That’s a pretty strong statement… am I saying that a science teacher or a science textbook could be wrong? Absolutely. They’ve been wrong in the past & will be wrong again in the future.

What did they get wrong? Simply this…

Ernst Mayr (leading evolutionary biologist in the 20th century) – “No educated person any longer questions the validity of the so-called theory of evolution, which we now know to be a simple fact.”

He’s wrong (as are others) on 2 fronts:
1. Educated people do question the theory
2. Evolution is not a “simple fact” & the evidence for it is weak (according to almost 1,000 Ph.D.’s who have signed a document “dissenting from Darwin”)

Let’s begin with some definitions. When people talk about evolution today, they are usually not referring to “micro-evolution” or “change over time.” That’s uncontroversial & easily shown.

What they are referring to is “macro-evolution” or radical, dramatic, changes among species that produce completely new species (speciation). That’s what’s controversial.

Many science teachers/textbooks would say that the process that brought all organisms into existence from a common ancestor (macro-evolution) is natural selection acting on random variations.  They would say that this process operates by chance & necessity, apart from ANY EVIDENT INTENTION OR DIRECT DESIGN. That’s Darwin’s proposition & that’s a problem.

How do you know that macro-evolution is what the science teachers are referring to? I’ll give you a localized example. Dr. Michael Dini, professor of Biology at Texas Tech University, says, “The central, unifying principle of biology is the theory of evolution which includes both micro- and macro-evolution, and which extends to all species.” Your science teacher isn’t just advocating “change over time” purely within a species.

Why question this if its the consensus view? Because the consensus has been wrong in the past.

Dr. William Dembski shared with us at Experience Life that there’s a better explanation. It’s often called Intelligent Design (ID). ID’s main claim is that nature exhibits patterns that are best explained as the products of an intelligent cause (design) rather than an undirected material process (chance & necessity). Examples would be DNA, bacterial flagellum, complexities in the cell, fine-tuning of our universe, etc. Unlike Darwinists, ID proponents believe that certain aspects of science point to an ultimate intelligence or designer.

Dr. Richard Dawkins (evolutionary biologist & athest) says, “Biology is the study of complicated things that give the appearance of having been designed for a purpose.”

So, he admits that things appear to be designed, but instead of accepting that fact, he argues that it’s just an appearance.

My question would be, “If it barks like a dog, wags its tail like a dog, & eats like a dog, wouldn’t the burden of proof be on the person who claims it’s not a dog?” Instead the Darwinists think the burden of proof is on the Intelligent Design proponent who sees design in nature.

Dr. Jonathan Wells (embryologist) says, “The outcome of this scientific revolution will be decided by young people who have the courage to question dogmatism and follow the evidence wherever it leads.”

Be informed. Question dogmatism. Follow the evidence wherever it leads. Be a hero!

Being sick is no fun, especially when you have to preach 5 services in a few days. On Wednesday of this week I started feeling bad & it only got worse from there. The likelihood of me being able to preach seemed to be decreasing each day.

Saturday rolled around, people were praying, & God gave me the strength to make it two services before I completely lost my voice.

All I’ve got to say is: Praise God for video technology! We tape all of our services in HD for our online viewers & also as a backup in case I can’t make it on Sunday.

Since I had no voice, we showed the Saturday night backup on Sunday morning & it looked as good as ‘live’… probably better, in fact. I was just a little flat

It’s my opinion that the days of video services and multiple locations with streamed video are just beginning. It’s such a cost-effective way to spread the gospel.

I mean, contrast it with the traditional approach.

Traditional Approach: When your building fills up, build a bigger building. Well, that’s great if your church remains relatively small, but if you start reaching thousands of people, that becomes a problem. Think about it. A $10 million dollar building followed by a $30 million dollar building followed by a $70 million dollar building followed by… you get the picture. At some point, you go, “Ok, maybe we are spending too much on one facility & need to spread out a little bit.”

Multi-site Approach: When your building fills up, build another building the same size (or smaller) or acquire another building the same size (or smaller) & meet in 2 locations… then 3… then 4… and so on. Well, how does the preacher speak at both locations simultaneously? Easy. Video! Get a live band, live campus pastor, & throw up the message via satellite on a video screen. Some people object, “But ‘live’ is so much better…” Not necessarily. Most people that come to “live” services watch the preacher on the screens anyways. Churches all over the country are finding that this is an extremely effective & cheap way to spread the gospel.

Once again, praise God for video technology!

You can bet on eLife using it even more in the future. It’s a part of our strategy for connecting with tens of thousands of people in West Texas.

Guest Blogger: Phil Gilbert, Financial Admin

2 Peter 3:9 – The Lord is not slow in keeping his promise, as some understand slowness. He is patient with you, not wanting anyone to perish, but everyone to come to repentance.

I don’t know why I get so lazy and selfish sometimes with my faith. I guess I lose sight of everything that He went through for me, and forget how patient He has been. But if I truly am thankful of His grace, shouldn’t I be compelled to share with everyone I know, despite how awkward it might seem?

When I stop worrying about what to say and how to create opportunities, I feel that God simplifies my task for me. Why do I stress myself out so much with finding the perfect words or scripture reference when the most important and effective thing for me to do is probably just showing people that I care about them? All I really have to do is just call and check up on my friends to show them that I am thinking about them, or invite a neighbor to dinner to spend time with them. I know that the conversation will eventually lead to Jesus or spiritual things. But the last thing I want is for someone to think I am checking off my mental church invite card so that I can sleep at night.

I am beginning to realize that I need to get rid of the ‘shy’ excuse or being nervous because God can work through the most simple actions that we are willing to provide. Just because I am bad at teaching and getting my point across doesn’t mean that He can’t use me to just simply serve those around me. And Jesus didn’t just come to be nice or invite people to church. He came to love and serve.

2 Peter 3:10 – But the day of the Lord will come like a thief. The heavens will disappear with a roar; the elements will be destroyed by fire, and the earth and everything in it will be laid bare.