Scientific Wimps In Kansas

The School Board of the State of Kansas have found themselves in a great controversy. The controversy is over the sacred cow of the scientific community. The controversy can be summed up in one question: "Is Darwinian evolution the only way to scientifically study the start of life?"

During the first week of May, the school board decided to have hearings on the question. Many in Kansas want to introduce into their school's curriculum alternative scientific methods opposed to strict Darwinianism. They invited scientists from both sides to debate this issue. Yet, one of the sides refused to come. The Darwinians would not show up for the debate. They stood outside the meeting hall and protested the procedures going on inside. In my opinion, this is the height of hypocrisy. We have a bunch of scientist afraid to be challenged. We have a bunch of scientific wimps in the state of Kansas.

On the day the Scopes Monkey Trial ended, those who believed in Darwinian evolution have demanded that the scientific community reject all other ideas. They demanded that institutions of higher learning not tenure science faculty unless they are strict Darwinians. They demanded that the federal government not give any scientific grants to people or groups that do not hold to Darwinian evolution. These demands were met, and this allowed the Darwinian evolutionists to have a strangle hold on the topic of life.

The strangle hold is now broken. Ohio, Minnesota, and New Mexico have introduced scientific criticism to Darwin's theories in their curriculum. I predict that Kansas will do the same. Those who reject the criticism have decided not to debate the facts. Instead, they have decided to have a PR smear campaign. They call all the major news organizations together, call their opponents ignorant and backwards, and refuse to talk over the facts. The truth is that this will work on many, but I do not think the majority of Americans are convinced that Darwinian evolution is the only way to study the beginning of life.

I am not a scientist, and though I have my own theory on the subject, my theory is not what causes me to write this article. I remember one time expressing my views about the Bible in a college classroom. A very smart young lady looked at me and said, "You are so closed minded, I don't even want to talk with you." I found this statement absolutely hilarious. She called me closed minded, yet she is the one who refused to talk.

For the Darwinian scientist to call other people ignorant is fine with me. What isn't fine is their refusal to change the ignorance. If you are a Science teacher, you have a duty to teach what you believe is true. You should demand to be heard. It is your job to explain truth in such a way that it leaves no room for questions. Unless, of course, there is a legitimate question, then that is to be examined. Maybe that is the problem. Just maybe there is a legitimate question that they do not want to examine.

As a Biblicist, I have a major problem with evolution. In the future, I may right an article based on my ideas and opinions. However, I will not go around the internet and try to shut down everyone who disagrees with me. That wouldn't be in the best interest of science. That is unless you are a Darwinian evolutionist in the state of Kansas. Because if you are, that is exactly what you are trying to do.

Politics In The Church

Something dangers happened in Waynesville, North Carolina on May 3rd, and it should be a lesson to all pastors in every type of church. On May 3rd, nine members of East Waynesville Baptist Church walked out of a meeting due to the pastor's teaching on voting. As soon as they left, the rest of the congregation decided to vote them out because of their descention. This caused the national media to surround this little church, and it ultimately led to the resignation (this was not widely reported in the media) of the pastor and the reinstatement of those that left.

For over a year, Pastor Chan Chandler made it clear from the pulpit that he believed that voting for John Kerry was a sin. He taught this leading up to the election, and he wouldn't stop teaching it 6 months after the election. In my opinion, Pastor Chandler overstepped his role as a spiritual leader. He jeopardized his personal ministry, and he jeopardized his church's tax exempt status. His behavior was foolish and dangerous. His behavior did nothing but harm to the church, and to the cause he preached about.

Anyone who knows me knows my political views. I am a very conservative person. I am very far to the right theologically, socially, and financially. My over all voting record reflects my views, and my Biblical interpretation reinforces my beliefs. That being said, I would never and I have never mentioned a candidate from the pulpit. I do everything I can not to even mention candidates in the halls of my church. However, sometimes this is unavoidable.

Pastors need to be very careful not to violate church and state protocol. We live in a nation with a lot of freedom. The last thing a pastor should want to do is abuse the freedom given to him. If a church outwardly supports a candidate, that church is then seen as a political organization and is subject to different tax codes and laws. This would be a deathblow to many congregations.

So what can a pastor and a church do? As a pastor I have a right and a duty to preach about moral issues. It is my hope that the people of my congregation will apply these teachings to every aspect of their lives. It is my hope that they will put the teachings of the Bible over their family history, their political parties, and their job situation.

Also, as a pastor, I have the right to generally educate my congregation about political parties. The church has every right to post on bulletin boards and in other places the political platform for each party. The congregation should not be ignorant of these platforms, and this will hopefully help them make wise decisions.

The pulpit is a sacred desk, and should be used for the teaching of the Bible. The word of emphasis here is the Bible. Over the last few years, I have pain stakingly studied through the Gospel of John on Sunday mornings. Not once in my study did I run across the name George Bush or John Kerry. Thus it would have been a derelict of my duties to mention either one of them. For my duty is to preach the word. I can and should be as political as I want to be outside of my church, but in my church I am to present the word of God.



(A side note)
A pastor has a right to put a bumper sticker on his vehicle or a sign in front of the house as long as they belong to him. However, if he is living in a church owned parsonage or driving a church owned vehicle, he should refrain from this activity.

Sexual Education In The Public Schools

I recently read an article in the May 2, 2005 addition of the Washington Times that really caught my attention. The Montgomery County Public School Board (Somewhere in the D.C. area) has decided to offer a controversial sexual education program, and have decided to bar parents from participation.

According to Brian Edwards, the spokesperson for the School Board, parents would have a "Chilling Effect" on any discussion. According to the Washington Times, this program promotes same-sex activities and premarital sexual activity.

As a pastor and a parent, I am horrified that this would be acceptable to anyone. I believe that parents must take a progressive role in monitoring what our public schools teach. Many think that this type of thing only happens in the big cities. On the contrary, I have read about similar activities going on all over America.

Christian parents must be the primary educators of their children. I do not want to speak negatively about public schools or teachers. You cannot lump them all together. There are many fine schools, and there are many wonderful educators in those schools. However, the parent must be the first and most prominent educator in a child's life.

Christian parents must not avoid uncomfortable topics with their children. We must educate our children about sex, because if we don't someone else will. The Christian understanding of sexuality and family is much different than our cultures understanding. The Christian parent has a duty to educate themselves so that they may educate their children properly.

My personal opinion is that the public school is not the place for sex and family to be taught. My two girls will be taught about these things from their mother and I. I am not looking forward to these future conversations, but I know that they will happen because it is our job to have them. By having these conversations with my children, I know that they will be able to decipher what is good and bad when others share with them.

Let us fear God more than our comfort levels. We must do the job of educating our children.