and state conventions can contact us at the AmericanMillenniumOnline.com.

Share This:

Nye/Ham Creation-Evolution Debate Largely a Draw

By Jeremy Griffith
American Millennium Online

The Downy Woodpecker outside my window is a great example of Intelligent Design- photo by AP

The Downy Woodpecker outside my window is a great example of Intelligent Design- photo by AP

Outside my window, right beside the back porch patio doors, a woodpecker drums its beak into the wood of an insect-infected tree like a jackhammer into concrete. Evidence of his work is all over the side of the tree, demonstrating to the casual observer that the little guy has been very busy. The specialized anatomy of the woodpecker is a great example of engineering and intelligent design that defies evolution, the kind of evidence that would have been great in a debate of Evolution and Creation. Sadly examples like this did not come up in last night’s debate between Evolutionist Bill Nye The Science Guy and Creationist Ken Ham.

Don’t get me wrong, I enjoyed the debate immensely and I encourage anyone to go and see it on the web. The video podcast is still available for several days on debatelive.org. In the debate, which lasted nearly 3 hours, the two contestants battled it out over the question of whether or not the Creation model is a viable model for scientific discussion, a question as stated I thought automatically put the Creationist presenter on the defensive. I got the impression, when all was said and done, of amateur middle-weight boxers dancing around each other for a while and never landing any significant blows.

To those of you who haven’t heard, Ken Ham, author and curator of the Creation Museum in Petersburg KY invited the Emmy winning science broadcaster Bill Nye to debate their worldviews Tuesday night. I thought is was a friendly debate and CNN moderator Tom Foreman was great, injecting a bit of wit and maintaining a fair and balanced debate that was very fair to the participants. You can see more information on the debate at CNN’s Belief Blog here.

Time Magazine has already published a piece on the web including a blow-by-blow account of the debate on their blog Swampland. In the blog, it’s very evident that the author didn’t think much of the Creationist presenter Ham, and I’m disappointed that Time would disenfranchise their more religious readers by allowing a junior writer to be so snarky and disrespectful. Disappointing, but not unexpected coming from the mainstream media. You can read that blog here.

I thought Ham had a very strong opening using power point slides showing that Creationists are not a bunch of religious fanatics who want to discard science altogether and live in the backwoods of Kentucky worshiping in churches that handle snakes. To bolster his point, Ham’s presentation had testimonials from Ph. D scientists from several disciplines of science who are willing to speak out on their creationist leanings. Nye’s opening wasn’t quite as strong as he didn’t present much evidence to show that Creationists are a bunch of science hating cooks and actually wasted much time on a very unamusing story about how his father learned to tie a bow-tie. He did have a prop however. He showed off a rock he had extracted there in Kentucky with a fossil in it, declaring essentially, “here is an example of evolution, right here in your own back yard,” without ever examining why a dead critter stuck in a rock is dead-to-rights evidence that evolution ever took place. We’ll just have to take his word for it, or not.

While the two competitors danced around the subject, I found myself longing for more grit, more evidence, to back up what the presenters were attesting. I didn’t find it. Nye went on and on discussing how he thought it was inconceivable that an ancient book that almost no one has read, translated from Aramaic and Greek into English could be used to justify a set of viable scientific principles. He harped on his view that an embrace of Creation mysticism would hamper scientific education in America and would handicap American youth in higher educational disciplines and eventually result in the decline of the country. Ham meanwhile asserted his understanding of the Bible as an explanation of our origins and asserted that all scientific study should utilize that book as the basis for all search for truth, scientific or otherwise.

There was some discussion of details, though they were sparse on both sides. Nye blasted the story of the Noah Ark and flood as largely mythical. He had satellite photographs of large zoos filled with animals and the land necessary to support the animals with food and grazing areas. He discounted the possibility of those animals, the many species of them miraculously coming onto the ark and living for the better part of a year while the earth and all its greenery was deluged in water.

Ham rebutted that there really weren’t all that many animals on the ark, that they were only invited to be rescued by kinds, not species, and only the warm-blooded ones at that so that the numbers aboard would be greatly reduced, adding to the credence that the animals could be saved as the Bible suggests.

Nye countered with his disbelief that such a boat, made all of wood as the ark was, could sustain a long voyage on a torrential sea without twisting and bowing and ultimately breaking apart. “Noah and company weren’t the master shipbuilders of today, how could they have designed and built a boat capable of withstanding such a flood?” Nye suggests.

Ham counters “how do you know what kind of a shipmaster Noah was, did you meet him?” In fact, Ham observes, ancient civilizations have had advanced technology and architecture that we in modern times don’t have full comprehension of, a rare blow made by Ham on Nye’s evolutionary argument.

And thus it went back and forth for a while. There was some discussion about the geological column of the earth as demonstrated by the Grand Canyon and I had hope that Ham would land some blows on Nye with that discussion. Sadly that opportunity was largely missed. Nye questioned an idea of how any catastrophic happening like the flood should create such land features like the Grand Canyon and argued that the canyon was obviously the work of slow steady processes over billions of years as the Uniformitarian naturalist argument often states. Ham acknowledges that the Grand Canyon is interesting and states that it is not a result of long slow evolutionary processes, but doesn’t go into evidence to support his case, another opportunity lost.

Nye showed a graphic in his presentation showing the geological column along with examples of early primitive fossils likely found in such strata of rock, proudly declaring it as evidence undisputed of evolution. The problem is that the geological column as pictured appears nowhere in nature and the fossils found there often are also present in other layers of rock billions of years ahead or behind where they are supposed to be.

“Show me an example of where a fossil like this is found in any other strata and maybe I’ll believe in something other than evolution!” Nye asserts with passion. “They are no where to be found!”

You got it Mr. Nye! Here you go. In the Institute for Creation Research (ICR) article by Steve A. Austin, Ph.D, entitled “Ten Misconceptions about the Geological Column” Austin blows away this point with Misconception No. 6. It’s quite lengthy but I include it all so that the reader may understand the whole context as Dr. Austin states the facts much more eloquently than I could.

Austin writes, “Misconception No. 6. Fossils, especially the species distinctive of specific systems, provide the most reliable method of assigning strata to their level in the geologic column.

“Bed-to-bed correlation of strata to their “type system” area is the most reliable method of assigning strata to a system. The data from oil well drilling, seismic surveys, and surface geologic mapping is of such character that subsurface correlation of lithostratigraphic units of the thickness of systems is possible on a continental scale. Although some fossils appear to be distinctive of certain systems (most fossil taxa range through a few to several systems), care must be exercised in correlation by fossils. First, the stratigraphic range of a fossil type is always open to extension as new fossils are discovered. Second, when an extension of a fossil’s range may be required, geologists may call upon erosion (reworking fossils into younger strata or leaking fossils into older strata) and structural events (overturning or faulting strata and fossils). An example of the first problem is the monoplacophoran mollusk Pilina, which might otherwise be considered diagnostic of the Silurian System, except for the startling discovery that Neopilina lives today, and, therefore, would be expected in any system overlying the Silurian. For these reasons correlation by fossils must always remain tentative awaiting further confirmatory evidence from lithostratigraphy. We should look very skeptically at strata correlations which rely solely on fossils.”

So there you have it. A fossil exists not only in strata where it’s not supposed to be, but the creature that made it, largely believed to be extinct is still alive and swimming. What do I win, Mr. Nye?!

Austin’s article about the misconceptions surrounding the geological column is fascinating and I recommend everyone read it, here. Did you know for example that the column was created by geologists who considered themselves to be Creationists and who if living today would have thoroughly rejected its use to determine time as the evolutionists have? I did not know that. Did you also know that the geological column is often missing layers that are totally stripped away, missing, flipped on top of another in nonsequencial order and often intertwined? I had heard that bit before. All these and more could have been ammunition for Ham against his evolutionary opponent that unfortunately was not picked up. It was like the Ship of Ham had come along for a perfect broadside against Ship Nye and Ham, with that perfect position, declined to fire.

I was glad to see that Ham largely debunked Nye’s assertion that radiometric dating was indisputable evidence of the age of the earth. Ham showed a graphic in his presentation showing all the different ways an age of a rock or of the earth can be determined and many if not all can be subjective depending on your assumptions of starting points, i.e. how much radio-active material was in a rock before it started to degrade. Was the glass half full when we started, or was it at three-quarters?

Talk of radiometric dating, the geological column, or Noah’s Ark aside, there was very little evidence leading any participant to an overall win in this debate. That is all I suppose we can expect from two duelists possessing degrees no higher than a bachelors? (I did not know that Nye was educated with a bachelor of science in Mechanical Engineering, did you? Ham likewise also has nothing higher to boast that a bachelor’s. Both have honorary degrees, but still! Maybe at the next debate we can get some experts in the fields with Ph. Ds? Hhmmm!?)

I’m no scientist, but I do have a degree higher than a bachelor’s. (Masters in New Media Journalism, if you must know!) And, in less than five minutes I found several articles and videos from credible sources demonstrating evidence for a creation scientific model. There was the Austin article on the geological column for example, a fascinating article about the wonderfully evolution frustrating anatomy of the common woodpecker, and a video from You Tube featuring Dr. Danny Faulkner, featured in Ham’s presentation, where Faulkner discusses Biblically compatible theories of astronomy and cosmology. I’m sure the evolutionists could find similar defenses of their worldview in a matter of minutes. (By the way, I recommend the reader see Dr. Faulkner’s comments in the movie, The Young Sun from Iachod Visuals where he talks about the problems of evolutionary star formation.)

The argument is not that there is evidence that can be made readily available for each worldview. The problem lies in the almost total banning of one worldview being taught in public schools. Often schools will have evolutionary teaching in science class rooms, but any talk of a creation model is outlawed and any academic scholar who even breathes a reference to it is fired and banned from Academia. See Ben Stein’s movie “Expelled: No Intelligence Allowed”, where Stein talks to prominent scientists dismissed for their beliefs and Stein’s fascinating interview of famous atheist Richard Dawkins.

I also didn’t like Nye’s assertion that discussions of such topics in high school classrooms could degrade the level of scientific education in America. Did you see the snarky backhanded insult he gave to Kentuckian Education. (He basically blasted the state because a precious scientific degree program was not offered in the state. I wonder how many other states similarly do not offer that particular program. Nye doesn’t elaborate.) Nye riddle’s Ham for what he perceives as his backward devotion to that ancient book the Bible and his near fanatic embrace of the youthful timeline of man, 4,000-6,000 years, as if Ham is the only one in Christendom who offers this view.

Actually, the number of people who advocate this view is increasing, though many Christians also think some form of evolution is still compatible with the Biblical account.

American Vision founder and CEO Gary DeMar has offered his opinion on Creation Vs. Evolution and has hosted debates between Ph. D level participants regarding this issue. In a recent article he argues that he would not have accepted a debate with Nye due to the slanted nature of the question posed as the premise of the debate. DeMar writes,

How I would I go about debating Bill Nye the UnScience Guy? First, I never would have agreed to the question being debated. I would have chosen “Is Abiogenesis a Viable Model of Origins in any World?” This is what it’s really all about: Life from non-life. The debate would be over before it started. To win, Bill Nye will have to demonstrate scientifically (demonstrate is the key word) that life as we know it came from non-life from no outside intelligent agency!”

Nye skirted this issue in the debate without really knowing it in a response to a question from Ham, mentioning Louis Pasteur who did important research on vaccines.

Says Nye, “You say life cannot come from nonlife! Are you absolutely sure?!”

The answer from Ham that we anticipated but never got was, “Yes, Louis Pasteur proved it in his laboratory. End of story. Life does not come from nonlife.” Before Pasteur, we believed rats came from piles of rags and flies came into being out of thin air. Sorry Bill.

DeMar continues: Until evolutionists demonstrate (1) the origin of matter out of nothing (a topic they rarely want to talk about), (2) how inorganic matter evolved into organic matter (spontaneous generation), (3) the origin of information and its meaningful organization (DNA programming), and (4) a genetic explanation for why it is mandatory that anyone be moral (ethics), evolution is a modern form of alchemy.

“No evolutionist has ever shown a single example of spontaneous generation. That’s why evolutionists want to talk about this found skull and that found femur and this percentage of chimpanzee DNA in relation to human DNA. It’s a long way from nothing to you and me and everything in between. I want to know how nothing became something and how that something became the UnScience Guy and the rest of the life we see on planet earth in terms of what can be demonstrated scientifically.”

 “I want to know how nothing became something and how that something became the UnScience Guy and the rest of the life we see on planet earth in terms of what can be demonstrated scientifically.” -Gary DeMar, American Vision

 

Indeed, Nye showed a graphic of different skulls including apes and humans combined, almost prophetically proving DeMar’s point unknowingly. Said Nye, “You look at these skulls with all their differences and similarities and tell me where modern man falls.”

You can read the rest of DeMar’s comments on his blog here in the article entitled, “How I would Debate Bill Nye the UnScience Guy”.

After the debate is over and the participants shake hands I’m left with the feeling that no forward progress was made, neither side redeeming themselves to the supporters of the other, rather they continued the status quo of their own following. I hope more debates like this will happen in the public sphere, but have little hope that any scientist with an evolutionary worldview will willingly expose themselves again to the criticism of a credentialed creationist scientist armed with facts.

 

 

 

 

 

Share This: