Clouds Without Rain

By Justin Peters

The Word-Faith Movement (W-F), more commonly known as the Health and Wealth, Name It and Claim It, or Prosperity Gospel, dominates what we see today on Christian cable and satellite television. Networks such as TBN, Daystar, The Word Network, It’s Supernatural Network, etc., regularly promote this theology which holds that it is always God’s will for a Christian to be financially wealthy and physically healed. You can be rich, and you never need to be sick as long as you speak the right “positive confessions,” exercise your faith and, of course, sow a seed (translated: send money) into a particular ministry so you can reap a harvest. Some of the more prominent leaders of this movement include Benny Hinn, Kenneth Copeland, Jesse Duplantis, Creflo Dollar, Joseph Prince, Joel Osteen, Joyce Meyer, and Bill Johnson.

The prosperity gospel appeals to two of the most basic and universal of all human desires; to be wealthy and physically healed. The message is that if you become a Christian, then your money and health worries are over. There are about 7 billion people on the planet who desperately want those things. But is that the real Gospel? The answer, of course, is no.

The prosperity gospel promises people a life of luxury. The true Gospel calls people to a life of sacrifice. The prosperity gospel calls for self-indulgence. The true Gospel calls for self-denial. The prosperity gospel promises alleviation from trials. The true Gospel promises God’s sufficient grace in the midst of trials. The prosperity gospel promises a life of ease. The true Gospel promises a life marked by persecution for the glory of God.

The Word-Faith movement is now the face of Christianity around the world. We in the United States have created this false gospel and have exported it to nearly every nation on the planet. As bad as this movement is here, it is far worse in countries in Central and South America, Asia and especially Africa. The poor, the sick, the desperate, and the widows are being exploited. Worse than that, though, the Gospel of Jesus Christ is being distorted.

One of the things that make false teachers so appealing to people and so dangerous at the same time is that not everything that they teach is false. Some of it is right. But there is enough error and heresy mixed in with it to corrupt the entire thing. Remember that the Bible describes false teachers as wolves in sheep’s clothing (Matthew 7:15) and that Satan “disguises himself as an angel of light” (2 Corinthians 11:14).

I am so honored with the invitation to speak at the 2020 Answers for Women Conference at the Ark Encounter, organized by Georgia Purdom. In my presentation, I will provide an overview of the Word-Faith Movement and will have video clips from some of today’s most popular preachers so that you can see and hear for yourself what they are actually teaching. We will then correct each point of error by scripture.

Some would say that calling out false teachers is not something we should do or is negative in nature. It is noteworthy, however, that 26 of the 27 books in the New Testament directly warn about false teaching and/or false teachers (only Philemon does not). The Apostles warned about false teachers and even called them out by name. So did Jesus Himself. So, it is a task that we must undertake, for it is a mandate from Scripture. It is not, however, a task to be taken lightly. We should not call someone a false teacher for minor theological differences. The error in the Word-Faith movement is not minor as we shall see.

Some would say that pointing out error is not a loving thing to do. But the most loving thing we can do for someone is to tell her the truth. It is the truth that sets people free from spiritual bondage and deception. It is my prayer that our time together will be one of both teaching sound doctrine and refuting those who contradict per Titus 1:9and of equipping the saints to “speak the truth in love” per Ephesians 4:15.

Read More

Bill Nye: Teach What Is Observable Fact But Call It Unobservable Evolution

Georgia Purdom by Georgia Purdom

Bill Nye has a knack for entangling observational science with historical science, and his recent Big Think episode “Bill Nye Talks to Dogs and Explores the Lessons of Canine Evolution” is no exception. Nye makes the “startling” statement that all dogs are dogs and then goes on to point out two lessons that can be learned from this fact. First he states that all dogs descended from wolves (or possibly an ancestor to wolves). He then discusses an experiment in which foxes were selected for behaviors that were more dog-like (e.g., friendliness), and in three generations the foxes were much more like dogs. He believes that modern dogs are the result of human-wolf interactions in the past. Then he concludes by saying, “It’s really quite an insight and it’s a result of evolution.”


“Bill Nye Talks to Dogs and Explores the Lessons of Canine Evolution”—Image from
http://bigthink.com/videos/bill-nye-on-the-evolution-of-dogs
Newsflash, Bill—this isn’t evolution! In fact, the study with the foxes showed just the opposite. Significant changes can occur in organisms in just a few short years; it doesn’t take eons of time, and those changes don’t result in a change of kind—dogs remain dogs. I’m sure if you asked Nye to define evolution, he would probably give the typical molecules-to-man scenario in which all living things descended from a common ancestor. However, what he described about dogs is speciation and adaptation, not evolution. After all, he said all dogs are dogs! Nye would likely argue that given millions and billions of years, the small changes we observe with speciation (i.e., different species and breeds of dogs) result in the large changes (which we don’t observe) that result in one kind of animal changing into another (i.e., non-dogs to dogs). However, as I have said many times before, time is not the key. The key is a genetic mechanism that can result in the gain of new genetic information leading one kind of animal to evolve into a different kind. I will give Bill all the time he wants, but evolution won’t occur without a mechanism to gain this type of genetic information. All dogs are dogs—always have been and always will be. Observational science confirms the historical science based on God’s Word.

The second lesson that can be learned from dogs according to Bill Nye has to do with reproduction. He gives the example of two domestic dogs of different breeds “interacting” (by this he means sexual interaction) and says, “all you get is a dog. You don’t get any new thing, new species, you just get a dog.” Not terribly earth-shattering, Bill, and once again has absolutely nothing to do with evolution! Although the title of Nye’s new book is Undeniable, referring to evolution, what is really undeniable is speciation and an affirmation of the biblical account of creation. God created all animals according to their kind, and they reproduce according to their kind (Genesis 1). This is exactly what we observe with dogs, as he so deftly points out.

Nye then applies the example of dog “evolution” to humans. He states that when two people of different ethnic backgrounds, like a person from Papua New Guinea and a person from Sweden, produce offspring, “all you get is a human. There’s no new thing you’re going to get. You just get a human.” He concludes his video saying, “So this is a lesson to be learned. There really is, for humankind there’s really no such thing as race. There’s [sic] different tribes but not different races. We’re all one species.” For once, I completely agree with Bill Nye!

According to Genesis, God created two human beings, Adam and Eve, and told them to be fruitful and multiply and fill the earth (Genesis 1:28). Adam called his wife’s name Eve because she was the mother of all the living (Genesis 3:20), and according to Acts 17:26, God “made from one blood every nation of men to dwell on all the face of the earth.” It’s clear from Scripture that all humans are one race descended from Adam and Eve, and genetics, including the Human Genome Project, has confirmed the biblical truth that all humans are one race (although there are different people groups that resulted from people migrating to different locations after the Tower of Babel event).

I couldn’t help thinking after I listened to the video that, with a few exceptions, if I hadn’t known who was speaking in the video, I might have thought it was a video produced by Answers in Genesis! Honestly, if Bill Nye wants more people to believe in evolution, then he needs to present data that actually supports it. The problem is, as this video showed, there isn’t any.

Keep fighting the good fight of the faith!

Read More

Christianity + Submissive Wives = Domestic Violence?

http://blogs.answersingenesis.org/blogs/georgia-purdom/2014/09/11/christianity-submissive-wives-domestic-violence-2/?

Dra. Georgia Purdom

Although this equation might seem strange to most of my readers, it was an equation being promoted in an article in the Washington Post titled “Five Christian Theologies Scarier than Halloween.” The author, Susan Brooks Thistlewaite, professor of theology and former president of Chicago Theological Seminary, stated the following:

Theologies that emphasize a hierarchy in creation, i.e. that women were created second and Eve is to blame for the sin that got Adam and Eve kicked out of the Garden of Eden, are scary to me because they are literally responsible for a lot of violence against women.

“Submission” is a scary theology that justifies abuse in the name of Christian obedience by women.

Wow, where to start!? First of all, we know from Genesis that Adam was created first from the dust of the ground, and Eve was created second from Adam’s rib (Genesis 2:7, 21–22). This in no way implies that Eve was inferior to Adam because she was created second. Genesis 1:26–27 is clear that both man and woman were created in God’s image and they both have equal value and thus equal standing before God (Galatians 3:28). Instead, the created order relates to a difference in roles. We know this from Genesis 2, and it is confirmed in other Scriptures (e.g., Ephesians 5:25–33) that the husband is to be the leader and the wife the helper. Likewise, members of the Trinity are all equally God but have different roles, including submission of the Son to the Father (Philippians 2:5–8). For a more in-depth look at the topic of Genesis and submission, I encourage you to read my article, “Genesis, Wifely Submission and Modern Wives.”

While it is popular for people to say things like, “We wouldn’t be in this mess [referring to the cursed world] if weren’t for a woman [referring to Eve],” it is biblically incorrect. Multiple passages including1 Corinthians 15:22 and Romans 5:12 make it clear that Adam’s sin is to blame for the suffering and death in this world. While Eve did disobey God, Adam as the leader of his family, the federal head of creation, and mankind’s representative is the one held accountable for the entrance of sin and death into this world.

The result of living in a sin-cursed world is that sometimes husbands abuse their role as leaders and commit violence against their wives. But that is certainly not the type of leadership that Paul calls husbands to in Ephesians 5:25, where he wrote, “Husbands, love your wives, just as Christ also loved the church and gave Himself for her.” God wants a husband to love his wife sacrificially, even to the point of giving his life in exchange for hers. Domestic violence is not the outcome of the biblically described leader husband and submissive wife, but rather a sinful distortion of the leader role within a marital relationship.

This Washington Post article was a great reminder to me of why it is so important for women (and men) to know what the Bible says—and does not say—and be equipped to defend the Bible’s truth. The theme for next year’s Answers for Women conference is Embrace: Compassionate Answers in a Fallen World. What do you say when a friend confesses to adultery? When your sister tells you she’s a lesbian? When a niece aborts her unborn child? When a coworker’s baby is born with a debilitating disability? We certainly live in a fallen world, and we all know someone who has experienced the effects of this sin-cursed world . . . someone who is hurting.

At the 2015 Answers for Women conference, we’ll hear from women who have walked these paths themselves and have found the help they need comes only through the Jesus Christ and His Word. Join us as they share compassionate answers from God’s Word that give us practical ways we can embrace those who are hurting. The solid biblical teaching will nourish your mind and heart and equip you to be a loving witness for Jesus Christ.

We have several returning speakers, including Joy Fagan and Stacia McKeever, and several new speakers, including speaker and author Rosaria Butterfield, Camille Cates, and Rose Colón. These women are passionate about equipping and encouraging women in the truth of God’s Word. I will also be giving a presentation about answering life’s toughest questions about God and suffering. Check out the Answers for Women website for all the conference topics.

Registration is now open! As in past years, attendees and their spouses and children (under 18) will have free admission to the Creation Museum. Make the conference a trip for the entire family!

Husbands, Christmas is coming and I know shopping is not always fun, so let me make it easy for you. Buy your wife registration for the 2015 Answers for Women conference. She will be blessed, and so will your family.

Keep fighting the good fight of the faith!

Read More

"Junk" DNA: A Product of "Junk" Science

Read More

The Code of Life DNA, Information, & Mutation, Part 1, Dr. Georgia Purdom

Read More

Georgia Purdom and the Bill Nye (the Science Guy) debate

Bill Nye, Texas, Al Jazeera, and Me

Posted: 11 Sep 2013 06:00 AM PDT


I’m sure you’re wondering what this seeming array of mismatched terms has to do with each other! A couple weeks ago they all came together in a forum on the creation-evolution debate in Texas that aired on Al Jazeera America. Bill Nye the Science Guy and Kathy Miller from the Texas Freedom Foundation represented the evolution side, and Don McLeroy, former chairman of the Texas State Board of Education, and I represented the creation side. The topic to discuss was the possible inclusion in Texas textbooks of criticisms of evolution. Since Texas is one of the largest buyers of textbooks in the nation, their decisions impact textbooks offered by publishers for many other states as well.

The hosts of the show The Stream were very gracious and fair. It’s not easy to keep four people on topic on such a heated issue. In fact, McLeroy informed me that according to his timing of the dialog, the creationists got 30 more seconds than the evolutionists! Overall I thought the conversation went well, and I was able to get most of the points in that I wanted to make. I thought I would highlight just a few things here that I thought were especially interesting and relevant (sorry, but the show was not archived on the Internet).

From the beginning of the show Nye focused on the issue of the age of the earth, making the claim that radiometric dating proves the earth is 4.5 billion years old. At the end of his explanation he said that the earth is not flat and not 10,000 years old. I agree! This was an obvious insult comparing a belief in a young earth to a belief in a flat earth. I also made sure to correct him later in the show explaining that the earth is not 10,000 years old but only 6,000 years old. When I responded to his claims, I talked about the difference between observational and historical science and how radiometric dating was based on certain assumptions about the past that are unknowable. I used the example of rocks that were formed as a result of the Mt. St. Helens explosion just a little over 30 years ago, yet radiometric dating dates those rocks as millions of years old. Nye never dealt with my argument concerning the problems with radiometric dating. The evidence is clear (Romans 1:20) yet he chooses to suppress the truth (Romans 1:18).

Nye also focused on how “fundamental” evolution is. He said that you don’t need foremost experts to understand that evolution is true (according to him it’s elementary school level at the highest) and then compared it to Newton’s Laws and green plants, inferring that it is a fact. Nye admitted that there might be things that evolutionists don’t understand (regarding the history of life and the universe) but he said it doesn’t require a designer to fill in those gaps. I explained to Nye that creationists don’t use God to fill in the gaps because there are no gaps. Instead, the real issue is the interpretation of the evidence as it pertains to the past in light of our worldviews. I talked about the fossils and how most were the result of Noah’s Flood (his eyes got really big on that statement!) and that observational science confirms and is consistent with a biblical worldview.

In what would be my closing remarks, I said that I agreed with an earlier comment made by Miller about teachers having limited time in the classroom in regards to the amount of science that needed to be taught. I suggested that we focus our attention on good observational science and leave historical science out of it. This brought Miller’s stern disapproval saying that it was not okay for me to use her words to deny science. But I didn’t—I’m all for science; I’m a scientist. I’m just agreeing with another statement she made that we shouldn’t undermine the education of students by promoting any philosophical or religious belief. If that’s the case then neither creation nor evolution should be taught in the public schools!

Nye also responded to me trying to discredit the definition of historical science by saying that he believed in the Civil War, Newton, and Galileo even though he wasn’t there to observe them. I didn’t get to respond because we were out of time. Here’s what I would have said: “How do you know about the Civil War, Newton, and Galileo? You depend on eyewitness accounts of the people themselves or people who witnessed the events to help you know the truth about the past. So why not do the same when it comes to earth’s history and believe in the eyewitness account of the Creator God written for us in Scripture? In the scheme of billions of years of the earth’s and universe’s history, there were no modern humans on the scene until a couple hundred thousand years ago. You need to realize that everything you think about most of this history is based on nothing more than unverifiable assumptions and imagination and not eyewitness accounts.”

It was an interesting discussion, as you can see, and I consider it a privilege to have been included. I pray that God uses the truth that was spoken to weigh heavy on the minds and hearts of Bill, Kathy, and others that were watching. I pray that they will know the truth so they can be set free (John 8:32).

Keep fighting the good fight of the faith!

Read More

“What a Parent of a Child with Disabilities Can Really Handle”

Georgia Purdom:

This was the title of a blog post by my good friend and colleague at Answers in Genesis, Stacia. I’ve shared her insightful blog posts several times in the past on my blog. Stacia’s son Kieran has Williams Syndrome. I wanted to share this post because of a conversation I had with a woman at the Answers for Women conference a few weeks ago.

She shared with me the story of her two disabled children. Her little girl is four years old and will require a feeding tube soon. Although this woman had a lot to be heartbroken about, I could see that she had learned to depend on God’s grace and strength to carry her through these very difficult times. It would be easy for me to think of this woman and my friend Stacia as “super women” for being able to bear their burdens. But I have no doubt that both women would shun that title and freely admit it is not by their own strength or abilities that they are able to do what they do but God’s.

Stacia writes the following:

There’s a meme that floats around on social media every once in awhile that goes like this, “God won’t give you more than you can handle!” And then there’s the meme about this meme that says, “I know God won’t give me anything I can’t handle; I just wish He didn’t trust me so much!”

And everyone chuckles.

People also say this to those going through rough times (for example, to parents of children with disabilities), in an attempt to encourage them.

It sounds good, doesn’t it? It has “God” in it and that pull-yourself-up-by-your-bootstraps mentality that we Americans love and embrace.

But here’s the thing about that bootstraps phrase: it’s a lie.

Really. Get out your Bible and look for that ideology in it. Go ahead, I’ll wait.

Didn’t find it? That’s because it isn’t there.

In fact, this phrase presents a view of God that is completely contrary to the God of the Bible. It portrays God as a distant, laissez-faire deity who gleefully dumps problems on humanity and then steps back to watch them groan under the weight of their burdens, twiddling His fingers and offering the occasional “Atta boy!” when we do something right.

But that isn’t the God that we learn about in the Bible. That God is sovereign and gives to everyone what He deems best, but in giving He also provides the strength and grace we need (Philippians 4:19). He is the stronghold we run to in affliction. And He doesn’t forsake His people.

But the Lord sits enthroned forever;

he has established his throne for justice,

and he judges the world with righteousness;

he judges the peoples with uprightness.

The Lord is a stronghold for the oppressed,

a stronghold in times of trouble.

And those who know your name put their trust in you,

for you, O Lord, have not forsaken those who seek you. (Psalm 9:7-10, ESV)

The Creator of the universe is close to the brokenhearted and He is the one who saves those who are crushed in spirit (Psalm 34:18).

He is our refuge and strength and His are the arms that we lean on (Deuteronomy 33:27).

Not only does this phrase present a false view of God, it also gives a false view of humanity. It says that they’re all alone in this. That the trial they find unbearable really isn’t so bad–it’s just their imagination. That they have the ability and strength on their own to buckle down and make it work, no matter what.

Far from being encouraging, however, the “you can do it, just grit your teeth and barrel through!” mentality is like salt in a wound to those who know better — to those living out amazingly difficult lives.

When my friend lost her daughter several years ago in a car accident, she couldn’t handle it.

When a mother finds out her unborn baby has multiple disabilities, she has her baby killed because she can’t handle it.

When the father of a severely disabled child looks out at the unending days of caring for his child who can’t do anything by himself, he leaves his family because he can’t handle it.

When parents are told, “There’s something wrong with your child . . . ” they begin to lose their faith in God because they can’t handle it.

And on a more personal note . . .

When Kieran was a baby and not eating well and not gaining weight and not sleeping and crying for hours on end and in the hospital more times that I can count, I couldn’t handle it. Really. I remember telling Seth, “I don’t think I can do this much longer.”

When he was diagnosed with WS and we were forced to face a now-uncertain future filled with even more hospital visits, learning difficulties, potential bullies, and who-knew-what-else, I couldn’t handle it.

When I’m again encouraging him to eat or telling him to put on his shoes for the fifth time because he’s gotten caught up in five different things since the initial telling, I don’t have the patience. I can’t handle it.

And just when I think I can handle life, I’m gently (and sometimes not-so-gently) reminded that I simply can’t. That I’m weak and in desperate need of the wisdom of God, the peace of Jesus, and the filling of the Holy Spirit who works to produce His fruits in my life.

And I’m so thankful for passages that remind me that I don’t need to handle it alone:

“Let us then approach God’s throne of grace with confidence, so that we may receive mercy and find grace to help us in our time of need.” (Hebrews 4:16)

And

But now, this is what the Lord says—

he who created you, Jacob,

he who formed you, Israel:

“Do not fear, for I have redeemed you;

I have summoned you by name; you are mine.

When you pass through the waters,

I will be with you;

and when you pass through the rivers,

they will not sweep over you.

When you walk through the fire,

you will not be burned;

the flames will not set you ablaze.

For I am the Lord your God,

the Holy One of Israel, your Savior. (Isaiah 43:1–3)

And

This I recall to my mind, therefore I have hope. Through the Lord’s mercies we are not consumed, because His compassions fail not. They are new every morning; Great is Your faithfulness. “The Lord is my portion,” says my soul, “Therefore I hope in Him!” The Lord is good to those who wait for Him, to the soul who seeks Him. It is good that one should hope and wait quietly for the salvation of the Lord.(Lamentations 3:21–26)

And

Blessed be the God and Father of our Lord Jesus Christ, the Father of mercies and God of all comfort, who comforts us in all our tribulation, that we may be able to comfort those who are in any trouble, with the comfort with which we ourselves are comforted by God. (2 Corinthians 1:3–4)

I appreciate the way Greg, the father of a severely disabled child, has said it:

My experience is that God will place a burden on you so heavy that you cannot possibly carry it alone. He will break your back and your will. He will buckle your legs until you fall flat beneath the crushing weight of your load. All the while He will walk beside you waiting for you to come to the point where you must depend on Him. “‘My power is made perfect in your weakness,’ He says, as we strain under our burden. Whatever the burden, it might indeed get worse, but I know this—God is faithful. And while we change and get old, he does not. When we get weaker, He remains strong. And in our weakness and humility, He offers us true, lasting transformation, and undeserved grace.” Wrestling with an Angel, p. 14

And if we could handle life on our own, who would get the glory? And who deserves the glory?

The hope of a parent of a child with disabilities — or the hope of anyone — isn’t in themselves and what they can handle. It’s only found in Jesus, the lover of souls and Savior of mankind. The perfect Son of God who loved us enough to step into history, feel what it’s like to be human, minister to the disabled and needy, die a painful death, and then rise from the dead three days later. In His amazing love, He offers eternal life to all those who believe and seals us with His Holy Spirit who gives us strength and wisdom and peace and patience–the very things any parent with a special needs child craves. And works all things for His glory and our good.

Jesus said, “Come to me, all you who are weary and burdened, and I will give you rest. Take my yoke upon you and learn from me, for I am gentle and humble in heart, and you will find rest for your souls. For my yoke is easy and my burden is light.”(Matthew 11:28-30)

So the next time you’re tempted to share that meme on Facebook or offer that platitude to a friend going through a rough patch, can I ask that you please refrain? Instead, offer to sit with them while they cry. Offer to listen to the desperations of their heart. Offer to pray with them and for them. Share a meal with them. Offer to stay with their children while they go out to dinner. Offer to help with therapy visits. But don’t give them a false god and an empty hope. Instead, point them to Jesus who bears our burdens and is the close and personal lover of our souls.

As I read this I wondered how many times I’ve thought or said, “God won’t give you more than you can handle.” But I know from my own experience that God does give us more than we can handle on our own! He gives us more than we can bear because He wants us to be totally dependent on Him and not on ourselves. I think many times God makes the situation so impossible, so unbearable that only through His grace, mercy, and power can we have victory. Gideon found that out when God reduced his army to 300 men (Judges 7)! May we, in whatever our unbearable situation is, “come boldly to the throne of grace, that we may obtain mercy and find grace to help in time of need” (Hebrews 4:16), and may we do it to glorify God.

Keep fighting the good fight of the faith!

Read More

The Sad Story of a Life Without God

Georgia Purdom


Over the Christmas break as I was waiting on my daughter to choose some books from our local library, I was intrigued when I saw a book titled My Life without God. The book is an autobiography written by William (Bill) Murray, son of Madalyn Murray O’Hair. Madalyn Murray O’Hair is infamous for her fight to remove prayer from public schools that was achieved through a Supreme Court decision in 1963.

As I read about Bill and Madalyn’s life, I just kept thinking, “How is it possible that a woman who was an avowed Marxist and wanted to defect to the Soviet Union was given so much media attention and influence in the U.S. government?” If Madalyn were alive today, she would be grouped with the “New Atheists.” She was passionate about hating God and wanted all the fame and glory for herself. I’ve often thought that cases to remove “In God We Trust” from U.S. currency and “under God” from the pledge of allegiance were modern battles. However, Madalyn was fighting these very same battles in the 1960s. She wanted every trace of God completely removed from society.

Bill’s story is a very sad account, and at times I wasn’t sure I would be able to finish the book. He endured a lot of abuse physically, mentally, and emotionally. One time, his mother read through his junior high history book and made this comment:


“I can’t believe all the hogwash in there. It treats the parting of the Red Sea just like it really happened. It’s incredible! Later on it talks about Jesus and says he was the son of God, that he performed miracles and rose from the dead. [Expletive] stuff I ever read. It has no place in a public school textbook!”[1]

Having graduated from the public school system, I was shocked that at one time biblical history was part of the history books! The battles Madalyn and others fought with the public school system have made a huge impact on the information taught there over the last 40–50 years. We really shouldn’t be surprised that there is so much violence among children, especially in school. This is the result of children learning that—instead of being created in the image of God—they are nothing more than the result of time, death, and chance.

Bill became very disillusioned about life over the years, but wasn’t willing to give up on atheism yet. He wrote a letter to 400 members of his mother’s atheist organization. He stated the following:


I wrote to them asking for support of positive rather than negative atheism. I suggested we use funds to establish atheist chairs at universities rather than to sue to have religious chairs removed. I recommended the construction of monuments and hospital wings.[2]

And what was the response of the atheists?


A handful of people sent contributions out of habit. But the overwhelming majority of those who answered my letter pelted me with such abuse that I was stunned. Over and over I read that the principal goal of atheism was the destruction of religion and that this was no time to build.[3]

Pure and simple atheism is nothing more than rebellion against God. That is it’s sole goal and purpose. There is nothing in atheism to “build” on. If you think people are nothing more than animals, evolved by random chance, then there is no ultimate meaning and purpose in life. Why build hospitals to save people’s lives? Why bother teaching people anything at all?

These events and others led Bill to believe that God must exist, so he gave his life to Christ at the age of 33. A short while later, Bill wrote a letter to the people of the city of Baltimore where the case to remove prayer in public schools had begun. He wrote as follows:


First, I would like to apologize to the people of the City of Baltimore for whatever part I played in the removal of Bible reading and praying from the public schools of that city. I now realize the value of this great tradition and the importance it has played in the past in keeping America a moral and lawful country. I can now see the damage this removal has caused to our nation in the form of loss of faith and moral decline.[4]

In some ways it is sad to think about the impact that one person with sinful motives and actions can make in this world. But we should rejoice that one person with Christ-centered motives and actions can also make an impact in this world. As we begin 2013, think about ways you can impact the world around you. How can you equip people to defend the authority of the truth of God’s Word? Maybe through a Bible study, Sunday school class, having a conversation with a neighbor or friend, or maybe sending resources to a loved one who has questions. We can all make a difference.

Keep fighting the good fight of the faith!

[1] William J. Murray, My Life without God (New York: Thomas Nelson, 1982) p. 50.
[2] Ibid, p. 228.
[3] Ibid, pp. 228-229.
[4] Ibid, p. 247.

Read More

Can Kids Be Good Without God?

Published on November 20, 2012 in Children and Family. by Georgia Purdom

A new website devoted to kids and sponsored by the American Humanist Association (AHA) says “Yes” to this blog post’s title. The homepage of the site states,

Welcome to Kids Without God, a site for the millions of young people around the world who have embraced science, rejected superstition, and are dedicated to being Good Without a God!

A cartoon dog, appropriately named Darwin, is used to teach kids what is supposedly true and false about the world they live in. Kids can flip through a storybook, where they learn that Darwin the dog “loves to do science experiments and test out theories about how the world works.” I’m glad Darwin the dog likes observational science (i.e., technology that gives us planes, computers, vaccines, etc.) but that is distinctly different from historical science (i.e., creation and evolution). We can study evidence like cells, fossils, and rocks in the observable present, but our worldviews or starting points determine how we interpret that evidence in relation to the unobservable past. Do we start with man’s ideas about the past—who wasn’t there during the supposed billions of years of earth history—or do we start with the Bible, the written revelation of the eyewitness account of the eternal God?

We learn that Darwin the dog likes to read stories from a “long, long time ago” but he knows those stories are false. Darwin knows it’s okay for people to believe those stories, but you don’t have to believe them to be a good person (more on this below). According to the book, Darwin “only believes in things that he can see in the real world. Things like friendship, and being nice, and learning.” I would love to know how you can “see” friendship, being nice, and learning! These are abstract concepts, not physical realities.

In another section children are encouraged to uphold seven promises that Darwin the dog has decided are the “best way to have lots of friends, and feel happy and satisfied every day.” So who determines how happiness and satisfaction are defined in the relativistic worldview of atheism? AHA has apparently decided they are the ultimate authority on this matter and so, being inconsistent with their own worldview, they proceed to tell children what they need to do to be happy and satisfied.

Be nice

Care for the world around us

Think for myself

Think about how other people feel

Tell the truth

Help others

Take good care of myself

As I read the list I couldn’t help thinking, “But why?” or “According to who?” When there is no ultimate authority other than man, each individual determines whether these are “promises” they should keep or not! Whether they decide to keep the promises or not, they cannot be considered wrong.

I doubt the AHA realizes this, but all except one of these promises has a biblical basis! The atheists have borrowed from a biblical worldview to argue against a biblical worldview. It is truly a self-refuting argument! Let’s look at the basis for each of these promises from Scripture. (Please note that I am only sharing a few verses for each promise; there are many more that could be used.)

Be nice. (Galatians 5:22–23) Being nice is not one of the fruits of the Spirit, but I think the overall concept being promoted here is encompassed in the fruits of the Spirit.

Care for the world around us. (Genesis 1:28 and Genesis 2:15) God gave man dominion over the livings things He created and desired man to be a good steward of it.

Think for myself. (Colossians 2:8) Scripture actually speaks against this promise. Eve decided what was right and wrong according to herself, disobeyed God, and along with Adam’s disobedience she brought a curse upon all creation (Genesis 3).Proverbs 1:7 states, “The fear of the Lord is the beginning of knowledge.”

Think about how other people feel. (Luke 6:31) Jesus gave the Golden Rule.

Tell the truth. (Exodus 20:16) This one of the Ten Commandments.

Help others. (Matthew 25:34–36) Jesus commands us to care for the sick and poor.

Take good care of myself. (1 Corinthians 6:19–20) Our body is the temple of the Holy Spirit.

These “promises” are consistent with a biblical worldview that holds Scripture as the ultimate authority. Atheists must be inconsistent and borrow from a biblical worldview to state these things and uphold them as the highest good.

The accompanying parents’ site states,

We hope that you and your kids will enjoy reading about Darwin the Dog, who is committed to an uplifting, altruistic morality without the influence of religion; and who is able to enjoy mythology while still differentiating between the real and the imaginary.

You know what I hope? I hope and pray that kids and parents visiting the site will see the morally bankrupt, self-refuting arguments used by the atheists. I hope and pray that kids and parents will decide to visit the Kids Answers and Answers in Genesis websites and discover Bible-based answers to their questions about the world in which we live.

The Answers in Genesis theme for next year, “Standing Our Ground, Rescuing Our Kids,” resonated loudly in my mind as I browsed this atheist website for kids. I want to challenge each of you to do one thing (and I hope you’ll do many more!) to actively teach kids the truth of God’s Word in the coming year. Maybe it’s a trip to the Creation Museum, maybe it’s using resources like books and DVDs for Christmas presents, or maybe it’s teaching a Sunday school class (check out our amazing Answers Bible Curriculum). Just do something to help rescue our kids before they’re already gone!

Keep fighting the good fight of the faith!

Read More

Bacteria Evolve "Key Innovation" or Not? Georgia Purdom

Bacteria Evolve “Key Innovation” or Not?
Published on November 8, 2012 in Science.


Four years ago, I wrote an article titled “A Poke in the Eye? Lenski and the adaptive acrobatics of E. coli.” The article highlighted the work of evolutionary biologist Richard Lenski and his discovery of bacteria that had reportedly evolved a new complex trait. During the recent Bill Nye controversy (see here and here), Huff Post decried my supposed ignorance of Lenski’s work that they acknowledged as “evolution that has been observed in a laboratory setting.” Obviously, as I stated in a response to Huff Post, they didn’t do their homework!

Interestingly, as all this was going on, Lenski released a new paper showing the genetic changes that had occurred in E. coli. First, let’s review what Lenski reported in 2008.[1] E. coli (such as those found in our gut or in the soil outside our home) have the ability to utilize citrate as a carbon and energy source when oxygen levels are low. They transport citrate into the cell and break it down. Lenski’s lab reported that the E. coli they had been culturing in the lab for many years could now utilize citrate under normal oxygen levels. It’s fairly easy to see that this was not “a major innovation” or the “making of a rare and complex new trait”; it was simply a change in the regulation of when citrate was used by E. coli.

In Lenski’s 2012 paper he shows the genetic mechanism that caused E. coli to make this change.[2] The E. coli that had been cultured for many years in his lab had a duplication of a portion of their DNA that included the citrate transporter gene called citT. The citT gene encodes a protein that transports citrate into the cell. The duplicated citT gene was under different regulatory control than the original citT gene. This allowed the citrate transporter to be produced and citrate to be utilized under normal oxygen levels.

Clearly this is not a case of adding new genetic information as the DNA that already existed in the bacteria was merely duplicated. It’s also not an example of the gain of a new function because the bacteria could already utilize citrate under certain conditions. There was a definite loss of regulation as the original citT gene was only expressed under low oxygen levels. These types of changes do not provide a mechanism for adding the new genetic information required for the evolutionary “novelties” necessary for molecules-to-man evolution.

Lenski also noted that certain mutations occurred before and after the duplication event. Those before were deemed necessary to “potentiate” the duplication event and those after were deemed necessary to “refine” the duplication event. I was amazed at just how many changes were necessary to allow the bacteria to perform a pre-existing function (using citrate) under different conditions (normal oxygen levels). Imagine how many changes would be necessary to generate truly novel proteins with truly novel functions necessary for molecules-to-man evolution. Impossible!

Lenski concluded in his recent paper, “The evolution of citrate use in an experimental E. colipopulation provided an unusual opportunity to study the multi-step origin of a key innovation.” No, it did not. It did provide further understanding of mechanisms that bacteria use to adapt to varying environmental conditions. God designed bacteria to be “master adapters” to survive and thrive in a post-Fall, post-Flood world. At times this can be to our detriment when bacteria cause disease, but this ability to adapt can also be put to good use for bioremediation and cleaning up our planet.

Keep fighting the good fight of the faith![1] Zachary Blount, et al., “Historical contingency and the evolution of a key innovation in an experimental population of Escherichia coli,” PNAS 105 (2008): 7899–7906.



[2] Zachary Blount, et al., “Genomic analysis of a key innovation in an experimentalEscherichia coli population,” Nature 489 (2012): 513-518.

Read More

A Blast from the Past: Evolutionists seek to “place a chimpanzee in the manger, a gorilla on the cross, and a monkey in Joseph’s tomb.”

Georgia Purdom

A few weeks ago, my Dad was sorting through some old papers that had belonged to his parents and came across a booklet titled, “Evolution or the Bible—Which?” by Rev. Dewey Whitwell (the subtitle above is a quote from it). Of course, He knew I would be very interested in it! The booklet appears to have been published sometime between 1933 and 1955. We know this because Dr. Judson Rudd, president of William Jennings Bryan University (now Bryan College), wrote the foreword to the booklet and served as president during those years.

Rev./Dr. Dewey Whitwell was from Nashville, Tennessee, and was an evangelist in the Evangelical United Brethren denomination. The publisher of the book stated that Rev. Whitwell attended the Scopes case that was presented before the Supreme Court of Tennessee in 1926. Other than that, I wasn’t able to find much information on Rev. Whitwell, but I did greatly appreciate what he wrote in this booklet over 50 years ago.

In the introduction to the booklet, Rev. Whitwell stated the following:

I wish to call your attention to a pertinent text for this discussion. The text is found in Gen. 1:1, “In the beginning God.” These first four words of the Bible are the key-note [sic] to all its facts. More depends upon these four words than any other words in the Bible. If we do not believe in the truthfulness of the text we cannot believe in a God, Christ, the Holy Ghost, the inspiration of the Scriptures, and Heaven. Therefore it can readily be seen that these four words are the foundation of the Bible.

Is this text true? If it is false then everything else in the Bible is false. If I did not believe in the truthfulness of this text I could not believe in any other words of the Bible. Thank God this text is true. “In the beginning God,” is a fact long ago established. . . . Yet agnostics, infidels, and atheists have tried (in vain) to prove to the world that God, Christ, Salvation, and Heaven, all constitute a fake. The Bible has truthfully stated: “The fool hath said in his heart there is no God.” [Psalm 14:1]

It is important that you believe in this text because otherwise you cannot believe in the special creation of man by God. Evolutionists deny the truthfulness of this text and the remainder of the Bible. (pp. 5–6)

I don’t think I could have said it any better myself! If Genesis isn’t true, then it casts doubt on the validity of the rest of Scripture. To be truly consistent, we must either believe all of it or none of it.

In a later chapter titled, “What is the origin of all life?” Rev. Whitwell begins by summarizing how evolutionists answer the question and then proceeds with what should be the Christian’s response.

Second, let the Bible tell us how all life came into existence. The book of Genesis is the best authority on creation in the all the world. You need not go any farther or search any longer for a better authority. There are two words in the book of Genesis that explain it all, namely, “God created.” This tells us that all life is a product of the creative hand of Almighty God. Therefore, the Bible teaches that all life is a special product of the creative hand of God, who created all things both in heaven and earth. (p. 20)

Yes, the Bible is the ultimate authority, and there is none better, since God was an eyewitness to His own creation!

In a concluding chapter, “What is the influence of evolution?” Rev. Whitwell expounds on the problems inherent in secular education.

Let me draw you another picture of the influence of evolution on the life of the individual. A child is born in a Christian home. He is taught the Lord’s prayer, and the simple story of Jesus and his power to save. He is made familiar with the Bible record of creation, and God’s plan of salvation. He is raised to go to church and Sunday school and to reverence the Word of God, ministers, and Christians everywhere. That boy completes high school and goes off to college. There he comes in contact with a teacher who teaches him that his family tree is millions of years old and that his immediate ancestors were monkeys, or related animals. He is taught that all life came from a nebular matter or a one-cell organism and that through the process of evolution this one-cell organism produced all life; that all species of every sort both in the vegetable an animal kingdom came from this one-cell organism. For four years this young man is drilled in this theory. He never hears this teacher mention the Bible, God, Christ, or the Holy Ghost. In fact the teacher leaves God out of his teaching. This young man returns home with a sheep-skin [sic] diploma in his hand but he says: “Mother, your old book of Genesis is out of date. The Bible and science do not harmonize. Science is an established fact and the Bible is nothing more than a hypothesis, therefore I am forced to discard the Bible.” This is a fair demonstration of the influence of evolution on the lives of individuals. This is exactly what takes place every year. (pp. 24-25)

How saddened Rev. Whitwell would be today knowing that many children who go to Christian colleges (see Already Compromised) have a similar experience after being taught by professing Christian professors who have compromised on God’s Word. Just as it was a call to parents of Whitwell’s time, it is a call to parents today to do their job of teaching and instilling in children the truth of God’s Word. We are blessed in modern times to have so many tools to teach children to defend their faith!

Rev. Whitwell concludes the chapter with this strong affirmation:

Personally I am one hundred per cent [sic] for the Bible, my God, my Christ, the Holy Spirit, the preservation of personal faith in all the cardinal principles of the Christian faith, the peace and progress of the world, the schools of our land, the church, the home, and the Old Time religion. I have decided that if the world wants to stray off after every kind of heresy and false doctrine, I shall continue to say: “Let others do as they may but as for me and my house we will serve the Lord.” [Joshua 24:15] (pp. 27–28)

I concur, “Indeed, let God be true but every man a liar.” (Romans 3:4) Thank you, Rev. Whitwell, for standing up for the truth of God’s Word in your time, and may we continue the legacy in the battle for the authority and truthfulness of God’s Word in our own generation.

Keep fighting the good fight of the faith!

Read More

Georgia Purdom: Dear Huff Post: Do Your Homework!

 07 Sep 2012

In two recent Huff Post articles on the Bill Nye video and AiG’s rebuttal videos they have stated, “Purdom did not comment on studies that have shown that evolution has been observed in a laboratory setting.”[1] Curious, I clicked on the link provided and was directed to an article about Richard Lenski’s work on E. coli “evolution” at Michigan State University. In 2008, Lenski published a paper showing that E. coli he had been culturing in his lab for 20 years had gained the ability to utilize citrate.[2] A New Scientist writer proclaimed, “A major innovation has unfurled right in front of researchers’ eyes. It’s the first time evolution has been caught in the act of making such a rare and complex new trait.”[3] Really?

As I stated in the title, the Huff Post didn’t do their homework because contrary to their claims, I published a semi-technical article[4] on the AiG website on June 30, 2008, in response to Lenski’s research! E. coli (such as those found in our gut or in the soil outside our home) have the ability to utilize citrate when oxygen levels are low. They transport citrate into the cell and break it down. Lenski’s lab observed that the E. coli they had been culturing in the lab for many years could now utilize citrate under normal oxygen levels (likely through mutation, although no genetic studies were released in relation to the finding). Rather than an “a major innovation” or the “making of a rare and complex new trait” it was simply a change in the regulation of when citrate is used by E. coli!

As I stated in the article,


Since E. coli already possess the ability to transport and utilize citrate under certain conditions, it is conceivable that they could adapt and gain the ability to utilize citrate under broader conditions. This does not require the addition of new genetic information or functional systems (there are no known “additive” mechanisms). Instead degenerative events are likely to have occurred resulting in the loss of regulation and/or specificity.

In other words, the types of changes in E. coli observed by Lenski do not add new genetic information that over eons of time can lead from microbes to man. They simply alter (in a degenerative fashion) genetic information that was already present.

I’ll conclude with this:


It is interesting that in spite of the clear evidence for the adaptation of E. coli, Lenski refers to his findings as evidence for bacteria developing a “key innovation” and a “new function” and a “fascinating case of evolution in action.” Obviously, presuppositions (human reason apart from God vs. God’s Word) play a major role in interpreting the evidence. Richard Lenski and I are looking at the same evidence but drawing different conclusions based on our source of truth—man’s ideas or God’s ideas. It is only possible to obtain truth about the past if we start with the only source of absolute truth in the present—the inerrant Word of God.

So there you have it, Huff Post, I’ve responded. Enjoy!

Keep fighting the good fight of the faith![1] Dominique Mosbergen, “Bill Nye ‘The Science Guy’ Slammed by Creation Museum, Pastor Ray Comfort, September 2, 2012.

[2] Zachary Blount, et al., “Historical Contingency and the Evolution of a Key Innovation in an Experimental Population of Escherichia coli,” PNAS 105 no. 23 (2008): 7899–7906.

[3] Bob Holmes, “Bacteria Make Major Evolutionary Shift in the Lab,” New Scientist, June 9, 2008.

[4] Georgia Purdom, “A Poke in the Eye? Lenski and the Adaptive Acrobatics of E. coli,” June 30, 2008.

Read More

The Golden Rule According to Whom?

Georgia Purdom

At the end of the last school year, my daughter’s public school took part in an anti-bullying campaign.The cover of the short workbook they completed in class intrigued me. Here is a picture of it.



When I read it, I couldn’t help but smile! This is the so-called Golden Rule, which comes from Luke 6:31, “And just as you want men to do to you, you also do to them likewise.” Of course, the workbook doesn’t give credit to the Bible or to God. The workbook states, “Students will learn to follow The Golden Rule by being fair, kind, respectful, responsible, and honest. ‘Treating other people the way you want to be treated’ is an important life skill that needs to be modeled and encouraged by all.”

As I pondered these statements I couldn’t help but think how inconsistent these ideas are with the evolutionary worldview that is taught in public schools. Evolution works by “survival of the fittest,” not “survival of the fairest and kindest.” In fact, many eugenicists (those that promote the birth of the “well-born”) both of the past and present readily acknowledge that helping the sick, poor, and weak impedes the evolution of man to a higher level. Margaret Sanger, founder of Planned Parenthood, wrote, “Organized charity itself is a symptom of a malignant social disease . . . our civilization has bred, is breeding, and is perpetuating constantly increasing numbers of defectives, delinquents and dependents. My criticism, therefore, is not directed at the failure of philanthropy, but rather at its success.”[1]

For the public schools to be consistent with an evolutionary worldview, they should actually be encouraging bullying and not campaigning against it. Bullying could be seen as an aspect of natural selection since those that cannot withstand bullying (the weaker) decrease, and those that stand up to the bullying or are bullies are stronger and increase. (Thanks to Todd Friel of Wretched for initiating my thinking on this topic!)

In addition, if humans are nothing more than animals then morality is irrelevant, as it does not apply to animals. When a cat kills a mouse, we don’t charge the cat with first-degree murder because the cat is an animal acting on instinct and not a moral agent. So, if people are just animals acting on instinct, if they are nothing more than the sum of their genes, then we cannot justifiably say bullying is wrong. Evolutionary biologist Dr. William Provine stated, “Let me summarize my views on what modern evolutionary biology tells us loud and clear–and these are basically Darwin’s views. There are no gods, no purposes, and no goal-directed forces of any kind. There is no life after death. When I die, I am absolutely certain that I am going to be dead. That’s the end of me. There is no ultimate foundation for ethics, no ultimate meaning in life, and no free will for humans, either. What an unintelligible idea.”[2]

The real question is by what authority does a teacher or a principal or a school say that bullying is wrong and that students should be fair and kind? They cannot claim a higher authority outside of themselves and promoting anti-bullying is actually inconsistent with the evolutionary worldview that, by and large, public schools teach. This is the same question I asked in Tuesday’s blog related to the issue of the definition of marriage. If we don’t have an ultimate authority outside of ourselves then it is just our arbitrary opinion.

What a joy for me to share with Elizabeth the biblical foundations of the exhortation to treat others as you want to be treated! She has a biblical basis for being fair and kind. Elizabeth has had the opportunity to live out the Golden Rule and show others the love of Christ by being fair and kind even when others were not treating her the same way. I hope as the school year begins that you will join with me in praying for Christians in the public school system, whether students, teachers, or administrators that seek to serve Christ in a very difficult setting. I also encourage parents to check out our resources and make sure you are equipped to equip your children with the authority and truthfulness of God’s Word.

Keep fighting the good fight of the faith![1] Margaret Sanger, The Pivot of Civilization (New York: Brentano’s, 1922), p. 108.

[2] William Provine, “Darwinism: Science or Naturalistic Philosophy,” Origins Research (1994) 16.

Read More

Authority, Opinion, and the Definition of Marriage

Georgia Purdom


It’s been all over the news—and unless you live under a rock, you probably know what I’m referring to. Dan Cathy, president of Chick-fil-A, defined marriage according to the Bible and a media storm ensued. Cathy stated, “We are very much supportive of the family—the biblical definition of the family unit. We are a family-owned business, a family-led business, and we are married to our first wives. We give God thanks for that.”[1]

My husband said he didn’t know why people were so surprised. After all, Cathy is a Christian, and we should expect him to define marriage according to the Bible. He’s right, but in a society that says we should be tolerant of everything (except the right to be intolerant, of course), Cathy’s statement was considered completely unacceptable.

What I really appreciated about Cathy’s statement was the phrase, “biblical definition of the family unit.” As Christians, the Bible is our ultimate authority, so when we define marriage or share our thinking on any issue, it must be grounded in the authority of God’s Word. Otherwise, it’s just our opinion! Scotland recently decided to legalize gay marriage. In an article by a minister of the Church of Scotland who professes to be a Christian, he stated that initially he opposed gay marriage but changed his mind.[2] He stated, “So what made me change my mind? The key factors were meeting Christian same-sex partners, and revisiting scriptures which were used to buttress the Churches’ anti-gay position.”

Notice that one of the key factors is what I would call the “happiness factor.” He describes same-sex couples he knows and how happy, committed, and loving they are. Essentially he is saying that gay marriage is right because it makes people happy. But this is nothing more than his opinion! Is that how right and wrong should be decided? What if it makes someone happy to shoot and kill other people—should that also be considered right?

In the article he doesn’t deal with specific biblical passages that speak against homosexuality (e.g., Romans 1) that should be his focus. Instead, he says that since certain civil laws (e.g., stoning disobedient children) are no longer applicable and because, “In the past, people have used scripture to support slavery and to oppress women,” therefore the Bible isn’t always right or relevant. He writes, “The truth is that language is always changing to meet new situations.” But what does God say about His Word in Proverbs 30:5–6?




Every word of God is pure;
 He is a shield to those who put their trust in Him.
Do not add to His words,
 Lest He rebuke you, and you be found a liar.

The language that God uses to convey His truth never changes! Now, our ministry is centered on apologetics and not questions regarding Old Testament law, but my opinion is that certain civil laws do not apply today because they were specifically for the nation of Israel under the old covenant (or another view is that God has changed, modified, or abrogated certain laws in the New Testament). People have read their own ideas into the Bible to support racism and the oppression of women, but God’s Word makes it clear that we are one race (Acts 17:26) and that women and men are equal before Christ (Galatians 3:28).

Although it’s easy to see the problems with the ideas of this compromised Christian minister, I see many Christians today “leaving the Bible out of it” when they defend the biblical definition of marriage. In interviews I have watched when Christians are asked why marriage should be defined as one man and one woman, many will say things like, “Traditional marriage is what’s best for society,” or “Children need a mother and a father.” While these are good outcomes of traditional marriage, they are not the reason marriage should be defined as between one man and one woman. That definition comes solely from the Bible!

If it’s up to man to decide what marriage should be, then the definition is completely arbitrary and whose arbitrary opinion should become law? Who defines the “best for society” and why that should be the goal? Why not what’s worst for society? Without the ultimate authority of God’s Word, the meaning of words like good and bad, right and wrong, are meaningless. Why can’t you marry more than one person, your dog or your car? Proponents of gay marriage say it will never lead to things like that. But why not? That is the logical outcome, no matter how absurd it may seem now, when there is no ultimate authority that determines the definition of marriage. I encourage you to read “Morality- the Secular Response?” by Bodie Hodge for more on these ideas.

My family showed our support for Chick-fil-A on Saturday. Even on Saturday the line was out to the door the entire time we were there! How encouraging to see such a great outpouring of support for a business run on biblical principles.


I love Chick-fil-A!


Even though my husband Chris is not a fan of chicken, he enjoyed the meal, and Elizabeth loves going there!

Keep fighting the good fight of the faith![1] K. Allan Blume, “’Guilty as charged,’ Cathy says of Chick-fil-A’s stand on biblical and family values,” Baptist Press, July 16, 2012.

[2] Ron Ferguson, “Same-sex marriage debate rages on as the government goes down a courageous road,”Aberdeen Press and Journal, July 31, 2012.

Read More

"Quiet and Careful" Eugenics - Georgia Purdom

Published on July 26, 2012 in Science and Women.


Over the last several years I have researched and presented a lot on the past, present, and future of eugenics and abortion (see here, here, and here). I have often stated that eugenics (which essentially means “well-born”) has become in the words of eugenics expert Edwin Black, “quiet and careful.”1 While it is an extremely dark topic, I think it is important for Christians to be informed and equipped to defend the sanctity of life based on the authority of God’s Word.

A recent news report claimed that a blood test has been developed that will make genetic screening of babies in the womb even easier.2 When a woman is pregnant, small pieces of DNA from the baby can cross the placenta and enter the mother’s bloodstream. A group of scientists was able to deduce the sequence of the genome (DNA) of a baby at 18 weeks of pregnancy by comparing the DNA in mom’s blood to mom’s DNA and a sample of DNA taken from the father. This is the equivalent of putting together a giant jigsaw puzzle! They successfully detected almost 90% of the mutations that were new in the baby (not found in mom or dad).

Although more than 3,000 genetic disorders can be screened for, some scientists are concerned about what people will do with the knowledge of every single DNA difference. Most geneticists would quickly acknowledge that many mutations are essentially neutral or nearly neutral, meaning they are not beneficial or detrimental and will have little to no effect on the individual. Dr. Robert Winston, professor of science and society and emeritus professor of fertility studies at Imperial College, London, stated the following:


The biggest ethical issue might be that we are going to cause a great deal of worry unnecessarily to a great deal of women who are pregnant. I am uneasy about it because I think it is unlikely to be absolutely accurate and we may raise more concerns in parents than are justified.

I am fundamentally uneasy about all screening tests. I think that most of the time we are diagnosing things that really are not there and screening like this is probably going to be something where we are going to harm more people than we can help. I am a bit sceptical that it is going to be of value.3

However, other scientists have been quick to extol the “virtue” of this type of genetic screening. Dr. John Harris, director of the Institute for Science, Ethics and Innovation at the University of Manchester, England stated as follows:


I believe one should be in favour of would-be parents getting the maximum information about the child that they might be having, either to prepare for eventualities they may face or to take the decision, if it is early enough, not tocontinue with the pregnancy.

No potential being has a right to become an actual being – abortion is not a “wrong” to the individual because the individual in question will never have existed.

We would be negligent and reckless if we paid no attention to the health care of future generations and future people. The ability to protect future generations from terrible conditions that will blight their lives seems to me to be an absolute moral responsibility and a duty that we should not shirk.3

Genetic screening in and of itself is not inherently evil. It can help prepare families and lead to early treatment and intervention. However, like in so many other areas, it is what people choose to do with the information gained from genetic screening that can lead to wrong actions such as abortion.

The authors of the paper on the new blood test stated, “The less tangible implication of incorporating this level of information into pre-natal decision-making raises many ethical questions that must be considered carefully within the scientific community and on a societal level.”4 This is very true. But if people don’t hold to an ultimate authority when it comes to the value of life, then it will be up to parents to decide whether or not a child should live or die. If government-controlled health care goes into effect, then the decision may be made at another level altogether.

Contrary to Dr. Harris’ belief, a baby in the womb (regardless of its stage of development) is an actual being and an individual, so abortion is murder. Dr. Harris is not wrong because I say so; he is wrong because God says so! We are fearfully and wonderfully made (Psalm 139:14), and God knew us before we were born and has a purpose and plan for our lives (Jeremiah 1:5). Isaiah 43:7 states that God has created everyone for His glory.

I couldn’t help thinking of these verses a few nights ago at VBS as I held on my lap my friend’s son who is differently-abled. What joy this little boy brings to my life when he gives me a hug, I see him laugh and smile, and think about how he has radically helped me understand what those verses practically mean in a fallen world.

Drs. Mitchell and Menton and I recently filmed a DVD series called the Sanctity of Life that will be available in the coming months. We focus on the issues of when life begins, development of life in the womb, stem cells, cloning, death and suffering, suicide, euthanasia, and eugenics and abortion. It’s not available yet, but you can pre-order through the AiG bookstore. We are very excited about this series and hope it will benefit many looking to equip themselves to give solid biblical answers to today’s hot topics.

Keep fighting the good fight of the faith![1] Edwin Black, War Against the Weak (New York, NY: Four Walls Eight Windows, 2003), p. 421.



[2] Stephen Adams, “Unborn babies could be tested for 3500 genetic faults,” The Telegraph, June 6, 2012, http://www.telegraph.co.uk/health/healthnews/9315265/Unborn-babies-could-be-tested-for-3500-genetic-faults.html.

[3] Nick Collins, “Genetic screening of unborn babies ‘may be inaccurate,’” The Telegraph, June 7, 2012, http://www.telegraph.co.uk/science/science-news/9317638/Genetic-screening-of-unborn-babies-may-be-inaccurate.html.

[4] Jacob Kitzman, et al, “Noninvasive whole-genome sequencing of a human fetus,” Science Translational Medicine (2012) 4:137ra76.

Read More