A Guide to Understanding Ken Ham

Ken Ham is best known because of his debate with Bill Nye on February 4, 2014. He is the former president of Answers in Genesis (AiG) and currently operates the Creation Museum and the Ark Encounter. I contend that most people do not understand where Ham is coming from and what he is trying to communicate. He is often misunderstood, dismissed, maligned, and misrepresented.

This post aims to help people understand Ken Ham. I believe he is crystal clear on what he is saying, where he is coming from, and what he is trying to accomplish. I hope that anyone reading this blog post will, at the very least, be able to understand him better. For the record, I have personally met Mr. Ham and visited the creation museum with my family many years ago.

Ken Ham is a Presuppositionalist

The first thing you must understand is that Ken Ham is primarily making a presuppositional argument. In other words, Ham recognizes the reality that everyone has a fundamental starting point from which they see the world. Another way of saying this is that we all have a worldview. This means that we all have a set of beliefs that we hold that profoundly influence how we see reality.

If you do not understand this point, you will not understand Ken Ham. He is unequivocal that his starting point, his worldview, his presupposition of reality is that the Bible is the infallible word of God. I could get into why he believes this, but that is not the purpose of this blog post. I could also spend a lot of time explaining that everyone has a set of presuppositions that they assume to be true through which they view reality. But that again exceeds the purpose of this post.

In his opening statement of the debate, Ham clearly stated:

So, is creation a viable model of origins in today's modern scientific era? The creation/evolution debate is a conflict between two philosophical worldviews based on two different accounts of origins or historical science beliefs. Creation is the only viable model of historical science, confirmed by observational science, in today's modern scientific era.

Ken Ham Presupposes the Authority of Scripture

The second thing one must understand is that because Ham presupposes the authority of the Bible, anything that contradicts the Scripture is automatically presumed to be wrong. Before you dismiss him for doing this, it is essential to note that Bill Nye does the same thing with naturalistic evolution. Bill Nye immediately presumes that something is false if it does not line up with naturalistic evolution presuppositions.

As Ham often points out, when an archeologist uncovers a bone, it does not come with a date engraved on it. If Ham and Nye simultaneously discovered the same bone, Ham would say that the bone cannot be more than 6,000 years old. Nye would claim that the bone maybe millions of years old. They both are looking at the same bone, but they see it differently because of their presuppositional foundation.

Ken Ham Holds to Observational Science

The third thing one must understand is that Ham is careful in his use of terms. The old axiom is true, "The one who controls the definition of the terms controls the argument." Why? Because definitions are presuppositional. Ken Ham was careful in the debate to define the term "science." Says Ham,

What is science? The origin of the word comes from the classical Latin, which means "to know." The dictionary will tell you that science is the state of knowing and knowledge. But there's different types of knowledge, and I think this is where the confusion arises. There is experimental or observational science, as we call it, that's using the scientific method of observation, measurement, and experiment and testing…

But I want you to also understand: molecules-to-man evolution belief has nothing to do with developing technology. You see, when we're talking about origins, we're talking about the past; we weren't there; we can't observe that, whether it's molecules-to-man evolution or whether it's the creation account.

When you are talking about the past, we like to call it origins- or historical-science.

Ken Ham believes in observational science. His point is that since we cannot go back in time and observe evolution, it is speculative as to what happened millions of years ago or whether the universe is millions of years old for that matter. Bill Nye cannot bring us back to the past, and conclusively prove evolution is true. The best he can do is speculate. Speculation is not science. That's Ken Ham's point.

Ham presupposes the Bible gives the correct account of historical science. Nye presupposes the theory of evolution. Both are presupposing something. Because Nye assumes God does not exist, he must come up with a theory to explain how we got here without God in the equation. Ham's point is that Nye is not using observational science. He is philosophizing.

Ken Ham is a Christian Apologist

The final thing one must understand about Ken Ham is that he is a Christian apologist. This does not mean that he ignores observational science. He doesn’t. I believe his primary motive is evangelism through creationism. His point is that you cannot believe in the theory of millions of years and still believe in God’s revelation given through Scripture. He is primarily a Christian apologist defending the integrity of the Bible in the face of naturalistic evolution. His ultimate desire, I believe, is that people come to faith in Jesus Christ.

Two of the most famous Presuppositional Apologists are Dr. Cornelius Van Til and his former student, Dr. Greg Bahnsen. The fact that you can read many of Bahnsen's articles on Answers in Genesis attests to these two Christian apologists' influence.

Both Van Til and Bahnsen articulated and promoted the transcendental argument for God's existence. In essence, this proof states that if you do not start with the self-existing Triune God who revealed Himself in the self-attesting Bible, you cannot prove anything. Apart from the Christian God, there is no way to account for science, reason, and morality. They argue that if one starts from an atheistic evolutionary worldview, you cannot account for the uniformity of nature, the immaterial laws of logic, or human morality. The atheist must borrow meaning from the Christian worldview to attempt to refute Christianity. When atheists begin with atheism's presuppositions, they start with nothing, say nothing, and prove nothing because no meaning exists.

As soon as Bill Nye showed up to the debate, he lost because he has to borrow meaning from the Christian worldview in order to logically argue the supposed science of evolution because he believes Ham is wrong and it is immoral to teach creationism. Understand what I just wrote in that last sentence and you will understand Ken Ham.

The False god of Spinoza, Einstein, and Moore.

Recently, I was reading someone’s Facebook page. He shared a post by a woman named Jillene Moore. I will include the text of Moore’s post at the end of this blog post, so the reader can read what each of us wrote and make up your own mind. If you are at all interested in this subject, I encourage you to scroll down now and read it first. Or you can read it here.

Moore begins her post by saying,

When Einstein gave lectures at U.S. universities, the question students asked him most was: Do you believe in God? And he always answered: I believe in the God of Spinoza.

Baruch de Spinoza was a Dutch philosopher considered one of the great rationalists of 17th century philosophy, along with Descartes.

She then gives a fanciful depiction of Spinoza's god. She paints this god with an optimistic brush. Assuming Spinoza would approve, how does she know what this god would say? It is entirely arbitrary and total conjecture.

This god supposedly reveals itself through sunrises, landscapes, and in the eyes of loved ones. Why didn't she include maggot-infested carcasses, garbage dumps, and train wrecks?

Whether she realizes it or not, Moore borrows her optimism from the Christian worldview. Only in the self-attesting Bible do we have the objective revelation of the self-existing Trinitarian God. Without this, Einstein, Spinoza and Moore cannot account for why sunrises, landscapes, and the eyes of the loved ones are better revelations than carcasses, dumps, and train wrecks.

What does she mean when she writes that Spinoza's god "loves"? And why is "love" better than "hate"? Neither Moore nor Spinoza's god tell us. They assume it. Without an objective revelation of love, how can we even know what it is?

God reveals in 1 John 4:8 that "God is love." We cannot know what love is apart from the God of the Bible. It says in 1 John 3:16,

By this we know love, that Jesus Christ laid down his life for us, and we ought to lay down our lives for the brothers and sisters.

Without this objective revelation, any notions of love are purely speculative. Again, Moore borrows from the Christian worldview when she believes that Spinoza's god "loves" rather than "hates" us.

The god of Spinoza, as revealed by Moore, cares nothing for morality. She opines that Spinoza's god says,

I never told you there was anything wrong with you or that you were a sinner, or that your sexuality was a bad thing. Sex is a gift I have given you and with which you can express your love, your ecstasy, your joy. So don't blame me for everything that others made you believe."

Would she then say that it's okay to rape, cheat on your spouse, or that it's wrong to have sex with animals? Since this god never told you there was anything wrong with you or that you are a sinner, or that your sexuality was a bad thing, why not do as you please to whomever or whatever you want?

If you follow this line of thinking to its logical conclusion, you can't say that any form of sexual expression is wrong. And if you do, you once again have borrowed the objective revelation of the Trinitarian God of the Bible, which limits human sexual behavior and says that the violation of His Law is the very definition of sin. 1 John 3:4,

Whosoever commits sin transgresses also the law: for sin is the transgression of the law.

The god of Spinoza knows nothing of law and sin. This god cannot say any form of sexual behavior is wrong. As soon as you try to put limits upon human sexual behavior, you assume once again the morality of the God of the Bible. You can't have it both ways. As Jesus said in Matthew 6:24,

No one can serve two masters, for either he will hate the one and love the other, or he will be devoted to the one and despise the other.

It's either the self-existing God of the self-attesting Bible or the subjective, amoral, relativistic god of Spinoza.

Moore writes that you cannot know Spinoza's god through any "alleged sacred scripture." While there are many "alleged sacred" scriptures, there are none like the Bible. It is the only self-attesting Book that claims to be the sole and unique revelation of the one and only self-existing Trinitarian God, Father, Son, and Holy Spirit. No other book claims that it is "infallible" and "God-breathed." (2 Timothy 3:16)

Only the God of the Bible provides the foundation for rationality, science, and morality. Apart from this self-attesting revelation, we cannot prove anything. How does Einstein, Spinoza or Moore know anything about their god? Again, maybe cesspools reveal more about this god rather than fluffy white clouds. Without an objective standard, it's all fairytales and wishes.

Any person that claims that anything can be proven presupposes the Christian worldview as revealed in the Bible. The very idea that something can be proven presuppose the God of the Bible exists; otherwise, we choose meaningless humanistic subjectivism that cannot prove anything. Who needs proof of anything in a God-empty universe?

We can’t have scientific proof apart from the Bible. The atheist Hume clearly demonstrated that we cannot assume the uniformity of nature. Science is impossible without this assumption. Science is only possible when we start with the God in whom

we live and move and have our being. Acts 17:28

Quite frankly, I am terrified of Spinoza's god. Imagine a universe where

"there's nothing to forgive."

This god makes us with

"passions, limitations, pleasures, feelings, needs, inconsistencies, and best of all, free will."

Since this god does not hold us accountable or threaten punishment for "being the way you are," why aren't we "absolutely free" to do whatever the hell we please to anyone we want and not ask forgiveness?

Imagine if humanity believed and acted on this presumption. What's to stop people from carrying out whatever atrocity they want? Even the idea of an "atrocity" must assume the Christian worldview rather than Spinoza's god. To agree with Spinoza's god, you cannot say anything is wrong. You have no moral basis for condemning the holocaust or Stalin's genocide of his people. Moore wants to paint Spinoza's god with a rainbow pallet, but this god paints with the pallet of blood.

Spinoza founded his god by his own subjective idealistic thinking. However, the Bible is the only objective revelation of the one and only God of the universe. Yet, even those who deny God continue to testify to His existence. Moore does so by assuming meaning in what she is saying, by assuming sunsets are better than carcasses, that enjoyment is better than misery, that the god of Spinoza is true, and the God of the Bible is false. She assumes she is saying something meaningful about a meaningless god.

For Spinoza's god, as depicted by Moore, there is no such thing as sin. In the Bible, God revealed that sin is real because He is holy, which means He is wholly set apart from sin. God defines sin, and no one else. The Bible reveals that God punishes sin. The glory and beauty of Biblical Christianity is that the Second Person of the Trinity became fully Human and died as a substitute for all who believe in Him. Believing in Him means that we repent of our sin and look to Jesus Christ for our salvation. The Bible says all who call upon Jesus Christ will be saved.

God then sends the Third Person of the Trinity to fill us and make us as pure and holy as Jesus Christ Himself. The Spirit writes the Law of God on our hearts so that we obey God not only outwardly but inwardly as well. God empowers us to love one another, not according to our subjective whims, but according to His Law given to us in the Bible. This is why it is wrong to rape, cheat on your spouse or have an affair with a goat.

The god of Spinoza speaking to us through Moore hasn't offered anything but meaningless sentimentality and permission to do whatever the hell we please. This god is the ultimate expression of narcissistic humanity.

The god of Einstein and Spinoza is nothing new. You can find it all throughout the Bible. Sometimes it is called Moloch, sometimes Baal, sometimes Astorath, and under many more names. In the end, we learn that this god's name is ultimately Satan.

The choice is always the same, both in Biblical times and in our times:

Now therefore fear the Lord and serve him in sincerity and in faithfulness. Put away the gods that your fathers served beyond the River and in Egypt, and serve the Lord. And if it is evil in your eyes to serve the Lord, choose this day whom you will serve, whether the gods your fathers served in the region beyond the River, or the gods of the Amorites in whose land you dwell. Joshua 24:14+15

Me? I have made my choice. I answer as Joshua did in the same verse,

But as for me and my house, we will serve the Lord.

I'm happy to dialogue if you want to talk about what I've written.

Jillene Moore’s Facebook Post, November 19, 2020:

When Einstein gave lectures at U.S. universities, the question students asked him most was: Do you believe in God? And he always answered: I believe in the God of Spinoza.

Baruch de Spinoza was a Dutch philosopher considered one of the great rationalists of 17th century philosophy, along with Descartes.

According to Spinoza, God would say: “Stop praying. I want you to go out into the world and enjoy your life. I want you to sing, have fun and enjoy everything I've made for you.

“Stop going into those dark, cold temples that you built yourself and saying they are my house. My house is in the mountains, in the woods, rivers, lakes, beaches. That's where I live and there I express my love for you.

“Stop blaming me for your miserable life; I never told you there was anything wrong with you or that you were a sinner, or that your sexuality was a bad thing. Sex is a gift I have given you and with which you can express your love, your ecstasy, your joy. So don't blame me for everything that others made you believe.

“Stop reading alleged sacred scriptures that have nothing to do with me. If you can't read me in a sunrise, in a landscape, in the look of your friends, in your son's eyes—you will find me in no book!

“Stop asking me, ‘Will you tell me how to do my job?’ Stop being so scared of me. I do not judge you or criticize you, nor get angry or bothered. I am pure love.

“Stop asking for forgiveness, there's nothing to forgive. If I made you, I filled you with passions, limitations, pleasures, feelings, needs, inconsistencies, and best of all, free will. Why would I blame you if you respond to something I put in you? How could I punish you for being the way you are, if I'm the one who made you? Do you think I could create a place to burn all my children who behave badly for the rest of eternity? What kind of god would do that?

“Respect your peers, and don't give what you don't want for yourself. All I ask is that you pay attention in your life—alertness is your guide.

“My beloved, this life is not a test, not a step on the way, not a rehearsal, not a prelude to paradise. This life is the only thing here and now—and it is all you need.

“I have set you absolutely free, no prizes or punishments, no sins or virtues, no one carries a marker, no one keeps a record.
You are absolutely free to create in your life. It’s you who creates heaven or hell.

“Live as if there is nothing beyond this life, as if this is your only chance to enjoy, to love, to exist. Then you will have enjoyed the opportunity I gave you. And if there is an afterlife, rest assured that I won't ask if you behaved right or wrong, I'll ask, ‘Did you like it? Did you have fun? What did you enjoy the most? What did you learn?’

“Stop believing in me; believing is assuming, guessing, imagining. I don't want you to believe in me, I want you to believe in you. I want you to feel me in you when you kiss your beloved, when you tuck in your little girl, when you caress your dog, when you bathe in the sea.

“Stop praising me. What kind of egomaniac God do you think I am? I'm bored with being praised. I'm tired of being thanked. Feeling grateful? Prove it by taking care of yourself, your health, your relationships, the world. Express your joy! That's the way to praise me.

“Stop complicating things and repeating as a parrot what you've been taught about me. Why do you need more miracles? So many explanations?

“The only thing for sure is that you are here, that you are alive, that this world is full of wonders.”

Bias, Presuppositions, and Intellectual Honesty

The Unbiased Illusion

I was listening to someone recently who claimed he wasn't biased. He believed he was objective and not influenced by anything but logic, reason, and science. He said this in the context of why he supported his particular candidate for president. He couldn't understand how people could be so stupid as to vote for the other candidate. 

Sound familiar?

His Facebook page is filled with memes that make fun of the other side. He has articles that definitively prove that his stance on whatever was correct. What was interesting was all the views he expressed were precisely in line with his party affiliation. He dismissed any challenges calling his view into question.

What bothered me was that he was completely unaware of his own biases. I do not find this person to be unique. Most people I encounter these days are heavily influenced by information that is anything but objective. Nowadays, "Fake news" is defined as whatever the opposition is reporting. 

Aids to Bias

This is a serious problem with the advancement of algorithms that track and feed us according to our online behavior. Documentaries such as Social Dilemma reveal the dark side of social media that provides people only the information they want to see.

The truth is everyone has a bias. We all have things that we presuppose to be true. A presupposition is something that is tacitly assumed to be valid from the outset. Everyone lives by faith, even the most ardent scientist. How can this be? The scientist believes many things before he or she even starts an experiment. Would you like some examples?

“A presupposition is something that is tacitly assumed to be valid from the outset.”

The Illusion of Objective Science

Science is based upon observation. By observation, I mean things that can be experienced by the senses, especially sight, though smell, taste, sound, and touch can and do play a significant role. Let's take sight, for example.

What exactly are you "seeing" when you see an object? Light hits the retina. The retina converts the information into electrical impulses that are sent along the optical nerve. The occipital lobe then converts the signals. The brain then takes this data and interprets it according to how the brain is hardwired and shaped through experience.  Once the information is "seen," the person has to analyze the information further to make sense of it.

Newborn babies or blind people who recently received their sight have to grow in their understanding of the sense data they are "seeing." In my example, we've come a long way from light hitting the retina to a person understanding the data. I haven't even touched on what exactly is light, and whether it is absorbed, reflected, or generated by objects in and of themselves. 

As you can see, something as familiar as "seeing" is based upon a multitude of presuppositions. How do we know we are "seeing" the object as it exists after the information has gone through processes in nature and our brain? This is just one assumption the scientist has to have to do science.

I could go on about the uniformity of nature and how the philosopher David Hume called the very foundations of science into question. On what basis do we know that events in the past will consistently perform the same way in the future? Hume says we don't know. Science has to assume that they do; otherwise, how can we do science? In other words, the scientist has to accept a set of presuppositions to do science. So even the scientist lives by faith. And if this is true of the revered scientist, how much more for the rest of us mortals.

I started this post talking about a person who believed he was objective in all his views. If something as precise as science has presuppositions, think about how many assumptions someone must have to hold a particular political viewpoint. Indeed, everyone truly lives by faith. Will a person be honest about their presuppositions or be intellectually dishonest by denying he has any?

There is only one way out of this labyrinth. It is to be intentional and honest about your presupposition. One of the most critical tasks we have as human beings is to dis-cover our presuppositional bias. What do you hold to be true? What do you take for granted to assert that any of your views are correct? Have you ever examined your presuppositional assumptions? 

How To Discover Your Presuppositions

The late Christian apologist Ravi Zacharias boils down the most critical questions to origin, meaning, morality, and destiny. How you answer these questions will help you identify your bias, presuppositions, and what you take for granted in your thinking.

Origins deal with the question of from where do we come? Some say matter always existed. Others say that God created us. Did we evolve over millions of years? Or were we created by God as talked about in the book of Genesis? What about the Big Bang? How you answer the question of origins will help determine the presuppositions you hold to make sense out of life. As you answer this question, you can discover why you think the way you do.

The next question that will help you identify your presuppositional foundation is the question of meaning. What is the meaning of life? Is it to get rich, help others, serve God, win, and propagate children? Perhaps you do not believe there is any ultimate meaning in life. That in itself is a presupposition by which you interpret reality, assuming there is any such thing as "reality." Perhaps "life is but a dream" as suggested in the childhood song, Row Row Row Your Boat.

Another question that will help you identify your assumptions of life is the question of morality. What is right, and what is wrong? What standard do you use to determine either one? That standard is your presupposition. Some use the Bible; others use intuition; still, others say that "might makes right." There are many ways to answer this question. How you determine what is moral and immoral will help you understand yourself better. 

The last question that Ravi Zacharias identifies is the question of destiny. This question completes the loop. Where did we come from is the question of origins. What is the meaning of life is the question of truth. What is right and wrong is the question of morality. Destiny answers the question of where we are headed. Do you think we are continually in the evolutionary process of getting better? Do you believe there are heaven and hell? Do you think we are, as the song says, "Dust in the Wind," that we are headed anywhere, that we are molecules falling through space with no final destination? 

These questions not only help you identify your presuppositional basis, but they also help predict how you will think on a multitude of issues. Those who assume God's existence, that we are created in the image of God, and that life begins with conception will be against abortion. Others who believe that human happiness is the ultimate meaning of life may think that a woman's right to choose is more important than giving up a career to raise a child. Many presuppositional factors will weigh in on how you answer abortion or any other problem for that matter.

Being Honest

The point of this post is to call people to intellectual honesty concerning their presuppositions. It is dishonest to say that you have no bias, that all your views are based on science, that you are correct in everything, or that you see everything clearly and everyone else is just wrong. I implore you to have the intellectual decency to admit that you have a bias just like everyone else. I challenge you to take time to think through what your presuppositional foundation is. 

There are benefits to this intellectual honesty. You will be able to evaluate news sources better. It's not enough to have someone else tell you something is "Fake news." Imagine not only being able to spot where a news story is factually wrong, but also to understand the news source's bias. For example, a liberal feminist will report the news differently from a fundamentalist Christian or a conservative Trump supporter. Why?

Intentional Presuppositional Honesty

I have intentionally chosen my presuppositional basis. What is it? I hold that the Bible is the only authoritative standard to answer origin, meaning, morality, and destiny. Biblical authors claim their message to be from God around 1,900 times. The Bible declares "God said" or "Thus saith the Lord" over 4,000 times. The Bible is the only self-attesting book in existence. There is no way around its claim to be the word of God. Isn't this circular reasoning? Or course it is. But it is intellectually honest reasoning. God Himself attests that the Bible is His word. 

An intellectually honest person will admit that all other theories or philosophies beg the question as well. For science, truth is only that which you can empirically verify. Of course, that statement itself cannot be empirically verified, thereby showing that science's very foundation is self-begging and self-defeating. To believe that government or popular vote determines truth is untenable, especially considering that governments and populations have committed horrible atrocities in the past. How would we even know that an event is an atrocity unless we had a standard outside of ourselves to determine that it is atrocious or not? This kind of reasoning is circular as well. “We know something is an atrocity because we know it is wrong.”

It is impossible to account for logic, reason, or science apart from God as He revealed Himself in the Bible. Without Him, you cannot prove anything. Otherwise, we are left in a meaningless universe devoid of meaning. We are "Dust in the Wind," and dust cannot account for anything, not even itself. 

The Bible reveals that God is the only self-existing Being who exists in Unity and Complexity. He reveals Himself as the Author of life (origins), the Definer of the meaning of life (meaning), the Law Giver (morality), and the Giver of eternal life (destiny). These questions cannot be adequately answered apart from Scripture.

Apart from Scripture, there is no way we can know our origins. If we are naked apes that evolved from stardust, there is no way to account for meaning. Molecules in motion have no sense. When morality is not rooted in God's character, it is subject to the whims of humanity, and those whims turn out bloody, as history repeatedly shows. The Bible tells us where we are headed, either to heaven or to hell.

Paul says in Colossians 2:8 that all the treasures of wisdom and knowledge are found in Jesus Christ. In Him is where intellectual honesty starts and where it ends. I choose Him as my presupposition foundation. How about you?

How To Make Black Lives Matter

Thesis:

Making black lives matter can only happen when our definition and understanding of justice begins with the submission to the Lordship of Jesus Christ and obedience to His word as revealed in the Old and New Testaments.

Introduction

Black lives matter has become a significant movement in the United States. You cannot drive far without seeing a BLM sign posted in the front yard of America's lawn. I've seen them in the most affluent, to some of the poorest neighborhoods in Connecticut. The people who post them are of all colors, creeds, and socio-economic statuses. People are horrified at the blatant acts of violence against the black community and want to do their part.

Since I don't have a front yard, I thought I would do my part by showing how to truly make black lives matter. I will argue that BLM's underlying principles only have meaning if understood from a Biblical worldview. Concepts such as human dignity, justice, and societal change are meaningless unless you start from the revelation God gave about Himself in the Old and New Testaments of the Holy Scriptures. I contend that the Black Lives Matter movement, while well-intentioned, cannot sustain their cause unless and until they work toward change by beginning with the conversion of individuals and nations to the Lordship of Jesus Christ.

The Foundation of Human Worth

Created in God's Imagine

There is only one Book that proclaims the truth about humanity. In Genesis 1:26+27 Bible boldly states:

Then God said, "Let us make man in our image, after our likeness. And let them have dominion over the fish of the sea and over the birds of the heavens and over the livestock and over all the earth and over every creeping thing that creeps on the earth." So God created man in his own image, in the image of God he created him; male and female he created them. Genesis 1:26&27

The Bible does not say some human beings are better than others. It doesn't say one gender or ethnicity has less value than another. All human beings are created in God's image, starting with the original humans, Adam and Eve. Being made in God's image includes people with greater or lesser amounts of melanin in their skin. 

Because of this claim, all human beings have infinite value. We have worth because God created us in His image. No one has the authority to claim intrinsic superiority over another human being. To start from any other religious, theological, philosophical, or theoretical basis, other than the Scripture creates racism, classism, sexism, and every other negative "ism" there is. Take the God of the Bible out of the equation, and you have humans competing against humans. In other words, "survival of the fittest." 

The Folly of Evolution

Contrary to popular opinion, Evolution is not based upon science. At best, it is a theory and not a very coherent one at that. Science is based upon observable events that can be repeated for verification. While we can observe selective breeding, we do not see amebas transitioning into higher and more complex life forms. Simple single-celled amebas do not gain complexity and information through natural selection. The very thought of it is not only unscientific; it is illogical. Yet, so many believe in Evolution, and it is taught in public schools as if it is science.

If Evolution is true, what basis does anyone have to say one life matters over another? If all humanity is, are sophisticated animals, what does it matter if the stronger kills the weaker? Instead of repudiating this, people should be celebrating the advancement of Evolution in motion. The very thought is ludicrous.

The only viable alternative to faith in Evolution is the truth, as revealed by God in the Bible. Acts 17:26 says we all are of "one blood." We are one blood because God created our original parents, Adam and Eve. Human beings are made in the image of God regardless of the color of their skin, their socio-economic circumstance, where they live, or how they live.

The Cross and Human Value

Even more significant than the creation of humanity in God's image is the revelation of the life, death, resurrection, and ascension of Jesus Christ. The Bible reveals that the second Person of the Trinity became a Man to provide a way to be made right with God. God the Father sent His only-begotten Son to be crucified on the cross as a substitute atonement for sin. 

Nothing gives humanity more meaning and dignity than God becoming a human being and willingly laying down His life for sinners. Jesus Christ didn't die for sophisticated animals. He died for fallen human beings made in the image of God. The Bible says 

For "everyone who calls on the name of the Lord will be saved." (Romans 10:13)

The invitation is given to all humanity, regardless of skin color. Jesus told His disciples to "go into all the world and proclaim the gospel to the whole creation." (Mark 16:15) The "whole creation" refers to all humanity from the indigenous tribes in South America to the super-rich of Silicon Valley. 

Why do black lives matter? They matter because black people are children of Adam and Eve just as much as blond and blue-eyed people are. They count because Jesus Christ died for the sins of all who believe and trust in Him. They matter because God is our Creator, and in Him, all human beings are worthy of dignity.

How We Know That Justice is Just

Let's move to the concept of justice. Justice only has meaning because of who God is in and of Himself. No higher authority or standard determines what is just or unjust other than the self-existing Trinity; Father, Son, and Holy Spirit. Without this, human beings have no objective standard to determine whether an action is just or unjust. Without God's revelation, Man is the ultimate authority, and the survival of the fittest holds sway. The stronger determines what is just in the same way a lion prevails over the weaker. No one faults an animal feeding upon the more vulnerable. No hungry animal is tried for murder because it is bigger, stronger, or faster than its prey.

Self-Law, God's Law, and the Meaning of Justice

How do we know that justice is good? Good is good because God is good. He defines what is right by His very nature. Anything that does not conform to His heart is evil. Eve's first temptation in the garden was to determine good and evil for herself rather than by who God is and the Law He gave. (Genesis 3) The word "autonomous" literally means self law (auto = self and nomous = law). As soon as human beings become autonomous, that is a law unto themselves, there is no ultimate standard for goodness, justice, or truth.

In short, without Biblical revelation, justice has no meaning. It has no ultimate standard when individuals, organizations, and governments reject God and His Law. Murder is wrong because it goes against God's revealed Law. On this basis alone, those who do wrong should be punished, and it is by this standard alone lawbreakers are found guilty. 

The Bible reveals that injustice, racism, and murder is wrong. (injustice - Proverbs 17:15, racism - Romans 10:12, murder - Exodus 20:13) Each is wrong because they go against the character of God. 

Outrage Against Injustice Testifies to Biblical Truth

If people don't know the Bible or if they reject the special revelation given in Scripture, their outrage towards injustice testifies that the Law of God is written in the very fabric of creation:

For what can be known about God is plain to them, because God has shown it to them. For his invisible attributes, namely, his eternal power and divine nature, have been clearly perceived, ever since the creation of the world, in the things that have been made. So they are without excuse. For although they knew God, they did not honor him as God or give thanks to him, but they became futile in their thinking, and their foolish hearts were darkened. Romans 1:19-21

The fact that people who are not believers are outraged at injustice is proof that Christianity is true. The most evident proof that injustice is wrong is given in God's special Biblical revelation. Yet, even without special revelation, human beings have a sense of justice by observing creation and by the testimony of their hearts. 

How We Make Black Lives Matter

How do we make black lives matter? The answer is not through protests, nor by defunding the police. It is not by replacing one humanistic law with another man-based law. Racism will not change because the majority posts signs in their front lawn. Nor will it come through education or revolution. All these things may help, but they do not solve the root of the problem.

The problem is in the fallen human heart. It doesn't mean we shouldn't protest or work toward reforming the police or try to influence legislation or let people know where we stand or try to educate or even revolt against an unjust and corrupt government. 

They do not go far enough. It is like putting a bandaid on a festering wound. None deal with the root of the problem. God shows us the hard truth concerning humanity and the human heart:

As it is written: "None is righteous, no, not one; no one understands; no one seeks for God. All have turned aside; together, they have become worthless; no one does good, not even one." "Their throat is an open grave; they use their tongues to deceive. "The venom of asps is under their lips." "Their mouth is full of curses and bitterness." "Their feet are swift to shed blood; in their paths are ruin and misery, and the way of peace they have not known." "There is no fear of God before their eyes." (Romans 3:10-18)

Or 

The heart is deceitful above all things, and desperately sick; who can understand it? (Jeremiah 17:9)

What is the answer? Again, the Bible reveals the solution. God calls for each individual to repent and believe in Jesus Christ. The human heart is changed as it is "crucified with Christ." (Galatians 2:20) Romans 6 tells us that when we are in Christ, we cannot continue to live in sin. When we are in Christ, we have the power to walk in the newness of life. The Bible promises that we will be filled with the Holy Spirit and have the ability to not only live according to God's standards of holiness, but change society to be empowered to live according to God's Law. (2 Corinthians 5)

The Role of the Government in Making Black Lives Matter

The government's primary job is to enforce God's Law by punishing evildoers and commending those who do right. (Romans 13:1-5) As we submit to Christ, we have the objective standard by which our government can enact and enforce Law. This Law is not based upon human opinion, majority rule, the survival of the fittest, or any other social standard. The Law is based upon the revealed character of God both in Biblical revelation and general revelation. When this happens, the government will appropriately punish systemic injustice, prejudice, or racism and pass laws to curb these behaviors. A godly government will justly punish all lawbreakers not submitted to the one and only Living God.

The Steps to Make Black Lives Matter

• First, the leadership of Black Matter needs to submit to the authority and Lordship of Jesus Christ (Philippians 2:10-11)

• Second, the leadership needs to renounce any associations with the godless philosophies of Evolution, Marxism, and Atheism. (2 Corinthians 10:3-6)

• Third, BLM needs to focus on the conversion of individuals and nations to Jesus Christ (Romans 10:14-17) 

• Fourth, BLM needs to root concepts of injustice, racism, and truth in the character of God as revealed in the Bible (2 Thessalonians 1:6-8)

• Fifth, BLM needs to work to establish God's Law as the foundation of our legal system (Romans 3:31)

Who Am I To Speak

Some may criticize me for speaking about Black Lives Matter as a white man. What right do I have to say anything? I think the answer to this lies in that most of the BLM signs are posted on the lawns middle-class white people in suburban America. While my take is different from most white Americans, I believe that if those in the BLM movement welcome their forms of expression, I too have the same right.

I believe I have a duty to speak, considering the racist education I received in my public school "education." I have written elsewhere that the Evolutionary indoctrination that is perpetrated in public schools is inherently racist. It is time for Christians, and all seeking justice for that matter, to speak out against racism as it is taught in public schools.

Finally, I cannot sit idly by as false solutions are given to a severe problem. The teachings of Evolutionary Marxism begets revolution. I believe our country is in the midst of the most significant cultural revolution in our nation's history. This revolution's unifying factor is the rejection of Biblical Christianity and the foundation of God's Law in our justice system. Humanistic law prevails, and as such, we are caught in the Evolutionary trap that change can and will come only through revolution. Here we are back to the survival of the fittest. It is a false answer that will result in a bloody end. 

The answer to all humanity's problems is found in the simple phrase in the Lord's prayer,

"Thy kingdom come, thy will be done, on earth as it is in heaven."

It is only in Christ that Black Lives Matter. The sooner we learn this, the sooner justice will come!

Even so, Come Lord Jesus!

Of Superstition, Magical Masks, and Someone to Blame

There's a letter circulating social media (see below) addressed simply to "Dear restaurant goer." An unidentified restaurant owner wrote it. I do not know if the owner is a man, but for the sake of convenience, I will be referring to the owner as "he." Besides, it has the tone more of a man than a woman, but I could be wrong.

In this letter, the owner states that he requires patrons to wear a mask for a mere 5 seconds as you go to your table or the bathroom. He believes these 5 seconds protect the livelihood of his business, prevent governmental goons from shutting him down if a case of COVID-19 is "traced" to his restaurant, and prevent the death of his employees and his family. You jeopardize and disrespect him if you don't wear your mask for 5 seconds.

Think about how absurd this is. According to a Cornell University study, the average diner takes 81.6 minutes to eat in a restaurant. That adds up to 1 hour and 21 minutes. That is a total of 4,860 seconds a person remains unmasked in his restaurant. For this owner, 5 seconds symbolize respect, protection, security, and safety.

Let's look at the math. This owner requires people to wear a mask .1% of the time while being okay with them being unmasked for 99.99%. And what are people doing during this 99.99% of the time? They are breathing, chewing, laughing, sneezing, coughing, and talking, perhaps with their mouth full, which people tend to do. Who knows how much particulate is expelled into the atmosphere during these 4,860 seconds.

This must be disturbing for hypochondriacs, but being a human being is a messy business. No matter how much you try, you and your fellow human beings are contaminating the environment with their germs, bacteria, sicknesses, and perhaps even their deadly viruses. They certainly are doing a lot more damage in 4,860 seconds than what a person could do in 5. But this owner needs someone to blame, so let's go with the disrespectful sign-ignoring unmasked jerk.

Talk about putting someone at risk. This owner requires his restaurant employees to "pick up your dishes. Your glassware. Your napkins." He makes the "clean that bathrooms after you use them." But everyone is safe because he requires a person to wear a mask for 5 seconds while at the same time allowing people to remain unmasked for 99.99% of the time doing an activity that causes far more damage than a 5-second walk.

Put on your magical mask for 5 seconds, and all will be well. If that's not superstition, I don't know what is. But at least we have someone to blame.

May I talk about these magical masks for a moment? The owner wrote, "A mask increases that safety. It doesn't guarantee it, but it makes your visit more safe for us" How much protection is being provided by masks that are worn for only .1% of the time? Most people are not wearing masks properly anyway, are they? Most people are wearing the same disgusting mask over and over again. Some wear them only over their mouth and not their nose, which kind of defeats the purpose.

Furthermore, the masks that most people wear allow droplets out the side or are cheap masks that do little to no good. Add to that; the people are now wearing bandanas or some sort of ineffective cloth covering. He is right in your belief that wearing a mask is not a "guarantee."

Magical masks indeed!

He is careful not to blame the real bullies in this equation. He fears COVID-19 will be "traced" back to his restaurant. Who's doing contact tracing? How can you possibly prove the virus originated at your restaurant all because a person failed to wear a mask for 5 seconds? He is scared, but he's fear is misplaced. The real bullies are the power-hungry political fear-mongers who have the power to destroy this man's business, not the unmasked patron.

Not only has the government struck fear into this man's heart, but it has also taken away many people's incentive to return to work. The owner almost gets it when he refers to the "sky-high unemployment benefits" with which he competes. Good old socialism, that age-old destroyer of incentive to work. But we mustn't blame socialism. We must condemn the disrespectful unmasked villain.

I honestly feel sorry for this restaurant owner. I do not doubt that he is telling the truth about how difficult it is to maneuver meeting the almost impossible requirements of an incompetent and oppressive governmental system. I believe him when he says that he puts his "entire being" into this restaurant. I understand that he is doing the best he can in a challenging situation.

Sadly it's worse than he knows. He doesn't seem to be aware that the Executive Order he is so desperately trying to obey contains a caveat that could get him into a lot of trouble. Our esteemed Governor placed within his Executive Order No. 7BB a lovely caveat that states:

"Nothing in this order shall require the use of a mask or cloth face covering by anyone for whom doing so would be contrary to his or her health or safety because of a medical condition, a child in a child care setting, anyone under the age of 2 years, or an older child if the parent, guardian or person responsible for the child is unable to place the mask safely on the child's face. If a person declines to wear a mask or face covering because of a medical condition as described above, such person shall not be required to produce medical documentation verifying the stated condition. This order shall supersede and preempt any current or future municipal order."

In other words, all a person has to do is calmly inform the host that they are declining to wear a mask because of a medical condition. Furthermore, they do not have to prove it. He just has to take their word for it. If this poor restaurant owner denies access, he will violate the Governor's Executive Order. Not only that, if he denies access, he may also be violating the Americans with Disability Act, which could open him to litigation. It'd be difficult to win, especially when "such person shall not be required to produce medical documentation verifying the stated condition."

Our society is scared, and perhaps angry, about all that is happening because of COVID-19. Dysfunctional societies need a scapegoat, be it white men, Jews, blacks, the police, democrats, FOX news, those who don't wear masks, Donald Trump, you name it. I blame power-hungry corrupt government officials who are in bed with crony capitalist corporations. They scare me more than anyone else because only they have the legal right to use political power against those who have done no harm. I also blame people who won't use logic, reason, or science. Oh, that people would genuinely use real science and not the politicized form we hear machine-gunned from the media day and night.

I believe we are at a crossroads in the United States. What will tip the scale, in my opinion, is where the mob goes. If they go on the side of blaming those who do not conform to the official narrative, we are doomed. If people such as this restaurant owner wake up, start using real science, and start standing up to the real bullies, there is hope. In the meantime, I implore you to carefully examine what people are saying and believing and try to use logic, reason, and sound science to open their eyes.

***
Dear restaurant goer:

You don’t want to wear a mask. Ok. I don’t blame you. I don’t either. That’s why we set it up so you only have to wear it for the five seconds between the host stand and your table, and during your trip(s) to the bathroom. Still have a problem?

Consider this.

It was indescribably difficult for our restaurant to survive the shutdown. It devastated our savings and permanently eroded consumer confidence in dining out. Now we finally have a chance to open, and all the relevant governing bodies instruct us to require a mask for admittance.

Still have a problem?

Please also be aware that it’s also our staff preference.

Why?

First, if there is a case of COVID traced back to our restaurant, we have to test all staff and close (again) for an indeterminate amount of days. This puts an at-risk operation at even graver risk. Every day and every dollar counts more than I can describe.

Second, the employees you see in the restaurant right now opted to come back of their own volition. With sky high unemployment benefits to compete with, we have worked hard to build a workplace they want to come back to—one that offers fair compensation, above-average safety protocols and most of all, management and ownership that has their best interest in mind.

When you see a restaurant employee at work, it is usually because of some degree of loyalty or respect for the ownership, as well as faith in the safety measures they have put in place. These things took a great deal of time, effort and personal care to build. I now know that demonstrating love for my team is the most important part of my job. More than ever, I recognize how hard I have to fight for them.

If you are infected (either symptomatically or asymptomatically), you put THEM at risk, first and foremost. After all, they’re the ones that pick up your dishes. Your glassware. Your napkins. They're the ones that clean the bathrooms after you use them. DO NOT disrespect them.

On top of the terrifying work environment they have returned to, the new challenge of arguing with guests about masks is hurtful and unnecessarily punitive. Walking past a half dozen signs saying masks are required and then acting surprised about it—even when we offer to give you one at our cost—is inexcusable. And berating a host does not make you a patriot or a constitutional scholar. It makes you a bully, and it affirms the growing realization that the customer isn’t always right.

You may question the lawfulness of Executive Orders. It’s your prerogative. But one thing you can’t question is that as a guest, our safety is in your hands. A mask increases that safety. It doesn’t guarantee it, but it makes your visit more safe for us. It’s that simple.

I have put my entire being into my restaurants. It is my life’s work. Do not—DO NOT—DARE to put it and our loyal team members at risk unnecessarily. When you do so, you disrespect my wife, my daughter and son, and the life we’ve built. Not to mention the livelihood (and possibly lives) of the nearly 15 people we employ.

Bottom line: we’re trying to survive. Your concern about wearing a mask for mere seconds pales in comparison to what's at stake.

A Prophetic Nightmare?

I'm having a recurring nightmare where everyone takes off their masks and their mouths are gone.

Sincere Questions of a Mask Skeptic

I have some sincere questions. I don’t think I am the only one with these questions. I am honestly seeking answers. If you cannot answer thoughtfully and respectfully, please move along. Feel free to answer any or all. My intent is not to argue and I promise to consider all thoughtful replies.

The reason you insist on everyone wearing a mask is that wearing a mask keeps us safe from COVID-19. It stops the spread, both of infecting others and being infected. This is the reasoning, is it not?

Doesn’t this mean that those who are wearing a mask are safe from both giving and receiving the virus?

And if you are safe, why are you worried and upset by those who do not wear a mask? Aren’t the mask wearers safe in spite of the unsafe practices of people who do not wear masks?

If you are not safe, in other words, if wearing a mask doesn’t really work, then why do you wear one?

Either it works or it doesn’t, no?

Are the masks people are wearing adequate to prevent the intrusion or expulsion of the virus? What about wearing a bandana or a form of woven cloth? Are most people wearing face protection that is woefully inadequate to both keep out and keep in COVID-19? If these homemade and inadequate masks do not work, why do you feel comfortable with people wearing these inadequate masks? Why don't you insist they put on a "real" mask? Are the masks you are wearing yourself sufficient to protect you and others from the virus? If not, why are you wearing it?

And if we are just dealing with probabilities of preventing the spread of COVID-19, “wearing a mask cuts down the chances of giving or receiving the virus”, then why are you only concerned with deaths caused by COVID-19? If life is so precious to you, why only limit your concern to the virus? Isn’t life filled with risk? This is why, I think, anti-mask wearers feel the pro-mask wearers are inconsistent or selective. Is death by COVID-19 somehow worse than death by an automobile accident, or having another type of flu, or lung cancer from smoking, or heart disease or the multitude of way people die statistically more than by COVID-19? Why be so concerned about stopping the spread of COVID-19 and ignore all the other ways people suffer and die? Why not be equally concerned with other ways people die and do all you can to prevent these deaths with the same passion and ardor?

If practicing social distancing, that is staying at least 6 feet apart, hinders or prevents the giving and receiving of the virus, then why do you insist everyone wears a mask and practice social distance?

If social distancing doesn’t prevent the spread of the virus, then why insist upon it? And if wearing a mask keeps you safe, then why bother practicing and insisting that everyone have a safe social distance?

If wearing a mask keeps the mask wearers safe, aren’t the only people who are at-risk the people who don’t wear a mask? Why can’t the non-mask wearers hijack the mantra of pro-choice advocates and claim, “My body, my choice?”

Do you honestly believe those who do not wear masks are mentally ill, stupid, selfish, or rebellious?

Why aren't basic hygiene practices adequate such as covering your mouth when you cough or sneeze?

Is there really no health risks to wearing a mask for extended periods of time or during strenuous exercise?

I'm notice many people have a mask hanging from their rear view mirror. I assume these are being used over and over again. Isn't it dangerous to continue to use a mask over and over again that has the presence of germs that you have pulled into it or breathe out to it? Don't health professionals change their masks each time they use one? Why are you not more adamant against multiple mask user violations?

I also want to know why people insist masks should be worn outside, in the fresh air and sunshine and open water such as a lake, river, or ocean? Is COVID-19 so powerful that it can live and spread under these conditions?

Why advocate to close down the beaches or insist people wear a mask on a beach?

Why do people wear masks in their car?

Why do people wear masks out on a walk with little to no one around? I see this a lot while driving.

Why do they close parking in places like Elizabeth Park in Hartford and make people park on the street? How does that help stop the spread? People just park on the street and walk into the park. What has that solved?

If you are just going to insult, name-call, be sarcastic, I will delete what you write. I am asking for thoughtful, intelligent, and mature pro-mask people to respond. I think more and more people are asking these types of questions. I know I am.

A Critical Thinker’s Guide to COVID-19 Fallacies

There is a LOT of lousy reasoning going on these days. I highly recommend taking the time to study, review, and sharpen your critical thinking skills; otherwise, you can easily fall prey to propaganda, bad arguments, and weak reasoning.

I offer this general Guide to help you hone your critical thinking skills. The following list isn't meant to be definitive. Knowing the names of the fallacies is not essential. What is vital is to sharpen your skills to recognize flawed arguments when you encounter them and not make them yourself.

A fallacy is an error in thinking and reasoning. It happens when we draw conclusions based upon false information, an unsound argument, or faulty premises. Never forget that everyone is trying to convince you of something, be it this post, the news, a conspiracy theory, a link, a YouTube video, a government official, the CDC, or those near and dear to you. There is something within us that wants to bring others around to our point of view. We are all, everyone, evangelists and proselytizers.

I'll try to focus on the primary fallacies I am encountering consistently during this time. There are more fallacies than are listed here, but they all share one common trait - lazy thinking. For fun, I'm going to make up my own names based upon current affairs.

So here goes:

#1. 𝑻𝒉𝒆 "𝑰 𝒓𝒆𝒂𝒅 𝒕𝒉𝒆 𝒓𝒆𝒇𝒖𝒕𝒂𝒕𝒊𝒐𝒏 𝒐𝒏 𝒕𝒉𝒆 𝒊𝒏𝒕𝒆𝒓𝒘𝒆𝒃𝒔" 𝒇𝒂𝒍𝒍𝒂𝒄𝒚:

"You shouldn't watch or read XYZ because it has been debunked. I know it's been debunked because I have 15 links to websites and YouTube videos that prove it is propaganda. You do not need to check out the evidence for yourself because the length of my links proves its refutation."

Truth: You have a right to examine information for yourself and make your own determination whether XYZ is garbage or not.

#2. 𝑻𝒉𝒆 "𝒔𝒉𝒂𝒎𝒊𝒏𝒈" 𝒐𝒓 "𝒃𝒖𝒍𝒍𝒚𝒊𝒏𝒈" 𝒇𝒂𝒍𝒍𝒂𝒄𝒚:

"Shame on you for watching or reading or believing XYZ!" "Only stupid people believe that." "How could you be so gullible?" "I don't want to associate with you because you posted/believed/promoted XYZ."

Truth: Don't let people shame or bully you into closing your mind. Just because you are curious about XYZ and watch or read it, doesn't make you a bad person or mean you are going to believe it.

#3. 𝑻𝒉𝒆 "𝑰𝒕'𝒔 𝒂 𝒄𝒐𝒏𝒔𝒑𝒊𝒓𝒂𝒄𝒚 𝒕𝒉𝒆𝒐𝒓𝒚 𝒔𝒐 𝒊𝒕 𝒎𝒖𝒔𝒕 𝒃𝒆 𝒇𝒂𝒍𝒔𝒆" 𝒇𝒂𝒍𝒍𝒂𝒄𝒚:

This one is becoming more and more popular. There is something about this fallacy that has bite. It's a form of the shaming/bullying fallacy. No one wants to be thought of as stupid or gullible. The pressure to dismiss something or someone that has the label "conspiracy theory" is potent.

Truth: A theory is an attempt to explain all the facts. A theory is solid if it makes sense. If the facts do not support the idea, it is likely, the theory is not valid.

A conspiracy means "to breath together." It happens when two or more people make secret plans to do something harmful, unlawful, or illegal.

A conspiracy theory is an explanation of how a secret but influential organization is responsible for a circumstance or event.

A conspiracy theory can be conspiratorial and yet still be true. If it accounts for all or most of the facts, it might actually be true. Don’t let people convince you something is false because it has been categorized as a conspiracy theory.

#4. 𝑻𝒉𝒆 "𝑰𝒕'𝒔 𝒂 𝒄𝒐𝒏𝒔𝒑𝒊𝒓𝒂𝒄𝒚 𝒕𝒉𝒆𝒐𝒓𝒚 𝒔𝒐 𝒊𝒕 𝒎𝒖𝒔𝒕 𝒃𝒆 𝒕𝒓𝒖𝒆" 𝒇𝒂𝒍𝒍𝒂𝒄𝒚:

This is equally dangerous. For some, the more off-center something is, the more likely it is true.

Truth: Those of us who do not believe the mainstream narrative must be aware of our tendency to gravitate toward a theory just because it is not the official narrative.

#5. 𝑻𝒉𝒆 "𝒀𝒐𝒖 𝒄𝒂𝒏𝒏𝒐𝒕 𝒒𝒖𝒆𝒔𝒕𝒊𝒐𝒏 𝒕𝒉𝒆 𝒂𝒖𝒕𝒉𝒐𝒓𝒊𝒕𝒊𝒆𝒔" 𝒇𝒂𝒍𝒍𝒂𝒄𝒚:

"You are not an expert so be quiet. Your job is to listen, obey, and be quiet.”

Truth: You have the right to question authorities even if they have a "Dr." before their name or a "Ph.D. after. You should not just doubt authority automatically. There is good reason to believe an authority on any given subject, but they still could be wrong. It’s okay to be skeptical of the experts especially if they have something to gain such as political power, prestige, or money. It is wise to be aware of authorities, especially governmental officials, who may have a conflict of interest such as ownership in a Pharmaceutical company that stands to profit on COVID-19.

#6. 𝑻𝒉𝒆 "𝒊𝒏𝒔𝒆𝒄𝒖𝒓𝒊𝒕𝒚" 𝒇𝒂𝒍𝒍𝒂𝒄𝒚:

I've heard people say they unfriend anyone who even mentions a conspiracy theory. It reminds me of when I was a child. When someone was saying something we didn't like we would cover our ears and yell "ahhhhhhhhhhhhhhhhh" so we couldn't hear them. Are people so afraid of a controversial point of view that even hearing it will somehow contaminate them? My experience is that secure people are not afraid or intimidated by opposing points of view.

Truth: Keep an open mind. If someone advances an idea that rubs you the wrong way, investigate it for yourself. Even argue against it. Perhaps you might change someone's mind or change your mind. Narrow and close-mindedness accomplishes nothing.

#7. 𝑻𝒉𝒆 "𝒀𝒐𝒖 𝒂𝒓𝒆 𝒓𝒆𝒔𝒑𝒐𝒏𝒔𝒊𝒃𝒍𝒆 𝒇𝒐𝒓 𝒕𝒉𝒆 𝒂𝒄𝒕𝒊𝒐𝒏𝒔 𝒐𝒇 𝒐𝒕𝒉𝒆𝒓𝒔 𝒘𝒉𝒆𝒏 𝒚𝒐𝒖 𝒑𝒐𝒔𝒕𝒆𝒅 '𝑿𝒀𝒁'" 𝒇𝒂𝒍𝒍𝒂𝒄𝒚:

This one scares me. I see a growing paranoia, even hostility against those who think differently. It is a form of "guilt by association" fallacy. I've been tacitly blamed for harassment of health care workers because I do not accept the official narrative. Some hint that because I ask questions or criticize, I am responsible for others getting sick. Some believe the blood of a COVID-19 victim is on your head if you disagree or question the status quo.

There are wackos out there. I doubt a Facebook post or several of them tips the scales of instability toward immoral behavior.

Truth: Each individual is responsible for his or her actions.

#8. 𝑻𝒉𝒆 "𝑰 𝒇𝒂𝒄𝒕-𝒄𝒉𝒆𝒄𝒌𝒆𝒅 𝒊𝒕, 𝑰 𝒃𝒆𝒍𝒊𝒆𝒗𝒆 𝒊𝒕, 𝒕𝒉𝒂𝒕 𝒔𝒆𝒕𝒕𝒍𝒆𝒔 𝒊𝒕" 𝒇𝒂𝒍𝒍𝒂𝒄𝒚:

Be careful of fact-checking websites. Several I've been on lately do not impress me. Not only does the analysis appear biased, the articles often use links to other websites as "supporting evidence." I did find some helpful source documents, but that was about it.

Truth: Just because it is on a fact-checking site, does not make it true or definitively refute XYZ.

#9. 𝑻𝒉𝒆 "𝑵𝒂𝒎𝒆-𝒄𝒂𝒍𝒍𝒊𝒏𝒈" 𝒇𝒂𝒍𝒍𝒂𝒄𝒚:

This one is an oldie but goodie. It is a variation of the "shaming/bullying" fallacy and the "it's a conspiracy theory, it's wrong" fallacy. It's one of the easiest to recognize, but I'm amazed by how influential it is. As soon as someone resorts to name-calling, you can be sure there is a fallacy.

Truth: I think of the quote from Socrates whenever someone starts calling me names, "When the debate is lost, slander becomes the tool of the loser."

#10. 𝑻𝒉𝒆 "𝑫𝒊𝒔𝒕𝒐𝒓𝒕 𝒕𝒉𝒆 𝒐𝒕𝒉𝒆𝒓'𝒔 𝒂𝒓𝒈𝒖𝒎𝒆𝒏𝒕," 𝒇𝒂𝒍𝒍𝒂𝒄𝒚:

Can anyone say, straw man? This fallacy happens when someone rewords what you are saying into something you did not say. You say, "I question whether shutting businesses down is the best way to handle this epidemic," and they criticize you as saying, "You don't care about anyone but yourself and you don't care if people die." Don't let people get away with this.

Truth: Do unto others… don’t distort someone’s argument just to make someone else look foolish. But also be aware when this is being done to you.

Presumed Guilty

In a free society, individuals must be presumed innocent until proven guilty while at the same time, those in government must be presumed guilty until proven innocent. This is the only way to challenge the corrupting influence of political power.

Jesus is The Truth

The main difference between Biblical Christianity and every other religion and philosophy is we do not believe truth is a concept, Form, proposition, algorithm, syllogism, or formula. Truth isn’t something proved through semantics, logic or mathematics. Truth IS the Person of Jesus Christ. In His own words, “I am... the Truth…” (John 14:6)