……..But do we see the brave Liberals and NDP bestow their sneering condescension on to Sikh believers, or to Muslim believers or to the First Nation’s or Wiccans in their midst?

I wonder how many of those ‘we’re all about SCIENCE‘ politicians can intelligently articulate factual evidence to prove their faith that they,…….Ms or Mr Politician arose, (had their start) in some vast, far far back, long, long ago microscopic bit of life?  How many of these arrogant politicians who mock and deride Biblical Christianity can prove the miraculous story of evolution that is jammed into our brains by God-hating atheists?  The origin of disbelief in the One who alone created us, is Satan.

Divine creation is miraculous you say? Well yes. Creation ex nihilo is clearly miraculous.  Genesis is God’s revelation to us, the highest of His created works.  For sure the Bible tells us about the astounding miracle of God, who speaks the earth, the universe and all life into being.  And He tells us in precise words that He did so over a period of six literal days.  Day one,….evening – morning.  Day two,……evening – morning, and so on.  He was pleased with His work and He rested on the seventh day.

Ah, but that’s just a fairy tale, or a religious belief.  Evolutionists believe in facts, in science.  Evolutionists believe that once there was nothing, but ……..well,…… then all that nothing condensed itself into a teeny-tiny pin-point of matter.  But after all that work cramming into such a tiny space IT exploded,……..and contrary to any explosion we have ever observed, (very messy and destructive) this explosion sorted itself out quite nicely, so that we now have this finely tuned earth. Precisely the right conditions for abundant, rich and varied life, swirling around in an ordered universe.  So well ordered Unknownthat we can send words and pictures and instructions to one another and to satellites and space-craft.

Miracles?  Evolution’s just-so stories require them at every single point.  If miracles mean something is religious then evolutionists are at the head of the pack.  But evolution demands millions and billions of years.  The purveyors of this religion pull those millions, as many as they want, out of their sleeves with the greatest of ease.  And who dares question the wizards who demand faith?  Not too many folk have the time or strength to check the purported facts that are said to exist as proof of our evolutionary ascent,…… goo to you, by way of the zoo.

Once all the critical thinkers are suppressed evolutionists can blithely invoke miracles by the millions.  When the hard data refuse to confirm their saga they resort to happy story time.  Here Evolution merged, there it diverged.  Here Evolution went sideways, here it backed-up.  Here’s an anomaly.  This wrong date is due to contamination.  Here the little critter decided it wanted to come out of the water.  There the creature got tired of dry land and decided to live in the sea.

Any story, and scenario is concocted to force all data into the ruling paradigm of materialistic evolution.  No divine foot must be allowed in this godless tale.

But you cannot escape God the creator.  He is everywhere present.  He is all knowing.  He is all wise.  He is all powerful.

Until you take Him seriously and trust Him enough to ask for His guidance, it is hard to look at this present evil age and see a loving God.  But God does love the people He created in His own image, and He wants us to live with Him for eternity, when this brief time on earth is over.

Here’s part of a wonderful article by Dr. Jerry Bergman on the naturalist Louis Agassiz:  

Macroevolution Falsified by Science

Long before the mutational theory of evolution was popularized, Agassiz foresaw the overwhelmingly harmful nature of mutations and the inability of “selection” to produce new life forms.16 He recognized that the problem with Darwinism was not the survival of the fittest, but rather the arrival of the fittest. Agassiz knew, as did most all animal and plant breeders both then and today, that clear limits exist to variation and no known way exists to go beyond these limits in spite of 4,000 years of trying. Creationists today refer to this fact as variation in life limited to that existing within the Genesis kinds. The fact is, all mutations known to us cannot even begin to produce the variety required for molecules to mankind evolution, but rather they create 

monstrosities, and the occurrence of these, under disturbing influences, are…only additional evidence of the fixity of species. The extreme deviations obtained in domesticity are secured…at the expense of the typical characters and end usually in the production of sterile individuals. All such facts seem to show that the so-called varieties or breeds, far from indicating the beginning of new types, or the initiating of incipient species, only point out the range of flexibility in types which in their essence are invariable.17

Darwin sent Agassiz a copy of his now-famous Origin of Species published in 1859. Although very “familiar with the factual evidence advanced by Darwin,” Agassiz carefully examined his ideas and the evidence on which they were based. As Agassiz studied the Origin, “mounting annoyance” resulted as he continued to read because he recognized that the “ideas it contained were plainly no different from the notions…he had long since rejected.”18

Two years after Origin was published, Agassiz wrote that Darwin’s theory was scientifically wrong and was “propounded by some very learned but…rather fanciful scientific men” who taught that the forms of life presently inhabiting our earth “had grown out of a comparative simple and small beginning.”19Agassiz concluded that a great variety of evidence discovered in times past has refuted evolutionary theory. He considered this fact based on his paleontological research “a most powerful blow at that theory which would make us believe that all the animals have been derived from a few original beings, which have become diversified and varied in [the] course of time.”20

The man whom Professor Vander Weyde called an “eminent savant”21 excelled in several science fields. Agassiz also correctly recognized that in his writings on evolution “Darwin had departed from the methods of scientific inquiry so well exemplified in his earlier studies.” Furthermore, his famous 1859 Origin of Species book “had contributed nothing new to the understanding of nature.”22 Bolton Davidheiser added:

Louis Agassiz not only did not accept Charles Darwin’s theory of evolution, he actively opposed it. He attacked it at a vital point, namely, its inability to show evidence of the transformation of one kind of living or fossil animal or plant into another. This is still a basic problem.23

A main reason he rejected evolution was based on paleontology, the area of Agassiz’s expertise. Agassiz knew that the fossil record did not support Darwin’s theory and strongly argued against it. He also concluded, in contrast to Darwinism, that “the crowning act of the Creator, man, was placed on the earth at the head of creation.”

 So now let’s have a look at the plight of Bible-believing politicians in the enlightened, free world, in the 21st century.

Rick Nicholls-MPP:  



Deputy Premier Deb Matthews waved the War on Science issue of National Geographic magazine and advised the Progressive Conservatives that they had made the cover. (ANTONELLA ARTUSO/Toronto Sun)
Deputy Premier Deb Matthews waved the War on Science issue of National Geographic magazine and advised the Progressive Conservatives that they had made the cover. (ANTONELLA ARTUSO/Toronto Sun)

TORONTO – Speaker Dave Levac ordered the removal of National Geographic’s “War on Science” issue from the legislature Thursday after Ontario Liberal cabinet ministers began using it as a prop to spotlight Tory MPP Rick Nicholls who does not believe in evolution.

Deputy Premier Deb Matthews waved the magazine — which takes on those who doubt evolution, vaccination, climate change, genetically modified food and the moon landing — and advised the Progressive Conservatives that they had made the cover.

Opposition leaders reacted strongly to the magazine stunt with NDP Leader Andrea Horwath accusing the Liberals of using numerous diversion tactics to take public attention away from ongoing OPP investigations into the Sudbury byelection bribery scandal.

“It was very disrespectful what Premier (Kathleen) Wynne and her gang of cabinet ministers are trying to do,” Horwath said. “To use people who are passionate about issues as a deflection from a bribery scandal is disgusting … whether it’s issues of homophobia, whether it’s issues of missing and dead Aboriginal women, whether it’s the evolution issue.”

PC Interim Leader Jim Wilson said he personally believes in evolution, and the party policy is to teach it in schools, but the Liberals were out of line mocking Nicholls.

“What we saw in Mr. Nicholls’ case is an expression of his personal religious view — it’s held by other people in Canada and around the world,” Wilson said. “It doesn’t reflect the policy of the party at all but it is a religious view. It should be respected. And the Liberals are acting as hypocrites today.”

Community Safety Minister Yasir Naqvi said the magazine was brought in to draw attention to the fact that several PCs have an issue with what is taught in public schools, especially the proposed revamp of the sex education curriculum

“That’s a serious issue,” Naqvi said. “We want to make sure that … education in our schools (is) based on science and evidence.”

Tory Education Critic Garfield Dunlop said he has had a look at the sex education curriculum and doesn’t think it’s that bad.

The party’s position should not be confused with the views of a few PC MPPs, he said.

“My worry is you don’t want to become the party of the guys playing banjos on a bridge,” Dunlop said.​​

Nicholls made a comment in the Ontario legislature earlier this week that perhaps evolution should not be taught in schools.

At the time, Education Minister Liz Sandals was facetiously asking PC leadership candidate Monte McNaughton if he would want to stop teaching evolution, since he has a problem with the new sex education curriculum.

STOCKWELL DAY:   Conservative cabinet minister

Stockwell Day is upset that he is being quizzed on his support for creationism. The Canadian Alliance Leader resents the probing of his conviction that the Biblical account of how life originated on this planet is a scientifically supported theory capable of being taught alongside evolution. He says the inquiries are intrusive and irrelevant to the election campaign.

Mr. Day is right that a person’s religious beliefs are a private matter. The Charter of Rights guarantees what we in Canada are fortunate to be able to take for granted: the freedom of conscience and religion and, for that matter, lack of religion.

Where Mr. Day errs is in arguing that his private commitment is none of the public’s business. He has made it the public’s business by running for prime minister and proposing policies that may be coloured by his instincts and convictions. To take an obvious example, the duty he owes to God compels him not to work on Sunday. That conviction will be tested when, if he becomes prime minister, his duty to the country obliges him to respond to national or world events on his Sabbath.

Take another example. Although education is a provincial responsibility, he has pledged that any federal government he headed would give taxpayers’ money to parents who want to send their children to private religious schools. And what do many religious schools offer that the secular public system doesn’t? As the assistant pastor and administrator of Bentley Christian School in Alberta between 1978 and 1985, Mr. Day knows one answer: a curriculum with a far different view of how much credence children should give to the scientific theories of evolution and the story of creation in Genesis. He made clear his own feelings on the matter this week when he said, “There is scientific support for both creationism and evolution.”

It is important to emphasize that faith and science are not enemies. They are merely separate spheres. It is entirely possible to have faith that God created the building blocks of the universe, among them the relationship of matter and energy, and at the same time to appreciate with an open mind the scientific evidence of how those blocks have interacted and the course of natural history that has followed. The big-bang theory, the fossil records that support or contradict Darwin’s theories of evolution — all can be read as evidence of the natural unfolding of a divine plan.

Where faith and science become incompatible is in the rigid refusal to accept the signposts of science where they conflict with articles of faith. In a documentary aired Tuesday on CBC-TV’s The National,the head of natural science at Red Deer College in 1997 said he heard Mr. Day tell a crowd that the world is only several thousand years old and that men walked with dinosaurs. While that may be consistent with the literal word of Genesis, it is inconsistent with the evidence uncovered by geologists and others, and subjected to tests and challenges, that Earth is billions of years old and that, The Flintstones notwithstanding, dinosaurs died off tens of millions of years before humans first appeared.

Mr. Day says the documentary denied him a chance to reply. He has that chance in the public arena between now and Nov. 27. Does his faith so preclude an acknowledgment of scientific discoveries and scrupulous tests that nothing could convince him that humans and dinosaurs weren’t neighbours? Or does that interpretation do him a gross disservice?

If the former, his strong views on what is and isn’t good science may affect how he arranges the expanded funding for basic science that his party promises once in power. It is Mr. Day’s choice how to address such concerns, but he can’t write them off as irrelevant.

GARY GOODYEAR:  Federal Science Minister: 

Federal Science Minister Gary Goodyear:   moved to cut short a brewing controversy Tuesday over his views on evolution.

Goodyear raised eyebrows when he refused to tell the Globe and Mail if he believed in the science of evolution. But the minister of state for science and technology clarified Tuesday that he does indeed believe in it.

“We’re evolving all the time,” Goodyear said in an interview. “Of course I believe in evolution.”

Goodyear said he initially refused to answer the newspaper’s question because it was “irrelevant,” since his beliefs have nothing to do with government policy.

Goodyear has been under fire lately over budget cuts that have left researchers across the country scrambling to find the money to continue their experiments.

The Globe and Mail had reported that some scientists suspect Goodyear is hostile toward science, “perhaps because he is a creationist.”

But Goodyear, a self-described Christian, said religious beliefs — his or anyone else’s in government — have no bearing on federal science policy.

“Our decisions on the science and tech file are not based on what one reporter wants to have people believe, which is that religion somehow forms a part of our policy,” he said.

He said science policy is developed by “a multitude of people,” in consultation with scientific advisory bodies, research granting councils and other stakeholders.

Far from being hostile, Goodyear argued that the government of Prime Minister Stephen Harper has increased funding for science in every budget, including committing $5.1 billion over three years in the most recent budget.

A spokesman for Harper also stressed that religious beliefs have no bearing federal science strategy.

Kory Teneycke defended Goodyear’s refusal to answer the initial Globe and Mail question, arguing that agreeing to discuss his beliefs would have given credence to the idea that religion plays a role in science policy.

“It’s a dangerous road to go down to make religious beliefs a part of science funding,” Teneycke said.

“Once you start going down that road, you really are opening Pandora’s box.”

Critic questions Goodyear’s initial silence

Still, NDP science critic Jim Maloway questioned why Goodyear didn’t just answer the question in the first place, and wondered if he was ordered by the Prime Minister’s Office to snuff out any controversy by belatedly proclaiming a belief in evolution.

“I guess you have to take his word for it, but I would be suspicious that the management wouldn’t be all over this,” Maloway said.

Creationist beliefs have caused trouble for the Conservatives and their predecessor parties in the past. In the 2000 election, Stockwell Day, then leader of the Canadian Alliance, was ridiculed for suggesting the Earth was 6,000 years old and that humans once shared the planet with dinosaurs.

During a TV panel, Liberal strategist Warren Kinsella held up a stuffed purple dinosaur and reminded Day that, “The Flintstones was not a documentary.”

Kinsella, who will head up the election war room for current Liberal Leader Michael Ignatieff, used his blog Tuesday to draw parallels between Day and Goodyear. Borrowing from The Flintstones theme song, he referred to Harper’s “modern stone-age government” and called Tories “kooks right out of history.”

However, the Liberals’ official science critic was kinder to Goodyear. While he criticized funding cuts to research granting councils and the government’s fixation on commercializing research, Marc Garneau said there doesn’t seem to be any religious motivation to the decisions.

“With respect to science policy, I can not honestly say I’ve seen a direct link — so far,” said Garneau, a former astronaut and onetime head of the Canadian Space Agency.