Exhibiting leadership may sometimes be confused with authority. This may have some negative impact on the attitude of your teammates towards you. To exhibit leadership without giving out airs of formal authority, is a tactful art. This art of exhibiting your leadership can be perfected with active efforts.

While exhibiting leadership you should keep some points in mind. Nowadays leader is not the one who ‘leads’ but is instead the facilitator who inspires others to achieve the desired goal. Coaching and motivation are two terms which are misunderstood.

A coach is a mentor and he usually dictates all methodologies and strategies. On the other hand leader is one who helps you decide to a better option. Basics of the leadership have to be revisited if you want to know how to exhibit leadership in a positive manner. The pith of this entire thing is to indicate which direction to take and not to impose your followers to follow the dictated path.

The increasing complexity of tasks to be accomplished makes it impossible to reach everywhere all times. So it is better to assign some small tasks to your co-workers. This lightens your burden and makes the person working for you feel important which is beneficial to achieve certain goals.

Expecting leadership from the people at top is now outdated. In today’s market oriented world the leadership comes from the services and market focused products. It is a better idea to encourage leadership in prospective team members. Believe it or not, appreciating others for their work is a sign of authority.

You should not hesitate to compliment your seniors. A good environment helps to exhibit your leadership. Everyone wants a leader who can recognize the abilities of his followers. The due acknowledgement helps you to maintain a friendly relationship with all your subordinates and followers.

Thanks for reading this post on Exhibiting Leadership, if you would like to learn more about Leadership characteristics, please check our resource on A to Z Leadership Qualities Exercise eBook and MP3 Audio

Foley, Minnesota – March 31, 2009 – It is widely thought that creationists base their beliefs on the Bible alone rather than on scientific evidence. However, the results of a recent survey taken by one of the oldest creationism organizations in the U.S. revealed that the primary reason creationists reject evolution is scientific in nature.

Creation Moments, a creationist group that teaches a young earth, today released the results of its survey revealing that creationists base their beliefs primarily on scientific evidences. When asked to provide the one or two top reasons why they do not believe in evolution, only 12% of the respondents said their only reason for rejecting evolution was because it contradicts the Bible. In contrast, 47% exclusively cited scientific reasons. The remaining 41% provided both scientific and biblical reasons why they rejected evolution. The survey from Creation Moments revealed that 88% of their constituents cited scientific reasons for their non-belief in evolution.

“We are not surprised that such a large percentage of creationists base their rejection of evolution on scientific criteria,” said Ian Taylor, host of the Creation Moments radio broadcast. “The academic establishment and the scientific community try to paint creationists as country bumpkins and Bible-thumpers who are ignorant of science. The results of this survey prove that nothing could be further from the truth.”

While respondents could answer the open-ended question in any way they liked, these are the reasons given most frequently: (1) the lack of transitional fossils, (2) the absence of living intermediate species, (3) the complexity of DNA, (4) mutations are almost always harmful, (5) the sudden appearance of all basic life forms in the fossil record, (6) evolution contradicts the First and Second Laws of Thermodynamics, (7) the irreducible complexity of living things, and (8) the fine-tuning of the universe calls for a designer.

As these reasons make clear, creationists – though not part of the Intelligent Design movement – are being strongly influenced by ID’s scientific arguments.

About Creation Moments

Creation Moments, one of the first ministries to focus on the creation science vs. evolution debate, is best known for its daily “Creation Moments” radio program. Broadcast on over 1,200 radio stations and outlets worldwide, it’s among the top US syndicated radio programs of five minutes or less. The Minnesota-based ministry also publishes creation science books and offers thousands of free resources at its website, including articles, radio show transcripts, Bible studies and more. For additional information, call 1-800-422-4253 or visit www.creationmoments.com.

“Congress shall make no law respecting the establishment of religion, or prohibiting the free exercise thereof;”

Is the display of the 10 commandments upon public grounds and in public buildings the “establishment” of religion?  To comprehend the answer it is necessary to consider each of the three parts of this clause separately: part one “Congress shall make no law;” part two “respecting the establishment of religion,” and part three “or prohibiting the free exercise thereof;” and to thoroughly understand what is meant by the words “establishment” and “religion.”

In this use of the word “establishment,” one presumes the definition of the word to mean: “to make (a church/religion) a national institution.”  No other definition applies since churches and religions are already established in their own rights.

What is a “religion”?  A religion, by almost universal acceptance, is a social system consisting of three distinct components: creed, code and cult.

Creed is what the adherents uniquely believe – that unique set of beliefs that set the adherents apart from all other adherents of all other beliefs.  Those who practice Judaism hold fundamental beliefs that differ from those held by adherents of Hinduism, for example.  The unique set of fundamental beliefs held by each group forms the unique creed of each group.  Some creeds hold that there is a deity.  Others hold many deities, another, no deity.  These creeds are statements of belief.  No one can say with certainty that there is a deity just as no one can say with certainty that there is no deity.  Thus, creeds are not statements of fact; they are statements of belief or faith.  To say “there is no god” is as much a creed as to say “I believe in God.” 

Code is how the adherents apply their belief(s) (creed[s]) to their everyday lives.  Application may be manifest in moral code, dress code, dietary code, sanitary code, code of ethics, code of conduct, civil code etc.

Cult is how adherents manifest their belief in their unique creed.  Some may assemble as a “community” of believers to participate in a “ritual” such as in a church or temple or mosque.  Others may manifest their belief individually, with or without a ritual, in a specific setting or in no specific setting.

 Thus, there are many religions, each professing its own creed, incorporating its own code and practicing its own cult.  When the commonalities of distinct religions are greater than the differences that divide them, they are generally ascribed a “descriptive” that identifies them as a group: Jew, Muslim, Christian, etc.

Judaism is not a religion.  Judaism is a “descriptive” of a group of at least three religions that profess the same creeds but incorporate different codes: orthodox, conservative and reformed. While the adherents of these many religions are all called Jews or of the Jewish faith, they are separated by and recognized as uniquely different one from the other by the differences in their codes.

Christianity is not a religion.  Christianity is a “descriptive” of thousands of different religions all professing a single common creed, the belief in the Christ, and a multitude of differing creeds thereby making them different religions.  Orthodox Christians believe different creeds than do Catholic Christians than do Protestant Christians.  Even these three “descriptives,”  “Orthodox,” “Catholic,” and “Protestant,” are not religions. 

All of the adherents of all of the Orthodox religions and all of the adherents of all of the Catholic religions and all of the adherents of all of the Protestant religions are collectively called Christians but Christianity is not, in and of itself, a religion. The use of broad “descriptives” such as Judaism or Christianity to define “religion” extends just as inaccurately to Islam, Buddhism, Atheism and several other “isms” of the world.

Many “descriptives” are recognizable by their symbols: a cross, a crucifix, a star-of-David, a crescent, a Buddha etc.  A depiction of the 10 commandments is a symbol associated with thousands of religions: those that profess the creeds of the “descriptives” Judaism and Christianity.

Is the display of the 10 commandments upon public grounds and in public buildings the “establishment” of religion?  No!  If it is anything it is the display of a symbol recognized by thousands of religions.  Since the 10 commandments are but one of the many creeds of thousands of religions; since there is not a single religion which has as its sole creed the 10 commandments; since their display does not force or even suggest the observer of the symbol to apply any particular code or to practice or manifest any particular cult, the display of the 10 commandments is certainly not the establishment of religion.  To think otherwise one would have to either: ask which of the thousands of religions does it establish or; admit that one does not understand the difference between religion and religiosity. 

We, as a country, can be a religious country without endorsing, subscribing to or establishing any particular religion.  A symbol is not a religion.  A prayer is not a religion.  An invocation or benediction is not a religion. A slogan is not a religion.  A Bible is not a religion. A Koran is not a religion.  An oath is not a religion.  A statue is not a religion.  The word “God” is not a religion.  Allowing, even promoting, any of these is not the establishment of religion.  At best, these are no more than symbols of our religiosity as a country, some of them shared among many “descriptives” as well as many religions.

Some countries do establish religion – the state religion.  Russia, for example, established, not Christianity, not the sub-sect of Orthodoxy but a very specific religion within Christian Orthodoxy, The Russian Orthodox Church or Russian Orthodoxy with its unique creed, code and cult, as the state religion.  Poland recognizes, not Christianity, not the sub-sect of Catholicism, but specifically the Roman Catholic Church with its unique creed, code and cult, as its official religion.  England recognizes, not Christianity, not the sub-sect of Protestantism, but a very specific Christian Protestant religion, The Church of England or Anglicanism with its unique creed, code and cult, as its state religion. 

We, as a country, cannot establish a state religion or suggest any one religion preferentially over any other.  The First amendment prohibits such.  Nowhere does the first amendment require us to abandon symbols of our religiosity.  Recognizing our religiosity; recognizing that religiosity is woven into the fabric of our society is not the establishment of religion.  That symbols of our religiosity have also been woven into the fabric of our society is not surprising.  Confusing the symbols of religiosity with the establishment of religion, it can be argued, is what the framers were addressing in the third part of the establishment clause: “or prohibiting the free exercise thereof.”  Prohibiting the free exercise of what?  The free exercise of religion?  Or could they have meant the free exercise of religiosity?  Certainly they could not have meant the free exercise of any specific religion because, by the second part, they prohibited the establishment of any religion.  It is more likely, therefore, that they intended the free exercise of any religion or all religions or the free exercise of religiosity in general.  Religiosity is not a religion.

There is nothing within our constitution that requires the separation of church and state other than the establishment clause of the First Amendment, of which the first part is important: “Congress shall make no law…”  Clearly, the framers intended that Congress should legislate.  Nowhere is it suggested that the judiciary should legislate.  In the absence of a congressionally mandated law that establishes a religion, everyone in this country is guaranteed the free expression of any religion or the free expression of religiosity by the third part.  For any judicial body at any level to rule that the display of the 10 commandments upon public grounds and in public buildings is the establishment of religion (in the absence of a congressionally mandated law that establishes that religion) and, therefore, unconstitutional is for the judiciary to make new law and to deny the guarantees of the third part which, by itself, is unconstitutional.

The arguments presented, based on the fact: that a religion is defined by three elements, creed, code and cult; that religiosity is not a religion; that Congress has made no law establishing a religion; that the free exercise of religion and religiosity is guaranteed to all; that, in the absence of a congressionally mandated religion, to rule that the display of a “descriptive” symbol establishes religion is to make new law judicially and deny the guarantees of the third part; these all argue for maintaining “under God,” “so help me God.” “in God we trust,” “Christmas,” the crèche, “Merry Christmas,” the menorah, the cross, the crucifix, the crescent, the star-of-David, school prayer and all other symbols of broad “descriptives.”

Any argument to the contrary must then accept that Atheism is a “descriptive” of several religions that profess a single common creed: there is no deity.  The statement that there is no God is a statement of belief or of faith since it cannot be a statement of certainty.  Those who profess that creed and who incorporate that creed into the codes of their daily lives and who manifest that belief in their cults are indeed practicing a “religion.”

The adherents of Atheism would have our judiciary make new law requiring the removal of all symbols of “descriptives” or religiosity which would, in itself, be the establishment of Atheism, by the judiciary, as the state religion.

George Fulton

Author of several articles from sweet potato recipes to ant extermination.

Intelligent Design Outwits Evolution…Again

When it comes to theorizing the beginning of creation, Evolution just doesn’t add up.

By Scott McComas

When someone sees a watch, they know it has a designer and the designer created the watch for a specific purpose. When people see a flower, walk through a rain puddle, or experience the beauty of a rainbow they dismiss God involvement. But God created our universe and everything in it for specific purposes. Today, many refer to God’s six-day creation as Intelligent Design. Just examining the capabilities of a human eye is cause to believe in Intelligent Design. Yet, when many people see our earth and the diversity of life displayed here, they chalk it up to anything but Intelligent Design.

Scientists have repeatedly stated that God didn’t create this world. Evolution is the mainstream explanation for our complex universe of order, design, and natural law. This theory of gradual evolution has permeated today’s society and taught in schools across the globe. There are a number of observations found in the universe that seem to contradict what evolutionists have been teaching. Evolution is based on major assumptions that scientists depend on to bridge gaps in their theory.

THE BIG BANG
The Big Bang has to be the most productive explosion since… well… the beginning of the universe. What is an explosion designed to accomplish? Consider Mount St. Helens erupting, dynamite in the side of a mountain, or simply lighting a firecracker, what do they bring to the table, order or destruction? In fact, an area for miles around Mount St Helens was referred to as "the dead zone". The simple truth is an explosion has never produced a more efficient, better organized environment. Yet, scientific articles repeatedly refer to the Big Bang (the very first explosion) to explain the origins of God’s intelligently designed, orderly universe.

TIME
Evolution requires a massive amount of time. To illustrate, scientists continue to increase the Earth’s age to accommodate their evolutionary theory. In the 19th century, it was thought the Earth may be 70 million years old. During the 20th century, the Earth was now 1 billion years old. And today, the scientists estimate the Earth is now 4-6 billion years old and the universe is in the region of 14 billion years old.

RANDOM CHANCE
The next ingredient in evolution is pure random chance. The random chance of the Big Bang produced the complexity of all living creatures. Is that possible, statistically and scientifically speaking? Basic statistics prove when flipping a coin, you have a one in two chance (50%) it lands on heads. If you have three coins (one penny, one nickel, and one dime) in a cup, how many combinations are possible when you dump them on a table? A simple equation to solve this problem is written 3! or 3*2*1=6.

Let’s look at the probability concerning human evolution. Let’s start with the skeleton system. There is only one correct way the human skeleton system can be put together. If there are any bones missing or out of place, the skeleton will not function properly. The adult skeleton contains 206 bones. How many different combinations are possible with 206 bones?

• The equation is 206! or 206*205*204*203….*2*1=
• The result is 10 with 375 zeros after it

That’s a huge number to comprehend. Each time a new skeletal combination forms, it uses one "chance." Using one chance every second, it will take "10 with 375 zeros behind it" seconds to use all of the chances. How many seconds are in 14 billion years? Let’s start with:

3600 sec/hour
84,400 sec/day
31,563,000 sec/year

1 billion years? 32,000,000,000,000,000 sec (15 zeros)
10 billion years? 32,000,000,000,000,000,000 sec (18 zeros)
14 billion years? 45,000,000,000,000,000,000 sec (18 zeros)

One "zero" represents a unit of time. The skeleton needs 375 units of time to finish all combinations while the universe only has 18 units of time available. Statistically, the skeleton would have used approximately 5% of its "chances" in 14 billion years. That could happen, unlikely, but it could happen. The probability of evolution drops when other vital systems (respiratory, immune, digestive, nervous…) are added to the mix. Still yet, the probability continues its spiral when the random evolution of millions of parts of millions of organisms is squeezed into the same period. Take a breath and consider all of that evolution originated from the a random blend of chemicals, lighting, gases, smoke, mirrors, elbow grease and whatever else existed prior to the once-in-a-lifetime-self-organizing Big Bang explosion.

MUTATION
Mutation is closely associated with natural selection and both supposedly explain how organisms evolved. What is mutation and what does it actually accomplish? Aren’t true mutations rare and aren’t most harmful or deadly? Aren’t birth defects considers mutations? Can mutations generate positive changes to benefit any creature?

Let’s examine the great mutation research project. As Dennis Peterson highlights in his book, Unlocking the Mysteries of Creation, the fruit fly has been subjected to severe laboratory experiments and may be the most tested creature ever because of its breeding rate. For over 1500 generations, these poor flies have been exposed to chemicals, radiation, and many other tests trying to produce mutant offspring. Not one new and improved fruit fly was produced. In fact, the opposite occurred: distorted and damaged fruit flies emerged with crooked bodies, weak eyes, smaller wings, crippled with disease, etc. The point to remember is that a fruit fly remained a fruit fly; not a single one "evolved" into some other animal. "Fruit flies refuse to become anything but fruit flies under any circumstances yet devised."

Natural selection is an effective toll for those best suited to continue their kind. A frog with the wrong shade of brown is still a frog. There are over 200 different dog breeds today and yet they are all dogs. A Clydesdale and a Shetland pony are both horses. In The Neck of the Giraffe: Where Darwin Went Francis Hitching noted the Nobel scientist who said "Trying to improve an organism by mutation is like trying to improve a Swiss watch by dropping it… improving life by random mutation has the probability of zero."

CONCLUSION
Again, Dennis Peterson points out that the middle ages produced a theory everybody soon believed. The Theory: red meat spoiled and turned into flies. The Proof: all spoiled meat had flies on it. It was a proven fact, until Francesco Redi tested the theory in 1668. He gathered red meat, isolated it, and watched. The result, he found flies came from… wait for it… wait for it… that’s right, other flies. Who would have thunk?

The foundation of evolution can be reduced to three words – chaos created order. The spontaneous Big Bang explosion (chaos) started the random evolution of millions of distinct animals (order) is the exact opposite of Entropy – the Second Law of Thermodynamics. Even more difficult to reconcile is the speed these random events randomly create the intricate and complex world we live in today. The probability of one destructive "bang" setting in motion another random sequence that ultimately creates life is well… I’ll leave that to a statistician.

There are many mysteries of evolution that exist. The Bombardier Beetle and the giraffe are only two of many animals that could not have survived using the "trial and error" assumption of evolution. And curiously, what about the Neil Armstrong evolutionary leap to conclude that nonliving matter created living organisms? Bueller… Bueller… anyone? I choose to believe and apply the same principle when I sit down to eat dinner: when I see the food, I know someone created or made that meal. Food doesn’t randomly and spontaneously appear, does it?

"For in six days the Lord made heaven and earth, the sea, and all that is in them, and rested the seventh day…" Exodus 20:11

Expelled the Movie – Ben Stein Exposes Flat World Academics

Ben Stein’s ‘Expelled’ could properly be called ‘Exposed the Movie’ because it is a nerve rattling jolt to academicians who are ready to bounce or ostracize anyone who so much as mentions or has a dream in the night about the theory of intelligent design.

No movie review in history as far as I know starts with instructions about how to watch the film. Expelled is a documentary and contains hundreds of interviews and deep conversations with some of the most highly regarded minds of the time. It has a rhythm and a depth that requires full attention and you may want to forgo the popcorn, soda and other distractions.

You will also discover something radically different about this film from the audience reaction. It has been reported that people applaud sometimes throughout the film and in some theatres it ends with audiences rising to give it a standing ovation.

I found myself applauding along with other theatre patrons when I saw the film. It was proof solid for me that while Americans are being asked to get the nonsense of religion out of their heads the idea of an omnipotent creator God is still firmly planted in their hearts.

Frivolous lawsuits are being thrown at the producers of the film from animation companies and John Lennon widow Yoko Ono. Neither suit seems to have any foundation but the flak from every academic quarter is ample proof that a nerve has been touched. Is the film fair, is it reasonable, and is it intelligent? Not only is the answer yes, yes and yes but the film is yet something much more, something rarely found in a documentary. It is emotionally charged.

Ben Stein is marvelous in the film. Known more as a comedian he doesn’t poke fun at anyone and rarely resorts to humor throughout the documentary. It is clear from the outset that he is not arguing or contending with others views but only imploring them to seriously ponder their own unquestioned assertions. He does this with a straight face and the fewest words possible. The result is obvious; these questions are no joke.

Near the end Stein is found quietly standing alone with his own thoughts in the middle of a holocaust museum. His thoughts are narrated in the background and they are perhaps the most profound moments of the film. Stein has conducted himself discreetly and some might say masterfully throughout the documentary so at the films conclusion nothing is lost.

The heart of the movie is easy to see. Academics have for a generation now fed us the idea that the big bang theory and the subsequent lightning hitting the primordial ooze is the only way to go when it comes to the question of how life began.

The rapid rise in intelligence in this generation has caused completely unforeseen phenomena that academicians are not prepared for. It is not just faith in God that makes the question bubble to the surface but our own enlarged understanding of the complexities and vast intricacies of our own universe. The admonition to question all authority that academics so blithely espoused to young minds a generation ago has returned to bite them on the butt. It is the intelligent that are questioning the not so intelligent refusal of the intelligencia to give some credence to intelligent design; not doing so is just dumb.

This generation understands that when science leaves the area of repeatable and observable phenomena and relies on speculation and ‘prior philosophic postulation’ to explain the origins of life they have entered the realm of faith. Physical evidence for evolution remains spurious, sparse and suspect at best so speculation is all that is left to explain what took place four hundred million years ago. The evolution crowd has been thumping "The Origins of Species" with evangelistic fervor that makes the best Bible preachers look tame by comparison. This is what Expelled is about.

The implacability of the evolutionists is compared to the Berlin wall throughout the film. Nazism and communism are also alluded to for the most obvious reasons. A party line must be held and enforced for any kind of fascism to have a reasonable chance to survive. The cost of fascism has always been the loss of freedom. Expelled centers in on this by likening the refusal to include the possibility of intelligent design to incarcerating intelligence not furthering it.

Expelled hones in on the loss of academic freedom, jobs, tenure and respect for many of those interviewed in the film but it also provokes the larger question of the number of young minds lost to this generation because of what is fast becoming rigid Darwinian dogma. Move over inquisitors here come the evolutionists!

One of the highlights of Expelled is the interview with famed atheist Richard Dawkins. It may be the only time you will ever see Dawkins visibly perturbed and almost at a loss for words. Ben Stein managed to pull what might even be considered an admission from Dawkins that some intelligent designer may have created everything but that he, she or it would have to have evolved first. The double talk aside it is a moment well worth the ticket price alone.

Most movies are rated on a scale of one to five or in some cases a scale of one to ten. I will not rate this movie at all. What I will do is rate the ‘must see’ element of the documentary. Whether you are an evolutionist or a believer of "In the beginning God created the heaven and the earth" (Gen 1:1) if you consider yourself even nominally intelligent the must see factor for Expelled on a scale of one to ten is twenty.

For a list of theatres playing Expelled or further information visit http://www.expelledthemovie.com/home.php Rev Michael Bresciani is a columnist for many online conservative, news and Christian sites and magazines. Visit The Website for Insight at http://www.americanprophet.org

By Rev Michael Bresciani Published: 5/2/2008

The New Atheists Loathe Religion Far Too Much to Plausibly Challenge It

Anti-faith proselytising is a growth industry. But its increasingly hysterical flag-bearers are heading for a spectacular failure. By Madeleine Bunting

It’s an extraordinary publishing phenomenon – atheism sells. Any philosopher, professional polemicist or scientist with worries about their pension plan must now be feverishly working on a book proposal. Richard Dawkins has been in the bestseller lists on both sides of the Atlantic since The God Delusion came out last autumn following Daniel Dennett’s success with Breaking the Spell. Sam Harris, a previously unknown neuroscience graduate, has now clocked up two bestsellers, The End of Faith and Letter to a Christian Nation. Last week, Christopher Hitchens’ God Is Not Great: How Religion Poisons Everything was published in the US. The science writer, Matt Ridley, recently commented that on one day at Princeton he met no fewer than three intellectual luminaries hard at work on their God books.

This rising stack of books has prompted screeds of debate, flushing out all manner of belief and unbelief in blogs, reviews, essays and internet exchanges in the US. The Catholic columnist Andrew Sullivan has just concluded his exchange with Sam Harris on the net, while the philosopher Michael Novak recently took on the whole genre of New Atheism, or neo-atheism. Surely not since Victorian times has there been such a passionate, sustained debate about religious belief.

And it’s a very ill-tempered debate. The books live up to their provocative titles: their purpose is to pour scorn on religious belief – they want it eradicated (although they differ as to the chances of achieving that). The newcomer on the block, Hitchens, sums up monotheism as "a plagiarism of a plagiarism of a hearsay of a hearsay, of an illusion of an illusion, extending all the way back to a fabrication of a few non-events". He takes the verbal equivalent of an AK47 to shoot down hallowed religious figures, questioning whether Muhammad was an epileptic, declaring Mahatma Gandhi an "obscurantist" who distorted and retarded Indian independence, and Martin Luther King a "plagiarist and an orgiast" and in no real sense a Christian, while the Dalai Lama is a "medieval princeling" who is the continuation of a "parasitic monastic elite".

This kind of vituperative polemic sounds a tad odd this side of the Atlantic. Apart from an ongoing anxiety about Islam, the British are pretty phlegmatic about religion. Church attendance continues its steady decline and the Christian evangelical boom has never taken off. The whole New Atheist publishing phenomenon is like eavesdropping on a blistering row in the flat next door: one’s response alternates between fascination and irritation, but is it really anything to do with us?

What’s clear is that this wave of New Atheism is deeply political – and against some of its targets even a devout churchgoer might cheer them on. What they all have in common is a loathing of an increasing religiosity in US politics, which has contributed to a disastrous presidency and undermined scientific understanding. Dennett excoriates the madness of a faith that looks forward to the end of the world and the return of the messiah. What Dawkins hates is that most Americans still haven’t accepted evolution and support the teaching of intelligent design; according to one poll, 50% of the US electorate believe the story of Noah. He argues that "there is nothing to choose between the Afghan Taliban and the American Christian equivalent … The genie of religious fanaticism is rampant in present-day America."

Harris similarly draws an analogy between Muslims and the American Christian right: "Non-believers like myself stand beside you dumbstruck by the Muslim hordes who chant death to whole nations of the living. But we stand dumbstruck by you as well – by your denial of tangible reality, by the suffering you create in service of your religious myths and by your attachment to an imaginary God."

This is popular stuff – a plague on both your houses – on both sides of the Atlantic after a war on terror in which both sides have used their gods as justification for appalling brutality. But it tips over into something much more sinister in Harris’s latest book. He suggests that Islamic states may be politically unreformable because so many Muslims are "utterly deranged by their religious faith". In a another passage Harris goes even further, and reaches a disturbing conclusion that "some propositions are so dangerous that it may even be ethical to kill people for believing them". This sounds like exactly the kind of argument put forward by those who ran the Inquisition. As one New York commentator put it, we’re familiar with religious intolerance, now we have to recognise irreligious intolerance.

The danger is that the aggression and hostility to religion in all its forms (moderates are castigated as giving the fundamentalists cover for their extremism) deters engagement with the really interesting questions that have emerged recently in the science/faith debate. The durability and near universality of religion is one of the most enduring conundrums of evolutionary thinking, one of Britain’s most eminent evolutionary psychologists acknowledged to me recently. Scientists have argued that faith was a byproduct of our development of the imagination or a way of increasing the social bonding mechanisms. Does that make religion an important evolutionary step but now no longer needed – the equivalent of the appendix? Or a crucial part of the explanation for successful human evolution to date? Does religion still have an important role in human wellbeing? In recent years, research has thrown up some remarkable benefits – the faithful live longer, recover from surgery quicker, are happier, less prone to mental illness and so the list goes on. If religion declines, what gaps does it leave in the functioning of individuals and social groups?

This isn’t the kind of debate that the New Atheists are interested in (with the possible exception of Dennett, who in an interview last year was far more open to discussion than his book would indicate); theirs is a political battle, not an attempt to advance human understanding. But even on the political front, one has to question whether all the aggression isn’t counterproductive. Robert Winston voiced increasing concern among scientists when he argued in a recent lecture in Dundee that Dawkins’s insulting and patronising approach did science a disservice. Meanwhile, critics in America argue that the polarisation of the debate in the US is setting the cause of non-deism back rather than advancing it.

Dawkins is an unashamed proselytiser. He says in his preface that he intends his book for religious readers and his aim is that they will be atheists by the time they finish reading it. Yet The God Delusion is not a book of persuasion, but of provocation – it may have sold in the thousands but has it won any souls? Anyone who has experienced such a conversion, please email me (with proof). I suspect the New Atheists are in danger of a spectacular failure. With little understanding and even less sympathy of why people increasingly use religious identity in political contexts, they’ve missed the proverbial elephant in the room. These increasingly hysterical books may boost the pension, they may be morale boosters for a particular kind of American atheism that feels victimised – the latest candidate in a flourishing American tradition – but one suspects that they are going to do very little to challenge the appeal of a phenomenon they loathe too much to understand.

The Origins Of Spurious – The Un-intelligent Design Of Darwinism

The basis for this article is connected to a well known Bible verse from 2 Thessalonians 2:11. It is important to keep this reference in context with the surrounding verses. The entire chapter is the best context here as it seems to be centered on this one single idea, namely that Christ will not return until the Anti-Christ appears and finishes his brief but horrific rule.

Jesus said that the truth would make us free John 8:32. Conversely, it can be said that lies will bring us into bondage, the very opposite of freedom. As Satan goes out with great fury in these last days to deceive and destroy he is carrying with him many entanglements and heavy bondage for unsuspecting believers as well as unbelievers. Staying free, unfettered and useful to the kingdom of God will not be quite as easy as we approach the second coming.

Satan has a huge arsenal of lies he will lay on this generation but we will peruse only two of them here. These two deceptions are the most powerful lies Satan has ever gotten any generation to accept wholesale. Once you understand his purpose for putting forth these two whoppers you will better understand how he has deceived not a few but an entire generation. In fact the anti-Christ wouldn’t dare to show up until both of these lies are universally accepted. Most scripturally grounded believers already know of these deceptions but the numbers of deceived are growing daily. Even worse is the fact that very few believers know how to answer or uncover these falsehoods for themselves or others.

Even a child knows that the primary purpose of a lie is to deceive or cover something. A mature adult knows that lies have several more complex purposes. Satan who the bible calls the father of lies John 8:44, knows far more advanced purposes for lies. His purpose is not just to cover the truth or misguide someone for a while. His purpose involves the deception of the whole earth and in the last days the deception of an entire generation. That purpose is ultimately the destruction of God’s chief creation, man. He can deceive one man at a time but in the last days he is in a hurry because his time is short Revelation 12:12. In the last days he can’t take down only one or two men at a time, he must seek to bring down a whole generation.

Anyone who has ever thought to murder someone has had to consider how to remove the evidence from their plan in order to cover their path. Even if they plan to kill and make it look like suicide there is much evidence to be removed. In the less sophisticated type of murder the perpetrator must at the very least remove himself very far away from the crime by running away. What if they could convince someone to do something very life threatening without arousing any suspicion at all in the mind of their victim? What if they only had to suggest that their victim do something they had done a thousand times before, something that no one would think of as unusual? Here is an example.

A man who wants his neighbor dead realizes that the bridge over a very deep ravine leading to his neighbor’s house has been washed out by a furious storm now raging. Knowing his neighbor stops off at the same newsstand every day to pick up a paper and then rushes home down the same dark country road every night, he sees his chance. Casually he waits at the store perusing through the shelves as if looking for something in particular. When the neighbor comes in he engages him in conversation about the severe storm at hand and the best of several available routes by which to travel home. He assures his neighbor that the regularly traveled road over the bridge is fine and that he just came that way himself.

With this information in mind and nothing to arouse his suspicions, the victim barrels ahead with confidence only to plunge to his death in the ravine. The malicious neighbor who caused this death need not remove any evidence or himself from the crime. Nothing unusual has taken place and clearly nature will not be indicted in this case. He clearly allowed his neighbor to kill himself in the pursuit of his everyday activity. One could almost say his death was caused by his own mindless habits. He always did it that way! Simply put we are all in a storm and as the last days arrive that storm is raging and Satan knows the bridge is out. Suggesting that you take the path that you and all your neighbors always take is a device. But devising ways to destroy us by keeping us on the road most commonly traveled is only the method of his deception, the purpose for his deception is the most sinister of all, it is your destruction

Regardless of any questions we encounter in life there are always two that are more universally asked than all others. Where did we come from and where are we going? These questions are not just the sign of a healthy curiosity but rather they are a deep desire placed in all men by the creator. The desire to ask these pertinent questions is given to us by God himself. To ask these questions honestly is true seeking and will often be our first steps to recognition of God. Satan does not want any man or women to seriously ask either of these questions. He will do anything to keep them from being asked and has made provision to supplant the real answer with a lie if he can’t circumvent our asking. The reason he has gone to such great lengths to quiet these quests is because if we accept the correct answer we will ultimately become accountable to God. If we believe we came from God and that he is the creator and also that one day we will stand before his judgment we then must become accountable to God. Perhaps a verse from a country music favorite, The Baptism of Jesse Taylor says it more succinctly. They baptized Jesse Taylor in Cedar Creek last Sunday, Jesus gained a soul but Satan lost a good right arm.

In the last days Satan provides side roads for people to take in their beliefs. Diversity itself is touted as the great attraction even if the answer is incorrect. Open minded or broad minded people are often found on the broad road of destruction Jesus warned about. They don’t just travel the broad road but have made it a matter of pride. The modern psyche frowns on narrow mindedness which is seen as a lack of intelligence, independence and suave. Within this framework Satan provides an endless melee of options for answering the two big questions. Perhaps it might be an ancient religion, a philosophy, science or just good old personal reasoning. But even this extensive list is not enough to usher in the rule of the anti-Christ. In the last days Satan provides a more pervasive and universally acceptable answer. Christ said a house dived against itself cannot stand Mt 12:25. Satan needs unity among the unbelievers in the last days to ensure his seat of authority. Thus he provides them with two large answers to answer the two largest questions of life. Universal acceptance of these answers is essential to rally everyone to his final purpose.

What are Satan’s answers to these two great questions? In answer to the questions of our origin he has provided this generation with the evolutionary model formerly more commonly referred to as the theory of evolution.

To the question of where we are going collectively or individually he has provided an answer that is now almost totally accepted the world over. From the school child to the aged it is generally accepted that we are eventually going out among the stars to carry our civilization into inter stellar space.

Neither of these answers seems too hard to take and they look generally believable. It would seem that even if they are not true that the damage done would be little. The truth is that to believe these lies strikes at the very heart of the welfare of the entire human race. In the simplest of words if we didn’t come from God and are not going to God then we don’t have to answer to God. All accountability is now a washed out bridge.

In Shrewsbury, England February 12, 1809 Charles Robert Darwin was born the fifth child in his family. He was destined to become the most noted among his siblings. Darwin was a naturalist and traveled aboard the HMS Beagle between 1831 and 1836. As a scientist he made careful observations of plant and animal life in the Pacific Ocean. When in the Galapagos Islands he noticed certain similarities between the flora and fauna there and those of South America.

After returning to England he reviewed his notes and came to a conclusion that would change the shape of the modern world. It was believed then and still is by some today that since his own notes were all he had to review and because speculations about what took place over millions of years of time is not true empiricism, that Darwin didn’t just come to these conclusions but rather he jumped to a conclusion. True science or the empirical method of deduction is limited by its own definition to conducting, observing and recording repeatable observable phenomena. Darwin’s conclusions were not repeatable since time has passed, and not observable because neither he nor anyone else living has seen it, thus everything he put forth passed into an entirely different realm. His conclusions were now in the realm of prior philosophic postulation. He and the world were satisfied at the time to overlook this small problem by referring to his conclusions as a theory. When a theory has had ample time to be repeated and observed under the empirical or scientific method it is then called a law. In the case of Darwin’s theory just a general acceptance of it by the public seems to have substituted for empirical truth and it is now accepted the world over as a law. No one seemed to notice that mindlessly accepting a prior philosophic postulate is the equivalent of accepting something by faith. Believing in Darwin’s theory takes faith just as much as it does to believe that God created everything. At least in the gospel message there were twelve witnesses who could give an accounting, which is twelve more than witnessed the origin of species.

In his famous book The Origin of Species Darwin put forth that all living things originated from a single fundamental source and evolved in a process he called natural selection. He believed that this natural selection occurred randomly over millions of years in order for each subsequent species to adapt thus insuring its own survival. When his theory was first put forth it was vigorously welcomed by the people in academia and the secular world, many who were at that time prideful and bent on being the people of the new enlightened age. There wasn’t much to refute his theory at the time but that is no longer true. Since his death in 1882 Darwin’s remains lie in the Westminster Abbey in England but the effect of his ideas still has a life of its own.. But new evidence is also alive and is available to anyone who wants to see it. There are many creation science institutions, publications and practicing scientists the world over who can offer argument and proof against the theory of evolution. Because creation science was not known in Darwin’s time and his theory was carried on the wings of its own popularity those who contested it at that time were made to look like a pack of Bible thumping fools. It was easy then to deride and demean the detractors of his theory as bible thumping and narrow minded people who refused to get onboard the lighting fast train of enlightenment.

It was during this time of first confrontations the famous Monkey Trial took place in the summer of 1925 in Dayton, Tennessee. William Jennings Bryan a three time candidate for president represented the crusade to banish Darwin’s theory. The staunch agnostic Clarence Darrow was the head of the famous defense team. The jury had to decide if they would hold John Scopes accountable for teaching Darwin’s theory in his high school biology class. Since the outcome is well known we won’t spend a great deal of attention to it here. Perhaps what should be noticed is the abundant attention paid to it by uncounted high school and college professors. They both teach it and enjoy the snickers and rolling eyes of students who think the bible believers were made to look more like monkeys than those they were now calling primates.

The result of that trial looked like a serious blow to the veracity of the biblical accounting of the creation. If the serious Darwinist were to look at the discoveries in creation science since 1925 they would be made to concur about one thing, there have been no significant blows since then. If it were not for the momentum this theory has gained, it would have no life at all. But who is stopping to look at the new evidence? Some believers have even gotten caught up in the snowball. Those Christians have allowed for the idea that maybe God himself may have used evolution to produce all the living creatures and us. This compromise is referred to as theistic evolution. Without debating the consequences of calling God a liar it is even harder to imagine the level of stupidity in believing in a God who is a liar. Having faith in a lying God is incongruous; most of us lose faith in each other if one is known to be a liar. In some cases, especially among the intellectual set, Theistic evolution is tolerated because it tends to ease peer pressure. Who wants to be the odd man out? If most of academia is riding on the evolutionary model then why make waves. You won’t get beheaded for believing in the bible but a little ridicule goes a long way. On second thought, as long as it is only unpopular to believe in the bible you won’t get beheaded. But in the future when it is illegal to believe in the bible heads will fly, literally, see Revelation 20:4.

Anyone who seriously wants to check what they have heard or what they have been taught could start with only a cursory examination of evolutions antithesis. Clicking the words creation science on any decent search engine will give you enough information to keep you busy for weeks.

Volumes can be written on the errors and fallacies of the theory of evolution but few are addressing the product or fruit of this well entrenched fairy tale. What, is only part of the question, why is the rest of the story. Only man in his prideful self-will would dare to give God his walking papers. Satan knows that and has provided the manifest and the vehicle to do so in the name of science and enlightened progress. The desired effect is evident throughout the world. If men were truly compelled to be accountable to some kind of a creator, science would give them a single cell amoeba to pay homage to while Satan laughs all the way to the pits. Satan is a thief but there is nothing in this world for him to steal except the souls and futures of men. Everything else is already his. Luke 4:5,6 By removing any reason to answer to God Satan can work unhindered preparing the world to receive the last world dictator known as the antichrist. The same pride men raise to resist God would resist the antichrist as well if their minds were not carefully prepared to allow him to rule. That this deception will take place is part of prophecy but few know that the bible also prophecies that there must be an extensive and careful preparation to make his deception work in a worldwide fashion. Revelation 16:13, 14

Although a bit over stated it would seem that the old cry to question everything and all authority has given way to believe what your told and get back to livin and making bucks. Just as in those, exceptions that make the rule, questioning things doesn’t establish or disprove anything. Only an unbiased examination of all the evidence can lead to a legitimate answer. Aren’t a couple of sound answers still worth more than a thousand questions? Now there’s a question.

Rev Bresciani’s articles have been read by over a quarter of a million people to date. He is the author of two Christian books. An American Prophet and His Message written by Bresciani is an enlightening treatment of the second coming of Christ with an entire question and answer section that can help anyone to better understand this important subject. Visit his web site at http://americanprophet.org

By: Rev. Michael Bresciani

Article Directory: http://www.articledashboard.com

Rev Bresciani is the author of two books and has hundreds of articles both online and in print. Over a quarter of a million people have enjoyed his articles on faith, inspiration, practical living, politics, current events and much more. Please visit his website at americanprophet.org

Impossible=possible?

Even if the chance that all the events coming together perfectly to create life on Earth is virtually an impossible probability with staggering odds (which it is), we are told by evolutionists that it should not matter. As the physicist Stenger says, ‘Why not? Given all possibilities, why shouldn’t it have happened? And why not all other possibilities as well? Our universe was formed in one of the infinite number of ways it could have formed. The particular structure of our universe came about by chance, freezing into form just like the six points of a snowflake.’ So the evolutionist loads the dice with infinite universes and infinite time and that makes the impossibility of life coming to be by chance not a long shot, but a virtual surety.

Before we permit ourselves to get too excited about this ‘anything is possible’ argument, let’s set the ground rules. If anything is possibleapples jumping off the ground and reattaching to trees, humans hatching out of chicken eggs, the desert sand turning into ocean, life emerging from lifeless matterthen there can be no certainty about anything. All science would end and we would fear putting one foot in front of the other because of the possibility of the floor turning to quicksand or disappearing entirely.

Yet that is not how things are, for you, me or the most devout of materialistic evolutionists. The philosopher Descartes, wrestling with a similar quandary concluded, ‘cogito ergo sum’, I think, therefore I am. That is a good starting point for us as well. We are real and our thinking process is real. The way we sort real from unreal, resolve important human issues and go about day-to-day life (thinking and being ‘I am’) is by ignoring the virtually impossible and banking on the probable, the reasonable and certain.

By what process does a scientist partition his mind such that he can one day busy himself about in the laboratory clanging together test tubes looking for high probabilities and certainty, go to sleep, wake up in the morning and then announce to a classroom or in an article that high improbabilities make certainty, i.e., life emerged by chance? By so doing he accepts unquestionably, as a philosophical premise, that which he would never excuse in others, namely that unlikely events are the ones we should bank on.

Remember, this same materialist rejects extrasensory perception, remote viewing, miracles, creation, foreknowledge, life after death and the like not because they are impossible, but because they appear improbable.

Double standard? Most certainly.

The illogic emerges from distorting the meaning of the math of probabilities. For example, if the chance of a simple protein coming into existence by chance is 1 in 1000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000 (it’s actually a much larger denominator than that but those are enough zeros for my point here), the ‘1′ in the numerator is viewed as a very real possibility. It is not. That’s what all the zeros mean.

This is not a probability that argues what could happen but rather a probability that insists upon what will not happen. If the odds of something happening is 1 in 10, then the odds it won’t is 9 in 10. Odds for, of 1 in 10000000000, means odds against are 9999999999 in 10000000000. Extrapolate that to the larger number in the previous paragraph to see the virtual surety that the protein will not emerge by chance.

From a strictly probabilistic standpoint, the chance emergence and evolution of life is, by any reasonable definition of the word, impossible. Yet this impossibility becomes surety to the materialist because other possibilities (such as intelligent design), no matter how probable they may be, are just too unpalatable.

But all this play on numbers and odds assumes that the hypothetical phenomena of life emerging and evolving are a matter of chance. They are not. Scientific laws make things happen in a particular way, not chance. Things with mass fall to Earth, north poles attract south poles, negative charges attract positive charges and mass and energy are never destroyed, they just change places. An apple ‘could’ jump to Pluto rather than fall to the ground and one could calculate the odds for that. But it won’t happen because there is a law of gravity and several others that declare it won’t. It’s not really a matter of odds; it’s a matter of law.

Now then, law governs every event that could lead to the emergence of life and to its evolution as well, not chance. The laws of chemistry, physics and biology declare and demand that order cannot emerge from chaos, life cannot emerge from non-life (law of biogenesis), and once order is present it cannot compound and improve upon itself (gain complexity and information) from chaos. Since life is highly ordered it could not therefore have emerged from a chaotic primordial soup. Neither could existent life have increased complexity (evolved) and transmutated from random events such as mutations.

The most obvious, well tested and sure of all laws in science and experience demands that order come from order, information from information and mind from mind. Spontaneous generation and evolution fly directly in the face of these laws. Probabilities do not change that.

By: Dr. Randy Wysong

Article Directory: http://www.articledashboard.com

Dr. Wysong: A former veterinary clinician and surgeon, college instructor in human anatomy, physiology and the origin of life, inventor of numerous medical, surgical, nutritional, athletic and fitness products and devices, research director for the present company by his name and founder of the philanthropic Wysong Institute. www.wysong.net. Also check out www.cerealwysong.com.