~Amanda~

“One reason why sin flourishes is that it is treated like a cream puff instead of a rattlesnake.”

– Billy Sunday

I recall reading that quote in one of my Christian Daily Planner journals when I was about ten years old. It didn’t strike me as being a very profound quote at the time, but it remained vivid in my mind. Then one day I fully comprehended the point – people treat sin like a cream puff by telling themselves, “Just a little taste of it here and there won’t hurt anybody,” when they should be avoiding it like a deadly, venomous snake. Perhaps out of fear of working too hard to be pure and righteous – as many fantasize our old-fashioned ancestors to have done – our nation at the relatively youthful age of 233 is a land of cream puffs that don’t see the serpent coming.

“We’ll overtake you soon because we have more children than you,” a Muslim doctor once told my great-uncle. I’m sure we’ve all heard some variation of the fact before: the average Muslim family has 8.1 children, while the American birth rate barely reaches the bare minimum for a culture to survive beyond 25 years – 2.11 children – and that is counting the influx of Latino immigration. Discounting the immigrants, the fertility rate of American citizens is a scanty 1.6. This means that there is a good chance the United States of America could become an Islamic-dominated nation (along with European nations) within 50 years unless something changes soon…

Click here to continue reading.

(Image by The Cross-Eyed Blog and Webzine)

Within his first few months in office, President Obama has been photographed bowing to a Muslim king and recorded telling the Muslim world that Islam has a “proud tradition of tolerance,” all the while keeping mum about the unprincipled election fiasco that is keeping Ahmadinejad in power over Iran…

Click here to continue reading.

(Image by The Cross-Eyed Blog and Webzine)

Carrie Prejean. Photo credit: Steven Weyda, www.misscaliforniausa.com

Oddly enough, the most famous Miss USA contestant this year did not actually win the Miss USA crown.  The name of the reigning Miss USA has slipped my mind, but the first runner-up, Miss California Carrie Prejean, has in some ways already been bestowed with a reigning platform: traditional marriage and Biblical correctness.

During the question round of the competition, judge Perez Hilton (who happens to be a homosexual man) asked her a controversial question regarding same-sex marriage.  As the reigning Miss California, in her response she dutifully represented her State, the citizens of which demanded the marriage-protecting Proposition 8 through popular vote.  Furthermore, she was asked for her opinion on the subject, and she gave it.  The pivotal scene and an interview with Carrie Prejean afterward can be seen here.  She explains the inner conflict she felt when presented with the question – which she believes was a test from GOD:

“At that moment, I was getting ready to answer my question, and I started saying I think that Americans, you know, we have the right to choose, but then something inside of me said, ‘Carrie, stand up for what you believe in and say what you feel and represent the majority of California. You’re Miss California!  The majority of voters believe that a marriage is between a man and a woman.’”

She also went on to say that she didn’t want to be politically correct, but Biblically correct.

Supposedly, beauty pageant contestants are not judged for the opinions they give when answering during the question round of the competition.  I remember a similar supposition when I prepared to take the ACT Writing Test, which asked questions that reminded me of Miss-America-type queries (by the way, I failed that test – basically because I responded that the question I was asked shouldn’t be an issue).  For Miss California to be so close to victory, it appears that the one thing that incited at least one judge to lower her score enough to miss it was her answer to the question about gay marriage.  Why on earth a homosexual man was on the judging panel for the Miss USA competition is beyond me, but the entire scenario has brought the issue into a spotlight for heated debate.

One thing that people need to understand is that the debate has been incorrectly defined.  Gay marriage is not a civil rights issue.  Properly speaking, you might call it an “uncivil” rights issue.  It is not dealing with prejudice and discrimination against people due to naturally occurring superficial differences such as ethnicity.  Rather, it is dealing with unnatural choices that a tiny minority of people chooses to impose upon society – choices that the majority of the world population – probably down to the most primitive tribes imaginable – considers to be wrong.  Nevertheless, any of us who refuse to accept such nonsense are called bigots…or, in the case of Miss California, berated with far worse language.

Imagine that a group of fifteen children are playing a game and two children enter the room demanding the game rules be changed to accommodate them because they have a different standard and insist they can’t do anything to change themselves.  If the fifteen players refuse because they view the two others to be wrong, and those two then repeatedly harass them about it, who are the real bigots – the stable majority or the quirky minority?

This is what mystifies me: if someone chooses to be a homosexual, they are already breaking traditional rules, so why do they even care for a pinnacle of traditional rule – marriage – to be open to them?  Evidently, it is their attempt to normalize the abnormal, and make the insane appear sane.  Just as many an elite analyst has attempted to prove that Jackson Pollack’s chaotic paint splashes have the delicate designs of Leonardo Da Vinci’s Mona Lisa, all the while trying to make Mona Lisa’s smile out to be some sort of mysterious omen, and others have elevated the Big Bang to sacred history while laughing at the Bible, humanists that are obsessed with one thing or another devote their lives to making sense out of nonsense and nonsense out of sense.

Like all outspoken conservative Christians, Carrie Prejean was bound to experience public backlash.  As Ann Coulter stated, “Take a Christian position in public and Satan’s handmaidens will turn all your secrets into front-page news”.  Some of the dirt dug up by Miss Prejean’s opponents included scantily clad photographs that Prejean said were a requirement for a modeling resume and not intended for publication.

“I am a Christian, and I am a model,” Prejean said in a statement released overnight to the media. “Models pose for pictures, including lingerie and swimwear photos. Recently, photos taken of me as a teenager have been released surreptitiously to a tabloid Web site that openly mocks me for my Christian faith. I am not perfect, and I will never claim to be.”

- http://today.msnbc.msn.com/id/30576251/

A liberal woman questioned Carrie Prejean’s Christianity because she appeared in the Miss USA contest wearing a two-piece swimsuit (along with the other contestants, I might add).  Interesting that a feminist never noticed immodesty before, isn’t it?  This brings to mind a clever quote I discovered as a World Views student:

“When the world goes wrong, it proves rather that the Church is right. The Church

is justified, not because her children do not sin, but because they do.”

- G. K. Chesterton

That statement is not encouraging us to sin, but rather pointing out that, sadly, the Bible’s teaching on sin is the one thing that we Christians tend to be so good at proving!  How humiliating!  However, true Christians never claim to be without sin, but rather to be redeemed from the condemnation that our sinful selves deserve.  We must repent to the best of our ability.  As a Christian woman, modesty is an area that I personally would refuse to compromise on, as we can see from the mistakes of prominent women that immodesty can give the devil an opportunity to hinder your mission and turn things to his advantage – and giving the devil an opportunity is one thing we are admonished against (Ephesians 4:27).

Back to the ideological aspect of this debate, I found the following article excerpts to be an interesting take on the blindness that is apparent in women that have fallen for the misogyny of liberal feminism:

“Liberals wouldn’t attack James Dobson with the amount of bile they’ve directed at a 21-year-old beauty contestant. It’s not just Christianity — it’s women liberals hate…liberals are ferocious misogynists. They share Muslims’ opinion of women, differing only to the extent that liberals also support a woman’s right to have an abortion and to perform lap dances…

…You’d be better off in a real burqa than under the authority of a liberal American male…

…But what is crying out for an explanation is why every bubble-head TV news anchorette from a nice, churchgoing red state ends up adopting the political views of Karl Marx…The only way to protect yourself is to do the liberal male’s bidding, as the bubble-head anchorettes do, or stand on the rock of Christianity.

From Katie Couric on CBS to Norah O’Donnell on MSNBC, the whole stable of TV anchorettes weirdly have the exact same politics as their liberal masters. It’s the ideological burqa women are required to wear to work in the mainstream media. As with a conventional burqa, it enforces conformity and severely restricts the vision.

Now, another beautiful Christian has thrown off the liberal burqa, thereby inciting mass hysteria throughout the liberal establishment. Prejean doesn’t care. She is blazing across the sky, as impotent nose-pickers jockey for a piece of her reflected light by hurling insults at her.”

- Ann Coulter

We have missions to accomplish, and though none of us followers of CHRIST will be perfect in this fallen world through our own fleshly power, if we acknowledge the LORD in all our ways, HE shall direct our paths (Proverbs 3:6)!

NOTE: You can also find my slightly revised version of this article on The Cross-Eyed Blog and Webzine.

So, my goals for this summer are…

- Paint and draw as much as possible and perhaps make a little money in the process.

- Finish knitting projects.

- Finish sewing costumes for The Called and The Chosen (the designs are posted here).

- Film more things for Imaginate That Productions.

- Launch Not Just An Opinion (check it out! Anyone else interested in participating?).

- Begin new books/e-books.

- Possibly revise The Crusading Chemist yet again, or write a stage adaptation.

- Maybe start writing some new screenplays.

- Contribute more articles to more sources.

- Study Hebrew (which I began but didn’t finish when I was 12) and read all the literature I haven’t had the time to read!

- Get that Dramatizing History series launched for real (now that I’ve studied some interesting things about Theatre and Theatre history in my Drama class, I have a lot more to contribute!).

We’ll see what comes of all that.  I hope to write on my blog more frequently now.  I think I hear a tornado siren blaring.  Suppose I ought to go now…

MAY GOD BLESS,

~Amanda~

It’s a pity that more Christians aren’t in the habit of celebrating Passover, because Passover really is a Christian celebration.  It was given to the Israelites as a remembrance of their salvation in Egypt and as a symbolic foretelling of their salvation to come.  When the blood was painted on the door frames of the Israelite houses in Egypt, it was actually done in the formation of the cross (left doorpost, right doorpost, and lintel, Exodus 12:7).  The LORD’s Supper is actually the culmination of the Passover celebration, because it was during that Passover season with the disciples that CHRIST revealed HIS Blood and Body to be the unblemished sacrifice.  We are saved by the same one-and-only SAVIOR, and Passover is such a powerful testimony to YAHWEH’s perfect plan!

We had to wait awhile to eat as we watched and listened to the music and sermon, but I think it was worth it.  It was interesting that the speaker pointed out that Passover was originally meant to be celebrated in the home, as a home-church sort of gathering (which is very familiar in our household!).  So, doing your own simple Passover meal at home is the original way to celebrate!  Following along with the service, we drank the red grape juice and broke the unleavened bread.  The least favorite part for everyone is eating the bitter herbs straight.  It isn’t supposed to taste good, as it is a reminder of the bitterness of slavery that GOD’s people endured in Egypt.  It also now serves as a reminder of the suffering and bitterness that JESUS endured when HE went to the cross in our place.  Last year when we had Passover at our friends the Williams’ house, we ate the bitter herbs not quite knowing what to expect (haha!).  I didn’t realize how painfully strong horseradish really is!  This year little Benjamin (age 2) cried after tasting his horseradish.   But the meal afterwards was delicious!  It is not doom and gloom and sorrow and wanting that is to be focused on during the Passover feast.  As followers of CHRIST, our focus is the rejoicing and giving of thanks that we are spared and our LORD is risen!

~Amanda~

Something very significant happened yesterday, April 6, 2009, that a good friend of mine wrote about:

“President Obama was not making a statement of fact, in a repentful sorrowful way. Instead he was making a Presidential announcement for all the Nations of the world to hear proclaimed, “American IS NOT a Christian Nation…” in the world according to President Obama.

And it is on this day, that our Nation has fallen from its blessing, and covering of grace, not only in practice, but in principle…

Let those of us who love the Lord, understand the gravity of this situation. Do not shrug it off or take it lightly. Do not be fooled into thinking God did not hear or see such a statement. We must fall on our face before the one true God, all those who dare to be counted among believers, and repent for our President, our Washington leaders, our greedy citizens, our guiltless debase citizens and PLEAD for mercy. We must pray for our Nation as never before.

Today is the first time in History our Nation has out-right rejected God! Duck, lay on your face and pray and let those who haughtily stand in defiance to Him be struck down in swift and certain judgment.”

- Lindy Abbott: http://lindylou-abbott.blogspot.com/

I know that President Obama has made similar statements about America not being a Christian nation in both his memoirs and maybe in his Inauguration speech, but now he is speaking it to the rest of the world with authority as the American President.  It is true that our nation hasn’t acted like a Christian nation recently, but why would the President point that out to everyone?  What sort of people is he trying to impress and cuddle up with?  Our adversaries?  To not be Christian is to not be redeemed.  But the President said it as though it is no sad thing.

I think that as Passover nears, this is especially significant.  The LORD, as a gentleman, may be lifting HIS protection from this nation because our leader has carelessly, tacitly said that we don’t need it anymore.  Think of the Angel of Death going through Egypt…those who had the lamb’s blood on their door were passed over, but the rest were smitten because they didn’t have YAHWEH’s protection.  What was the punishment for?  The hard hearted Pharaoh who represented all of them.

I decided to look through 4:6 verses in the BIBLE to see what came up…

“So keep and do them [the Commandments], for that is your wisdom and your understanding in the sight of the peoples who will hear all these statutes and say, ‘Surely this great nation is a wise and understanding people.” – Deuteronomy 4:6 (So much for that – now our nation looks like a bunch of dunces).

“There will be a shelter to give shade from the heat by day, and refuge and protection from the storm and the rain.” – Isaiah 4:6

“Lift up a standard toward Zion!  Seek refuge, do not stand still, for I am bringing evil from the north, and great destruction.” – Jeremiah 4:6

“For the iniquity of the daughter of my people is greater than the sin of Sodom, which was overthrown as in a moment, and no hands were turned toward her.” – Lamentations 4:6

“Is not your fear of GOD your confidence, and the integrity of your ways your hope?” – Job 4:6

“My people are destroyed for lack of knowledge.  Because you have rejected knowledge, I also will reject you from being My priest.  Since you have forgotten the law of your GOD, I also will forget your children.” – Hosea 4:6

“‘But I gave you also cleanness of teeth in all your cities and lack of bread in all your places, yet you have not returned to Me,’ declares the LORD.” – Amos 4:6

“And the devil said to HIM, ‘I will give YOU all this domain and its glory; for it has been handed over to me, and I give it to whomever I wish.” – Luke 4:6 (Creepy – do you think the prince of this world owns American now also?)

“‘In that day,’ declares the LORD, ‘I will assemble the lame and gather the outcasts, even those whom I have afflicted.  I will make the lame a remnant and the outcasts a strong nation, and the LORD will reign over them in Mount Zion from now on and forever.’” – Micah 4:6-7

“He will restore the hearts of the fathers to their children and the hearts of the children to their fathers, so that I will not come and smite the land with a curse.” – Malachi 4:6  (Our families must be strong – and we should also turn to the wisdom of our forefathers!)

“Because you are sons, GOD has sent forth the Spirit of HIS SON into our hearts, crying, ‘Abba! Father!’” – Galatians 4:6

“One GOD and FATHER of all who is over all and through all and in all.” – Ephesians 4:6

“Be anxious for nothing, but in everything by prayer and supplication with thanksgiving let your requests be made known to GOD.  And the peace of GOD, which surpasses all comprehension, will guard your hearts and your minds in CHRIST JESUS.” – Philippians 4:6-7

“Let your speech always be with grace, as though seasoned with salt, so that you will know how you should respond to each person.” – Colossians 4:6 (I need to remember that one!)

“…And that no man transgress and defraud his brother in the matter because the LORD is the avenger in all these things, just as we also told you before and solemnly warned you.” – 1 Thessalonians 4:6

“In pointing out these things to the brethren, you will be a good servant of CHRIST JESUS, constantly nourished on the words of the faith and of the sound doctrine which you have been following.” – 1 Timothy 4:6

“For I am already being poured out as a drink offering, and the time of my departure has come.  I have fought the good fight, I have finished the course, I have kept the faith; in the future is laid up for me the crown of righteousness, which the LORD, the righteous Judge, will award to me on that day; and not only to me, but also to all who have loved HIS appearing.” – 2 Timothy 4:6-8

“Therefore, since it remains for some to enter it, and those who formerly had good news preached to them failed to enter because of disobedience, HE again fixes a certain day, ‘Today‘, saying through David after so long a time just as has been said before, ‘TODAY IF YOU HEAR HIS VOICE, DO NOT HARDEN YOUR HEARTS.’” – Hebrews 4:6-7

Quickly, enter the house with the LAMB’s BLOOD on the door!

By the way, word has it that the White House received 2,000,000 Red Envelopes and the President’s mail worker claims it is one of the largest mail campaigns in 35 years!  10 of those were from the Read family.

~Amanda~

This quiz was posted at Anna Sofia and Elizabeth Botkin’s blog, www.visionarydaughters.com.  I scored a B and was given this verse to ponder:

“Dead flies cause the ointment of the apothecary to send forth a stinking savour: so doth a little folly him that is in reputation for wisdom and honour.” – Ecclesiastes 10:1

Hmm…so I need to keep those flies out!  When someone has a reputation for wisdom and honor, their blunders are especially unbecoming…and folly is easiest to step in once you start to think you’ve got the “experience” to avoid it.

~Amanda~

This past week I’ve enjoyed designing and sewing costumes with my sisters for our film project.  We set up the sewing machine and all our materials in the Guest House and worked away at it.  The weather has been wonderful recently, so a little gardening got done as well.

Abigail turned 12 on March 20th and received a small weaving loom, which she will certainly enjoy using!  I also made Abigail and Mary a new blog: www.fairhillsfarm.com/farmgirls.  A Wordpress blog enables them to insert photographs easily, which they like.

I’m sorry this post is so brief – I hope to add some pictures and post some articles in the not too distant future, but I have a History Exam tomorrow (yes, right out of Spring Break!), so I need to study what I can about Truman and the beginnings of the Cold War before getting a good night’s sleep.

I hope to write again soon!

~Amanda~

The origin of the universe is the ultimate nucleus of all debate. “Where did we come from?” – that very question, in all its cliché simplicity, is the prequel to the ultimate factors that determine an individual’s worldview. It challenges a person to decide how to regard life, death, the universe and morality. There is no detouring around it, though there are so many intellectual “scientific” thinkers that insist upon imagining fine print complexities and tut-tutting away all supposedly childish speculations because they would much rather have the public quietly accept their theoretical spoon feeding. Perhaps this sort of situation has always existed in civilization to some extent. In the past two centuries, so much has happened so quickly that probably few have given much thought to the fact that the debate of origins was given a very peculiar treatment not too long ago. Ah, it doesn’t appear too out of the ordinary anymore, because we have grown up immersed in it, regardless of which side of the debate we actually stand on. But there are plenty of extraordinary things in history that no one likes to talk about any more. Perhaps this has become one of them.

It was in the late 19th century that formerly outlandish ideas appeared acceptable. It was a time when people became thrilled with the thought of increased industry and technology – a second Renaissance of sorts. The conception of all the ideas that would make the 20th century a great glory of man had been made. The western world was on the brink of publicly shunning the Bible as nothing more than a collection of personal sentiments and in turn submitting the lifestyle of civilization to a human-invented quest for knowledge. Science was becoming an idol. A few unusual geologists were beginning to form speculations about the age of the earth and the historical accuracy of the Bible. But they couldn’t promote any such thing just yet. Not even the most brilliant scientist in the world could possibly convince a predominately God-fearing society of accepting such a trend alone. The whole origin debate remained in the way, and the realm of biology – the study of life – was yet to be mastered by the skeptics. The Bible had an answer regarding origins, but science did not. There were plenty of oozy, grimy, old mythological ideas regarding the spontaneous generation of flies out of raw meat and mice out of wood boxes and eels out of smelly mud. But those were not convincing enough. Finally, in 1859 a theology-student-turned-naturalist published a book.

Charles Darwin began his renowned On The Origin Of Species with the opening statement,

“When on board H.M.S. ‘Beagle,’ as naturalist, I was much struck with certain facts in the distribution of the inhabitants of South America, and in the geological relations of the present to the past inhabitants of that continent. These facts seemed to me to throw some light on the origin of species–that mystery of mysteries, as it has been called by one of our greatest philosophers.”¹

It is interesting to note that his beginning paragraph immediately presumes that the reader believes the origin of

Charles Darwin

species is “that mystery of mysteries”. With that taken into account, you can begin to project into your mind the primary audience that this literature would captivate. Obviously, those who believed the Bible to be the literal, inerrant Word of God and to have historic value would not be mystified by the origin of species. The Bible tells the story of a Creator designing the origin of everything in the universe. However, those that did not take the Bible seriously – or preferred to discount some of its text as irrelevant – would be anxious to find an alternative idea with a substantial appearance.

Of course, Darwin wasn’t being entirely original in his reasoning (as there is nothing new under the sun). He was under the influence of his friend Sir Charles Lyell (1797-1875), the lone British geologist who introduced the doctrine uniformitarianism. Lyell believed that “the present is the key to the past”, and that all of history must have slowly groped to its current position without any extraordinary circumstances. It was Lyell that considered the universal flood stories to be embellished accounts spread by survivors of global warming-related melt downs from the icebergs (Fancy that!).

There were two significant quarters of opposition towards Darwin’s ideas. The second opposition – that of “religious” leaders who were concerned about the new theory attempting to discredit the literal account of Genesis – is the more popular of the two. The controversy surrounding it is readily promoted by those who adhere to the view as summarized by evolutionary polemicist Andrew Dickson White (1832 – 1918):

“In all modern history, interference with science in the supposed interest of religion, no matter how conscientious such interference may have been, has resulted in the direst of evils both to religion and to science.”

The first opposition doesn’t receive much attention among scientists in our present century. Ironically, this was the opposition from Darwin’s fellow scientists.

Louis Agassiz

One of the most eminent scientists of the day was Louis Agassiz (1807 – 1873), who is known as one of the “founding fathers of the modern American scientific tradition”². He was world-renowned for his studies in ichthyology and paleontology. He was by no means afraid of the presentation of scientific ideas, following that they had credibility. It was Agassiz that first scientifically presented the idea that the earth had undergone an ice age at some time in its past (which is complementary to what would result following a world wide cataclysmic flood). But he mystified the Darwinian zealots because of his life-long opposition to the evolutionary theory. Some people today even refer to him as “a historical enigma”. His writings and lectures on the matter present his firm and sharp conviction against the new trend fast rising in the scientific world:

“I trust to outlive this mania.”

“You don’t know what this new tendency of science will lead to. God will go out of the universe as fast as Darwinism comes in. If the theory were demonstrated by facts, I would be the first to sustain it; but I can’t give up God Almighty for an ingenious hypothesis when I know there are facts which contradict the hypothesis. I am, first of all, a man of science; I follow whithersoever science leads; but I get enraged when I am voted an old fogy by a man behind the age, because I decline to accept a theory which my generalized knowledge and my daily investigations forbid me even to tolerate.”

“It is my belief that naturalists are chasing a phantom, in their search after some material gradation among created beings, by which the whole animal Kingdom may have been derived by successive development from a single germ, or from a few germs…the resources of the Deity cannot be so meager, that, in order to create a human being endowed with reason, he must change a monkey into a man.”

“It would be superfluous to discuss in detail the arguments by which Mr. Darwin attempts to explain the diversity among animals. Suffice it to say, that he has lost sight of the most striking of the features, and the one which pervades the whole, namely, that there runs throughout Nature unmistakable evidence of thought, corresponding to the mental operations of our own mind, and therefore intelligible to us as thinking beings, and unaccountable on any other basis than that they owe their existence to the working of intelligence; and no theory that overlooks this element can be true to nature.”

One point brought up by Agassiz was that no other scientific hypothesis had really been given such acclaim and credit to a single person. Right after the controversial book was published, the terms “Darwinism” and “Darwinian” were already extremely popular. If one is a Bible-believing creationist, one can both awe at the CREATOR’s intelligence of design and adore HIM as a personal LORD. Perhaps those that replace the Bible with On The Origin of Species, still being as entirely human as Bible believers, want some one to both awe at and adore. Since they cannot awe at and adore the Creator of the universe, they instead awe at and adore the creator of their theory.

The acceptance of the theory of evolution in society met its climax in the debate between

Thomas Huxley

Thomas Huxley (1825-1895) and Samuel Wilberforce (1805-1873) at Oxford in 1860 ³. The various records of this debate demonstrate what happened when this issue reached the public. It also offers a crucial glimpse into why evolution became widely accepted by people that formerly never dared to imagine such a thing. Thomas Huxley was an eloquent writer and speaker. A professed agnostic, he was the foremost supporter of the new evolutionary theory, as he stated:

“I am Darwin’s bulldog.”

Furthermore, his view of science explains the immense influence debate and the written word had on the issue – perhaps more of an influence than actual scientific analysis had itself:

“Science is…the results of exact methods of thought whatever be the subject-matter.”

English Bishop Samuel Wilberforce, the third son of William Wilberforce and a notably keen debater, was reckoned to be a good match for Darwin’s bulldog. More than 700 men and women clamored to watch how the scene would unfold, a large majority of which was allied with Samuel Wilberforce’s creationist stance. Those that supported Thomas Huxley were the handful of intellectuals that were intrigued by Darwin.

“Accordingly it was to him, thus marked out as the champion of the most debatable thesis of evolution, that, two days later, the Bishop addressed his sarcasms, only to meet with a withering retort. For on the Friday there was peace; but on the Saturday came a yet fiercer battle over the `Origin’ which loomed all the larger in the public eye, because it was not merely the contradiction of one anatomist by another, but the open clash between Science and the Church. It was, moreover, not a contest of bare fact or abstract assertion, but a combat of wit between the individuals, spiced with the personal element which appeals to one of the strongest instincts of every large audience.”

- Sir Joseph Hooker (1817-1911)

Samuel Wilberforce

What happened according to various eyewitnesses is almost mysterious at first glance. With Biblical creationism being the view point that was still both scientifically and socially acceptable (particularly in the audience), Wilberforce apparently didn’t think that he needed to defend the Bible as much as he needed to show how absurd the evolutionary theory was:

“But we are too loyal pupils of inductive philosophy to start back from any conclusion by reason of its strangeness. Newton’s patient philosophy taught him to find in the falling apple the law which governs the silent movements of the stars in their courses; and if Mr Darwin can with the same correctness of reasoning demonstrate to us our fungular descent, we shall dismiss our pride, and avow, with the characteristic humility of philosophy, our unsuspected cousinship with the mushrooms, –

`Claim kindred there, and have our claim allowed’

- only we shall ask leave to scrutinise carefully every step of the argument which has such an ending, and demur if at any point of it we are invited to substitute unlimited hypothesis for patient observation, or the spasmodic fluttering flight of fancy for the severe conclusions to which logical accuracy of reasoning has led the way.”

His speech was given immediate acclamation, with cheering from the clergy and ladies waving their white handkerchiefs. Wilberforce supposedly concluded his dissertation jovially mocking evolution by questioning his opponent whether it was through his grandfather or grandmother that he claimed descent from a monkey.

Perhaps the lightheartedness was a mistake. It gave the opponent an opportunity to appear more sincere, wise and knowledgeable. In his famous response, Huxley is said to have ironically replied,

“The Lord hath delivered him into mine hands.”

Huxley then shocked the audience by retorting with complete seriousness:

“I asserted – and I repeat – that a man has no reason to be ashamed of having an ape for his grandfather. If there were an ancestor whom I should feel shame in recalling it would rather be a man – a man of restless and versatile intellect – who, not content with an equivocal success in his own sphere of activity, plunges into scientific questions with which he has no real acquaintance, only to obscure them by an aimless rhetoric, and distract the attention of his hearers from the real point at issue by eloquent digressions and skilled appeals to religious prejudice.”

Nothing scientific, nothing dealing with fact versus fiction. But it left his listeners speechless. One woman actually fainted in astonishment. The very basis of the argument had shifted away from pure, cold hard scientific observation. On second thought, maybe the basis of the argument was never on pure, cold hard scientific observation in the first place! It was destined to be no scale of experiment and observation and faith, but an issue of foolishness and less foolishness and greater foolishness. No one was prepared to respond. Christians in confusion and fear fled from the crucial and long-suffering field that was once theirs alone: Science.

Many leaders such as Wilberforce had failed to realize what a threat to their descendants this theory actually was, and had allowed the opponent to run all over them crying “aimless rhetoric” and “religious prejudice”.

Shortly before his death, Louis Agassiz said

“I confess that I was not prepared to see this theory received as it has been by the best intellects of our time. Its success is greater than I could have thought possible.”

With his passing, the next century came to revere Darwin and his theory of evolution in place of GOD just as Agassiz had predicted. On February 12, 2009, Charles Darwin’s 200th birthday was celebrated (along with Abraham Lincoln’s, let’s not forget). What about the great men of science that acknowledged the CREATOR? I noticed on my own observation that Louis Agassiz’s 200th birthday was May 28, 2007 – the day the Answers in Genesis Creation Museum was opened.  May 28th is also my 9 year-old sister Mary’s birthday, by the way.

~~~

There are a great many beneficial things that have come from scientific study, and many of the scientists and physicians that brought forth the most useful advances were Christians (Louis Pasteur, James Clerk Maxwell, Gregor Mendel, etc.). But science, like any power tool, can cause terrible consequences when misused. It is undoubtedly a very difficult tool for human nature to master, as it requires such intense objectivity and honesty despite personal desire or opinion. Humanism, however, is the glorification of human desire and opinion. When humanism set in, man became his own standard, and he made sure his science was governed by it…until it wasn’t science at all.

Part II will come around when I get the chance, LORD willing.

~Amanda~

WORKS CONSULTED

“John Louis Rodolphe Agassiz (1807-1873)”. Lefalophodon. Ed. John Alroy. Last accessed 10 May 2009. http://www.nceas.ucsb.edu/~alroy/lefa/LAgassiz.html

Darwin, Charles. On the Origin of Species. 6th Ed. Project Gutenberg Etext, December 1999. Gutenberg.org. http://www.gutenberg.org/catalog/world/readfile?fk_files=39460&pageno=1

Lucas, J.R. “Wilberforce and Huxley: A Legendary Encounter”. The Historical Journal 22.2 (1979): 313-330. Homepage of J.R. Lucas. 10 May 2009. http://users.ox.ac.uk/~jrlucas/legend.html

Pearcey, Nancy R. and Charles B. Thaxton. The Soul of Science: Christian Faith and Natural Philosophy. Wheaton: Crossway, 1994.

Waggoner, Ben. “Louis Agassiz (1807-1873)”. University of California Museum of Paleontology. 01 Jan. 1996. 10 May 2009. http://www.ucmp.berkeley.edu/history/agassiz.html