No Surprises Here

Extreme media bias in favour of same-sex “marriage”

Posted on | June 25, 2013 by J.C. von Krempach, J.D.
 


In a report released last week, the Pew research center exposes an overwhelming media bias in favour of same-sex “marriage”. The bias probably is even much stronger than indicated by the diagram reproduced above, given that reports where statements in favour outweighed statements against by a ratio of 2:1 were still considered a “neutral”.

Note the disproportion between the opinions expressed in the media and the public opinion as determined by opinion polls. Are we all being brainwashed?

Calvin’s Daily Devotional

Daily Devotional

June 29

Thine Is My Heart: Devotional Readings from the Writings of John Calvin

by John Calvin (compiled by John H. Kromminga)
Republished from the OPC Website

Bible Text:
Ho, everyone that thirsteth, come ye to the waters, and he that hath no money; come ye, buy, and eat; yea, come, buy wine and milk without money and without price. —Isaiah 55:1

Devotional:
So, because the Apostles have sent us to Jesus Christ, and have declared to us that it is to him we must look, and since he also invites us so sweetly to himself, saying, “Come unto me,” let us not hang back or go wandering away; let us approach him boldly. For he did not say that for the prophets alone, or for the apostles and martyrs, or for the virgin Mary; but he wants to keep us all to himself, as also it is very necessary for us.

Let us undertake, I say, not to wander here and there when we pray to God, and let us know the good he has done for us when he was pleased to draw us back from the abyss and confusion of the Papacy and to show us the open door to come to him—that is, because Jesus Christ intercedes for us.

Let us hold to that, without wandering from one side to the other. For it is certain that, if our prayers are not ruled according to the Word of God, they are trifling and God rejects them. Nor can they be made in faith unless the assurance comes from the same source—that is, from the truth of God.

And now, if we want our prayers to be grounded in faith, they must be conformed to the will of God, and we must follow what he commands us—that is, we must have Jesus Christ as our Intercessor, Advocate and Mediator. —Sermons


John Calvin was the premier theologian of the Reformation, but also a pious and godly Christian pastor who endeavored throughout his life to point men and women to Christ. We are grateful to Reformation Heritage Books for permission to use John Calvin’s Thine Is My Heart as our daily devotional for 2013 on the OPC Web site. You can currently obtain a printed copy of that book from Reformation Heritage Books.

Keeping Perspective

The Greater Treachery

Ad hominem attack is mounting upon Edward Snowden.  Apparently he conspired from the get-go to infiltrate the government spy agencies and exfiltrate information and data.  A local blogger had this to say:

So let’s put aside the fantasy of Snowden being some sort of caped crusader, fighting for truth and justice; he is anything But. He made a deliberate and conscious decision to take up a job with the pre-meditated intention of stealing data and releasing it publicly. We reckon that this will harden people’s attitudes towards Snowden. He is a spy, just like those that he is trying to vilify. He has certainly forfeited the moral high ground.

It has been reported that the US Government has cancelled Edward Snowden’s passport, so that he cannot legally enter Russia, nor can he go anywhere else legally. Perhaps 10 years “incarceration” in the transit lounge of a Russian airport might give Snowden the opportunity to reflect on his treachery and deceit.

Treachery and deceit.  Well, it seems to us that such a petard would hoist all whistleblowers.
  To some extent or other all whistleblowers break confidentiality agreements (which are pretty standard these days) and to one degree or another they take information that does not belong to them and expose it to the respective authorities. They usually deliver documentary evidence to back up their claims.  

But let’s grant the point for the moment–whistleblowing is an inherently immoral and unethical practice.  Let’s hoist Snowden on that petard.  But the question is begged, so what?  Imagine for a moment that the US espionage complex had been complying strictly and exactly to the law–the law which it constantly testified to Congress with which it was in total compliance.  What would Snowden’s whistleblowing have accomplished then?  Nothing.  Imagine a deep throat whistleblower that comes forth to tell us that New Zealand police consistently and regularly read people their rights when they arrest suspects.  Nothing surprising there.  Move along.  That’s exactly what we would expect, after all. 

Suppose Snowden had infiltrated and discovered that the US agencies, together with their Western running dogs (to employ good old fashioned rhetoric from a by-gone era) were in strict compliance with the laws.  They were not spying on US citizens.  They were not keeping data.  They were not hacking the computers and phones of people all over the world, including their own citizens.  They were not slyly telling investigative agencies what warrants should be applied for, so they could go on fishing expeditions, because there appeared to be significant threats.  They were not leaking private e-mails of people like General David Petraus to orchestrate his resignation.  They were not using their powers to hack into the computer of a particularly aggravating reporter and exfiltrate data–all of which, of course, was done (as far as we can tell) without warrants, and no probable cause whatsoever.  If none of this was actually the case then Snowden’s whistle blowing would have been completely null and void. 

But that has not been the case.  Therefore, if Snowden is a traitor, so are those in the US government apparatus that willingly and knowingly deceived and misled Congress, and broke the law.  Which is the greater breach?  Clearly, the authorities. 

German Public Health Dangers

“Anti-Discrimination” policies always were ridiculous. But now they turn into a serious danger.

Posted on | June 25, 2013 by J.C. von Krempach, J.D.
 

The fight against “discriminations” reaches a new extreme in Germany, where the Bundesärztekammer (BÄK), a body representing the country’s healthcare professionals, has proposed to abolish a ban against homosexuals to act as blood donors. The BÄK announced its intention to work towards the lifting of this prohibition, which it described as “discriminatory”.

The ban has, however, an objective reason: it is the fact that “men having sex with men” (“MSM”)  are 100 times more likely than other people to carry HIV. Indeed, when HIV/AIDS first emerged in the 1980s, it was mainly through homosexuals that the virus spread, and contrary to Africa, where it affects much wider spheres of the population, in Europe and the US it still remains a disease with a nearly exclusive link to male homosexuality.

Is this “discriminatory”? It is one of the most remarkable successes of the gay lobby that it still is allowed to frame HIV/AIDS as an issue related to “LGBT discrimination”, just as if it was unfair for the virus to befall them rather than anyone else.
Supposedly, if the virus was fair, it would infect heterosexuals, and if heterosexuals were fair, they would carry their share of the AIDS burden.

The annual “Life Ball” in Vienna: is the adulation of homosexuality really going to help in the fight against AIDS?

But alas, nature is “heteronormative”. In reality, it is mainly (if not exclusively) due MSM and their irresponsible sexual practices that the HIV/AIDS was able to spread around the globe in the 1980s and 90s, and that it still exists today. MSM are actually not the victims of society, but on the contrary, society is their victim. Yet they still continue organize so-called “charity” events like the ignominious annual “Life Ball” in Vienna, presided over by celebrities like Bill Clinton, as if the promotion of the homosexual lifestyle could contribute to stopping AIDS. No, dear friends: the only way for you to be safe is to repent and to give up homosexual activity!

The absurd discussion about the alleged “discrimination of homosexual blood donors” shows once again the irrationality of contemporary anti-discrimination talk: even the best and most compelling rationale is not accepted when it comes to the unequal treatment of homosexuals. Apparently, society should accept an increased risk of spreading HIV/AIDS among non-homosexuals rather than giving offence to homosexual wannabe blood donors.

In that regard, I have an alternative proposal: only MSM should get blood transfusions from MSM, and only non-MSM should get blood transfusions from non-MSM. Whoever finds this discriminatory should explain to me why he thinks that getting a blood transfusion from MSM is not desirable…

Calvin’s Daily Devotional

Daily Devotional

June 28

Thine Is My Heart: Devotional Readings from the Writings of John Calvin

by John Calvin (compiled by John H. Kromminga)
Republished from the OPC Website

Bible Text:
And I will bring the third part through the fire, and will refine them as silver is refined, and will try them as gold is tried: they shall call on my name, and I will hear them: I will say, It is my people: and they shall say, The Lord is my God. —Zechariah 13:9

Devotional:
After the greater part, both of the world and of the Church (at least such as profess to belong to it) shall be destroyed, we cannot be retained in our position, except God often chastises us.

Let us then remember what Paul says, that we are chastened by the Lord that we may not perish with the world; and the metaphors which the Prophet adopts here are to the same purpose; for he says, “I will lead them through the fire.” He speaks here of the faithful whom God has chosen unto salvation, and whom he has reserved that they might continue safe; yet he says that they shall be saved through fire, that is, hard trials.

But he sets forth this still more clearly, “He will prove them,” he says, “as silver and gold.”
The stubble and the chaff, as John the Baptist teaches us, are indeed cast into the fire (Matt. 3:12), but without any benefit; for the fire consumes the refuse and the chaff, and whatever is corruptible.

But when the gold and the silver are put in the fire and are purified, it is done that greater purity may be produced, and also that what is precious in these metals may become more apparent. For when the silver is drawn out of the mine, it differs not much from what is earthly. The same is the case with gold. But the furnace so purifies the gold and silver from their dross that they attain their value and excellency.

Hence Zechariah says that when God casts his faithful people into the fire, he does this according to his paternal purpose in order to bum out their dross and thus they become gold and silver who were before filthy and abominable, and in whom much dross abounded. We see then that the elect of God, even those who may be rightly counted his children, are here distinguished from the reprobate, however they may profess God’s name and worship. —Commentaries


John Calvin was the premier theologian of the Reformation, but also a pious and godly Christian pastor who endeavored throughout his life to point men and women to Christ. We are grateful to Reformation Heritage Books for permission to use John Calvin’s Thine Is My Heart as our daily devotional for 2013 on the OPC Web site. You can currently obtain a printed copy of that book from Reformation Heritage Books.

Hollow Progress

 In Need of Mercy

Christians believe in progress.  For good reason.  They believe in things getting better because they believe in God, Who is the Creator, Sustainer and Redeemer of all things.  In other words, the Christian view of progress is decidedly non-secular. 

Redemptive history reveals at the earliest beginnings that without God, human history becomes a maelstrom of self-destructive evil.  The covenant God subsequently made with Noah assures us that never again would He permit evil to become universally regnant upon the earth.  Progress becomes at least possible in a world where evil is constantly being restrained from its worst excesses.

Secondly, the Bible declares God’s providential control and sustenance of His creation.  He loves what He has made, and hates the despoilation wrought by wickedness.  He feeds the animals and cares for them.  He sets boundaries for the sea.  He brings the life-giving sequence of the seasons. 

Thirdly, He has settled the reign over all things upon His Son, Who has come into human history to cast out the Devil and destroy all his works.  This gives a certain assurance of historical progress.
  In the end, the entirety of creation will be released from the burden that sin has placed upon it.  There is absolutely no doubt that this is happening and will continue happen.  It is as certain and rock-solid as God Himself and His oaths and covenant.  The only doubts about this come from our sinful impatience.  Things are not improving as fast as we would like–therefore, maybe, progress is chimerical, or so we are tempted to think from time to time. 

The ancient world had no belief in progress.  It was a distinctly Christian doctrine. This, from

. . . the power of the progress idea stems in part from the fact that it derives from a fundamental Christian doctrine—the idea of providence, of redemption. Gray notes in The Silence of Animals that no other civilization conceived any such phenomenon as the end of time, a concept given to the world by Jesus and St. Paul. Classical thinking, as well as the thinking of the ancient Egyptians and later of Hinduism, Buddhism, Daoism, Shintoism and early Judaism, saw humanity as reflecting the rest of the natural world—essentially unchanging but subject to cycles of improvement and deterioration, rather like the seasons. “By creating the expectation of a radical alteration in human affairs,” writes Gray, “Christianity . . . founded the modern world.”

The modern world secularized this doctrine of  progress, stripping out all its Christian underpinnings.   The engine of progress was to be Man, freed from the constraints of religious myths and superstitions, cool, calm, calculating–above all, rational.  The humanist utopia beckoned.  Many in the nineteenth century believed fervently that it was almost upon them.  But now only fools and horses now still cling to the idea of secular progress.  A rising living standard and material progress does not a utopia make.

The apostles of secular humanism assured us all that progress included human nature.  By reason we would all be redeemed and human nature would be perfected.  We would evolve to a new order.

The noted British historian J. B. Bury (1861–1927) captured the power of this intellectual development when he wrote, “This doctrine of the possibility of indefinitely moulding the characters of men by laws and institutions . . . laid a foundation on which the theory of the perfectibility of humanity could be raised. It marked, therefore, an important stage in the development of the doctrine of Progress.”

We must pause here over this doctrine of progress. It may be the most powerful idea ever conceived in Western thought—emphasizing Western thought because the idea has had little resonance in other cultures or civilizations. It is the thesis that mankind has advanced slowly but inexorably over the centuries from a state of cultural backwardness, blindness and folly to ever more elevated stages of enlightenment and civilization—and that this human progression will continue indefinitely into the future. “No single idea,” wrote the American intellectual Robert Nisbet in 1980, “has been more important than, perhaps as important as, the idea of progress in Western civilization.” The U.S. historian Charles A. Beard once wrote that the emergence of the progress idea constituted “a discovery as important as the human mind has ever made, with implications for mankind that almost transcend imagination.” And Bury, who wrote a book on the subject, called it “the great transforming conception, which enables history to define her scope.”

To which we respond with a Chestertonian belly laugh.

The Christian view of history to this point has the course of the world fundamentally changing with the resurrection and ascension and session of our Lord Jesus Christ.  From that time onwards all would belong to Him and would answer to Him.  Under His aegis the West saw the emergence of the first Christendom.  It has broken down now, riven with apostasy and defalcation.  Thus, we see illustrated that the Christian doctrine of progress, whilst believing in its ultimate inevitability, does not make it automatic.  Human progress depends upon fidelity to Christ and faithfulness to His covenant.  When men come to see themselves as smarter, not just than the average bear, but of Christ Himself, consequences follow.  Judicial consequences.  We begin to taste the bitter fruits of the curses of the divine covenants, which are as certain and sure as their blessings.

So passes the West today.  Its ideologies have resulted in the deaths of hundreds of millions of human souls; it literally tears apart the bodies of its own children; unable now to replace its dying populations; it has become its own Black Death–a plague spread not by literal rats, but by ideological rodents of its own making.    

What will take the curse from us?  Or, more accurately, who will remove it?  There is only One given amongst men to do this thing.  Only the Lord Himself can remove this curse we have brought upon ourselves.  It is to Him that the West must turn, in humility and repentance and simple child-like belief. His invitation and command remains true: “come unto me, all who labour and are heavy laden, and I will give you rest.  Take my yoke upon you and learn from me, for I am gentle and lowly of heart, and you will find rest for your souls.  for my yoke is easy and my burden is light. (Matthew 11:28-30)

May the Lord have mercy upon us all. 
 

Letter From Turtle Bay (About Russia)

Russia adopts model adoption law

Posted on | June 20, 2013 by J.C. von Krempach, J.D. 

New law protects all children in Russia against gay adoption and other forms of human trafficking 

Reacting to the disturbing fact that some Western countries have put in to place legislation that under the pretext of a “right to adoption” makes it possible to hand over innocent children to homosexual couples, Russia has enacted a new law that makes sure that such a thing cannot happen to Russian children. Under this law, Russia will prohibit adoption by foreign couples whose homeland recognizes same-sex “marriage”, as well as by single people or unmarried couples. The Duma adopted the law unanimously.

Often criticised for its poor human rights record, Russia appears to be turning into a flagship for the protection of innocent children against moral corruption.
This is urgently needed in a country where 70 years of Communism have destroyed the family and which faces an unprecedented demographic crisis with one of the lowest birth rates of the world, an extremely high incidence of abortion (which the Soviet Union was the first country to legalize), and a population loss of nearly 1 million a year. The Russian Government is bitterly aware that children are a society’s most valuable resource, and not a commodity that should be sold to those who are not willing to reproduce in a natural way.

By ruling out adoption both by homosexual couples and individual persons, Russia recognizes that what nature foresees for children is to grow up with a father and a mother. Where a child has lost one or both parents, adoption should provide it with the best possible substitute, i.e. with married parents that resemble a natural family. As the European Court of Human Rights, in one rare moment of lucidity, once recognized, adoption is about “providing a child with a family, not a family with a child”.

This new law shows full respect for the principle set out in Article 21 of the UN Convention on the Rights of the Child, that “States Parties that recognize and/or permit the system of adoption shall ensure that the best interests of the child shall be the paramount consideration“.

It is hoped that other countries will follow this shining example.

Calvin’s Daily Devotional

Daily Devotional

June 27

Thine Is My Heart: Devotional Readings from the Writings of John Calvin

by John Calvin (compiled by John H. Kromminga)
Republished from the OPC Website

Bible Text:
Of these things put them in remembrance, charging them before the Lord that they strive not about words to no profit, but to the subverting of the hearers. Study to shew thyself approved unto God, a workman that needeth not to be ashamed, rightly dividing the word of truth, —II Timothy 2:14, 15

Devotional:
And therefore when any of us comes to a sermon, let it not be to hear some pleasant matter and to have our ears tickled and to have the preacher make flowery discourses; but let us do it to grow in the fear of God and humbleness, and stir us up to call upon him and to confirm ourselves in patience.

And so, if we have heard one exhortation today and hear the same tomorrow again, let us not think it needless, let us not be grieved at it; for if every one of us will rightly examine himself, he shall perceive that he is far wide, and has not remembered his lesson well to practise it aright. This it is that we have to note in this place, when Saint Paul says, “Put them in mind of these things.” —Sermons


John Calvin was the premier theologian of the Reformation, but also a pious and godly Christian pastor who endeavored throughout his life to point men and women to Christ. We are grateful to Reformation Heritage Books for permission to use John Calvin’s Thine Is My Heart as our daily devotional for 2013 on the OPC Web site. You can currently obtain a printed copy of that book from Reformation Heritage Books.

Means of Grace

Breaking Down Paganism

Tertullian on church charitable capacities at the beginning of the Third Century, AD.

“There is no buying or selling of any sort of things of God.  Though we have our treasure chest, it is not made up of purchase money, as of a religion that has its price.  On the month day, if he likes, each puts in a small donation; but only if it be his pleasure, and only if he is able; for there is no compulsion; all is voluntary.  These gifts are, as it were, piety’s deposit fund.  For they are not taken thence and spent on feasts, and drinking bouts, and eating houses [as was the case in pagan religious meetings and temples], but to support and bury poor people, to supply the wants of boys and girls of destitute means and parents, and of old persons confined now to the house; such, too, as have suffered shipwreck; and if there happen to be any in the mines, or banished to the islands, or shut up in prisons for nothing but their fidelity to the cause of God’s Church, they become the nurslings of their confession.”  [Tertullian, Apology, Chapter 39.  Cited in Rodney Stark, The Triumph of Christianity: How the Jesus Movement Became the World’s Largest Religion (New York: Harper One, 2011), p. 113.]

Douglas Wilson’s Letter From America

Like Watching a Hummingbird Fly

As previously mentioned, here is my second installment on chapter two of Coyne’s book. As this chapter makes apparent, long stretches of time are essential to the project of evolutionary hand-waving, a process whereby impossible things are made more plausible to us by having them happen very, very slowly. Don’t think I can walk across that swimming pool? Watch this as I inch my way out there. Bet I can do it if a spend three months at it. Time fixes all implausibilities.

Going with Coyne’s figure of 600 million years of evolution in 4th gear, after leaving out those halcyon days of one-celled organisms just bobbing about, not to mention the subsequent time of the eukaryotes (p. 28), and not messing with leap years, we come up with, using a simple arithmetical process, 219,000,000,000 days available for evolution. Roll that around in your mind for a moment. All the marvels that evolution has wrought were accomplished in a matter of countable days. This has ramifications.

I said earlier that I was going to be offering a variation on Haldane’s Dilemma, but before getting to my version, let my brother Gordon (the scientist) explain Haldane.

“That said, we know the entire genomes of both humans and chimps. There are 40-45 million nucleotide bases present in humans that are missing from chimps, as well as about the same number present in chimps that are absent from humans. This amounts to ~40 million separate mutation events that would need to occur to separate these two kinds. These two creatures are supposedly separated by 300,000 generations. This means that about 133 mutations need to be fixed in a population’s genome every generation. This is a huge problem and is called “Haldane’s Dilemma” because it is empirically untenable to assume that that staggering number of mutations could be fixed in comparatively few number of generations. ‘Fixed in a population’ means that it can’t just happen to one individual. A beneficial mutation needs to spread to most members of the population and that has to happen by passing it down to your descendants with the help of natural selection promoting the mutation’s success. This of course requires several generations to let it spread.”

In this form, evolutionists think they have enough of an answer to dismiss creationists as chumps for advancing it, and for those interested, you can always pursue it further. In my view, this kind of response is just more hand-waving, but allow me to restate the problem in a variant form. Here the problem is more statistical and mathematical, while Haldane’s problem was more strictly biological. The common factor in these arguments is the amount of time available for what needed to have happened.

Coyne tells us that the estimated number of species that have lived could be as high as 4 billion (p. 22). Let’s take that number to illustrate the point, knowing that the same point can still be made with a different number.
With four billion species out there, let us surmise a crazy low number of genetic changes in one species to turn it into another one — ten changes, let’s say. But ten changes per species with four billion species means that we need forty billion beneficial mutations in order to account for all these different species that showed up at one time or another. So let’s divide this 40 billion into how many days we are working with. That means that in the history of evolution, a beneficial mutation would need to be happening, on average, somewhere on earth to some critter every 5 or 6 days or so.

But wait. In order to “register” as a beneficial change, making room for the next change to also register, it has to confer a survival advantage — because the central mechanism that makes evolution go is natural selection. But it has to confer this survival advantage in less than a week.

Now I am not assuming that all species are lined up in a series, with a direct line from our most distant ancestor straight down to us. In short, I am not assuming “no cousins.” I am not lining all these species up in a straight line, as though there were no cousins or distant cousins. I am just saying that something marvelous has to be happening in evolutionary history constantly, somewhere on the planet. A number of these lines can be running in parallel, but the ones that successfully make it to the next species have to be running in series for their ten changes at some point. The bridge has to make it all the way across the river.

In order to register in the fossil record, in most instances it has to make it all the way across the bridge to the next species, since we have very few transitional forms in hand. But this means that the statistical average time span for the transition from one species to another would be just over a couple of months. It needn’t be this quick for all of them, of course. I am just talking about the averages.

If evolution happened in a matter of countable days, and if we have had as many species as we have, we can calculate what the average pace of beneficial evolutionary events would have to have been. And remember, if you stretch out the time for one transition to happen with any ancestor, you are shortening the time available for any descendants.

One other thing. The odds of flipping a coin to heads ten times in a row is 1 in 1024. Those are the odds for our ten changes from species to species if each change presented itself as a simple heads/tails possibility. But of course, mutations present many more options than just two. I will leave the rest of that to our statistician friends out there. Suppose at each genetic fork in the road there were just ten options instead of two. The coins have 9 sides other than heads. What would the odds be of flipping the right choice ten times in a row then? And remember, when you have flipped, you don’t just look at it and say heads. You have to wait 6 days (on average) to see if any survival advantage was conferred.

Now make the final adjustment. Ten changes from species to species is absurdly low. A one in ten chance for the mutation to be beneficial is absurdly low. The chances that we will get identifiable survival advantage in less than a week is absurdly low. Get yourself a real calculator, one that goes up to the decillions, and enter the real numbers. The one thing you will not be able to do after that point is dismiss as an idiot someone who has trouble believing in this high speed miracle of yours with no God around. For mark my words, once the real numbers are entered, observing the process of evolution would be like watching a hummingbird fly.

The trouble for evolutionists is that they set the evolutionary chronology back when we had no idea of the staggering complexities that go into even one-celled organisms. The chronological framework was set for them, and poured into concrete, back when we thought 600 million years was plenty of time. It reminds me of the time when I had a computer that had 10 megabytes of memory, which I thought cavernous. And the more complexity we find, which we are doing all the time, the more we have to fit into our 219,000,000,000 days. That’s days, people.

It is starting to look as though we won’t have to even speed that time lapse camera up, and what I really want to do is go watch it in an IMax theater.

Calvin’s Daily Devotional

Daily Devotional

June 26

Thine Is My Heart: Devotional Readings from the Writings of John Calvin

by John Calvin (compiled by John H. Kromminga)
Republished from the OPC Website

Bible Text:
And I said unto the angel that talked with me, What be these? And he answered me, These are the horns which have scattered Judah, Israel, and Jerusalem. —Zechariah I:19

Devotional:
If then we neglect not these helps which God affords us, and especially if we ask him to guide us by his Spirit, there will certainly be nothing obscure or intricate in the prophecies, which he will not, as far as it is necessary, make known to us.

He does not indeed give the Spirit in an equal degree to all; but we ought to feel assured that though prophecies may be obscure, there will yet be a sure profit derived if we be teachable and submissive to God; for we find that Zechariah was not deprived of his request, as the angel gave him an immediate answer. —Commentaries


John Calvin was the premier theologian of the Reformation, but also a pious and godly Christian pastor who endeavored throughout his life to point men and women to Christ. We are grateful to Reformation Heritage Books for permission to use John Calvin’s Thine Is My Heart as our daily devotional for 2013 on the OPC Web site. You can currently obtain a printed copy of that book from Reformation Heritage Books.

Legitimate Concerns

John Key, Smiling Leviathan

New Zealand is in the middle of its own public controversy over government snooping into the affairs of private citizens.  It would probably have been a storm-in-a-teacup affair were it not for the Snowden expose of US, British, Canadian, Australian and New Zealand world-wide electronic surveillance causing so much disquiet in the United States.

But New Zealanders can now conceive of the risks in a concrete manner.  It has moved from the potential to the actual.  With the NZ government trying to amend the  the Government Communication and Security Bureau (“GCSB”) spy agency law to plug some loopholes right at this moment, the spotlight has been switched on.  Will the GCSB end up doing what the US spy agencies have been doing–which is collecting digital data on its own citizens containing their private messages–with no probable cause whatsoever?

At the outset, let us be clear.  On this matter we simply do not trust our Prime Minister, John Key.
  His perspective is far too naive and superficial.  His “trust us, we know what we are doing” demeanour, coupled with his inability to enunciate principled safeguards and checks and balances to a horrible overreach of state powers offer little comfort to citizens.  We are right to be deeply suspicious of the proposed legislation because we believe that on this matter Key is way out of his competence zone and the Bill as currently drafted has been written by the security agencies themselves.

Key has approached this with the same superficial, light-hearted pragmatism that has governed so much of his Prime Ministerial tenure.  He is a non-ideological kind of guy.  He is a common-sense politician.  Whilst on a whole bunch of issues this may stand him in good stead, when it comes to fundamental issues like the power and authority of the state over its citizens he is way out of his depth.

He showed this on the matter of the anti-smacking legislation.  He reduced so many families to uncertainty, doubt, indecision and fear by supporting ill-crafted legislation that made smacking a child for the purposes of training and discipling a crime, and at the same time declared that the police would exercise discretion in the application of their powers.  Well, the NZ police have been pretty restrained (so far), but not so the other government agencies, such as Child Youth and Family which, emboldened by the legislation,  have ripped far too many decent families apart on the smallest of pretexts.  Key never saw this coming, and he probably does not care.  It’s not a biggie, after all. 

And now the same Prime Minister is telling us we have nothing to worry about.  He simply is not trustworthy on this matter.

The way the proposed legislation is structured, the police, the Security Intelligence Service and other investigative agencies–including information requests from the United States, Canada, Australia and the UK–would need to go through a warranting process, proving probable cause before the GCSB could be commissioned to spy upon particular New Zealand citizens.  In other words, the GCSB would be simply an “order taker”.  But–and here is the big but–in order to undertake such tasks the GCSB would need to create the data infrastructure and data storage capability in order to carry out such commissions on behalf of other agencies when they arise.   

In the United States the snooping agencies have hoovered up all the data, analyzed it, then, “wink and nod”, sidled up to the relevant investigative agency such as the FBI and “suggested” that they might like to get a warrant to investigate Joe Blow, after the fact.  This makes a mockery of the warranting check-and-balance.

Moreover, there is something creepy and overtly dangerous about a government actually capturing and storing every electronic communication of every citizen, “just in case”.  Imagine thirty years ago the outcry were the government of the day to have had (and be exercising) the capability to copy every letter you sent in the mail and store them in a vast secret library just in case they wish to investigate you some time in the future.  That is precisely what appears to be happening now with respect to private phone and internet communications–at least in the United States–and if there, no doubt here, since New Zealand is obligated to participate in the US spying activities with respect to its our own citizens.  

When the NZ Law Society is objecting strongly to the proposed laws it is time for every citizen to sit up and take notice.  This from the NZ Herald:

The Law Society has made a stinging attack on proposed law changes governing the GCSB spy agency, saying they effectively transform it from a foreign intelligence agency to a domestic one without any justification being given. . . . The Law Society submission, written by Rodney Harrison, QC, says: “It is difficult to identify the pressing and substantial concerns that the bill purports to remedy or address.” . . . .

He says the bill effectively transforms the GCSB from a foreign intelligence-gathering agency into an additional domestic spy agency.  “It seems that the underlying objective of the legislation is to give the GCSB powers it lacked previously: the power to conduct surveillance on New Zealand citizens and residents. No explanation or justification for the conferral of this power is given.”

We need law with clear constraints as to what the New Zealand Government is forbidden to do, not “positive” law about  what is may do if it chooses.  Until we see such overt, bright line constraints put upon the Government in this matter, we will not be at all supportive.  And if the Government is unwilling or unable to put those legislative constraints in place, then our worst suspicions will be warranted.

Nor will we be supportive of a hidden dungeon of data intercepted from citizens going about their lawful activities.  At the very least the dungeon would need to be subject to the Freedom of Information Act, so that each citizen could query and not only obtain what intercepted data the government were holding on taht citizen but also a statement of specific probable cause as to why the government is holding this information about that individual.

A government which is either unwilling or unable to bind itself to such constraints is to be rightly mistrusted and feared.

Postscript:  Australia is starting to back-pedal.  We hope this creates even greater pressure on New Zealand.

Douglas Wilson’s Letter From America

That’s A Rabbit, You Doofus

Comes now chapter two of Jerry Coyne’s book, called Written in the Rocks. It will take a post or two to deal with this chapter, so patience, all of you.  My first post will address the structure of his argumentation, and later I will look at the time involved in all this — my own variation on what is called Haldane’s Dilemma.

First, we may take as an indicator of how Coyne represents data generally by how he represents the position of his adversaries. He refers to the “creationist prediction that all species must appear suddenly and then remain unchanged” (p. 32). As stated, this is simplistic and wrong, and when he tries to qualify it a moment later, he misrepresents even as he qualifies.

“Even some creationists will admit that minor changes in size and shape might occur over time — a process called microevolution — but they reject the idea that one very different kind of animal or plant can some from another (macroevolution)” (pp. 32-33)

It is not “some creationists admit that changes might happen.” It is all creationists insist changes have happened. Variation within kinds, including significant variation, is not something that any competent creationist denies. Indeed, it is an essential part of the creationist model.

That said, here is the problem with the structure of Coyne’s argument.
Recall the elementary school exercise where the teacher would give you ten vocabulary words and your job was to write a creative little story using those words. But with such an exercise, it is hard to get things wrong, as long as you complete the assignment. The story is yours to write. But suppose the situation were more like what we have before us in the fossil record. Suppose you had a set number of vocabulary words, and your job was to reconstruct the book they came from — War and Peace, say. The fossils we have are the vocabulary words we have to use, and the entire history of all living organisms is the book we must reconstruct. Suppose further that the words we had to work with came down to us entirely and completely by chance, brought to us by wind and tide.

How much do we know? What happens when we hold it up against what we don’t know? Coyne acknowledges part of this, and is oblivious to the other. Here they are — one, two.

“We can estimate that we have fossil evidence of only 0.1 percent to 1 percent of all species — hardly a good sample of the history of life” (p. 22).

Well stated, good start, but . . .

“Nevertheless, we have enough fossils to give us a good idea of how evolution proceeded” (p. 22).

The results of the rest of the chapter are akin to what happened with the Piltdown man — building up quite a story about Mr. and Mrs. Piltdown, and all from the tooth of an extinct pig. There is no dispute that Coyne is using all his assigned vocabulary, and he is doing so creatively and with great ingenuity. He is a learned man.  But the novel he has reconstructed is not War and Peace, but rather Tom Swift and the Alien Robot.

It might be complained that my illustration of a novel is unfair because words don’t have a lineage from earlier words used in the book, and what we have with evolution is a huge, gigantic family tree. Right — and 99% of the tree is missing, and you are trying to reconstruct it, on the supposition that it is a tree, and you don’t even know that, and you are doing it with a dogmatic and serene aplomb.

“No theory of special creation or any theory other than evolution, can explain these patterns” (p. 29).
Oh. Glad somebody told us. There we were, wasting our time . . . Actually, I would be glad to acknowledge that the creationism he has in his mind is not able to explain these patterns, because the creationism he is fighting with in there is unable by definition to explain anything.

So let me change the illustration. You are doing genealogical research of a family over 100,000 years, and all you have is photographs of .01 percent of the noses, and no ancestry.com, no records, no family Bibles, and so on. You don’t even know if it is a family line. Now comparing what you actually know (your nose photographs) with what you acknowledge you do not and cannot know (everything else), could we have a little humility please?

One final comment, not so much an argument.

“Asked what observation could conceivably disprove evolution, the curmudgeonly biologist J.B.S Haldane reportedly growled, “Fossil rabbits in the Precambrian!” (p. 53).

I just want to state for the record that if I ever found one, I wouldn’t bother to take it in, knowing that I could not be believed. “What do you mean Precambrian? That’s a rabbit, you doofus.”

Calvin’s Daily Devotional

Daily Devotional

June 25

Thine Is My Heart: Devotional Readings from the Writings of John Calvin

by John Calvin (compiled by John H. Kromminga)
Republished from the OPC Website

Bible Text:
Arise, O Lord; O God, lift up thine hand: forget not the humble. —Psalm 10:12

Devotional:
“Arise, 0 Jehovah.” It is a disease under which men in general labor, to imagine according to the judgment of the flesh, that when God does not execute his judgments, he is sitting idle, or lying at ease.

There is, however, a great difference with respect to this between the faithful and the wicked. The latter cherish the false opinion which is dictated by the weakness of the flesh, and in order to soothe and flatter themselves in their vices, they indulge in slumbering, and render their conscience stupid, until at length, through their wicked obstinacy, they harden themselves into a gross contempt of God. But the former soon shake from their minds that false imagination, and chastise themselves, returning of their own accord to a due consideration of what is the truth on this subject.

Of this we have here set before us a striking example.
By speaking of God after the manner of men, the Prophet declares that the same error which he has just now condemned in the despisers of God had gradually stolen in upon his own mind. But he proceeds at once to correct it, and resolutely struggles with himself, and restrains his mind from forming such conceptions of God, as would reflect dishonor upon his righteousness and glory.

It is therefore a temptation to which all men are naturally prone, to begin to doubt of the providence of God, when his hand and judgment are not seen. The godly, however, differ widely from the wicked. The former, by means of faith, check this apprehension of the flesh, while the latter indulge themselves in their froward imaginations. —Commentaries


John Calvin was the premier theologian of the Reformation, but also a pious and godly Christian pastor who endeavored throughout his life to point men and women to Christ. We are grateful to Reformation Heritage Books for permission to use John Calvin’s Thine Is My Heart as our daily devotional for 2013 on the OPC Web site. You can currently obtain a printed copy of that book from Reformation Heritage Books.

Taking Refuge in Vain Inanities

Over-Egging “Consensus Science”

It is often argued that the general consensus of scientists and the peer review process ensure the integrity of all scientific results and conclusions, and guard against faulty reasoning, over-extrapolation, poor methodology, and similar. . . . But . . . the way scientific research is actually undertaken reveals a very different story. 

Firstly, consensus should never be used to determine truth since this would be committing the logical fallacy of argumentum ad numerum.  Moreover, consensus  also seems to be applied rather inconsistently.  For example, many Christians accept the scientific consensus that the universe is 8-15 billion years old, yet those same Christians are usually vehemently opposed to the consensus that all life came about by naturalistic evolution. 

Secondly, history shows that the consensus has often been wrong–indeed, hopelessly wrong.
  Thirdly, as Kuhn points out, scientists do not start from scratch rediscovering all the currently known scientific facts and repeating all the experiments that lead to major new discoveries. . . . Rather, as students, they learn and accept the currently held theories on the authority of their teachers and textbooks.  This is indoctrination not consensus. 

Fourthly, much of the consensus is artificial and enforced.  Scientists have to choose which projects to pursue and how to allocate their time.  Younger scientists need to choose which research projects will lead to tenure, gain them grants, or lead to controlling a laboratory.  These goals will not be achieved by attacking well established and widely accepted scientific tenets and theories.  As a visiting fellow at Australian National University recently pointed out, many researchers feel that any new research which challenged or threatens established ideas is unlikely to be funded, and therefore, they do not even bother to put in an application.  Older scientists, on the other hand, have reputations to defend.  Thus Bauman concludes: “Whether we want to admit it or not, there is a remarkably comprehensive scientific orthodoxy to which scientists must subscribe if they want to get a job, get promotion, get a research grant, get tenured, or get published.  If they resist they get forgotten.”  [Andrew S. Kulikovsky, Creation, Fall, Restoration: A Biblical Theology of Creation (Fearn, Ross-shire: Mentor/Christian Focus Publications Ltd, 2009),  p.43f.]

To our mind, there is nothing sinister in this sociology of scientific knowledge.  It is the way all knowledge normally progresses.  What becomes sinister is when the existing orthodoxy or tacit consensus (to employ Michael Polyani’s construct) is over-egged to claim it therefore represents infallible and certain truth–as in, “X must be true because every reputable scientist agrees.”  The fallacy of circularity is blatantly to the fore in such tautological assertions.  Vain, ignorant, and foolish are those who find comfort or take refuge in such inanities.  

Letter from Turtle Bay (About France)

The ugly face of Gay-fascism

Posted on | June 20, 2013 by J.C. von Krempach, J.D.

It is as foreseeable as it is unavoidable: a government that abuses its power to impose absurd and counter-natural laws such as on same-sex “marriages” will soon face massive protest. And given that such laws cannot be defended with rational arguments, those in power take recourse to violence and blatant human rights abuse.

Police using tear gas against peaceful defenders of marriage and family

Sadly, France is now in such a downward spiral. All those among us who believe in human rights and civil liberties should closely watch what is going on in this country, which once proudly thought of itself as the place where human rights originated, but which is now turning into something like a dictatorship in which gender-theory and homosexualist ideology hold sway, while human rights defenders are persecuted and the freedom of opinion is trampled upon.

There is now a first victim to deplore.
His name is Nicolas, a 23 year old student from Angers, who was arrested while peacefully protesting against the absurd re-definition of marriage and family by his country’s government. He has now been sentenced to one month of imprisonment for “rebellion”.

This judgment apparently is intended as a clear message to all citizens that still dare to oppose the new gay-fascism: we are not going to listen to you, nor engage in any rational argument about the meaning of marriage and the family, but we will simply put you in jail. Dissident opinions will be silenced at all costs.

Meanwhile, disturbing video footage has emerged on the internet. It shows how policemen mingled among the peaceful crowd that protested peacefully in favour of marriage and family on 26 May. These “agents provocateurs” had the task of artificially provoking the violent “incidents” that Manuel Valls, the French Minister of the Interior, had “warned” against prior to the demonstration.

The use of “agents provocateurs” is a feature that is typically used by totalitarian regimes. It shows how far the gay lobby in Europe is prepared to go to push through its agenda.

Calvin’s Daily Devotional

Daily Devotional

June 24

Thine Is My Heart: Devotional Readings from the Writings of John Calvin

by John Calvin (compiled by John H. Kromminga)
Republished from the OPC Website

Bible Text:
Yet if thou warn the wicked, and he turn not from his wickedness, nor from his wicked way, he shall die in his iniquity; but thou hast delivered thy soul. —Ezekiel 3:19

Devotional:
The Prophet is here taught how usefully he will lay out his labor, although he should appear to fail, for he ought to be satisfied with this alone, that God approves his efforts. Although, therefore, those who were to be brought back by holy exhortations remain obstinate, yet God’s servants ought not, through fastidiousness, to throw up their commission as if it were useless, for they free their own souls.

It has been formerly said that a necessity was imposed upon them, but if they are dumb dogs the destruction of souls will be imputed to them; but when they have executed their duty and satisfied the Almighty, ought it not to suffice them to be absolved in his opinion? We see then that the Prophet was animated by this consolation, lest he should be weary of admonishing abandoned and obstinate men, because, if they were not profited by his teaching, yet its fruit should return to himself.

That expression of Christ’s is well known, “Into whatsoever house ye enter, salute it; if the house be unworthy, your blessing shall return to yourselves.” So also when the Prophets anxiously desired to reclaim the wandering sheep and to collect them within the fold, if they experienced such petulance that their labor did not profit them, yet their usefulness shall return to themselves. —Commentaries


John Calvin was the premier theologian of the Reformation, but also a pious and godly Christian pastor who endeavored throughout his life to point men and women to Christ. We are grateful to Reformation Heritage Books for permission to use John Calvin’s Thine Is My Heart as our daily devotional for 2013 on the OPC Web site. You can currently obtain a printed copy of that book from Reformation Heritage Books.

Yawning Banalities

A Cocoon of Self-Deceit

We know that President Obama believes in the “arc of history”–which presumably means a faith commitment to human history moving towards a telos of one kind or another.  He believes that he is riding on that arc like some kind of eschatological messianic figure.  He rides the arc as an Enlightened One, capturing the wave of the future.  History is, therefore, propelling him forward to triumph and success.  At the same time, he hastens the coming of the telos because he is an active worker in its triumph. 

All of which is poppycock, but what can you do? Some people unfortunately have delusions of grandeur and significance and Obama is a prodigy of the type.  When he recently mounted the podium in Berlin to deliver yet another festival-of-grandiloquence the world was already yawning.  Historical irrelevance has set in early.  There is very little left to respect.

George F. Will reviews the recent speechifying which by now has now lost all its initial lustre and excitement.  We are left pondering how such an empty suit could be elected twice in the United States to the highest political office in the land.  How embarrassing.

Obama hits a wall in Berlin

By ,  
Published: June 21, 3013
Washington Post
 
The question of whether Barack Obama’s second term will be a failure was answered in the affirmative before his Berlin debacle, which has recast the question, which now is: Will this term be silly, even scary in its detachment from reality?

Before Berlin, Obama set his steep downward trajectory by squandering the most precious post-election months on gun-control futilities and by a subsequent storm of scandals that have made his unvarying project — ever bigger, more expansive, more intrusive and more coercive government — more repulsive. Then came Wednesday’s pratfall in Berlin.

There he vowed energetic measures against global warming (“the global threat of our time”). The 16-year pause of this warming was not predicted by, and is not explained by, the climate models for which, in his strange understanding of respect for science, he has forsworn skepticism.

Regarding another threat, he spoke an almost meaningless sentence that is an exquisite example of why his rhetoric cannot withstand close reading: “We may strike blows against terrorist networks, but if we ignore the instability and intolerance that fuels extremism, our own freedom will eventually be endangered.” So, “instability and intolerance” are to blame for terrorism? Instability where? Intolerance of what by whom “fuels” terrorists? Terrorism is a tactic of destabilization. Intolerance is, for terrorists, a virtue.

It is axiomatic: Arms control is impossible until it is unimportant. This is because arms control is an arena of competition in which nations negotiate only those limits that advance their interests. Nevertheless, Obama trotted out another golden oldie in Berlin when he vowed to resuscitate the cadaver of nuclear arms control with Russia. As though Russia’s arsenal is a pressing problem. And as though there is reason to think President Vladimir Putin, who calls the Soviet Union’s collapse “the greatest geopolitical catastrophe of the century,” is interested in reducing the arsenal that is the basis of his otherwise Third World country’s claim to great-power status.

Shifting his strange focus from Russia’s nuclear weapons, Obama said “we can . . . reject the nuclear weaponization that North Korea and Iran may be seeking.” Were Obama given to saying such stuff off the cuff, this would be a good reason for handcuffing him to a teleprompter. But, amazingly, such stuff is put on his teleprompter and, even more amazing, he reads it aloud. Neither the people who wrote those words nor he who spoke them can be taken seriously. North Korea and Iran may be seeking nuclear weapons? North Korea may have such weapons. Evidently Obama still entertains doubts that Iran is seeking them.

In Northern Ireland before going to Berlin, Obama sat next to Putin, whose demeanor and body language when he is in Obama’s presence radiate disdain. There Obama said: “With respect to Syria, we do have differing perspectives on the problem, but we share an interest in reducing the violence.” Differing perspectives?

Obama wants to reduce the violence by coaxing Syria’s Bashar al-Assad, who is winning the war, to attend a conference at which he negotiates the surrender of his power. Putin wants to reduce the violence by helping — with lavish materiel assistance and by preventing diplomacy that interferes — Assad complete the destruction of his enemies.

Napoleon said: “If you start to take Vienna — take Vienna.” Douglas MacArthur said that all military disasters can be explained by two words: “Too late.” Regarding Syria, Obama is tentative and, if he insists on the folly of intervening, tardy. He is giving Putin a golden opportunity to humiliate the nation responsible for the “catastrophe.” In a contest between a dilettante and a dictator, bet on the latter.

Obama’s vanity is a wonder of the world that never loses its power to astonish, but really: Is everyone in his orbit too lost in raptures of admiration to warn him against delivering a speech soggy with banalities and bromides in a city that remembers John Kennedy’s “Ich bin ein Berliner” and Ronald Reagan’s “Tear down this wall”? With German Chancellor Angela Merkel sitting nearby, Obama began his Berlin speech: “As I’ve said, Angela and I don’t exactly look like previous German and American leaders.” He has indeed said that, too, before, at least about himself. It was mildly amusing in Berlin in 2008, but hardly a Noel Coward-like witticism worth recycling.

His look is just not that interesting. And after being pointless in Berlin, neither is he, other than for the surrealism of his second term.

Douglas Wilson’s Letter From America

On the Rounded Upper Part

Calvin’s Daily Devotional

Daily Devotional

June 22

Thine Is My Heart: Devotional Readings from the Writings of John Calvin

by John Calvin (compiled by John H. Kromminga)
Republished from the OPC Website

Bible Text:
But thou, Israel, art my servant, Jacob whom I have chosen, the seed of Abraham my friend. —Isaiah 41:8

Devotional:
“My friend.” It was an extraordinary honor which the Lord bestowed on Abraham when he called him his friend. To he called “the servant of God” is high and honorable; for if it be reckoned a distinguished favor to he admitted into the family of a king or a prince, how much more highly should we esteem it, when God accounts us as his servants and members of his family? But, not satisfied with that, he bestows on him even a higher honor and adorns him with the name of “friend.”

What is here said about Abraham relates to all believers; and Christ declared more plainly, “Now I call you not servants, but ye are my friends; for servants know not their Lord’s will, but to you have been revealed secret and divine mysteries, and hence you may know my friendly and kind disposition towards you” (John 15: 15).

Having therefore obtained from God so great an honor, we ought to remember our duty, that the more abundantly he has testified his kindness towards us, we may the more earnestly and with deeper reverence worship him continually. —Commentaries


John Calvin was the premier theologian of the Reformation, but also a pious and godly Christian pastor who endeavored throughout his life to point men and women to Christ. We are grateful to Reformation Heritage Books for permission to use John Calvin’s Thine Is My Heart as our daily devotional for 2013 on the OPC Web site. You can currently obtain a printed copy of that book from Reformation Heritage Books.