All My Tears

It don't matter where you bury me,
I'll be home and I'll be free.
It don't matter where I lay,
All my tears be washed away.

~*~

When I go, don't cry for me
In my Father's arms I'll be
The wounds this world left on my soul
Will all be healed and I'll be whole.

Sun and moon will be replaced
With the light of Jesus' face
And I will not be ashamed
For my Savior knows my name.

Gold and silver blind the eye
Temporary riches lie
Come and eat from heaven's store,
Come and drink, and thirst no more

So, weep not for me my friends,
When my time below does end
For my life belongs to Him
Who will raise the dead again.

~*~

It don't matter where you bury me,
I'll be home and I'll be free.
It don't matter where I lay,
All my tears be washed away.

~*~

It don't matter.

-Dan Haseltine

A Small Measure of Peace

Strengthen the weak hands
and make firm the feeble knees.
Say to those who have an anxious heart,
"Be strong, fear not!
BEHOLD, your God will come...
He will come and save you."

And the ransomed of the Lord shall return
and come to Zion with singing;
everlasting joy shall be upon their heads; they shall obtain gladness and joy,
and sorrow and sighing will flee away...


~*~

Isaiah 35: 3-4, 10

Trust. Hope. Rest.

When Life is in Discord

Two things:

First: I have a new love. Her name is swing... swing-dancing that is (you were right, Rusty). This past Saturday night Hannah and I nailed down some freakin-sweet moves at the good ol' Cat's Corner (or Kat's Korner... whatever). But the highest point of the night took place outside of the odd-smelling dance hall when the things of God came up among four of us sitting at a elementary lunch table. Brent Klontz - you're such a stud ;) - was beginning to tell me how his relationship with God was going when a certain sweat-soaked young man named Anoki (yes, it's his real name. And yes, it does make him sound very much like a jedi.) sat down next to us. Long story short: Brent started asking him questions and Anoki quickly confessed to being an atheist, therefore the things of God didn't apply to him. We got to talk for another 15 minutes or so; most of his arguments went back to his evolutionary worldview. It was a good convo, but he definitely needs prayer.

He was unashamed to confidently agree with me that his worldview provided moral autonomy so he could live life his own way without ever having to think of the blinding holiness of the God who is going to keep him accountable for all he has done. I'm sure I'll have more opportunities to talk with him as I plan to go swing-dancing every Saturday night I can spare. Please pray for God to open his eyes.

Second (and much more sobering): my grandpa John (my mom's dad) has been having lots of health complications during the past several months. But things have recently taken a turn for the worse. He has stopped eating out of a refusal to live the rest of his life in a wheelchair. He is 85; he is not a believer. So my parents are flying out on Tuesday to go see him - probably for the last time. Please pray that God would save his soul.

Call Me a Dinosaur III

Hi John,
Thank you for your encouraging words. Did you catch the comics this week? I attached one that you might enjoy...coincidence? I think not.

So, what did you think about Elser's arguments against creationism being called science?


Natalie

~*~

Hey Natalie!

You are certainly welcome : )

And thank YOU for the comic - it sure demonstrates one particularly luney side of evolution.

As for Dr. Elser's arguments, listening to him in lecture and reading his posts on discussion board can be quite aggrevating, to be honest. But I've noticed that he rarely answers a question directly, but he rather "intelletually sidesteps" the issue by blurting out a lot of nonsensical and circular arguments. For example, he is correct in stating that Creationism is not science - but only according to HIS definition of science. He even pointed out that one of the philosophical assumptions about science is that it tries to explain everything naturally. If we are to define science by "the study of what can be observed," then the starting point of Creationism is NOT scientific. However, when we apply the same line of argument, neither is macroevolution. Neither can be observed or repeated ;)

So then, both the Creationist and the evolutionist have a "non-scientific" starting point. Therefore each has its own framework of assumptions when viewing the facts (the data is always the same - granted that it's accurate - so only the interpretation differs according the presuppositions).

And so the problem the evolutionist runs in to is that since he believes that EVERYTHING in the universe can have a scientific explanation, he runs into a wall of faith that then forces him to twist the data into his framework of assumptions. It's like trying to jam a jigsaw puzzle piece into another one that does not fit - but you try anyway you don't like the picture on the box, thinking it doesn't fit with your beliefs about how it should look and work .

I believe it was G.K. Chesterton who said that modern man has battered his head against that wall to knock it down with his "superior" intellect, yet he has succeeded only in cracking his skull. ; )

Ok, I'll stop rambling now. But I'd love to talk to you about these issues sometime. Stay strong in your faith! See you Thursday!

Have a great week,

-John


"Know this first of all, that in the last days mockers will come with their mocking, following after their own lusts, and saying 'where is the promise of His coming? For ever since the fathers fell asleep, all continues just as it was from the beginning of creation.'

For when they maintain this it escapes their notice that by the word of God the heavens existed long ago and the earth was formed out of a water and by water, through which the world at that time was destroyed, being flooded with water. But by His word the present heavens and earth are being reserved for fire, kept for the day of judgment and destruction of ungodly men...

The Lord is not slow about His promise, as some count slowness, but is patient toward you, not wishing for any to perish but for all to come to repentance."

-2 Peter 3:3-9

Call Me a Dinosaur II

An interesting revelation...

Well John,

My fairness is only the result of being part of a minority in the scientific community. In return, here is where I am coming from: I find no joy in defending evolution, because I too am a Christian. I admire the fact that you stand up for your beliefs in a class where they are often rebuked. I don't feel that I have this same liberty, since it is my job this semester to teach that evolution is good and creation has no place in science (neither of which I fully believe). There are so many difficulties in this debate that most of the time I just throw my hands up in the air and move on.

I am happy to discuss these issues with you because I need a better grasp on them myself. However, I will request that you try to limit your discussion of this topic in class. We are through the worst of the evolution material, and I only have 1hr and 45 min each lab to make sure that we get through the whole lab. Anything we discuss in class requires me to defend/support evolution, so please spare me! If I were to do otherwise, word would get out, I would likely be fired, and my credibility as a scientist lost, which would do nothing to help the situation. I guess that’s kind of a crummy way to look at it, but I haven’t worked out a better one yet.

The next couple weeks of lecture will be focused on evolution, and there is always the class discussion board if you really want to get people talking about the creation/evolution debate.

Talk to you later,

Natalie

~*~

Hey Natalie,

Thanks for being honest about your position. I can understand how difficult your circumstances might be…

However, never forget that “there is nothing new under the sun.” The enemy’s most powerful weapon has always been deception. Remember the Garden of Eden? The serpent said, “Did God REALLY say that…” And what did Dr. Elser present in class the other day? Something along the lines of “come on, you can’t REALLY take the Bible seriously, can you?” The arguments have always been the same. The evolutionist may fancy-up his words with all sorts of big, scientific jargon – but the fundamental questions of life still remain unanswered. So take heart – from the beginning men have tried and tried to both distort and destroy God’s Word. Yet, it remains. And it always will. His promise is always true, “the grass withers and the flower fades, but the word of our God stands forever,” Isaiah 40:8.

So anyway, I just want to let you know that I will be praying for you a lot.

I will definitely honor your request to limit my discussion in lab. I understand that you are in a teaching position, and therefore you must be able to teach the necessary material. Besides, these discussions are always more beneficial in smaller groups. So I will keep my discussions within my own lab table as much as possible. And please don’t neglect to correct me if I step out of line somehow.

One more thing: I am much more concerned about people than I am about a debate. Sharing and living the gospel is central my life. Therefore, I will always try with any conversation - like this one – to lead a person to knowing Christ as their personal Lord and Savior. That is my ultimate intention; I will never debate for the sake of debating – this often just leads to heated arguments and broken friendships. So, that is where I am coming from.

Thanks for the emails, I really appreciate it. I was very pleasantly surprised to read the words, “I too am a Christian.” You are not alone, Natalie. Maybe sometime I could come to your office hours and discuss this more. If not, then I completely understand.

Once again, I will be praying for you.

See you on Thursday,

-John

Call Me a Dinosaur I

The following is a series of letters between my biology lab teacher and I. Just so you know, this all started with my "intentional inquisitiveness" during one particular class period when she presented evolution. I couldn't believe her honesty and willingness to talk, as you will see in the next few letters. My hope is that you are encouraged to not be afraid of those "scary intellectuals;" they're just people, people. And they need the Savior just like everyone else...

John,

Sorry I couldn't address your question in class - I don't want to you to think that I was blowing you off. If you are interested in looking more into the evidence for evolution there are some detailed web sites you can check out:

http://www.talkorigins.org/faqs/comdesc/
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Evidence_of_evolution

The idea is that if microevolution happens bit by bit over a very long period of time, eventually the end product will be very different from the starting product, = macroevolution.

Like we learned in lab, microevolution can be directly observed and experimented on, but macroevolution is left to inferences, circumstantial evidence, comparisons, etc., and consequently, support is weaker. A wide variety of supporting indirect evidence makes it stronger.

In addition to the fossil record (1),

(2)they are starting to gather molecular evidence - similarities in gene sequence between different organisms used to construct phylogenetic trees, and (3) comparative anatomy where they use common structure among different animals - the hand bones of a human compared to a bat, whale, horse, or vestigial structures

There are probably other things out there as well that I haven't thought of, but this is an interesting debate, and it's good that you think critically about it.

See you next week,
Natalie

~*~

Natalie,

Hey! Thank you so much for the e-mail. I really appreciate your willingness to talk about this issue. And you’re right – this is an interesting debate that carries tremendous implications towards life, philosophy, religion, and so on.

I have taken time to look at the evidences proposed to support macroevolution. Although I am by no means a scholar in the field of biology, I believe I understand enough to at least question the validity of this theory.

I’m not going to state all of my reasoning in this email – I’d prefer to discuss these issues in person – but just to let you know where I’m coming from, I will briefly summarize my position:

Obviously, I am a Christian. ;) Therefore, the macro evolutionary theory presents a very different explanation for the origin of life in all of its vast complexity and wonderful diversity than the belief system that I adhere to. But please understand this: I neither hate science nor fight against it. Rather, I LOVE the thrill of learning about how the world works (you’ve probably seen how excited I get in class when we get to do experiments ;) and all the benefits that come from that gained knowledge (medicine, technology, etc…). Science is a very good thing. However, when it is not understood in respect to the revelation of God, then it very quickly loses any grounds to adequately explain the big issues pertaining to life, death, and origins. Basically, I believe that science and faith are not mutually exclusive. So when faced with apparent findings that seem to contradict my faith, I start with these presuppositions and work to resolve the issues.

I hope that makes sense. Now, let me just quickly state my responses to the evidences for macroevolution.

1) You said, “The idea is that if microevolution happens bit by bit over a very long period of time, eventually the end product will be very different from the starting product, = macroevolution.” All microevolution does (to my knowledge – please correct me if I overlooked anything) is make sure that a species is well-adapted to its environment by favoring the beneficial traits. Microevolution cannot advance a species to a “higher level” because no new DNA is ever added. For example, even if we were to do our experiment in class with the paper dots for an eternity, reenacting natural selection, would those little dots ever become a larger, intricately-designed piece of origami? Well, of course not. That would require both more material (DNA) and an outside force to create it.

2) I already gave [in class] an alternative explanation for the fossil record. Therefore, this evidence is made null on the basis that it can be equally or better explained by a catastrophic flood.

3) Along the same line of argument, similarities in gene sequence and homologous structures are also evidences that assume that macroevolution has actually taken place. Furthermore, these “evidences” can also be used as proofs for a Designer using consistent patterns.

To summarize: all of the evidences that I know of used to support macroevolution are 1) interpretations based on the assumption that it has occurred and 2) can also be used in support of a common Creator.

Please understand that this isn’t a thorough presentation on the issue. I just want you to have a better understanding of my position. Of course we can elaborate on it in class if you would like. My desire isn’t to get into heated debate (there’s enough of that going on at ASU ;), but rather to politely discuss the issues.

Anyway, thanks for listening – I really appreciate your fairness in class to hear different arguments. I look forward to talking to you on Thursday.

Have a great week,

John Roberts

The End of Sorrow

These lines have been running through my head all day...

He came to my desk with a quivering lip.
The lesson was done.
“Dear teacher, I want a new page,” he said,
“I have spoiled this one.”

I took out the page, soiled and blotted,
And gave him a new one, all unspotted,
And into his sad eyes smiled:
“Do better now, my child.”

~*~

I came to the Throne with a trembling heart.
The day’s work was done.
“Dear Father, I want a new day,” I said,
“I have spoiled this one.”

He took my old life, soiled and blotted,
And gave me a new one, all unspotted,
And into my tired heart He cried:
“Do better now, my child…”

- written by an elementary teacher -