The entire field of evolution is false. There was no big bang. Spinning gas can make neither stars nor planets. Lightning strikes on pond scum cannot alter lifeless chemicals in living cells. Everything reproduces after its own kind, and mutations cannot change a species into a different kind. Variation within a species is not evolution, but is consistent with the Creation model. Darwin observed variations between finches, but everything he noted was still a finch. Evolution, whether astro-physical, chemical, or biological, has had no part to play with the existence of the universe, as well as life on earth.

And still, faithless members of the church doubt the Bible and agree with scientists. They have a hybrid of God’s truth and man’s error, and call it theistic evolution. In other words, evolution explains all that exists, but where the science doesn’t work out, God miraculously helped evolution over the hump. What non-sense. Not only is it factually untrue and Scripturally unviable, but it is fatal false doctrine to boot. Let me say that again. Anyone who believes in theistic evolution is lost just as if that person believed in atheistic evolution.

The book of Hebrews says, “Through faith we understand that the worlds were framed by the word of God, so that things which are seen were not made of things which do appear” (11:3). Whatever is understood here, it is by faith, so look at the beginning of the chapter to see what that involves: “Now faith is the substance of things hoped for, the evidence of things not seen” (11:1). The word “substance” in the Greek is hupostasis, and means “foundation.” This is even clear in the English rendering of “substance” (sub means under, stance means to stand). Faith is a foundation upon which one builds his hope in the unseen. What makes up this foundation is evidence. The evidence of Scripture helps build the foundation of our faith (cf. Romans 10:17).

So to understand something by faith is not a blind leap in the dark, nor it is an assumption one feels is right. Faith is not based on some experience that is better felt than told, nor upon something that makes us happy to believe in it. To understand anything by faith is to know it with assurance based upon the evidence. So back to our original text, notice what is understood by faith: “Through faith we understand that the worlds were framed by the word of God.” This is exactly what the Bible says, not only in Genesis, but throughout the Bible, it mentions that God spoke the created order into existence. This is what the faithful know based upon the facts of the Bible. This is in contrast with what does not play a part in the faithful’s understanding or origins. The verse concludes, “things which are seen were not made of things which do appear.” Theistic evolution teaches that things which are seen were indeed made of things which do appear, but God explicitly says it is not that way. In short, faith teaches Special Creation and not theistic evolution. More to the point, faith teaches against theistic evolution.

When one reads a few verses down, one finds, “But without faith it is impossible to please Him” (11:6). It is by faith that one understands that God spoke the universe into existence, just like the Bible says. Equally clear, by faith it is evident that theistic evolution is not only no where taught in Scripture, but is itself a belief that is contrary to the Scripture. In short, those who hold to theistic evolution do not have a Biblical faith. And since without faith it is impossible to please God, then those who hold to theistic evolution are displeasing to God. Such a compromise puts such a disbeliever in the same camp as the atheists, and both await the same condemnation at the Day of Judgment.

There seems to be quite a bit of hue and cry regarding the rights of homosexual persons, particularly, the supposed right to marry. Many innocent yet ignorant people get sucked into this debate, and from an admirable sense of kindness agree homosexual couples should have the legal right to marry. I appreciate the decency that guides this decision, but it ignores what the Bible says, as well as what social scientists clearly know – homosexuality is morally wrong and is a stone to the neck of any society that allows it, much less promotes it.

The Bill of Rights guarantees every American the right to freedom of religion, speech, press, and due process. Also protection from unreasonable search and seizures, double jeopardy, and self-incrimination. Homosexuals have always enjoyed all of these rights, and no one is trying to deprive them of such. When homosexuals speak of being denied their rights, they don’t have in mind these constitutionals rights, but those described in the 1964 Civil Rights Act. This protects against discrimination based on race, color, gender, religion, and national origin.

Constitutional rights restrict the government. When these rights are extended to a group or class from whom they had been denied, it doesn’t deny said rights from those who enjoyed these rights previously. For example, when the right to vote was given to blacks and then women, this did not inhibit the right to vote for white men.

In contrast, civil rights restrict what was a freedom from private entities when it serves a greater national good. For example, before the Civil Rights Act of 1964, an employer had the right to refuse to hire someone just because he was black. It clearly serves a national interest to deny this employer of the right to discriminate based on race.

Some argue that homosexual marriage should be sanctioned to provide the rights of marriage to people not married. The benefits supposedly given are available now without the government getting involved in legitimizing homosexual marriages. For example, some say homosexual couples should be allowed to be in state recognized homosexual marriages so one can visit a partner in the hospital. The fact is homosexuals are not denied visitation rights based on sexual preference.

Except when a doctor limits visitation for medical reasons, final authority over who may visit an adult patient rests with that patient. This is and should be the case regardless of the sexual orientation or marital status of the patient or the visitor. The only situation in which there would be a possibility that the blood relatives of a patient might attempt to exclude the patient's homosexual partner is if the patient is unable to express his or her wishes due to unconsciousness or mental incapacity. Homosexual partners concerned about this possibility can effectively preclude it by granting to one another a health care proxy (the legal right to make medical decisions for the patient) and a power of attorney (the right to make all legal decisions for another person). Homosexual marriages are not necessary for this.

As with the hospital visitation issue, the concern over inheritance rights is something that simply does not require homosexual marriage to resolve it. Nothing in current law prevents homosexual partners from being joint owners of property such as a home or a car, in which case the survivor would automatically become the owner if the partner dies. An individual may leave the remainder of his estate to whomever he wishes simply by writing a will.

It is ironic that activists are now seeking Social Security survivor benefits for homosexual partners, since Congress originally intended these benefits as a way of supporting a very traditional family structure – one in which the husband worked to provide the family's income while the wife stayed home to keep house and raise the children. Social Security survivor benefits were designed to recognize the non-monetary contribution made to a family by the homemaking and child-rearing activities of a wife and mother, and to ensure that a woman and her children would not become destitute if the husband and father were to die.

Very few homosexual couples organize their lives along the lines of such a “traditional” division of labor and roles. They are far more likely to consist of two earners, each of whom can be supported in old age by their own personal Social Security pension. Furthermore, far fewer homosexual couples than heterosexual ones are raising children at all, for the obvious reason that they are incapable of natural reproduction with each other. This, too, reduces the likelihood of a traditional division of labor among them. Homosexual couples want the benefits of a traditional family without offering to society the benefits of such a family.

The legal and financial benefits of marriage are not an entitlement to be distributed equally to all (if they were, single people would have as much reason to consider them "discriminatory" as same-sex couples). Society grants benefits to marriage because marriage has benefits for society. Homosexual relationships, on the other hand, have no comparable benefit for society, and in fact impose substantial costs on society.

According to moderate U.S. Government statistics, a sparse few are homosexual (2.5% of men, 1.8% of women). And where same-sex marriages and domestic partnerships have been legalized, very few, less than 10%, have sought them out. So, legal homosexual marriage would only suit a small portion of a small portion of people.

Regarding the issue of homosexuality being genetic, consider a couple of arguments. First, one born with black skin always has black skin, and does not go back and forth to white. Reliable government statistics say that less than 1% of homosexuals (0.9% of men, 0.4% of women) have been exclusively homosexual all their lives. Homosexuality cannot be genetic if almost all homosexuals came out of heterosexuality, or as with many, with reparative therapy, leave homosexuality and return to a straight lifestyle. The matter is clearly a choice. Second, if a particular genetic trait, such a green eyes, left one sterile, then it would not take long before green eyes would be bred out of the human race. Since homosexual activity cannot reproduce, and in this case would be comparable to sterility regarding a trait, homosexuality would disappear if it were genetic but had no way of passing that genetic information on. Not only is homosexuality a choice, but it is an evil one, and should not be supported by state sanctioned homosexual marriages. To permit homosexual marriages as standard, accepted, as protected would serve as nothing more than a club to the kneecap of an already limping American social structure.

Some of you may wonder as you read, “is this religious or is this political?” Like a tasty Reece’s Cup of two great tastes that taste great together, this will be a blend of the spiritual and the mundane. Let me begin by declaring that I am a Christian. My convictions in Jesus Christ are so absolute that it defines who I am. All things, including my politics, are poured through the filter of being New Testamentally appropriate. When I speak of government, it is my religio-political opinion, or maybe even my politico-religious convictions.

Everyone now seems to have thoughts about the economy. Is the stimulus good or bad? Our economy is clear proof that money is fleeting. Jesus taught that treasure on earth can be taken, so spiritual treasure in Heaven is preferable (Matthew 6:19-21). Money sprouts wings and flies away, according to the Wisdom of Solomon (Proverbs 23:5). Trust in God. He can take care of you regardless of the economy or your income, but only if you love and serve Him with all of your heart.

The degree in which one trusts in money is the amount in which one is not trusting in God. Paul affirms as much when he says, “trust not in uncertain riches, but in the Living God” (First Timothy 6:17). If anyone doubts the uncertainty of riches, just turn on your TV.

There are least two problems that I can see that led up to this mess. One is a love of money. Paul’s comments about uncertain riches follow closely after his famous declaration that “the love of money is the root of all evil” (First Timothy 6:10). Notice why – those who have loved money have ruined themselves spiritually and psychologically. We Americans have taken God’s bounty and tried to live in as much opulence as we could not afford. We’ve stuffed out collective mattresses with cash, but now we have to lie in a proverbial bed of straw. Americans loved money, and now we have none. Our treasures on earth have been robbed. We trusted in uncertain rich which have flown away, and now we have neither the physical comforts and security of wealth, nor the spiritual bounty that only comes from trusting in God.

A second reason is close to the first. This country has lost its spiritual moorings, at least since the sequel to the great Teutonic migration, otherwise known as the Second World War. We’ve turned out backs on the glories of God, and followed the evils of Charles Darwin (for the record, I strenuously deny that I am a shaved ape). That was an explosion of vices from the ultimate Pandora’s Box, with everything except for the hope at the end. With racism, existentialism, and Marxism flooding the fruited plain, America left the door open and allowed our spirituality and patriotism to be ransacked and bespoiled. All while we stood as a witness to all this, even shouting out, “Don’t forget to take the family Bible while you’re in there.” The degree to which we are not a Christian nation is what contributes to the ruin of America.