What We Lost in 2020

The year 2020 has been a hard one, perhaps the hardest most of us have ever experienced.  In looking back at this year, there are several things that we have lost or that have been severely damaged.  It is yet to be seen if these are permanent.

• Loss of life.  Probably the first thing that comes to mind is the pandemic caused by a novel virus that originated in China.  The deaths due to COVID-19 have cast a shadow on this year.  The reactions to it ranged from panic and fear to isolation and anger, as people tried to deal with all the ramifications of a widespread, unknown, and silent disease.
• Loss of connections and physical touch.  We had isolation of those in the hospitals and care facilities.  We avoid handshakes and hugs, which were replaced with elbow bumps and virtual high 5's.  When walking down the street or passing someone in a store, we can see the worry and fear of physical contact or even close proximity.  
• Loss of jobs, dreams, and opportunities to pursue happiness.  We've experience unequally applied lockdowns and unjustified persecution of people desperate to preserve their small businesses, while the government favored others.  People have lost livelihoods, savings, and homes.  Private businesses lost jobs and income, while government employees got paid for not working.  Riots and violence against innocent people and businesses destroyed lives and dreams.
• Loss of homes due to wildfires.  Across the county, we lost many homes, lives, and forests to out of control fires.  Whether from decades of forest mismanagement, from climate changes, or just bad luck, the devastation is real.  While we can rebuild, it is tragic.
• Loss of confidence in the integrity of the election process.  Illegal changes in violation of the constitution were allowed to stand.  Voting process changes were quickly made that were ill-conceived and that lacked standard safeguards against fraud.  When there was obvious fraud, especially in large Democrat controlled swing state cities, courts would not hear or rule on the merits of these challenges.  State leaders either are complicit in changing procedures or are unwilling to stand up to the suspicious activity.  There is widespread anger and dismay at the perceived loss of integrity in the electoral system where cheating is allowed to stand.  We've lost the illusion of fair elections and the ability to address wrongs when uncovered in a timely enough manner to make a difference.
• Loss of a media that values truth over agendas. We have seen coverups and lack of real investigative reporting.  We got distortions and biased reporting.  We had social media platforms do active and biased censoring of controversial opinions and thoughts.  Few believe in the independence and fairness of the "fact-checkers."  Dictionaries redefine words to fit "woke" agendas.  They hid information damaging to preferred political groups, while spreading distortions of records and doing one-sided negative reporting.  There is a lack of integrity or apparent interest in discovering the truth.  Frequent attacks are made on undercover reporters who find uncomfortable fraud or embarrassing statements and/or activities. 
• Loss of trust of experts.  Several times, the "experts" have made proclamations and then within weeks or months changed their claims.  It is becoming obvious that calls to "follow the science" are not necessarily that, but instead are ploys to shut up opposition to their agenda.  While there are secure scientific facts in some areas, there are also disputed assertions that are not beyond challenge by rational, informed people.
• Loss of freedoms.  In a short period of time, we have lost the freedom of association, to travel,  to gather in worship, or to even have family holiday events.  Mandates were made to force mask wearing and other shutdowns without good scientific justifications. There has been persecution of religious activities and non-enforcement of regulations for preferred political gatherings and riots.
• Loss of consent of the governed.  The power of the people to be willingly governed with their consent was damaged.  Instead, because of fear or lack of will, we allowed "Emergency" declarations and mandates to be issued, often in violation of state laws and constitutions, or far in excess of the lawful limits.  When these were challenged, the partisan courts failed to act.  State legislative representatives failed to reign in the governors' and mayors' abuse of power.  
• Loss of respect for political leaders.  Many pushed draconian measures, but then were caught doing the same activities themselves.  Privileged attitudes show their disdain for the masses.  We saw corruption of leaders in government and the "justice" department.
• Loss of quality education.  Educational experiences have suffered, as online learning has not worked for many.  In-person classes have been inconsistently scheduled and then dropped, causing disruptions for many families.  Recent college graduates have struggled to find jobs in the pandemic economy, but still face student loan repayments in the near future.
• Loss of equal protection under the law.  Unequal enforcement and application of laws has become apparent, particularly during the violent protests and riots.  Conservative groups and individuals were singled out, while mass unlawfulness was condoned, ignored, or failed to be prosecuted.  Voter ballots were subjected to different validation standards based on politics.  Loss of respect for authority follows when this kind of injustice is seen.  
• Loss of Unity.  In 2020, America is more divided than ever politically, morally, and philosophically.  In many ways, there is little common ground left.  Belief in the basic goodness of the fundamental principles of the founding of our nation and culture, or even objective moral grounding of our society, is no longer shared. There is a widening of the divide between conservatives and progressive liberals based on greatly divergent views of morality and goals.
• Loss of respect for laws and law enforcement.  Active calls for abolishing or defunding the police abound.  There have been attacks and murders of police and pro-police supporters.  Leftist protestors have consistently called for killing police, have falsely claimed that police purposefully kill blacks, and often even assault officers.  Even public figures attack their integrity.
• Loss of political balance.  We see it within the Democrat party, as it has increasingly become more socialist and radically anti-traditional values and institutions. Loss of unity also showed within the Republican party, as it became polarized between Trump supporters believing in pro-American policies, and the "deep state", entrenched establishment, and never-Trumpers actively seeking to undermine his agenda. Power struggles rule the day.
• Loss of real tolerance.  Cancel culture and restrictions of free speech now reign.   Social media claims disinformation and/or selectively filters content and reach because of disputed claims.  There is widespread disgust/dismay at the so-called "justice" movement by many.  We jail those politically opposed, but free criminals in the name of saving them from COVID-19.  We hear calls to abolish or reduce penalties for violent criminals, yet mourn the executions of murderers.  We have legalized or decriminalized drugs, both hard and popular, but we don't tolerate those who disagree.  True tolerance allows differences of opinions to be held, debated, and challenged.  The new tolerance demonizes and attacks those who disagree.
• Loss of the joy of gathering together and watching sports.  Because of pandemic overreactions, we cancelled many events and placed ridiculous restrictions on players practicing and interacting with each other.  We had "bubbles" and limited schedules.  We had coaches forced to wear masks, but not the players.  We had empty stadiums filled with cardboard cutouts and canned crowd noise.  Seems more like the Truman Show than real life.
• Loss of entertainment quality and quantity.  Delayed or cancelled TV/movie production caused a shortage of new content.  Many movies were delayed being released in theaters because they couldn't make enough money with mostly empty theaters either.  Ironically, people are tempted to have too much screen time and have less healthy activity.  While not new, almost every show now has to push political, social, and immoral agendas down our throats.
• Loss of biological common sense.  There is less safety, modesty, fairness, and common sense about biology in sports competition and in locker rooms.  Court rulings demanded that men who self-identify as women be allowed to compete against biological women and to have equal access to women's locker rooms.  Many women lost scholarship opportunities and were denied the ability to compete on a level playing field.  In the locker room, we lost the right to innocence and the normalcy of not having opposite sex people see one naked.
• Loss of sports as an escape.  Another sports loss was when we had to choose between enjoying a game or being forced to watch players disrespect our country and flag.  In the name of a Marxist political movement, they openly displayed banners, wore slogans, and showed disdain for our country.  The protests are based on the false premise that America is a fatally flawed, racist country and that our core institutions need to be destroyed and remade in their utopian vision of human nature.  Can't we just enjoy some entertainment without having an agenda thrown in our face?
• Loss of hope.  Probably one of the biggest losses for many this year was a loss of hope.  Hope that eventually this will pass.  Hope that we will get back to normal and not have to accept a "new" normal.  Hope that none of their loved ones will be lost because of a disease or to die alone.  Hope that our nation will not be radically changed forever.  Suicides are up.  Abuse is up.  Drug and alcohol use is up.  We are less healthy and more stressed.

So is there hope?  I believe there is, but it is not to be found in secular philosophies, social engineering, or nontheistic worldviews.  Ultimately it is found in the Christian faith.  But we can't give up either and the fight needs to go on, even when it looks bleak.  Evil wins when good people refuse to stand up and fight against it.   We are called to be both Salt and Light in the world.  We are called to be in the world, but not of it.  We can't do that by refusing to play our part.

Book Review - Thinking About Evolution

 

Thinking About Evolution: 25 questions Christians want answered
By AJ Roberts, Fuz Rana, Sue Dykes, and Mark Perez

The multidisciplinary team of authors brings clarity on exactly what evolution is, and what it is not. They examine which aspects of evolution are on sound footing, and where there are legitimate grounds to be skeptical of the evolutionary paradigm. With expertise in molecular biology, biochemistry, paleoanthropology, Christian apologetics, and analytical philosophy, they present a creation model view of interpreting the evidence, comparing and contrasting the scope and explanatory power of this model to current evolutionary models of the origin and development of life on the earth.

I appreciate that the book starts out with a clear definition of Old-Earth Creationism (OEC), sometimes called Progressive Creationism, as clarity is always valuable and helps to head off misunderstandings and straw man arguments.  Reasons to Believe's (RTB) insistence on harmony between Creation and Scripture, or Science and Faith, is biblical and warranted.  It reflects the Creator's character and his revelation to humanity.  

The book includes enough detail on the various subjects to highlight the salient issues at play.  The authors appear to be fair in their evaluation of the strengths and weaknesses of the various topics.  While they are overall skeptical of the ability of evolution to account for the full diversity and history of life on Earth, they provide balanced expert analysis based on their research experience and training.  

The authors put forth a very important observation: that data, and even science itself, explains nothing, but that it is scientists who explain things!  These explanations are based on interpretations of the evidence, prior knowledge and observations, worldviews and presuppositions, and even the nature of reality.  While facts are things that are true, it may not always be possible to demonstrate with certainty that something is true, even if it is.  Theories and scientific paradigms are put forward by scientists to explain the data and are meant to be tested.  However, it is a dangerous thing to protect certain ideas from being challenged freely (e.g. the modern Theory of Evolution), even if widely accepted.  There is a trend in our society to silence dissent instead of promoting open discussion and not tolerate disagreement.

Another takeaway from the book was that it is critical to define terms like "evolution", "information", or "transitional forms."  For instance, there are several different kinds of naturalistic evolution, each with different levels of empirical support and each based on differing levels of inference.  These include chemical evolution, microevolution, microbial evolution, speciation, and macroevolution.  It is a mistake to conflate the different definitions and then make blanket statements about the truth or falsehood of the subject.

The question/answer format is very useful, as it encourages its use as a reference for those seeking thoughtful answers.  It lends itself readily for small group discussions, as well.  While each topic could easily take up several chapters, the pertinent content is provided, objections are addressed, and references are included for further study.

A valuable side panel in the book discussed different types of reasoning.  These include deductive, inductive, abductive, and defeasible reasoning, and the levels of certainty that we can get from each type. The latter two types may not be as familiar.  Abductive reasoning, also known as inference to the best explanation, is often used by researchers or detectives during investigations.  Defeasible reasoning, or belief revision, is used to amend conclusions, models, explanations, or beliefs when new evidence is given.  

The authors make the point that while most scientists today accept evolution, they still have disagreements over the underlying mechanisms proposed.  In this context, they provide an interesting quote by Thomas Huxley, “In matters of the intellect do not pretend that conclusions are certain which are not demonstrated or demonstrable."  Huxley disagreed strongly with Darwin on the mechanisms, but still supported the concepts.  

One important question asked in the book, "Is such bulldogged tenacity in clinging to evolution due to the science or to something else?"   I think it is fair to conclude that philosophical naturalism and other worldview considerations are at play.  Science has limits and is not the sole source of truth, so we must integrate experiences, philosophy, and reason, with scientific studies, to get a comprehensive perspective on reality.  Truth is what corresponds to reality!

So, is evolution compatible with Christianity?  The authors conclude "No!"  For example, they ask, "If evolutionary mechanisms can explain everything in biology, what role would there have been for a Creator to play?"  They question that if we were created by unguided, naturalistic processes, then in what way are we special or distinct from other animals?  What purpose is there to life if we are the products of mindless processes?  In what way can we justify the dignity and worth of the individual humans?  Giving up a historical Adam and Eve as the first humans, directly created by God, seems to be too high a theological price and undermines many core Christian doctrines.

This quote gets to the heart of the authors' perspective, "To claim as Crick once did that nature was not designed but rather evolved asserts a belief, not a fact. Those who repeat an assertion of apparent-but-not-real design do not know whether the assertion is true or not. They are not better scientists than those who claim design; they are worse philosophers."  The appearance of design in biological systems is overwhelmingly obvious, so why must there actually be no teleology or design, and hence a Designer?  The authors believe it is not only justified and rational to believe in a Designer, but that such a conclusion is actually the best explanation of the data.

In contrast, I found it very interesting (and surprising) that in the extended evolutionary synthesis (EES) there is currently serious discussion of agency being involved in the process.  Agency implies teleology or design.  They are suggesting that since natural selection alone appears to be insufficient to drive the observed changes, that somehow the cell actually acts as an agent in preserving changes that could be useful in the future!  This is provocative to say the least.  

This book is thought provoking and a great overview of the current state of evolutionary theory.  I commend it to anyone who has struggled with integrating their faith with current scientific discoveries.  It is not, and never has been, an either or proposition!

Thinking About Evolution - Publisher Site

Amazon

Don't forget, the Progressive Left is Still at War

The Progressive Left Views This as a War

Lest we forget, the Progressive Left is still at war with Conservatives, Western Civilization, and historic Christian values! Regardless of which political party has more control for the next few years, there is a battle being waged against our culture, our fundamental beliefs, and our system of government. The radical "democratic" socialists want to fundamentally tear down and uproot the very fabric of our Western civilization. This is not a joke. This is why there are still massive riots, unrest, and looting in our cities. There is no leadership from the Left taking action to stop this in any meaningful way. In fact, many are calling for more, and tacitly endorse it because it is to their political advantage. I'm afraid that we are headed toward a French-style revolution where they want to destroy and rebuild everything. These revolutions have always come with bloodshed by the Left. The Conservatives in the nation will not be the ones who start a violent overthrow. There is a big difference between exercising our Constitutionally guaranteed rights to protect ourselves and our families, and the immoral "peaceful protesters" who attack and harass citizens, and who perform criminal acts depriving people of their property and lives. Looting, vandalism, and violence are signs of a deeper issue; severe moral decay has taken root in the people of America.

So what are some of the fronts of this war?

• Lack of respect for authority, laws, history, and traditions - We see this clearly these days with the anti-police movements, the segregated indoctrination classes mandated to employees, the Communist and anti-family values of the BLM organization, and the cries of "injustice" as justification to tear down all our historical institutions (and cultural reminders) with claims of systemic racism grounded in their embrace of Critical Race Theory.  
• Objective Truth - They are in a war for the meaning of Truth, since the progressive worldview denies the existence of objective moral duties and obligations in favor of lived truth or personal truth.
• Free press - When we can't count on the media to actually report the truth and when they unashamedly take political sides, they ironically become PRAVDA (Russian: "truth") for the liberal.
• Free speech - Commonly used social media platforms routinely censor speech that they don't like, especially political speech.   Biased "fact-checking" has become so widespread that it is the source of endless memes and jokes.
• Misinformation - Factual misrepresentations, out of context quotes, distortions of records, character assassination, and ignorance or willful deception on many issues, which are never later corrected, is an all-to-often occurrence.  Riots start with regularity based on some perceived injustice, but the narratives are never corrected even when the facts contradict their claims.
• Tolerance - Instead of having classical tolerance and allowing others to have different ideas that can be held, debated, or argued against without attacking the person, we now have a new definition of tolerance that demands conformity at the expense of humane and rational discourse. The new tolerance wants to destroy all opposition by any means necessary.
• Sanctity of All Human Life - The science clearly shows that the unborn baby is human, is alive, can feel pain during abortions, and will become a fully functioning adult given time to grow naturally.  It is a severe injustice to allow the killing of innocent human beings for the reasons most often given for abortions.
• Loss of Traditional Family Structure and Values - The family used to be the core foundation of civilization.  However, many children are now raised in homes without stable family structure, especially missing fathers.  Children have the best chance of success in life when they have two godly, loving parents in their lives.  When missing, this often results in
• widespread disrespect for authority, including God
• gang membership and groups supporting illegal activities
• subcultures of violence 
• disrespect toward the achievements and property of others (covetousness)
• widespread drug use, including more dangerous and addictive ones
• and other mental and social problems.  
• Redefinition of Sexuality and Gender - This front generally advocates for permissive sexual ethics contrary to Godly norms, suggesting that anything between two or more consenting people is good and healthy, despite evidence to the contrary.  They claim, against the science, that there are multiple genders beyond the two obvious biological ones.  If you dare disagree with that, then you are labeled a bigot, a hater, or worse -- an oppressor!
• Lawlessness and Unequal/Ineffective Law Enforcement - During the recent unrest, it has been clear that certain kinds of protests, violence, looting, and vandalism will be tolerated if you have the "correct" political viewpoint.  On the other hand, if you don't, prosecutions under the laws are strictly enforced.  Cases of self-defense, protests, and civil disobedience have routinely been handled in a biased manner, based on the political agendas of mayor, governors, or popular leaders.  To protect those who violate our immigration laws, for example, cases of identity theft are excused, the abuse of our schools, medical system, and social safety nets is granted.  Out of misplaced compassion, they advocate for citizenship as a reward.  They push for no criminal penalties for looting, violence, or even assaulting police officers, because they believe that the oppressed should triumph over the oppressors.

Is there any common ground?  

Because this is a war of worldviews, it is hard.  If one side cannot agree with the other that Truth even exists, or can be discovered, then what common truth can be agreed upon?  When the moral relativists can't even justify why human beings have intrinsic dignity, value, and worth, how can that become a grounding principle?  The Christian worldview recognizes the inherent dignity and moral worth of all human beings, from beginning of life to the end, because we are all created in the Image of God. We are all broken because of our rebellion against our Creator, but we are valuable regardless of how we have fallen.

Unity at expense of what cost?

Pastors and leaders need the moral courage to stand up for historic Christian doctrines and teach in opposition to the errors of Progressive Christianity and Contemporary Critical Theory in all areas of life, not just the "spiritual" ones.  To not do so, allows division to fester within the church until it erupts.  It is better to get it out in the open and deal with it before an external church split happens, since hidden divisions are arguably more damaging.  Unity can only come from coming together over shared truth.  It is not divisive to point out falsehoods, bad doctrine, and aberrant teaching.  It is an error to assume that there is no moral aspect to political thoughts and party platforms. But should they avoid directly addressing those issues?  Leaders bear a moral responsibility to lead by word and deed, not by hiding from discussing tough topics, even if it might step on toes.

Your actions and choices matter to God, and impact others. 

There are consequences that a nation suffers for turning from it core, founding Christian values and beliefs. God allows bad freewill choices, but it doesn't free us from the consequences. God can work his plans despite evil, because he sees the whole picture. We on the other hand need to make the best choices possible and stand against evil and erosion of values. Now more than ever!

Christian Fatalism

There's an old Doris Day song Que Sera Sera, "Whatever will be, will be..."

As believers, we have an assurance that God is ultimately in control, even though we don't know the future or see the whole picture. While God promises to walk beside his followers through trials and life's challenges, that doesn't negate the consequences of our choices or circumstances that could have been changed if different choices had been made. Nations even suffer judgment and trouble because of bad decisions of the people or the leaders.

Unfortunately, lately I've heard pastors, leaders, and other Christians sounding more like Christian Fatalists, singing "Que Sera Sera". What do I mean by that? I mean that they sound like they are throwing their hands up in the air and accepting without question whatever happens, regardless of the costs and dangers coming. For instance, in regard to the election their comments seem as if they view the choices as morally neutral and so, for "unity's sake" we should be okay with whatever the outcome, "because God is in control and will work through it to accomplish his purposes."

Do you say the same thing about a tsunami that kills thousands?

    "Oh well, God will work his will."

What do you say to the child dying from cancer?

    "You know, God has this all under control and it will be okay."

What about when the Supreme Court ruled to make abortion a right and destroyed the meaning of traditional marriage?

    "Oh, you know, that's just part of God's plan."

No! That is an abhorrent attitude and is not well thought out. I hope you see that is not an appropriate response. You should be appalled and dismayed. You should grieve with others. You should provide care and comfort. You should do what you can to mitigate these injustices and evils. You should stand again evil.

Your actions, inactions, and choices matter to God and can directly impact others. There are consequences to how you choose to behave, who you affiliate with, and who you endorse for leadership positions. God allows bad freewill choices, but it doesn't let you off the hook. God can and does work his plans despite evil, because he sees the whole picture and is omnipotent.  We, on the other hand, need to make the best choices we can and stand against evil and erosion of societal values. We have a culture that in many ways supports and is responsible for widespread abortion, the loss of family structure, the decay of sexual morals, and the lack of respect for authority and traditions. Loving our enemies, who too are made in God's image, does not mean to fail to fight against the wrongs they stand for and want to foist upon others. Passivity allows evil to triumph. Throwing away your vote to unelectable candidates is foolish.

So how then should we live? We are sojourners in this world and this is not our final home. We can trust that God will work through the events of our lives to grow us into stronger relationship to him and to become more like His Son, Jesus. It may not be fun or easy. In fact, it seems that the norm is that we will have struggles. But we should not get so stressed out about the problems of the world and in our lives that we forget that our mission here is to reach out with the Good News and make real disciples in the time we have. However, other things matter too. Especially those things that impact the future and well being of others. That too, is our responsibility.

Book Review - Another Gospel

 

Alisa Childers' new book, Another Gospel? A Lifelong Christian Seeks Truth in Response to Progressive Christianity, is a compelling and important look at a growing threat to historical Christianity. This threat comes from the rise of progressivism within the Christian church of today.  The ideas espoused by these prominent Christian leaders are significant departures from the historic doctrines held by the Church since the beginning of Christianity.  Alisa is uniquely qualified to address the issues raised by these progressive leaders and those holding to Critical Theory (CT), which forms a foundation for these theological errors.  In this book she relates her first-hand experience of having her faith systematically deconstructed by a trusted pastor.  This progressive pastor led her, and other innocents, down a path which nearly destroyed her faith on the rocks of liberal theology.  This is her story of reconstructing her faith and the journey back to becoming a stronger, better-grounded follower of Jesus.

In addition, this book is a great introduction to the subject of Christian Apologetics.  Apologetics, simply stated, is the art of sharing what you believe and why -- to make a defense for your faith.   Alisa shares many of the insights she found by in-depth study of issues such as: 

• The Reliability of the Bible Manuscripts

• The Authorship, Inspiration, and Authority of the Bible

• Truth and Trustworthiness of the Bible

• Why people are drawn to the progressive gospel

• Moral Relativism vs. Christian teaching

• The nature of evil, hell, and the character of God

• Core Christian Doctrines such as historic Adam and Eve, the Resurrection, and the substitutionary atonement of Christ's death

The author makes the point that doubt and sincere questions are okay, even by mature Christians.  However, it takes work and effort to seek out the answers.  There are good answers and historic Christianity is on strong footing, both intellectually and theologically.  She transparently relates how she was unprepared to handle the kinds of skeptical questions that were raised by her progressive pastor.  But she also shares her story of overcoming those new doubts and questions, and thereby growing in the process.  Was it easy?  No.  Was it worth it?  Yes.  

While this book covers a lot of topics that are addressed in much more depth by other Christian apologists (such as J. Warner Wallace in Cold Case Christianity,) it gives a great window into the kinds of challenges that are brought against our youth and questioning church members.  This book ought to scare us a little (or maybe a lot), since aspects of this new "gospel" are easily seen prominently in Christian bookstores, heard from well-known pastors and speakers at Christian conferences, and acted out in the liberal social justice climate.  It is important that leaders in our churches be prepared to address these kinds of questions and to give forums for questions and doubts.  If we don't, we will be blindsided and will continue to lose people to the rocks of Progressive Christianity. 

Desperately Seeking Truth

Truth is that which corresponds to reality. Truth is something we should all seek. It can be discovered or known. Unlike the Postmodern worldview, the Christian worldview holds that reality is out there, and that truth is not simply relative to the person and that it is knowable.

Before you start your search for Truth, you should ask yourself whether or not you are willing to follow the evidence wherever it leads. If your biases are such that you will reject the evidence or refuse to give honest consideration to the facts, then you might as well not bother. Regardless of your starting worldview, the truth seeker will at least consider the evidence from the viewpoint of those holding opposing views. Willful ignorance or stubborn insistence on being "right" will be a stumbling block to the search for truth.

When seeking the truth, if there are multiple independent sources of information supporting claims, then we have a higher confidence in our conclusions. From investigating the reliability of the New Testament accounts and the Resurrection, to claims in a highly-charged political environment, there are some principles to apply:

• Eye-witness testimony (both friendly and hostile) of conversations, events, experiences, and actions are valuable.
• The truth-seeker considers historical records, financial documents, email/text trails, business associates' testimony, and contemporaneous recorded or documented conversations.
• Statements from experts or officials with firsthand information should be given more weight than uninformed opinions of commentators.
• Public statements, whether inconsistent, deliberate, or incidental, are all part of the puzzle to give serious consideration.
• Consideration of motives and biases of the participants is often used during investigations.
• Is there evidence of a coverup or conspiracy? Are the participants holding together, or is it falling apart with defectors or leaks?
• Allegations and opinions can be considered, but need to be given appropriate weight compared to the evidence. These are either consistent with the evidence, or they may not be consistent.

In the end, we are looking for the best explanation of all the evidence (abductive reasoning). Explanations which are coherent and consistent with the evidence should be given more credence.

Also, don't forget the Golden Rule of Apologetics, "Treat other's ideas and arguments in the same way you would like yours to be treated."

Should children as young as 8 be able to change their genders?

Last night at his town hall event, Joe Biden appears to imply that children as young as 8 should be able to change their genders. That is an unbelievably radical suggestion that should shock the conscience. Doesn't it seem to be abusive to the child to enable these psychological and physical changes in a person who we don't allow to make other important life decisions because of their maturity level? Note: This is a separate issue from whether or not fully grown adults can/should make these kinds of choices for themselves.

At the root, this is a Worldview issue, one that embraces a relativistic view of morality. Under relativism, morality is defined by either the self, groups, or the broader culture. There can be no objective set of moral standards with regards to sexuality, personal behavior, or social interactions.

Before you blindly vote against Trump and other Conservatives, please think about the Worldview the Democrat Party supports. Voting for the liberal progressives will further entrench these evil policies. As a Christian, I find it unconscionable to support the moral positions of the Democrat Party Platform.