Response to Top 25 Creationist Fallacies

I was busy downloading as much material I possibly could to be prepared for the next year of absence from Youtube and Itunes when I came across a special jewel. I had some stimulating conversations with friends earlier in the day concerning the works Indoctrinate U and Expelled so my mind was already turning. I spent the last several nights keeping my late night entertainment limited to that of America and Britain's Got Talent shows, and watching clips of Happy Tree Friends and other funny videos.

Anyways, surfing away for more Ben Stein clips I come across Top 25 Creationist Fallacies in the ranks. I started watching, well because I don't really plan on sleeping and I need to ensure Itunes gets all the beginning Greek lessons downloaded as well as see what else I can grab for free. I write this as a point-by-point response to the video maker. It seems of better quality than typical and having watched the first several minutes, I am in a blogging mood.

If you so desire to watch this 23 minute video and read what I have to say I suggest you pause it at appropriate points. Then again it may be easier to open a separate tab/window to watch the video and scroll along the reading.

1. Foundational Bias: There is no doubt that Ken Ham is bias in his approach. Is that grounds to disqualify his ability to think and observe/interpret evidence at hand? We are all bias, how much we are willing to admit to it varies. Allow me to point to Richard Lewontin's Billions and Billions of Demons

Our willingness to accept scientific claims that are against common sense is the key to an understanding of the real struggle between science and the supernatural. We take the side of science in spite of the patent absurdity of some of its constructs, in spite of its failure to fulfill many of its extravagant promises of health and life, in spite of the tolerance of the scientific community for unsubstantiated just-so stories, because we have a prior commitment, a commitment to materialism. It is not that the methods and institutions of science somehow compel us to accept a material explanation of the phenomenal world, but, on the contrary, that we are forced by our a priori adherence to material causes to create an apparatus of investigation and a set of concepts that produce material explanations, no matter how counter-intuitive, no matter how mystifying to the uninitiated. Moreover, that materialism is absolute, for we cannot allow a Divine Foot in the door.

The eminent Kant scholar Lewis Beck used to say 

anyone who could believe in God could believe in anything. To appeal to an omnipotent deity is to allow that at any moment the regularities of nature may be ruptured, that miracles may happen.

I dare not alter the text, it speaks for itself. Bias exists based on worldview, whether either party is willing to admit to that bias it varies from person to person regardless of the content of their bias. Ken Ham defined his bias being that of a biblical worldview which is explained in AIG's (Answers in Genesis) mission statement.

2. Straw Man Argument: Well explained, fairly useful summary of the fallacy, no argument until he uses the example. I have mentioned in previous blogs about my disagreements with Way of the Master and their rather anti-intellectual approach to evangelism. This happens to be a decent example; however, having seen the full episode it is not uncommon method that WOTM doesn't intellectually answer objections to faith. I suppose to setup a more correct setup would to spend more time to explain the Big Bang theory in greater depth. I personally have not found an issue with the concept "there was nothing and out of nothing there was an explosion that created everything"; because I believe God caused the explosion. While that might sound illogical to a materialist, I am satisfied because I believe in the supernatural. It seems easier to me to believe that out of nothing God created everything then out of nothing, nothing created/caused everything... or wait, am I just offering another straw man argument? Often, a Straw man can be interpreted as a poor summary.

3. Hasty Generalization: The document claiming to make the "hasty generalization" is the Dissent From Darwinism, which simply is an acknowledgement of various accredited/academic people whom state  

"We are skeptical of claims for the ability of random mutation and natural selection to account for the complexity of life. Careful examination of the evidence for Darwinian theory should be encouraged." 

They define random mutation and natural selection as the exact topics of dissent because to contest evolution is careless and rather dangerous. There are many forms of evolution, the most basic textbook example will introduce evolution as "change over time", often exemplified in what is known as micro-evolution or variation. Micro-evolution seems to imply that new minute traits were expressed as a form of evolution while variation simply implies that the traits are expressed traits which had existed in the genetic code in which no new information was added. The verbiage of the Dissent document is precise to ensure no mistake in the claim. In those terms, what is so dangerous about questioning descent with modification doctrine and putting it under serious scrutiny? The document doesn't say they believe it is wrong, false or any other damning verbs, just that they are not certain and believe random mutation and natural selection should be examined. I would put money on it that Expelled will mention Micheal Behe's Darwin's Black Box which points out that there has never been serious scientific scrutiny applied to evolutionary theory at the academic level to explore the operation of natural selection or random mutation at the biochemical level. Michael Behe goes further to point out there has not been studies to confirm how complex operations such as eyesight, flagellum locomotion and many other cellular mechanisms.

4. Argument From Authority: I would be foolish to hope he wouldn't use Kent Hovind, while I dare not judge a man's faith his message implies a form of theocratic or anti-government political stance. Thus he was imprisoned for tax fraud in 2007, destroying much of his credibility. Dr. Hovind's credentials were that he has his doctorate in science and was a teacher for 15 years or so. While I wouldn't call this a lie it is not the full truth, as I recall it the degree was from a Christian organization not fully accredited and the degree was in Christian education. He taught at Christian schools. I do believe Dr. Dino (Kent Hovind) used his credentials in a misleading way. Oh yea, his sidekick in the video clip is his son. I am not aware of any other creationists whom flagrantly use this fallacy. I am not fond of Kent Hovind's tone, style or behavior towards evolutionists, the evidence he presents regarding age of the Earth, Dinosaurs, and the pre-Flood Earth is interesting to say the least.

5. Ad Hominem: I wonder how many people are aware of the full title of Origin of Species; it is viewable at 5:04. If "races" was meant by "species" then why wouldn't the book have repeated species instead of using races? The video maker does not reference the claim; it is my interpretation that "races" was in reference to human races. At the most innocent level it would be a higher classification than species perhaps order or class. It is easy to claim Ad Hominem when one does not include the full argument. Since the Ken Ham clip was cut, it cannot be known if the argument was further developed. However, it is true that in the late 19th century eugenics was popularized. I cannot prove that Darwinist evolution is the directly responsible for the Eugenics movement in the early 20th century and possibly a motivating cause for the Holocaust, the two can logically go hand in hand. If humans are the result of higher development then eugenics are possibly a form of selective breeding? I would also like to point out that the first minute of the video was almost entirely ad Hominem attacks.

6. Ad Populum: Wow, he asserted that Truth exists... I am speechless. Not really, though rather surprised. Kent Hovind's example clip... yea shot down. I likely won't be too much help to Kent in the rest of this.

7. Quote Mining: He points out that Stephen Jay Gould's quote about a lack of transitional fossils as a fallacy? Allow me to attempt to summarize Dr. Gould's theory (I actually don't know if it was theory or hypothesis via the scientific method) of Punctuated Equilibrium. As I recall this was in response to the seeming explosion in the fossil records in which developed fossils of various species have been found in leaps and bounds. The phylogenetic tree has been used as an example from simple life to be linked as the common ancestor to major classes: mammals, reptiles, amphibians etcetera. The existence of transitional fossils between reptiles and mammals for instance, or lack thereof, was popularly explained in two manners. One, punctuated equilibrium which millions of micro-evolutionary changes built up over millions of years which lead to an explosion of development to produce new classes of creatures, this was also proposed as a response that micro-evolutionary changes which did not add up to gradual eyesight or fish evolving to amphibians. The other manner of arguing the lack of transitional fossils was suggesting that instead of a common ancestor, instead there were multiple fully developed common ancestors. This would resemble many central points in the phylogenetic tree image instead a single origin. The possibility of many common ancestors also matches with the Biblical account of creation in which it says God created animals according to their "kinds" such as dogs, cats, primates etc.

8. Man on the Street Interview: I can't conceive why Ray Comfort or Kirk Cameron are being supposed as Top Creationists... they intellectually made fools of Christianity in the televised debate with Rational Response. What is sad, basic theology or apologetical training could have actually had them stand a chance instead of showing the world yet another example of the lack of intellectualism in the faith. There are educated answers, they just didn't give them. Perhaps I should revisit this debate at length, let me know if I should bother, these do take some time.

9. Non-Sequitur: Kirk was doing so good until he used the absurd picture... I shake my head. In my opinion to more eloquently pull off the ad absurdum argument he should establish a more believable example, such as the Archaeopteryx as the supposed feathered reptile when instead it has been classified as a bird.

10. Red Herring: Distraction technique with a boot? The argument seems logical. The claim: long time is required to make fossils. The response: a fossilized cowboy boot is offered as evidence that it does not take a long time to fossilize materials. Long time is often referred to in the millions of years, by giving the example of a fossilized boot it is implied that the boot did not take millions of years to fossilize effectively answering the claim.

11. Personal Incredulity: While the video clip does not explain the full complexity of the bacterial flagellum, the form of locomotion at the bacterial level observed by a biochemist, his book devotes one of the most painful chapters to read about the irreducibly complex system of the flagellum. It is easy to claim fallacies are being used when one uses 30 seconds of a clip as examples.

12. Argument from Ignorance: Interesting that this is titles Top 25 Fallacies when I have really only seen two credible Intelligent Design proponents. Note: Intelligent Design is not synonymous with Creationists. Intelligent Design is a much broader form of origins that isn't even Christianity specific. I question the example's credibility and authority when she is referenced as the "Orange Lady"; her established identity is based upon her tint on the video...

13. Violation of the Philosophy of Science: This is follows the hijacked definition of science being synonymous with materialism i.e. the supernatural does not exist. Scientifically speaking because the supernatural cannot be observed, tested, and repeated, which are the points required for the scientific method, science indeed cannot prove the supernatural. However, the scientific method cannot disprove the supernatural because if an event can be observed, tested, and repeated then it would be classified under the scientific method of natural order. Isn't that a Straw Man? As noted in the Billions and Billions of Demons excerpt, materialism is an a priori belief. Lee Strobel is simplifying Paley's teleological argument. Essentially by observing complex machines occurring in the natural world one can logically deduce that an intelligent being caused those machines.

12. Equivocation: I would agree many people confuse theory by definition of the scientific method versus definition of the American language. Theory is the result of supposed multiple tests and just before it is established as law. However, Theory maintains a fair amount of gray area still based upon the experiments that formed the hypothesis and eventually became the theory. I would also like to point out the unidentified Islamic gentlemen is not what I would consider to be one of the Top 25 Creationists.

13. False Dichotomy: The character presenting one of the theological arguments is exactly right. By the contradiction of circumstances such as sin and then death or death and then sin it does come down to one or the other. However, I advise this argument to only be used with other Christians because the authority of Scripture must be agreed upon.

14. Begging the Question: I have heard Begging the Question being more like Straw Man than circular reasoning, but let's have it. The example questioned is the astronomical first cause, much related to the Big Bang. The theological advantage of the Big Bang is that it proves that there was a first cause. While the Intelligent Design adherent can credit the Designer with causing the bang, the atheist/evolutionist cannot. They are stuck with nothing blew up into everything. The example was not begging the question but implied reasoning.

15: Tautology: The claim is that without gravity no complex atomic structures would exist. This is a butchered version of fine tuning in which there are something like 300+ independent extremely precise constants found in the world, be it the exact rotational axis of the Earth, its rotational speed, distance from the sun, at the planetary level, down to the molecular characteristics that water's solid state floats and hydrogen's extraordinary strong bonding force. The examples of fine tuning get much larger and smaller than planetary and molecular scales. The significance behind fine tuning is that if a single one of the independent variables was off by a slight fraction then no life at all would have been possible on earth. It is a more complex form of the Teleological Argument on the largest and smallest scales.

16. False Premise: The evidence that the Universe had a beginning comes from the Big Bang. The argument that the universe ever "not existed" claims that the universe is in the same state as it has always been. The counter to the claim is exemplified by the expanding universe, the burning of stars and such. Suggesting that the universe has always existed argues for infinite existence, which is not observable, measurable, testable, or repeatable. Often arguing for infinite existence is attempted by the philosophers not the astronomers. The only issue with infinite existence is that infinity does not exist in reality.

17. Ad Hoc Reasoning: Sadly Kent Hovind is skilled with Ad Hoc; however the Canopy Theory is established as part of the Hovind Theory. Before Kent Hovind introduces his theory he explains it is out on a limb. The Canopy Theory is such a long shot because it attempts to answer why scripturally it did not rain until the Flood, how people lived so much longer, or how many factors of the pre-Flood world were very different from the world we have today. To possibly accept the Canopy Theory one cannot honestly follow the scientific method because it is used as a means to explain the pre-Flood world, which has not been critically examined beyond the creationist community.

18. Slippery Slope: A less eloquent way of logically deducing purpose provided by the renowned VenomX. Understandable argument but does not belong as support for creationism; it is an unsympathetic explanation of human psychology.

19. Correlation Implies Causation: ummm yea, the causation is in his 5th or 6th DVD presentation which does not address creation. Actually as I recall that DVD is titled "The Evil of Evolution", I own a copy, while interesting conspiracy theory and more developed form of the Slippery Slope argument, not effective in arguing for creation, used as a scare tactic against evolution. The variables mentioned are far too broad over far too much time to effectively or scientifically connect the dots.

20. Creative Math: Random is described as an unguided process following no order, correct me if I am wrong but if Natural Selection is an intelligent process wouldn't that be Intelligent Design? The evolutionary version of natural selection is blindfolded; if not then it is an active force of an unknown intelligence. Random mutations are just that, random.

21. Moving The Goalposts: While I know there are many unsatisfied people out there that think they have met the Kent Hovind challenge they are not the ones that made the rules. It is a rather lofty challenge the Kent Hovind setup, but the criterion for attaining the 250k is impossible to reach from his standard. The real issue at hand is that Kent requires evidence that proves evolution to be true in its present form not providing examples and arguments because any argument can be refuted. The Ali G example as his character ought not to be taken seriously and it also falls under the Correlation Implies Causation fallacy.

22. Just Plain Nonsense: When the heading is Ad Hominem in nature it cannot be refuted or rebutted because no argument has been presented. While I disagree with much of Kent Hovind's styles and attitudes the evidence he offers is unparalleled for some of his arguments, such as that dinosaurs are still living on earth today.

23. Outright Lie: If one has studied the curve in the recent 15 years there has been growing dissention with evolution and a growing popularity of ID theory. Calling the change in views an outright lie is more propagandist and suppressionist than any ID theorist I have seen. For a claiming Christian to lie about something they know to be false requires them to be especially evil because the foundations of the belief is founded on Truth and honesty. If one needs to lie to believe in their faith their faith is worthless.

I was almost audibly laughing the way the video ends with "make up your own mind". The video maker clearly did not approach the project with an open mind nor did he attempt to understand the positions or arguments of creationists. This was proven from the first minute of pure attacks upon creationists. The video maker never produced counter arguments or evidence just attempted poor rhetoric to poor examples of creationism. When I started this blog I was expecting some notable figures and arguments, there were two points, one Ken Ham and the other Michael Behe, however, Michael Behe is not a proclaimed creationist he is an ID advocate. This is yet another example of a poor response to creation theory.

Fair Oaks Rock Choir Tour 2008

Written 22 March 08

Rock Choir Tour '08

How can one encompass the experiences of this past week in written format? This was by far the most memorable tour I have been privileged to embark upon, does not seem sufficient. I recall the brainstorming process for this blog. Is this going to be a flurry of emotions and joys? Not exactly my usual prose. Would I write my thoughts about the direction of the youth ministry and the trust I have concerning this next year? Would I write exhortations and advice as though this is a farewell letter to those I bonded with over this past week? We'll see where it goes.

The knowledge that my stay in California is at its closing has me almost regretting I ever joined the Army. I once again must leave so many that I love. At the same time it is through the Army that I have been able to support so many students, be it in California, Germany or Slovakia. The end surely justifies the means. I do not question my belief in my duties as a soldier, however, I am anxious to resume the life in youth ministry. I am joyful about the week, I can't express that enough. Only a few of the seniors knew me before I was a soldier, as life happened I was only able to visit here and there. Be it a youth group or a handshake on a Sunday morning I was not connected with the students on the level of a true friend. Living with the new generation of students over the past week has removed the obscurity that once existed. I wish I could continue to know and guide the students in their high school endeavors, I know most of them will be on the eve of graduation when I return but I won't be starting from scratch.

I think I underestimated how much this tour would impact me. When I first thought about going on Tour it was such a longshot I did not seriously entertain the idea until months after and when it was a real possibility that I would go on tour I was wrapped up in ensuring I could honor my promise and contribute to the direction of the ministry. I believe this last week came together by God's grace and guidance, the coordination of so many variables not within my control is what I consider to be an Act of God. When I finally found myself in the midst of the students I don't think I seriously could have forecast what was to occur. I am a tour veteran but a Rock Choir rookie. Most of the students with whom I bonded with, did not know me prior to Tour. I was starting from scratch. I cannot be so arrogant as to say that I am a natural youth minister, despite me, everything fell into place.

I pray that I offered myself as an appropriate example to the students. I recall my days when I was the freshmen and what I have learned since over the years about youth ministry. I pray that I offered myself as the embodiment of love and not some goofy guy that they politely returned smiles to. There is a part of me that wishes I had spent more time focusing on discipleship, teaching theology, apologetics and the Christian worldview, or trying to prepare them for the life that awaits many of them in the coming months.

I recall a discussion with Missionary friends about the differences between High School and Jr High Ministry. I have always preferred high schoolers because they are closer to becoming adults. It is those years when they become responsible for their own acts. Teenagers start to form their character and identity. Junior Highers are often at this semi-child adult limbo filled with new chemicals that makes those years especially interesting. My friends noted that they preferred junior highers because all they ask is "Do you like me?” High schoolers approach you as "Do I like you?". I do agree and believe high schoolers can be more stubborn and difficult to minister to; however, I have yet to see a wall love cannot break through. I try not to discount the work of the Spirit but my experience with so many that have been in youth ministry and that have gone on multiple tours but have still walked away... it pains me to see it happen. I hope that every student I interact with will see God's will for their lives and live it accordingly. Our youth today does not recognize their potential, I think in much the same way my generation.

I have had this constant fear when I am with the students that they see me as nothing more than a goofy guy. While I do believe I behaved in a goofier manner that I normally do, I hope it was conveyed as the love I wish to convey to them that Christ has bestowed upon me. I constantly have the message Darin McWatters said at a "Guy's Talk." Based upon his observations the purpose of the adult human male was to be entertaining, nothing more than a jester really. He proceeded to challenge the guys present to be more. As far as a social forecast for the purpose of men, I think he was dead on. I have seen far too many young men and developing men that have bought into that mentality and performed excellently in that capacity. However, they did not go beyond it, they did not develop themselves as spiritual leaders and some have fallen from the faith. It does not pain me that they have walked the path they chose, it does pain me to know that they are missing out on so many of God's blessings if only they would remember who is God.

I do not believe I am a natural leader. I do not enjoy being the center of attention. However, seeing the condition of the faith and not being satisfied with what I have seen has brought me to learn how to be a leader. I was thinking the other day how interesting it is that every single member of the Army is trained to be a leader in some capacity. One must make a purposeful effort to avoid the opportunity to be a leader. When compared to the typical life of a civilian, many who grow into leadership get far fewer opportunities over the same amount of time. It is apparent to me that people who do not want to accept personal responsibility certainly would not want to be responsible for others. Yet, to delegate leadership for the good of all is the backbone of the modern Army. Too often leadership has been perceived as an opportunity to gain power. While it can be a grab for power the purpose of the given power is the victim of improper attitudes about leadership. I see every Christian man as a potential leader, I see them as better potential leaders than myself, and I hope to encourage those whom I interact to be those leaders.

I am attempting to mentally prepare myself for the next year, to remain faithful and continue to grow in my relationship with Christ as well as encourage others in their faith. It is difficult to know I am leaving the students once again. The hope that I will return to be there for them is what will get me through 2008.

Christmas in Iraq

            It is Christmas Day, not the first I have experienced without friends and family to share it with and not my last. However, hopefully that will only be once more. I certainly have a greater respect and appreciation for those who have done this before. Even more for those that don't work in the offices I am surrounded by. I find myself not dealing with this Christmas away quiet as well as I have in the previous years. Indeed, I was very wrong about those years being in Germany, when I said being away is away regardless of the exact conditions. Coming from a desk jockey I didn't think it would be that much different than it would be when I finally got my chance to be deployed.

            So I finally got my chance, here I am. Already I know it is grossly different from any garrison or field exercise I have ever done. Perhaps the most noticeable surprise which I was not aware of until I got here is the sense of prolonged conditions. Most times I have spent in the field hasn't been more than a month or so, in the back of our heads regardless of how busy we were we could mentally countdown roughly or at least reassure ourselves that we wouldn't be here long. I have made every mental attempt to drown out the thoughts of counting down. I don't think I have been so unsuccessful at flushing this thought out of my head. I knew how long I would be here but it didn't really click till I saw what the next 15 months would entail.

            In the past, whenever a major holiday has approached it was not too difficult to ignore it. The work schedule slowed down, we had tons of down time and I'd drown myself into a video game, book, or the gym. One of those is always my constant source of occupation. The ability to drown out the approaching festivities was more a survival technique that I have grown accustomed to. I wasn't doing great, but I was getting by. As I attempted to apply such a mindset this last week it didn't hold very well. Be it the decorations that coated office doors, the Christmas songs played in the DFAC (Cafeteria), or the Santa hats people wore around work the reminders were too apparent to ignore this time.

            The abnormal thing about the season of joy, celebration and family that the period between Thanksgiving and Christmas has come to be in our society, I find myself being the Grinch. I was discussing with someone today why say "Merry Christmas" today? It is not merry. There is nothing about our activities today that could be provided as to make this day "merry". It would be more appropriate to greet people just claiming it is Christmas. Somewhere in the middle this idea is a desire to be true to ourselves instead of masquerading like everything is joyful like it ought to be or just saying something out of reflex without meaning. This is the same way that we greet one another with “What is up?” both mutually not expecting an answer or an interest in an answer.

            While I sincerely want to believe that I believe the meaning and celebration of Christmas is to celebrate Christ's birth. I know that it can actually be charted that Christ was actually born closer to Easter, the Catholic Church chose this date to have something to celebrate to compete against the pagan celebrations of Harvest, and the commercialization of Christmas is sickening enough to wonder if this is what Jeremiah mentioned. I find it difficult to get the full joy of Christmas without those I love. Certainly working this day like any other work day except for the occasional Christmas hat added to the disheartening feeling I have had today. The sanctity of such a precious day is being ignored and disregarded that it is difficult to meditate on the significance of our Lord coming into this world.

            It really hit me tonight at dinner. We have been very well fed the past several weeks with care packages from family members and random people wishing us holiday cheer, the care packages have been more encouraging I expected them to be. The daily feasts we've had available at the DFAC have not been hindered by our snacking throughout the day. It is still the holiday season so I give myself more than enough slack to indulge in the labors of our supporters. I had my dinner before me, it was barely what I would call a meal it was so small in portion and I couldn't take more than a couple bites from it tonight. As I write this I am kind of wishing I had because the vacant space in my belly is speaking to me. I was almost brought to tears just listening to the music being played tonight. It was a collection of choir preformed Christmas songs; they were actually focused on Christ than a jolly fat man on the side of a Coke can. Be it the recognition or even the melody of such familiar tunes that were sung at my home church the night before, it was almost unbearable. I haven't had a sense of crying like that since my first Sunday at Basic Training. That time I bawled almost the entire time, but here before I would allow a tear to form I left.

            While this doesn't seem like a good start mentally for what will be a long time here I want to be optimistic about the time spent here. As I returned to my quarters the last thing I said to someone asking how my day has been all I could do was shrug and say, "One down one to go". I know I will be spending next Christmas here, I hope I have a better attitude about it. I am thankful that today I got my box of books that were in storage for some time and I finally was able to recover them. Perhaps the company they offer will help. I don't want this to be something that the goal is to endure it. I want to see the potential to all I have to learn from the time spent here. After all, this will be the longest time I have ever spent in a single place that the Army has sent me. I should follow suit of my previous places and make the best of it.

Have a blessed Christmas, I know by the time you read this it will have passed but that is okay.

Welcome to Fort Hood

Written 11 Sept 07

It has now been one week since I stepped foot on Ft. Hood. I do like it here. I am working on the in-processing stuff still and expect to for the next week or so. I must say it is almost a 180 coming from Germany. I was overjoyed to get the news that I was not getting reassigned to a different unit than my orders had set for me. The replacement detachment is known for doing that to people. Actually, this is only day two of actually knowing my section and whatnot. I didn't get out of the replacement unit until Friday afternoon and didn't get to my company until late afternoon. Not knowing where or who exactly I was to be assigned is not the best feeling in the world. Not coming fresh out of training I make every effort to not come across as an FNG (google search for definition, if you must).

I spent most of Saturday walking around getting the feel for the East side of post, my division's side. When people say everything in Texas is bigger, it is true. It is at least a mile to anywhere I need to be and 2 miles to get to the specialty PX or the chapels I attend. I am still looking into the Bible studies where I can get plugged into for the short time I am here. I got a good room, the best type on post from what I have been told. I miss my old room, as sad of a post Storck Barracks were, the rooms were great. Technically there is about the same amount of space; however, there are no storage areas and more walls that take up valuable space.

I am getting plugged into the chapels around here. Granted it is a 2 mile walk to the chapel but I think it is a good thing that there are enough people here to better service the styles of worship practiced. I am currently going to the Evangelical service and the Contemporary service. The Evangelical is a small gathering, I think largely because it is on the 1st Cav side of base and they are mostly deployed. The preaching so far is biblically based with an exegetical style of preaching. The Contemporary service is much larger and well contemporary. The songs are what you'd hear on Christian radio; there was a guest speaker this week so I am not sure how to gauge what the preaching is like. The Evangelical service was more welcoming.

I had an initial scare when I found out that despite my orders, the replacement detachment might have assigned me to “needs of the Army”. An affection term that is full of uncertainty and ripe with potential to get the short end of the deal. So far my new unit is great. I like my company, I am getting to know people. I like my section. I have a lot to learn to figure out what we do and how to do it. It certainly is not a section which I have been in before. It is a small section and I am welcomed with open arms. This is where it gets fuzzy though.

I am not where I want to be. There are several places where my job goes to work at this level unit and I happen to go to the smallest section. The work looks appealing and intriguing but it is not exactly in the path of my trained job. In Germany both my assignments and respective unit levels were primarily administrative type of work. I want to go to a different section to do all the real analysis, which there are several other teams and subsections. I've made it known to my section, I am more than happy to give it a shot but when we leave I really want to get into the thick of it. That won't happen in my current position, I hope we can get a newbie that could take my place and I could go do what I want to do. It is bittersweet, there are so many places I could've ended up but I managed to get to the exact division, battalion, and company I wanted. Transferring within the company to a different platoon is not too difficult, it is just manpower issues.

The other side of it, being that I am in a small section the social aspects of it seems dismal. I like to work with larger groups or have more interaction with people, because work is where you get to know most people. It is small enough and consists of people that it isn't proper to socialize with. I have really been pondering what God has me to consider in this position. Every unit I have had so far my section has consisted of some colorful individuals, in a sense I was very aware of the spiritual warfare constantly. I think in many ways I fed on it, sensing the differing views I was prepared to go to war everyday. This section seems so safe, it is refreshing. I can't help but wonder where or how I am going to get those discussions and get to know people wherever they are in life.

I'm not trying to come across that I feed on conflict or persecution, or maybe I am. I have my goals of material to read while I am deployed, I have that sense in a non-spiritually conflicting atmosphere is this where I learn the disciplines to study on my own or be faithful without the constant battles? I know many people I have encountered that upon hearing what I believe and seeing how I live I think they have thought twice about what a Christian looks like. I can only hope. I am having a hard time seeing how I will be used in this position. That might be just it though, something about letting God lead me is I don't know where he'll take me.

Epilogue: I remained in this position for the first month of my deployment. We didn’t get a new soldier but another soldier was “tasked out” to a different duty making a vacancy for me to do some more meaningful work. It was exciting and amazing, but I still can’t tell you about it for… 18 more years at least.

To Drink or Not To Drink?

As I was reading a very interesting book that will have its own blogs of thoughts and reflections it just struck me that I should write this. Whatever it turns into here's your warning this is completely spontaneous. I am on the eve of finishing my clearing process and thus leaving a place that has been my domicile (I still refuse to call it home) for the last 13 months in a country I have called my residence for 2 years. I suppose this warrants some amount of reflection. It might even help the fact me accept the fact that I actually am leaving.

The first thought that comes to mind started around June or July of 2005. When I first saw there was the strong chance I was going to be stationed in Germany I immediately thought about what I could do to make a meaningful, apparent and bold statement of faith through my lifestyle while residing in a foreign country. At that time I was still trying to learn how to move past the spiritual separation I experienced upon leaving home while finding a livable medium in which I was not a “holy rolling judgmental Christian” but was not one of the crowd either. The idea and reality that it was normal for young adults to go out on a weekend basis if not more often and completely give themselves up to such worldly living was still a bit of a lifestyle shock to me. I never attended a gathering prior to the military where my peers were drinking and… yea. All of it.

As I reflect upon those months in Arizona and saw what people did with the freedom they had, even as limited as it was; I know my response had be something drastic. Germany is famous for their beer. I was still unsure how to respond to the offers of alcohol. While at Arizona, I was under 21 and had the weak reason by social standards but an easy one as to why I did not drink. I wanted to follow the law. I knew going to Germany where the legal age if you want to call it that was 18, and I was 21 upon arrival, the excuse that got me through several months would not hold up in the regular Army. Talking to reclassing soldiers (those getting a new job & training) the stories of Germany were not very encouraging to me and my desire to remain faithful throughout the duration of my service.

It was during those months that I had made a commitment to God that I will not willingly or knowingly consume an alcoholic beverage while on my overseas tour. I wouldn't call it a covenant because it was something I wanted to lay before God as a sacrifice; I was not expecting anything in return. I can think of two close calls which I might have compromised myself and my commitment, one was eating cake that had rum in it that I found out upon chewing it that there was a small presence of rum not cooked out of the cake. The other was when I popped my first whole German chocolate candy in my mouth; it was filled with something that I didn't like that was alcoholic. Following that experience I learned how to read the ingredients on the back of chocolates. It is rather difficult to find non-alcoholic assorted chocolates. I must say with brutal honesty that this was not easy to complete. This was reflected upon in What did I get myself into?

The first year was by far the most difficult. It probably didn't help that I spent the majority of my free time playing WoW in the barracks hallway on the weekends which I would see the habits of the second floor population. Actually, I kind of prided myself at times that at certain points I simply by smelling the drink I could tell people what they had put in it. My unit put serious effort trying to get me to drink. On one humorous point, the easiest way to get lots of free alcohol is to tell people you don't drink. There were also days that had taken their toll on my spirit. Between work or personal stress, I am certain if it was not for my commitment to abstain I would have drank myself to the clear point of sin. In that respect I think I can somewhat empathize with people that do drink to escape the problems of the day. I think there has been a several occasions that it was through people's curiosity about my decision that I was able to share Christ with them. It was astonishing to me how many found such a simple action as to abstain was seen a drastic move. Throughout this challenge, I must also keep my pride in check. It was not by my power that this commitment was fulfilled.

Like many of my decisions of abstinence, after several months of practicing a grander idea came to mind about what could be gained from such experience. Hopefully, I can speak as one who has experience about alcohol and peer pressure. Living in a country which beer is more normal than water, at an appropriate age, and appropriate places, I have had every justification to partake. Except that I wanted to lay before God a part of my life that I had not used until I committed it to them (remember the Trinity). There is a part of me that hopes these years of experience will encourage a high school student or college student how to address the prevalence of alcohol in today's culture and how it meshes or conflicts with our relationship with Christ. I don't pretend to have a mask that it doesn't bother me that many of my peers drink alcohol, I know there are plenty of scriptural examples that show it is not the act of drinking that is sin in anyway. After all, Jesus' first public miracle was making good wine. I know this is a question that every person must answer for him or herself. For me, for this period of time, it was a choice not to drink.

This is where it starts to get curious. On one hand I am experiencing a sense of accomplishment and joy because through God's strength I remained true to my commitment. I am preparing to return to the states, now a full fledged legal adult at 23, I am in a similar situation to ponder, upon the completion of this commitment do I want to try an alcoholic beverage? In complete honesty this question has come to mind several times and I have not made any solidly committed decision, which I think I will before I get on the airplane this week. While I am very curious what some drinks taste like, I don't think that curiosity is enough to possibly tempt myself or become vulnerable alcohol or the possible abuse of it an extremely active issue in the military. I don't know why I am delaying a committed decision so much; it is not like I spent months in agony or meditation for the first commitment. For the sake of continuing to submit myself to God's will, to make myself open and always alert to what I might be shown, I here and now extend my commitment to the duration of my enlistment.

Epilogue: I had my first drink with a friend from Germany back at home. God brought us together that our friendship could continue. I was the designated driver for him from time to time in Germany and in one of our conversations I agreed to have a drink with him if it was reasonable. Even in my civilian years there have been numerous occasions which I have abstained from alcohol. Whenever I work at Hume, no drinking is included in the contract. When I was in student leadership at William Jessup, no drinking. When I deployed to Afghanistan as a civilian, no drinking. When I was an undergraduate at Biola, no drinking. Through these experiences, especially not being able to drink as a 28 year old undergraduate I was able to recognize the heart of submission to authorities I have voluntarily accepted. Integrity ought to be worth more than a light buzz.

Prove It

I was surfing some of the most popular blogs just to see what grabs everyone’s attention and usually on the top 100 or so there are some insightful religion and philosophy blogs. I do this from time to time, I suppose to see what other people are thinking, and there is also a part of me that wonders how people get on the top read blog list. While scrolling down the lists, I read some irrational concepts people have to justify double standards and poor relationships before I got to the interesting reads.

I find it interesting that there is a decently strong presence of atheistic themed blogs. Within their own context they seem to range between a rant about Christians or a challenge to beliefs that many Christians believe like Creationism or the sort. It takes a bit more scrolling down the list before I can find a well written blog of a living Christian. I wonder if we can gauge the popularity of such blogs as a growth in atheism/anti-Christian attitude. I find reading the same arguments and accusations against Christianity or Christians disheartening. There appears to be a constant supply of proclaiming Christians who do not live as we ought. At the same time, in the blogosphere, the ability to identify the Fruit as evidence of faith is rather impossible. It is particularly challenging knowing that there are many nominal Christians who are not differentiated from practicing Christians.

After reading most of the arguments against the existence of God I am anxious to read the other works that are counter/anti-religion. I know the God Delusion has been a big one for quite some time, I think it is on my future read list. Reading what the reasons against God are in a full essay format I find it that much easier to see the misconceptions and assumptions. In the point- counterpoint book I am reading I had to take a step back to look at the "Does God Exist?" debate. I know I have commented on debates in mass print or broadcasted before on the same topic but during the course of this one there was a new epiphany. I don't know why it has taken me so long to see this reason, after all scripture explains this same fact. In the public context of "Does God exist?" it is apparent Christians are at the very best paddling the canoe up a waterfall. It is not because we have weak arguments, lack evidence, or have poor rationale that it seems reasonable to reject our beliefs.

"Does God exist?" is too general of a question. It is perfect for the atheist because they can attack Thor as much as God. The presence of hundreds of different deities throughout the world allows a plethora of examples to reject. At the same time, the Christian must explain the characteristics of the Judeo-Christian God in order to separate him from Allah, or Siddhartha. The separation that Christians must make and emphasize to show the difference of God versus the other gods puts a greater burden of proof that is so much so it can easily distract from the goal of the discussion.

Once the Christian has stated the characteristics of God the atheist can really go to town. So far I have found the rejection of God is not because of a lack of evidence for the God of Christianity but for the God of Christianity that the atheists want him to be. For instance, the atheist claims there are no good evidence for the existence of God. However, when the evidence is often presented the atheist rejects such evidence because it is not how they want their God (who doesn’t exist…) to do it.

For example, using the Problem of Evil to disprove God, the atheist claims there is too much pain and suffering at some level. Sometime it is a personal experience, sometimes it is the philosophical citizen of the world. When the Christian might try to explain that pain exists due to the presence of sin or free will, the atheist can respond that if God really was God then he could do it better or differently. This happens with every good argument for the existence of God. The Christian presents it, the atheist rejects it because they want it done a different way. Essentially it is a debate in which the atheist requires us to prove to them that their God exists. They have been rejecting the God who does not exist. It gets even better, often times, the atheist will put the burden of proof on Christians when the points from which they demand proof are contrary to orthodoxy. One example is something along the lines of withholding pain and suffering but still have a way in which the lessons from such pain and suffering can still be known, in the same way it was made known by experience.

The short sightedness of the atheistic arguments is a decent challenge to the Christians in this debate. Through reading this debate book I recognize the focus we must have ought to be on eternity, this cannot be forgotten. While the Christian view carries on for all eternity, so that the pain, suffering, evil (all justified with moral law) will be answered and solved, when the end of the road is the human lifespan such resolution cannot be fulfilled. Suppose someone rejects God because a bridge fell on someone they loved, or because they were repelled by the pain people were suffering from Hurricane Katrina. However, for those of us that know there is an eternal scale we view death, pain, and suffering with a different looking glass. Atheists want paradise/heaven on Earth while simultaneously rejecting the only being who has the potential to make it happen. They don't conceive that there is an afterlife or there is a greater purpose/meaning for life other than personal pleasure. It is not that our faith is irrational; it is that they don't like our rational.

The last point I noticed so far was that in order for many of the atheists to believe that God exists they must be able to fully comprehend and understand what God is doing and how he works. Essentially they want to be God and since that can be god in their own mind they don't want to admit it. The root of atheism as Ravi Zacharias writes is that people don't want to have to submit to anyone/thing, they reject the idea of faith and submission, not the evidence for the God that we believe. I reflect these thoughts with a heavy heart, on one side of me "ask, seek, and knock" comes to mind in which they must be willing to believe if they are going to be able to understand. I also look at the reasons Christ said he used parables. He will hide the truth from those not willing to accept it and will grant understanding to those who will. This seems so contrary to the way I would do it, to me it would make sense if all could see and understand, however, this might just be why I have to have faith. When there are those instances of "God, why do you do it that way?" I cannot get caught up on the why's and lose sight of what matters. Constantly reading apologetics that provide the intellectual response for Christianity there is a danger that I forsake God as the one who knows it all and become a modern Pharisee.