A Republican Thanks the Mainstream Media

Photo by Gratisography on Pexels.com

Every day, on conservative talk shows and television programs across America, you will hear expressions of contempt for the media. The main stream (or “Lame Stream”) media, are frequent targets of Republican and conservative ire because of frequent conflicts of interest in how they cover or report political stories.

Indeed it does seem that there has been a perpetual assault on president Trump (and pretty much all Republicans for the last few decades). But all’s well that end’s well, right? In the end, I believe the media has done a great service for the Republican party. Perhaps it has been unintended. In fact I think it has been done without the media even understanding of the consequences of their actions. The persistent ideology and pedagogy of the MSM is of course liberal, and their full weight and support is thrown, in virtually all cases, to the Democratic opponent at the expense of the conservative or Republican candidate. But with all actions there are consequences, some intended and some unintended.

We all know that the entire country has been subjected to a virtual government shutdown for the last 3 years, during which the Democratically controlled House of Representatives has spent hundreds of millions of dollars, destroyed acres of forests for subpoenas, and wasted countless hours investigating (some would even say spying on) President Trump. During those 3 years, little attention has been given to the business of the people, and even less to seemingly rampant ethical problems among the liberal Democratic elite in Washington.

So why would a Republican thank the MSM?

Because they are doing their job. Because on at least ONE side of the political spectrum, the MSM is like a dog with a bone, never letting go, seeking out corruption, looking for irregularities, digging up dirt, and looking in every dark corner to root out corruption. And for this reason we have today the most honest, ethical, and transparent Republican party in history. No dirty or compromised conservative politician would survive the onslaught. With a very few exceptions, none but the “squeaky clean” survive the accusations.

In fact, even the “squeaky clean” like the Second Lady Karen Pence are often subjected to harassment and malicious attacks. For what crime? The crime of teaching at a Christian school! But this in turn gives them the opportunity to remain humble, to ask for prayer, and to seek out assistance from the Almighty in times of personal trouble.

Compare and contrast this to today’s Democratic party. The “party of favor” among the MSM is of course not obliged to answer for their indiscretions, or crimes. They are allowed carte blanche in all regards, and even if their sins come to light, the MSM is happy to cover for them, or point the finger at a conservative if need be, to distract the voting public from seeing said sins.

The same media which has for 3 years viciously attacked the president for “high crimes and misdemeanors” (which never materialized under investigation or impeachment testimony) has blatantly ignored a long list of vastly worse crimes, because they were committed by their party of favor.

The indiscretions of Debbie Wasserman-Schultz, Al Franken, Bob Menendez, Hunter Biden, and Maxine Waters have been buried. Obama and the IRS targeting conservatives… or the Fast and Furious operation… forgotten. Hillary and Benghazi, the emails, smashed phones, Whitewater, file-gate, Uranium One… not newsworthy. Countless examples of Democratic collusion or nepotism… hidden in a token paragraph somewhere back near the Obituaries pages.

But thank goodness, let any Republican stray from a strict Biblical Code of Ethics and he or she will be subjected to intense, lasting media attention. Thanks goodness for the MSM.

Thank you, media, for giving us what may well be the best, strongest, most capable and trustworthy Republican party in history.

Now just one request. Go do your job on the other side of the aisle!

Naked and Homeless

The police came at about 5 AM to the ER with a strange request. They needed a patient gown. They wondered if we might have an extra one. We gave them two. One for the front and one for the back.

We were highly motivated to assist the policemen. Not just because we liked the officers on duty, nor because they had come to assist us in the ER a few times in the past (using tasers, bean bag shotguns, and various other toys) when we had violent patients. No, in this case we were motivated because the gowns were needed for a patient who had recently escaped the ER by breaking down a door and running out into the streets. Not only that, she had run out into 48 degree temperatures, quite cold for our part of Florida, and although she was gowned appropriately at the time she left, we were concerned for her safety and well being.

The patient was apprehended not long after her escape by the police, who found her jogging naked down the street. This was both a relief, and a cause for concern (or amusement) depending on the mood and personality of the health care worker receiving the news. The naked part was not that surprising, since the patient had initially arrived dressed in her usual “business attire” with both nipples exposed to anyone willing to look. Such a presentation is not all that uncommon among street prostitutes, or those involved in our thriving local drug trade.

After the patient was covered front and back with the hospital gowns, she was placed back in the police car to be taken to jail (for assaulting a health care worker prior to her “escape”). This outcome was of course applauded by the ER staff, but then the conversation inevitably turned to our many local ER patrons who are “frequent fliers”. So often they come with dishonesty or “lack of candor” about their illnesses. Sometimes they present lying about their substance abuse, and no explanation for why they have $3,000 cash stuffed in their underwear. Nearly always they vastly underestimate their alcohol consumption. They place an enormous burden on ER staff across the country.

We have liberals, conservatives, and apolitical types in the ER. And we all pretty much agree that there is no conceivable government program or hospital solution that will end substance abuse, alcoholism, or prostitution. Nothing will stop patients from lying to police or health care workers, or abandoning their families, or choosing drugs over their jobs. Human nature being what it is, some persons will always choose to be lazy, or idle or dishonest. Some will be thieves or prostitutes (or worse yet, politicians).

These conversations inevitably lead to one of two conclusions. Some want to give up, saying you can’t fix human nature. Some insist there has to be an answer, people are valuable. I agree… with both camps.

Although it may be true that we cannot “fix” human nature, there are two areas of action where we can make a dent in these horrendous destroyers of humanity.

The first is the purview of pastors, the second is the province of politicians.

If we can intervene early and often in the lives of children and adolescents to provide worth, structure, a loving family, a caring adult, a hope for the future… research has shown that the odds of a child living a productive and happy life are vastly higher when they grow up in a supportive and caring environment. I am all for this, and I encourage all efforts, faith based and otherwise, to enhance the value and ostensible worth of all lives. This can admittedly be quite complex, because the very same behaviors we are seeing in the ER (homelessness, mental illness, alcoholism, substance abuse, prostitution) also inflict serious, sometimes lifelong emotional damage on any children in proximity to these behaviors. And the same adults we are “rescuing” daily or weekly from their indulgences are sometimes inflicting serious emotional damage on their own children and families.

But what of those already afflicted in the current pandemic of alcoholism, homelessness, alcoholism, and crime? Is there hope to end this suffering? Have we finally passed enough legislation to end these blights on humanity? (Resoundingly NO.) Or are the very government programs designed to alleviate suffering, sometimes making the problems worse? (Sometimes, unfortunately, YES.)

And this is where we enter the province of politicians. You may sense that I do not always hold politicians in high esteem. It is true. But politicians have a place, and I do not wish to demean the office to the point where no decent, honorable or honest person would run for office. For if and when we reach that point (and I fear we are ever so close) our nation is doomed.

Nevertheless, what can we do about our naked, substance abusing, homeless, aggressive prostitute? After all, we provided her, and hundreds of other alcoholics and substance abusers, a place to sleep, food to eat, and a bus pass as they were leaving. We worked them up in their stupor with lab work and CT scans that often cost thousands or tens of thousands of dollars… the costs of which are shifted to more upstanding citizens with insurance. We speak to them with respect and offer psychiatrists for those who are severely depressed, homicidal, or suicidal. We “believe them” and take it seriously when they say they are suicidal, even though every fiber of our experience and professional training tell us they are lying, and all they really want is “3 hots and a cot”. What more can we do?

Are we helping these patients at all? We probable prevent some withdrawal seizures. Perhaps we are occasionally able to prevent a suicide or homicide. I am certainly happy at these benefits of our ministrations. But more often, are we not merely helping them be better, more successful drug addicts? Are we not just removing the natural consequences of substance abuse and alcoholism, taking away the very discomforts and inconveniences which might drive a man or woman to sobriety?

Tens of thousands of times every day across this country this process repeats itself. A patient spends their last dime on drugs or alcohol, then runs to a local ER for treatment of their DT’s, or their falls, or their confusion, or for free food. Sometimes it is just for a warm bed because all their rent money went to cocaine. And we provide.

And the next day or the next week the cycle repeats, and they come in again with an alcohol level 5 or 6 times the legal limit. Or maybe comatose this time from opiate OD, or agitated, hallucinating, and aggressive on cocaine. And we do it all again… and again… and again.

I cannot tell you the cost to society that this represents. In some ways I do not even care. My question is simply this. Are we harming our patient? With all our coddling and warm fuzzies, are we actually making lives, families and society WORSE rather than making them better?

I believe many times we are.

6 HUGE SCIENTIFIC Problems with Evolution

Photo by Pixabay on Pexels.com
  1. The fossil record does not support Evolution. All over the world we find massive fossil graveyards. A hundred years ago these were thought to be evidence of evolution. However in over a century, no evolutionist has any explanation for the graveyards. Why are they found where they are found? What caused them? (When creatures (plant, animal, or human) die today, what happens to them? They may be eaten, or they may rot or decompose. They do not form fossils.) What is required for fossilization? Rapid burial in an environment free of oxygen is the most common, central mechanism. If there is oxygen, the presence of bacteria and other organisms will rapidly cause the organism to decompose. “Fossils are formed in a number of different ways, but most are formed when a plant or animal dies in a watery environment and is buried in mud and silt. Soft tissues quickly decompose leaving the hard bones or shells behind. Over time sediment builds over the top and hardens into rock.” (A) (This sounds suspiciously like a massive global flood precipitated by plate tectonics.)

Not only this, but the fossil record also shows the abrupt appearance of all sorts of animals and plants at the same time. The geological strata do not support gradual evolution.  Archaeologists have almost universally agreed that life seemed to appear suddenly, more or less all at once, not gradually as predicted by evolution. This is euphemistically named the “Pre-Cambrian Explosion”. But an explosion of life, with many life forms appearing all at once is much more consistent with Creation than with evolution! As written by Casey Luskin, “ID predicts irreducibly complexity. Because irreducibly complex structures require all of their parts to function, they cannot arise in a gradual, step-by-step manner. If many characteristics of life are irreducibly complex, then ID leads us to expect that the fossil record will exhibit a pattern of abrupt appearance of novel, fully functional body plans that do not develop in a gradual, step-by-step fashion. This is precisely what we typically find in the fossil record.” (1) So in point of fact, the fossil record actually supports CREATION.

2. Molecular biology has completely failed to demonstrate Darwin’s “Tree of Life”. Remember that diagram you have seen in dozens of textbooks, some sort of “tree” or branched diagram allegedly illustrating the “inter-connectedness of all species”… It doesn’t exist in anywhere nature.  In fact genetics show that species far distant on the “tree of life” often have more DNA similarities than species that appear to be closely related. Nowhere in the real world have scientists found evidence that the species actually evolved, or are evolving, one from another. And genomics has virtually destroyed any possibility that such a tree could exist by showing patterns of genetic changes completely inconsistent with any known evolutionary paths. If evolution were true it should have EASILY been proven by molecular biology and genetics. Instead the opposite is true! How do evolutionists explain this? They don’t. They merely say “Although they’re great for establishing the common origins of life, features like having DNA or carrying out transcription and translation are not so useful for figuring out how related particular organisms are. If we want to determine which organisms in a group are most closely related, we need to use different types of molecular features, such as the nucleotide sequences of genes.” (B) This is not science. This is a cop-out. Such testing (molecular biology and DNA) is of paramount importance, but to admit this would destroy the credibility of the evolutionists argument!

3. The Fossil record does not support gradual evolution.  There are no proven transitional fossils. (There there should be countless billions of transitional fossils if evolution were true.) As stated in Wikipedia, “More than 99% of all species of life forms, amounting to over five billion species, that ever lived on Earth are estimated to be extinct. Some estimates on the number of Earth’s current species of life forms range from 10 million to 14 million, of which about 1.2 million have been documented and over 86 percent have not yet been described.”(2)  Yet of all these millions of living and extinct species, none have been proven to be transitional! Of all the tens of millions of fossils ever found, less than 0.1 percent can be claimed in any way (even by rabid evolutionists) to represent transitional fossils, yet if evolution were true that number should be nearly 50%!

4. There is no evidence of current evolution.  Why is this important? Because of the vast number of mutations that would be required between species. Since apes are only about 85% similar to Humans, it would require TENS OF MILLIONS of genetic changes in a short period of time. The rate of evolution required to transition from apes to man would have required extremely frequent changes (several positive mutations every year) in order to evolve in just a few million years. Yet in hundreds of years, no one has ever seen any current signs of evolution! And of course, this does not even account for the fact that negative mutations VASTLY outnumber any possible positive mutations, and would thus damage the species at a rate a thousand times faster than it advances!

How do the evolutionists explain this? Authors at the Genomic project write in Comparing the human and chimpanzee genomes: Searching for needles in a haystack, “Because of the many limitations mentioned above, we will have to arrive at many of our conclusions by considering all of the facts in aggregate, including some circumstantial evidence. In the final analysis, the best long-term approach to understanding human-chimpanzee differences is to ensure that the next generation of biologists interested in the evolution of the human phenotype is a cross-trained and collaborative one, with an interdisciplinary focus. Interactions among a great many disciplines, such as genomics, biochemistry, physiology, neurobiology, cognitive science, medicine, pathology, anthropology, ecology, primatology, and evolutionary biology, will be essential in dissecting out the key genetic features that contribute to making us human.“(C) In other words, they have no answers, but they hope someday that some future evolutionists will find an answer.

(5) Evolution cannot explain the origin of life.  The law of abiogenesis states life cannot create itself.(3) This law has never been disproven. Evolution could never have occurred because life could never have begun. Even the most primitive forms of self-replicating life are incomprehensibly complex. The idea of a “primordial chemical soup” which  is transformed into a living cell so completely unscientific it is laughable. (4) A single living cell is more complicated in its chemical and electrical engineering processes, as well as its manufacturing processes than the most advanced, largest city on earth! The idea of a simple self-replicating organism is preposterous. I CAN UNEQUIVOCALLY STATE THAT THERE IS NO SCIENTIST IN THE WORLD WHO HAS ANY EXPLANATION FOR THE ORIGIN OF LIFE.

No “primordial soup” could have existed in the first place because (A) the proteins would have of necessity been all isomers (not a random mix) and (B) they would have been degraded by natural processes a thousand times more quickly than they could have ever formed.(5) Those ancient “experiments” from a hundred years ago which supposedly showed that the building blocks of proteins could have appeared accidentally when lightning hit ancient ponds were fundamentally flawed in dozens of ways. Even a superficial understanding of proteins, DNA, and RNA precludes any possibility that such complex molecules would spontaneously appear, or persist, or combine themselves into a living cell, let alone find a way to reproduce themselves in any manner.

(6) Evolution (and its best friend Old Earth Cosmology) have no explanation for why the earth or the universe is so perfectly fine tuned for life to occur. Things like gravity, radiation, rate of expansion, tides, temperatures, and many more universal constants are so finely tuned that even minor alterations would make life as we know it absolutely impossible. (6) The following list gives a sense of the degree of fine-tuning that must go into some of these values to yield a life-friendly universe:

  • Gravitational constant: 1 part in 10^34 (that is one chance in 10,000,000,000,000,000,000,000,000,000,000,000)
  • Electromagnetic force versus force of gravity: 1 part in 10^37
  • Cosmological constant: 1 part in 10^120 (one chance in 10,000,000,000,000,000,000,000,000,000,000,000,000,000,000,000,000,000,000,000,000,000,000,000,000,000,000,000,000,000,000,000,000,000,000,000,000,000,000,000,000.
  • Mass density of universe:  1 part in 10^59
  • Expansion rate of universe: 1 part in 10^55
  • Initial entropy:  1 part in 10^ (10^123 (D)

A century ago evolution was a credible theory looking for proof. Now tens of thousands of scientists have spent their lives looking for proof and found none. Evolution is no longer even a credible theory. But tragically, in the meantime it has become dogma” AN Mack MD

So, all things considered, the most plausible  SCIENTIFIC explanation for life on earth is… Genesis. 1:1 “In the beginning God created the heaven and the earth.”

A. scienceviews.com › dinosaurs › fossilformation

B. https://www.khanacademy.org/science/biology/her/evolution-and-natural-selection/a/lines-of-evidence-for-evolution

(C) https://genome.cshlp.org/content/15/12/1746.full

(D) https://evolutionnews.org/2017/11/ids-top-six-the-fine-tuning-of-the-universe/

(1) http://www.discovery.org/a/7051/

(3) en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Abiogenesis

(4) http://science.sciencemag.org/content/300/5620/745

(5) http://leiwenwu.tripod.com/primordials.htm

(6) http://www.astronomy.com/news/2018/11/are-the-laws-of-the-universe-fine-tuned-for-life

God of the O.T.

Christians today understand that the very central issue of the Gospel is Grace. The teachings of Jesus Christ left no doubt that pride had no place in the Kingdom of God, and there was no hope whatsoever that we would somehow earn our place in Heaven or work our way through our own efforts into eternal life with God the Father.

However, in order to understand Grace one must first understand the concept of a perfect God verses the concept of a sinful and imperfect man kind. But mankind did not understand that they were sinful. In fact even today as we are born into this world we do not understand that we are inherently, by our very nature, sinful and opposed to God, prideful and undeserving of eternal life, prone to ever making selfish, wrong and bad choices.

This was always the case. Mankind had to be taught what sin was. People who misunderstand the seemingly harsh God of the Old Testament do not understand the absolutely critical and foundational necessity that mankind must be instructed about sin before we could ever understand Grace.

The Gospel itself depends on it. Therefore the Jews, God’s chosen people, required a somewhat harsh and demanding task master, harsh enough and rigid and enough to bring an understanding to their relatively unschooled and simple minds about the dangers of that absolutely fatal human tendency towards sinfulness. And that is the story of the Old Testament. If they did not understood the perfection of God, and the unattainability of perfection by mankind (on our own efforts) then even the words of Jesus himself when he came would have fallen flat. They would have fallen on deaf ears

The Call for Socialism in Health Care

Many Americans are upset (perhaps with good reason) over the astronomical cost of medicines, and health care in general. I recall when I started in medicine in the late 1980’s, a school physical cost $8.00 and an office urinalysis cost $3.00. But that is not really why I am writing this. It is a part of the issue, but it is not the core problem.

I recall also when I trained in medicine, and especially in the small Southern Illinois town where I grew up, the doctors saw everyone. If you were sick, it did not matter if you had insurance, or money, or nothing at all. You got basic medical care. You might wait a few hours in the waiting room, and poor old Dr. Bunnell might get home to his family late… again. But if you were sick, you were seen.

Why does this matter? Is this just an “old white guy” reminiscing about things that really don’t matter? I suppose some might say so, but consider this. There are so many people now who are upset over the cost of health care that we are quite literally at a societal tipping point. We are hearing genuine calls for socialism, and not just in medicine and health care. Many, even among those who are willing to work, do not see an opportunity for advancement or financial security.

It seems there are too many mines in the field of finances, and not enough safe paths to financial success. Some are overextended due to college debt. Some get into a pit they can’t work their way out of just by using a credit card for a few necessities. Some get a college degree, only to find it got them no opportunities in the workforce. Others are working at a near minimum wage job, realizing they can never hope to achieve any of their financial goals, never afford a home, perhaps never even hope to get medical insurance. Something is wrong.

In fact, even as a physician, I would venture to say something is drastically wrong when a person can be bankrupted by a visit to the hospital or emergency room. But who’s fault is it? Let me lay out the blame as succinctly as I can in the medical field alone, because that it the field I most understand.

It could be said that this is myopic. Why focus on medicine? After all CEO’s make tens of millions while screwing employees out of their benefits. Politicians retire with hundreds of millions on a salary of a hundred thousand. Football and basketball players make hundreds of millions playing a kids game! Hollywood pays people hundreds of millions to play a role in a fairy tale or blue screen action film. OK, maybe medicine isn’t the whole problem… But if we can find the solution here, we can show the way everywhere!

Healthcare is a Basic Human Right and the US is the World’s Bank

Photo by Belle Co on Pexels.com

Joe was from Eastern Europe. He was floridly psychotic, and he was brought to the ER against his will (BA52) by local law enforcement. He did not speak English… at all, and he was loudly accusing his son of trying to poison him. Sadly, he believed we were going to lock him up in a US prison for the rest of his life.

None of this was particularly unusual. Nor was the fact that he had no local physician, and no health insurance. Just another day in the ER.

The interesting part started to come out when I spoke with his son, who did speak English, and who lives in the US. As it turns out, Joe had been taking Xanax and Prozac for months back home, and “according to the in-laws” he had been exhibiting some signs of irrational behavior and paranoia for several weeks.

Now, at this point it began to strike me as odd. I cannot imagine placing someone I know and love on a plane, to a foreign country, where they cannot speak the language, when they are already psychotic. What are the chances they will get worse? Probably close to 100%!

What would possess someone to place their father on a plane and relocate them to a place with no system of support, little or no ability to communicate, almost no family, and a nearly 100% chance their condition would worsen? I don’t know… but I have a theroy.

Now back to our story. Joe was agitated and even with our “blue phone” interpreters he would not calm down enough for any rational psych evaluation. So he was admitted to the hospital, involuntarily, under the authority of the BA52, for the protection of himself and others.

I will not digress on the many, many abuses of this involuntary admission process I have seen over the last decade. But I will say in this man’s condition, there was little choice. He was now under the care of our psychiatrists, against his will, for an undetermined time, at the expense of the US taxpayer.

Perhaps the most talked about topic of the last few election cycles is the provision of medical care. Everyone has a different solution. But the most recent proposals seem to have one thing in common. “Healthcare is a basic human right.

In the ER I have provided free care for thousands and thousands of patients who were uninsured, and completely unable to pay. I would like to believe that health care is a basic human right. My fellow physicians, and my staff certainly do not treat insured patients and uninsured patients differently. The US healthcare system, and physicians and healthcare workers in general, are on the whole pretty generous. But what are the implications if we declare this new “basic human right”.

Well, one implication is that ANY person, from ANYWHERE in the world who is able to board ANY plane, train, or automobile and make it to the US will now be guaranteed free, unlimited healthcare for whatever condition ails them! If this human right exists, the it exists for all humans, everywhere. If it exists, then those of us who PAY our health insurance premiums, and who PAY our taxes are no different than those who do not. In reality, and in actual practical application, if you arrive in my ER, or any other ER in the USA, you get free care.

Already in the ER I routinely care for the poor, and for alcoholics, substance abusers, accident victims, and mentally ill persons who have no insurance. For years we as a society have also provided, ER care, hospitalizations, surgeries, and medications for uninsured illegal immigrants.

But NOW some want to declare this a basic universal human right? What about all the promises to citizens who have paid into Medicare and Social security for their entire lives? What about our promises to them? What about a balanced budget for the sake of our children and grandchildren? Dust in the wind. Hot air. Empty political rhetoric.

If the US cannot even adequately provide for our homeless, our veterans, our inner city poor, our mentally ill, our prisoners… Do politicians really believe we can provide free healthcare to the ENTIRE WORLD?

Health care as a basic human right? Be careful what you wish for.

Chapter 23: A Hope and a Future

flight landscape nature sky
Photo by Pixabay on Pexels.com

Chapter 22 of Evolution, the Big Bang, and Other Fables, by A N Mack MD

In my job as an Emergency room physician, I frequently see people who are “chemically impaired”.  Opiates,  benzo’s, cocaine, or maybe just THC or alcohol.  Sometimes more than a dozen patients a day.  Some agitated, aggressive belligerent, or dangerous… some mellow, sad, and depressed.  Occasionally they arrive hyperactive.  Sometimes they are somnolent, snoring or occasionally not breathing at all.  Many have lost all hope and are suicidal.

And sometimes, in a mood dominated by fatigue more than by compassion, one of the ER nurses will say “There is one more example of survival of the fittest in action.”

And in view of the evolution/creation debate, this raises a question?  Is there anything wrong with substance abuse?  If the universe and life itself are random accidents, why not “escape” reality every chance we get?  And if it causes pain or suffering or emotional distress to others in our family or our community, so what?  If there is no higher power and no such thing as religion or spirituality… who cares? Why should a bipedal sentient evolutionary accident care?  What difference does it make to a random collection of molecules? Is it logical that a “smart monkey” should have ethical obligations?

Evolutionists loudly promulgate their religion in schools and on college campuses.  They label anyone who differs with their agenda as a miscreant, anti-intellectual, anti-science, or at best woefully uninformed.  But the real question is, why do they care?

Is it because they genuinely care that others might be uninformed or uneducated on the issue?  I don’t believe so.

Or is it because they want all the social mores that restrict them from uninhibited sexual expression and substance abuse removed?  Is it because they are offended by the possibility of a God to who they are ultimately accountable? I believe it is.

Rampant uninhibited sexuality and uncontrolled substance abuse are damaging to both individuals and to society.  They have been present in one form or another throughout the history of mankind.  But if we believe the random nature of existence suggested by evolution and the Big Bang, why does it really matter?

If on the other hand, we are NOT here by accident, and especially if we are created by a loving God,  born to have an actual relationship with Him, then alcoholism, substance abuse, and self-neglect are indeed “sins” worthy of condemnation. Why?  Because they stand in opposition to our divine nature, and they come between us and our destiny in Christ!

In this book, we have examined the shaky scientific foundations of Evolution and the Big Bang, and we have found them to be lacking.  This book is merely skimming the surface of the abundant Scientific data that is now available supporting a creation cosmology, rather than a Big Bang cosmology. There are many, many well written, scientific sites on the internet which will support my writings and opinions. Look at,

The Creation Institute,






the Blue Letter Bible,

Bible Gateway,

answersingenesis.org, and many more.

Of course I also recommend my own site, Debunking-evolution.com.

It is my hope that as the reader examines the scientific evidence, he or she will no longer be intimidated by the secular atheistic interpretations of geology and archaeology.  Rather I hope that as you look objectively at the evidence, you will forsake the darkened mindset of the pagans (or the modern atheists) Paul wrote about in Romans Chapter One 18-21,

18 For the wrath of God is revealed from heaven against all ungodliness and unrighteousness of men, who hold the truth in unrighteousness; 19 Because that which may be known of God is manifest in them; for God hath shewed it unto them. 20 For the invisible things of him from the creation of the world are clearly seen, being understood by the things that are made, even his eternal power and Godhead; so that they are without excuse: 21 Because that, when they knew God, they glorified him not as God, neither were thankful; but became vain in their imaginations, and their foolish heart was darkened.

Rather, I hope that each and every reader will pray and ask the Almighty God of the Universe whether the words of this book are true.  Each of us has access to His Holy Spirit of Truth, and each can weigh the truth of God’s word vs the truth pushed on us by this fallen world.

And I pray that God will have mercy on us all as we seek out the Truth of His Word.


The Lord your God is with you. He’s mighty to deliver. He takes great delight in you. He will quiet you with His love. He rejoices over you with singing.” (Zephaniah 3:17)



Chapter 22: Evolving Jesus?

flight landscape nature sky
Photo by Pixabay on Pexels.com

To many modern Christians (apparently including even the Pope) evolution “must be accepted” because atheist scientists say it is true. This book is dedicated to addressing the scientific reasons that evolution cannot be true.  I have explained how often scientists have had to make great leaps of faith in order to believe in evolution.  In fact, some would say (myself included) evolution’s proponents have had to abandon the scientific method completely.

There is another equally important point, at least equal to the ethical, scientific, and religious costs of believing in evolution. What is the scriptural cost of believing in evolution?  We have established that there is absolutely no scientific reason to believe in evolution, and equally importantly, there is no scientific reason NOT to believe the Bible. Still, we are told by atheistic scientists that we cannot believe the Bible creation account.

What does belief in evolution cost the Christian believer? The first, and clearest example is the need to toss out the entire first chapter of Genesis. We must change our view of scripture, from God’s Holy Word, to mythology and allegory. We must, in essence, assume that the Bible is not True ( with a capital T). We are then soon prone to toss out the Flood account, disbelieve the Ark, and soon after that we toss out all those bothersome “unscientific” miracles in the New Testament. But at least we still believe in the Beatitudes, and in love your neighbor, we say.  At least we still believe in Jesus.  Or do we?

An important fact often lost on those Christians who “choose” evolution, is that we must also call Jesus a liar.  In Matthew 19:4 Jesus describes the creation, and how God Himself created man, and woman and marriage.  In Matthew 25:34 Jesus describes a kingdom “prepared from the foundation of the world” for those who minister to the poor, and naked, and hungry. In Mark 13:19 he talks about the creation which God created.  In Matthew 24:37 Jesus discusses the Ark.  He talks about the event as if it were an established fact. He talks about Moses.  He mentions the prophet Elijah and Jonah.  He even mentions Lot and Sodom and Gomorrah. He clearly accepted the Old Testament literally, and treated the events recorded there as historical facts. Not only that, but nearly all Bible scholars accept that the Theophanies (times when God appeared in the OT) were actual appearances of the Pre-incarnate Christ.  So when God told Moses on Mount Sinai that He created the world in six days, it was actually Jesus, the Pre-incarnate Christ, who spoke.

1 John Chapter 4 reads, “This is how you can recognize the Spirit of God: Every spirit that acknowledges that Jesus Christ has come in the flesh is from God, but every spirit that does not acknowledge Jesus is not from God. This is the spirit of the antichrist.”  For most secular atheists, evolution excludes the possibility of the Creator God and his Son Jesus Christ. So by definition, the theory of evolution seems to clearly fall under the definition of antichrist.  Why are atheist professors so adamant that their young wards accept evolution?  Could it be because they themselves have accepted the religion of the antichrist?  Based on 1 John Chapter 4, one would have to believe this is possible.

Of course there are many other reasons to believe the Bible creation account, and many other direct consequences that occur as a result of disbelieving.  If the creation account was not a literal six days, then what is the reason or justification for resting on the Sabbath day? If death did not enter the world as a result of sin, but was already there for hundreds of millions of years, then why do we need redemption (Romans 6:23), and a Savior?  Why was there a worldwide flood if not for man’s wickedness and sin?  Must we throw out that entire account as well?

In fact, as many have written, even our free will and ability to choose right vs wrong are based in the Creation account.  “Carried to its logical conclusion, evolution—the undirected, random evolving of living things—eliminates the power of the human will. Darwin, himself, came to the conclusion that free will is an illusion. If evolution is true, then it means that all our choices are merely actions or behaviors determined by our genes or our surrounding environment and are conditioned by past choices—either successful or otherwise.” (1)

As we look back into the dark reaches of history, it seems easy for us to ridicule the beliefs of ancient Baal worshipers and their orgies and human sacrifices.  It seems absurd when we read about the polytheistic pagans of Greece and Rome, who seemed to have a different quirky god for every day of the week.  The Middle Ages with their superstitions seem so inane and unsophisticated. “How unscientific”, we say.  And modern secular scientists want us to believe that Christianity is also bound for the trash heaps of history.  But what if the exact opposite is true?

Someday soon, will a future generation look back at a naive and scientifically illiterate generation of Christians in the late 20th century, saying “How could anyone actually have accepted the blathering unscriptural and unscientific idiocy of supposed scientists like Hawking and Dawkins?  The virtual black holes in their theories were so vast they swallowed up all vestiges of sentience and reason.

God’s Word was and is clear. And the science is clear as well. I believe that day will come, and soon, when Belief in Jesus and the proper place of science will be restored, and belief in evolution will be called the greatest hoax ever known.

 Put no more confidence in mortals. What are they worth?”  Isaiah 2:22 Good News Translation

Exodus 20:11 “In six days I, the Lord, made the earth, the sky, the seas, and everything in them, but on the seventh day I rested.”

Evolution will one day be shown to be the greatest hoax in the history of science.  ANM


(1) http://www.bibleinfo.com/en/questions/can-evolution-and-creation-go-together


Chapter 21: Branch or Vine? Evolution and Scripture

flight landscape nature sky
Photo by Pixabay on Pexels.com

Chapter 21 of Evolution, the Big Bang, and Other Fables, by A N Mack MD


We have previously discussed the scientifically discredited evolutionary “Tree of life”. It appeared for nearly a hundred years in texts as an illustration of how evolution progressed from one species to another. It suggested that humans evolved from apes, which evolved from other lower life forms and eventually from some single-celled organism such as a bacteria or slime mold. It suggests mankind is just one of the many thousands of branches on the random tree of evolution. Here are just a couple of the hundreds of variations.


Image result for image of the evolutionary tree

Branching diagram that appeared in Charles Darwin's _On the origin of species_, illustrating the idea that new species form from pre-existing species in a branching process that occurs over extended periods of time.

We showed that this imaginary “tree of life” has been totally discredited by scientific (not just religious) means, such as archaeology, geology, paleontology, and genomics. Proponents of evolution have tried to “improve” and “re-engineer”  the diagram hundreds of times, but to no avail.  It is finally being discarded by those who study evolution, yet it still appears in many recently published secular texts.  You see, even pro-evolutionary institutions like Berkeley admit that NS does NOT explain the origin of life, that evolution is NOT random, that evolution can (and supposedly did) occur RAPIDLY. (1) Yet all these ideas would have been considered anathema to Darwin. Most are the complete antithesis of evolution as it was taught for the last century.

As written by Dr. David Raup, Dean of Science at the Field Museum of Natural History in Chicago, “We are now about 120 years after Darwin and the knowledge of the fossil record has been greatly expanded. We now have a quarter of a million fossil species, but the situation hasn’t changed much. The record of evolution is still surprisingly jerky and, ironically, we have even fewer examples of evolutionary transition than we had in Darwin’s time. (2) (Bold type added) When he states it is “jerky” that means animals suddenly appear fully formed in the geological strata… that sounds far more compatible with creation than with evolution!

Some may not believe this, so to further explain I will quote evolutionist Richard Goldschmidt, who wrote: “The major evolutionary advances must have taken place in single large steps…The many missing links in the paleontological record are sought for in vain because they have never existed: ‘the first bird hatched from a reptilian egg.’”(3) Yes, folks, evolutionists now believe in “jerky” evolution, or in other words, your mother might have been a dog or a cow.

We have not yet examined the alternative viewpoint, mentioned in scripture in which we (humanity) are viewed as branches of the one true vine.  John Chapter 15 verse 5 reads ““I am the vine; you are the branches. If you remain in me and I in you, you will bear much fruit; apart from me you can do nothing.” (4)

nature countryside grapes vineyard
Photo by mali maeder on Pexels.com

You may wonder, “what does the Vine have to do with evolution?”   Simply this, how we view our origins has a great deal to do with how we view ourselves. If we view ourselves as branches of the vine connected to the divine, perfect, loving, all-knowing Son of God, this imparts value and self-worth that cannot be ascribed any other way.  Certainly it is not found in viewing oneself as the mutated offspring of a monkey.

The “vine and branches” verse is traditionally viewed as referring to Christian Churches, ministers, and believers, who derive their life source and meaning from their connection to a living Christ.  (Which I believe is true, and probably the primary interpretation.) However, the verse is also applicable to the study of the sciences. I have stated before that the truest definition of Scientific study, is as follows; “Real science, unpretentious and unassuming is this, to investigate the wonders of Creation with all the powers of our God-given intellectual capacity, and to maintain truth and objectivity at all costs.”

Certainly, that definition is at odds as with current secular atheistic presuppositions, but we have proven many times over that the goal of secular atheism and scientism is NOT maintaining truth and objectivity.  It is focused rather on indoctrinating gullible youth into their atheistic, anti-God, Anti-Christ mindset. (5)

Science, that is to say, true and intellectually honest science, is not incompatible with faith, nor is it incompatible with the Bible. But the intellectually dishonest, secular atheistic, brainwashed view of science (more accurately called scientism) taught in our educational institutions now is an entirely different matter.

Many of the authors and originators of Scientific study (Kepler, Galileo, Newton, Linnaeus, and hundreds more) were Christians, and for hundreds of years we have seen our standard of living, and our standards of education moving forward at a steady pace. These men practiced their scientific inquiry in an attitude of humility, with the acknowledgment of a divine omnipotent Creator God. And they sought both scientific advancement, and improvement of the human condition.

But more recently scientific advancements have no longer been leading to increases in individual freedom or an improved standard of living for society as a whole.   We have instead seen burgeoning technological advancements that have created an unbelievably wealthy class of billionaires while doing little to advance the condition of the billions trapped in poverty. And worse yet we have seen a dark curtain of spiritual and intellectual dishonesty descend on our campuses, our media, and our entertainment industry. I think it is fair to say that the current trends in science are not leading to the betterment of society and mankind nearly as much as they once did.

Perhaps, you say, that is a sociological or political question, not a scientific one. And certainly in some senses that is true.  But each is connected and intertwined with the other. For example, the sociological phenomenon of secular atheism which is overtaking our campuses is highly dependent on the belief in and promotion of evolution. As belief in evolution  has grown, so has atheism.

So perhaps, just perhaps, Real Science, practiced in the setting of belief in a loving Creator, offers more hope and solutions than the pseudo-science of the secular atheists. Perhaps by reconnecting with “The Vine” also called “the way, and the truth and the life”(6), even science, cosmology, and our understanding of life itself will be greatly enhanced.

As written by Sarah Irving-Stonebraker of Western Sydney University, a convert from atheism, “Christianity was also, to my surprise, radical – far more radical than the leftist ideologies with which I had previously been enamored. The love of God was unlike anything which I expected, or of which I could make sense.”(7)

Or as I have written, “Real science, unpretentious and unassuming is this, to investigate the wonders of Creation with all the powers of our God-given intellectual capacity, and to maintain truth and objectivity at all costs.” ANM


(1) evolution.berkeley.edu/evolibrary/misconceptions_faq.php#f2

(2) (1) http://www.chron.com/neighborhood/tomball/opinion/article/The-fossil-record-offers-no-support-for-gradual-9373494.php

(3) Goldschmitdt, R. B. (1940). The Material Basis of Evolution, New Haven CT: Yale Univ.Press. ISBN 0-300-02823-7

(4) John 15:5 “I am the vine; you are the branches. If you remain in me and I in you, you will bear much fruit; apart from me you can do nothing.” 

(5) John 4:1-3 “By this you know the Spirit of God: Every spirit that confesses that Jesus Christ has come in the flesh… and every spirit that does not confess that Jesus Christ has come in the flesh is not of God. And this is the spirit of the Antichrist, which you have heard was coming, and is now already in the world.”  

(6) John 14:6

(7) http://www.veritas.org/oxford-atheism-to-jesus/



Chapter 20: Millenials- A Generation Lost in Deep Time

flight landscape nature sky
Photo by Pixabay on Pexels.com

Chapter 20 of Evolution, the Big Bang, and Other Fables, by A N Mack MD

Many millennials are lost. According to an article in the Huff Post entitled “Millennials: The Lost Generation”, “Today we have a whole group of young people that we call millennials – men and women ages 18-33, who have higher rates of depression, stress and suicide, than any generation before them.“(1) An internet search on “millennials the lost generation” reveals scores of hits. But one naturally wonders, why is this generation lost? 

Perhaps they are lost because they have no strong sense of personal identity.  Perhaps they are lost because millions of their parents were more interested in being drunk or high than being parents. Perhaps they are lost because they are misled by politicians whose only concern is power, not Truth. 

Or perhaps, as I am prone to believe, they are lost because they have no foundations on which to base their lives. They are lost because they have no moral compass, no set of coherent eternal truths, no absolutes.  They are lost because they have been taught in the halls of academia that there is no such thing as absolute truth.  

Moreover, they are lost because academia has told them they cannot believe the Bible.  And they fell for it, hook line and sinkerWhy did they believe such a lie?  Because atheistic scientists said it, and so it must be true

But think about this!  Atheistic scientists would say the Bible is false even if Jesus himself healed a withered hand or restored sight to a blind man in their presence! They are atheists!  Everything they say, do, predict or interpret is seen though their atheistic world view! Therefore it is no surprise that atheists say the Bible is not true. But what does the Bible say about atheists?  It says they are fools. Psalm 14:1 reads “The fool hath said in his heart, There is no God. They are corrupt, they have done abominable works, there is none that doeth good.”(2)  Who then should we believe? Will you believe the atheists or the Word of God?

Few have considered, as written by Matt Slick, that atheism is in itself ultimately self refuting. “A materialist atheist has no intellectual justification whatsoever to trust his own thinking because his physical brain cannot exceed the limits of physics and chemistry. Therefore, there’s no reason for him to conclude that his rationality is correct since his brain is acting “mechanically.” (3) In other words, every response by a materialistic atheist to any argument, including belief or disbelief in God, is by their own definitions a mere random, pre-programmed chemical reaction. It has no merit, no basis, no meaning!

Unfortunately, Millennials have been given a choice of believing science, or believing the Word of God.  Such a forced choice is irrational, and unnecessary because science and God’s word are not contradictory. (See Chapter 13, Science vs Reason.) But Public Education has failed them, because they took away even the possibility of Biblical truth.  Instead they filled their heads with diagrams of an outdated and scientifically discredited evolutionary tree of life, fraudulent Piltdown man, and imaginary monkey to man diagrams. Consequently, an entire generation has lost faith in the Bible due to the atheistic, secular agenda in our schools.

We trusted the government to teach our children.  But as stated by Mary Nutting at Answers in Genesis, “Many families today are in deep trouble because they have not been “diligently teaching” their children. Instead, they have left it to the schools, media, museums, national parks, and others to do the job.”(4) And the government trusted the textbooks, and the textbooks trusted the atheists. But why did the texts use atheistic presuppositions to program our children against belief in God, or the Bible? Perhaps because some of the arguments for an ancient universe seem so logical, at least on the surface. Like Deep Time.

The strongest atheistic arguments against the Bible are those rooted in Deep Time (for example light travelling across the universe).  The atheists have convinced most of the world that Genesis cannot be literally true because of the long ages they claim are shown by geology and astronomy.  Deep Time is the foundational belief that undergirds atheistic arguments against Biblical truth by suggesting everything about the Bible timeline is impossible.  According to the internet dictionary, deep time is: “the multimillion year time frame within which scientists believe the earth has existed, and which is supported by the observation of natural, mostly geological, phenomena.” It will exceed the scope of this post to instruct the reader fully as to why Deep Time is an unreliable concept, but suffice it to say that as with all other scientific conclusions reached by atheists, the science is subject to the ideology.

In other words, when an atheistic scientist makes a choice to absolutely rule out any possibility of God the Creator, this choice influences and pervades and contaminates all their other research and conclusions. No matter how clearly the scientific evidence might be in pointing to a Creator, the avowed atheist will not see it. The simple fact is that the existence of the universe, and the existence of life itself are miraculous.  Atheists choose their explanations for the miracles, a “Big Bang” for which they have no proof, followed by life randomly creating and advancing itself out of nothing.  Bible scholars and scientifically oriented Christians choose another explanation.

Deep Time was a concept well fitted to evolution. The theory of evolution required time spans of hundreds of millions of years to be at all believable. Of course open-minded scientists now know that evolution cannot occur no matter how many millions of years one postulates. Deep Time is no longer relevant. (Watch for future blogs on the scientific evidence against Deep Time, you may be surprised.)  In the near future, as the house of cards called Evolution continues to collapse, we may see thousands more open minded scientists, biologists, and astronomers addressing the concept of deep time as well.  

My  hope is that very soon, as a result of these advances in scientific understanding, Millennials will not remain lost.  They will have hope.  They will find the gospel.  They will seek and find the Bible, and they will find the vast amounts of scientific and archeological evidence that supports the Bible.  They won’t find it, of course, in the halls of atheistic, anti-God, anti-Christ academia.  But you can find it, even now, in places like Answers in Genesis, Evolutioncreation.net, and Creation.com.


(2) Psalms 14:1 KJV

(3) carm.org/materialistic-atheism-self-refuting

(4) answersingenesis.org/family/families-are-gods-idea-beginning-in-genesis/

(5) ibid