The compound his heavily guarded with all of the latest in security technology. But thanks to our operatives, we are much more informed about what could possibly be going on inside those walls.
Gould and Wise also seem to concur on another related point: that the haphazard evolutionary path that eventually led to Homo sapiens is unlike what an would plan. Would God use such a scattershot approach, full of dead ends and lengthy historical detours, to bring forth the crowning glory of his creation? We would prefer to see a smoother path of development. As a software developer, I certainly would!
Not everyone agreed that these charges were accurate. Whatever their validity, though, they had clear political utility. The governors (and some committee members) leaped at the chance to gut the disaggregation and testing requirements of the bill. And Bush’s negotiators seemed surprisingly sympathetic. After cutting out Jeffords for months, “suddenly Kress was backing up Jeffords’s staff.” The new language required at least a 1 percent improvement in test scores each year per group. However, progress would be judged over a three-year period and the scores of the lowest achieving students would be weighted more heavily, giving schools credit for closing the achievement gap.
I have traveled the length and breadth of Alabama, Mississippi and all the othersouthernstates. On sweltering summer days and crisp autumn mornings I have looked at the South'sbeautifulchurches with their lofty spires pointing heavenward. I have beheld the impressiveoutlines of hermassive religious education buildings. Over and over I have found myself asking: "Whatkind of peopleworship here? Who is their God? Where were their voices when the lips of Governor Barnettdrippedwith words of interposition and nullification? Where were they when Governor Wallace gavea clarioncall for defiance and hatred? Where were their voices of support when bruised and wearyNegro menand women decided to rise from the dark dungeons of complacency to the bright hills ofcreativeprotest?"
I wish you had commended the Negro sit inners and demonstrators of Birmingham for theirsublime courage, their willingness to suffer and their amazing discipline in the midst ofgreatprovocation. One day the South will recognize its real heroes. They will be the JamesMerediths, withthe noble sense of purpose that enables them to face jeering and hostile mobs, and withtheagonizing loneliness that characterizes the life of the pioneer. They will be old,oppressed, batteredNegro women, symbolized in a seventy two year old woman in Montgomery, Alabama, who roseupwith a sense of dignity and with her people decided not to ride segregated buses, and whorespondedwith ungrammatical profundity to one who inquired about her weariness: "My feets is tired,but mysoul is at rest." They will be the young high school and college students, the youngministers of thegospel and a host of their elders, courageously and nonviolently sitting in at lunchcounters andwillingly going to jail for conscience' sake. One day the South will know that when thesedisinheritedchildren of God sat down at lunch counters, they were in reality standing up for what isbest in theAmerican dream and for the most sacred values in our Judaeo Christian heritage, therebybringing ournation back to those great wells of democracy which were dug deep by the founding fathersin theirformulation of the Constitution and the Declaration of Independence.
I have investigated the assertions and theories of young-earth creationists. A disturbing thing about these claims is that a great many of them include poorly researched statements, or misquotes of mainstream or evolutionist sources that distort the original author's meaning. Christians must be above reproach when rightly handling the word of truth. It is bearing false witness to misrepresent another person's position, or to attack an obsolete or contrived version of a theory. It is bearing false witness to misquote someone so that it distorts the meaning of the original source. It is bearing false witness to ignore observations that don't fit the original hypothesis. It does not matter what is the cause being served. A point made with false information is not a point at all. In a trial witnesses are sworn in with the words, "Do you promise to tell the truth, the whole truth, and nothing but the truth?" Scholarship, science, and Christians witness demand no less than legal proceedings. The Truth of the Bible does not need falsehoods to defend it.
Since I am a Christian and Charles Darwin was an agnostic, the most exalted object I can conceive of is Jesus Christ risen from the dead and glorified at the right hand of the Father. Nevertheless, Darwin evokes a theme here that is Biblical: God can produce good things out of what mankind considers bad. Joseph states this theme in Genesis 50:20 "As far as I am concerned, God turned into good what you meant for evil, for He brought me to this high position I have today so that I could save the lives of many people." St. Peter repeats it in Acts 2: 22-24 "O men of Israel, listen! God publicly endorsed Jesus of Nazareth by doing tremendous miracles through Him, as you well know. But God, following His prearranged plan, let you use the Roman government to nail Him to the cross and murder Him. Then God released Him from the horrors of death and brought Him back to life again, for death could not keep this man within its grip."
What would a world without Sin look like today? People would cooperate, share, and worship together. There would be no war or murder, hatred or violence. Lions would still hunt and kill zebras, but neither would be shot by poachers or poisoned by industrial waste. There would be some natural disasters such as storms, volcanoes, and earthquakes. Probably a few people would be hurt or would die in these calamities. But the numbers of victims would be much lower than they are now, because people would be free to live in safer places, they would warn others, they would take heed of the warnings and get out of the way, and they would care for displaced people as Jesus Himself would. God would be glorified as all people gave selflessly to help others in His name. Mankind would not fear the sting of physical death (1 Corinthians 15:54-56). Physical death would be viewed by all as a transition into eternal life with God (Acts 7:55-56). That world would not be heaven. But I would be willing to call that world without Sin "very good", because I believe God Himself did so in Genesis 1.
I believe that the phrase "very good" in Genesis 1:31 means "without Sin." Any other judgment beyond that needs Scripture to back it up. Without the clear word of Scripture, any judgment of what is "very good" and what is not is just human opinion.
Many creationists portray their positions as a choice between believing the Word of God, and believing the theories of fallible humans who are interpreting what they observe about the earth. They are leaving out the fact that it is also fallible humans who are interpreting God's Word in the Bible. There are two layers of interpretation here (of the Bible and of the earth), not just one.
I believe that this argument is a human-centered viewpoint that undermines the authority of the Bible. The Bible is full of examples where human judgment was dead wrong about what God considers to be "very good." The prophet Samuel wanted to anoint Jesse's eldest son Eliab as King of Israel, but God instructed him to anoint the youngest son, David, instead (1 Samuel 16:1-13). St. Peter had to be directed three times in a vision to share the Gospel with Gentiles when he thought they were unclean (Acts 10:1-29).