Turkish Workers take a break to watch Christian TV

A worker on a thirty man construction crew in Turkey recently phoned the 24-hour Christian satellite television channel and said, "In the evenings, as a group, we watch the Life Channel (Kanal Hayat) and discuss the programs. Could you send us four New Testaments? When we retire to our rooms we like to read."

Ask God to call each of these men to the fellowship of His Son.

(from a Christian prayer letter, May 2012)

Vision Forum under Siege by Gay Activists

Vision Forum, which provides family-building books, films, CDs, and toys to Christians, has come under siege by gay activists for their defense of traditional marriage. This is from their email bulletin:

In the early hours of May 17, Vision Forum began to receive the first in an ongoing and unprecedented attack to neutralize our website. The attack coincided with what appears to be a concerted and ongoing effort from within the atheist and homosexual community to manipulate an online poll to VF readers, and transform the VF Facebook page into a forum for homosexuals and opponents of Christianity to mock Christianity. The attack successfully curtailed our ability to make some products available to customers today, successfully undermined the integrity of an online poll, and was successful in placing profanities, blasphemies, and offensive content on our Facebook page.

Here is the story as we presently understand it:

Vision Forum is a ministry dedicated to the defense of the Christian family. We believe that God alone has the right to define marriage, and it is intended to be between a man and a woman. Over the course of the last week, Vision Forum has been posting articles expressing our opposition to President Obama’s declaration in favor of same-sex marriage. We have pointed out the anti-Christian and unbiblical nature of the President’s support of homosexual marriage. We have pointed out that his declaration promotes an agenda which is inconsistent with the historic statutory and common law foundations of Western law which are rooted in Christianity. We have also pointed out that the President has unleashed a nationwide campaign of scoffing at Christianity and the biblical definition of marriage.

On Wednesday afternoon, we launched a poll through Doug’s Blog which asked the question: Do you support President Obama’s declaration favoring same sex marriage?

As of midnight that night, there were just under 1,600 votes, approximately 90% of which expressed disapproval for the President’s support of homosexual “marriage. ” By 7 o’clock the next morning, the number of votes had jumped to just under 25,000 voters, and the demographic had switched to close to 90% of Vision Forum readers voting in favor of the President’s declaration. We realized that something fishy was going on for there to be a 2000% increase in pro-sodomite voting during the early hours of the morning.

The D-DOS Attack on Our Website

But something else was also afoot.

Around 3:00 a.m. Thursday morning, Vision Forum began experiencing a Distributed Denial of Service (D-DOS) attack on the website, VisionForum.com. This type of attack uses large numbers of compromised computers, hundreds in this case, to send repeated requests to a website in an attempt to overload it. The result is that it can become very difficult, if not impossible, to use a website under such an attack.

If you were one of the hundreds of people who had problems loading the Vision Forum pages yesterday, it is because of this D-DOS attack which coincided with the efforts of others to populate our Facebook page with inappropriate material, and to undermine the integrity of our poll.

What is Causing the Inflated Pro-Homosexual Results?

At the time of this writing, the poll shows more than 50,000 voters, more than 47,000 of which support same-sex marriage. The numbers are growing with almost exact frequency each minute, and the proportionality of the votes have remained a general constant, at least since we have been tracking it early this morning.

Is this a case of the “people speaking”? Hardly!

There are two explanations for the dramatic change in proportionality of the vote and massive increase in voters. First, the pro-sodomite community could have rallied more than 40,000 supporters to vote in a time period of the last ten hours or so. This would show the power of anti-Christian hate groups to create a viral response to Christians who take a public stand against redefining marriage to accommodate the homosexual agenda.

How Anti-Christian Groups Deliberately Manipulated the Data

The second primary explanation is that the poll was deliberately manipulated by an individual or individuals wanting to interfere with the poll. An online poll of this kind provided by the PollDaddy service used on Doug’s Blog could easily be skewed through use of a macro script or browser plug-in such as the iMacros add-on for Google Chrome.

So what happened?

The evidence indicates that internet trolls and activists have tampered with at least a portion of the polling process.

We have verified, for example, by mid-afternoon that at least 4,500 of the votes are duplicates coming from the same IP address. This is almost indisputable proof that “there is something fishy going on.” Another 17,000 votes are from outside the United States of America, which means either that Vision Forum is either experiencing an unprecedented amount of international traffic, or that individuals may be using anonymizing networks to make their IP addresses appear unique while actually “rigging” the poll in their favor. It does not appear to be a hack of PollDaddy’s servers, but instead someone employing an automated script to vote repeatedly.

Presently, a user is claiming responsibility for skewing the results using a macro script of this kind. As early as 1:00 a.m. on Thursday morning, a link to my blog post with this polling question “Do you support the President’s stand on same-sex marriage?” was shared in the Atheism section of the social site Reddit, encouraging visitors to participate. The item received more than 500 responses including acknowledgements of participation, many of which contained specific statements in opposition to the Christian definition of marriage.

It was on the Reddit atheist forum that a user boasted of their use of a specialized computer script to dramatically inflate votes in our poll in favor of President Obama’s position and urged other readers of the Reddit forum to employ the same method to further skew the poll results. Several of these individuals identified themselves as homosexuals and posted glee-filled obscenities about their behavior within the context of their attempt to hijack our poll. Their boasting simply reveals what the common IP addresses point to — the manipulation of the poll by a few, thus rendering the results highly imbalanced.

Pro-Homosexual and Atheists Target the VF Facebook Page

But if bots and macro sabotage scripts were not enough, atheists, sodomites and pro-homosexuals from around the world targeted our Facebook page to populate it with hundreds of profanities, hateful dialogue, scoffing, blasphemy, and more. This prompted the posting of the following statement:

“This Facebook page has been targeted by the atheist and homosexual community, members of which have generated a spate of posts which violate the guidelines of this page. We remind our readers: We are a Christian company that takes seriously the Third Commandment. It is one thing to charitably post an alternative opinion, it is another to mock God, his Scriptures, or to take His name in vain. If you use this Facebook page for scoffing (Proverbs 22:10), for posting defiling communications, or if you in any way violate the Third Commandment in your posts, or encourage others to do the same, you will be deleted and banned. ”

What Are We to Make of This Attack?

Last year, atheist groups targeted the Facebook page of Ken Ham, filling it with pornographic material and hateful and filthy language. Yesterday Vision Forum was the object of attack (and still is). Tomorrow, it will be someone else.

While these plots to sabotage our poll and website, or to pollute our Facebook page with inappropriate dialogue can be a nuisance, they are not surprising. In fact, they are entirely predictable. They are a predictable tactic of radical groups known for bad behavior, groups made up of individuals who have little respect for Christianity or decency. What Vision Forum is presently experiencing is the predictable consequence of taking a stand against the radical pro-homosexual and atheist communities.

Of course, the battle on the Vision Forum website points to a much bigger and defining cultural battle that confronts us today: Will we embrace God’s program for marriage and the family and seek to personally model it in all its power and beauty, even as we fight for its sanctity — or will we cave to societal pressure and call “evil, good ” as it relates to homosexual behavior and attempts for unlawful recognition of practicing homosexuals, in defiance of God’s standards given to us in the Bible? The choice is simple: God’s law or chaos.

May God Receive All the Glory

Since our inception, Vision Forum has embraced the Bible as the standard for all of life and has sought to encourage the restoration of the biblical family by reinforcing godly masculinity and femininity — calling on men to act as noble men and women to embrace the high calling of virtuous womanhood and biblical femininity. Part of this mission has been to extol the glories of godly marriage as first pictured in the Garden when God brought Eve to Adam as his perfect helpmeet. The institution of marriage was the capstone of Creation Week, as God declared that “it is not good that man should be alone” (Gen. 2:18); that Adam needed a wife to aid him in his dominion work. Eve was God’s gift to Adam, and through Adam’s union with her, they were to bring forth children — to “be fruitful and multiply” — even as they worked together as dominion stewards of God’s creation. It’s this grand model of God-ordained marriage that Vision Forum has sought to advance since our founding more than fourteen years ago.

The battle against biblical marriage is likely only to escalate. As the pressure increases, we as Christian must fight against compromise and uphold God’s standard concerning this foundational institution.

Your grateful friend in the battle
Douglas Phillips
President, Vision Forum Inc.

(To receive new uMarko posts via a daily email, please click Subscribe)

How did Animals Cross the Ocean? Evolution says, uhhh...

Evolutionists have three totally different methods they they mix and match to explain the distribution of animals and plants across the face of the earth: Land Bridges, Oceanic Dispersal, and the Pangaea supercontinent. If one doesn't sound right, try the other! Is this Science? Are we in the midst of another paradigm shift and a return to “a science of the improbable, the rare, the mysterious, and the miraculous”? Or maybe the worldwide flood of the Bible offers a better explanation...

Selections from Biogeography: A Creationist Perspective, by Bill Johnson.

(These selections by Marko Malyj are of the article published in Creation Research Society Quarterly Journal, Volume 48, Number 3, Winter 2012)

(To receive new uMarko posts via a daily email, please click Subscribe)

Why is it that animals and plants are not equally distributed over the face of the earth? Why are some animals, like giraffes and lions, confined to only one location—Africa, whereas other plants and animals are either ubiquitously or discontinuously distributed? Biogeography, or the geography of life, has been an active field of study for centuries. Early creationists tried to explain these distributions a variety of ways. Universal Flood geologists postulated that all animals dispersed from the Middle East. Can this be true? From the mid-nineteenth century to the present, evolutionists have dominated the biogeographical debate, and creationists have largely remained silent on the issue. As a result, it is commonly believed that evolution best explains the geography of life. But macroevolutionary biogeography is far from proven.

Land Bridges

Until recently, it was widely accepted that the continents as we know them have always been in their current locations. Belief in the permanence of the continents led many evolutionists to explain distributions by postulating land bridges between the continents. These land bridges crisscrossed every ocean and were thrown up or torn down wherever and whenever their theory required. Up until the second half of the twentieth century, most evolutionists employed this line of reasoning. Ernst Haeckel is a case in point:



The Lemuria land bridge of nineteenth-century geology.

Even Europe and America have been directly connected. The South Sea at one time formed a large Pacific continent... The Indian Ocean formed a continent which extended from the Sunda Islands along the southern coast of Asia to the east coast of Africa (Haeckel, 1892, pp. 375–376).

Everywhere there was a disjunct distribution to explain, evolutionists like Haeckel “sharpened their pencils and sketched land bridges between the appropriate continents” (Corliss, 1970, p. 61). Some of the land bridges were small and plausible; others, such as the landmass that stretched across the entire Pacific Ocean to allow bears, raccoons, and other animals to gain access to the American continent, were of continental proportion. After the fauna and flora reached their appointed destination the evolutionists’ “eraser disposed of the bridge when it had outlived its usefulness as evidenced by the divergence of species on the sundered continents” (Corliss, 1970, p. 61). The problem with continental land bridges and their sudden disappearance after they served their purpose was that in nearly every case there was absolutely no geological evidence for their existence. The only reason for their construction was to explain away the puzzling distributions of life.

Even Darwin, who was once an avid land bridge builder, eventually saw just how convenient it was to throw up land bridges to explain distributions. In a letter to J. D. Hooker he noted that some conjure up land bridges “as easily as a cook does pancakes” (Darwin, 1959, p. 432).

Oceanic Dispersal

Another way to explain the puzzling distribution of life is to have animals and plants crossing formidable water gaps by means of rafting, or, in the case of birds, postulating island colonizations achieved by transoceanic flights. Ernst Mayr used oceanic dispersal to explain how the banded iguana came to reside in the south Pacific.

The lizard family Iguanidae is confined to the Americas, except for one genus (with two species) found in Fiji and Tonga …a long time ago they floated there on logs and flotsam carried by ocean currents (Mayr, 2001, p. 32).

Mayr’s explanation seems plausible until one realizes that the Fiji Islands are 5,000 miles away from America. Granting a generous thirty miles of drift per day for this treacherous journey (which required a sail mate of the opposite sex), the iguanas would have arrived in Fiji eight months later!

Mayr and Phelps claimed the Hawaiian Islands house many land birds that supposedly migrated there from the American continents. These birds would have had to fly over 2,000 miles without the aid of intervening islands to serve as “steppingstones” (Mayr and Phelps, 1967). Some of these long-distance colonizations
seem miraculous.
 
How about the dispersal of freshwater fish (i.e., cichlids) found only in Africa and South America? Phillip Darlington, the most prominent biogeographer of the twentieth century, flirted with a south Atlantic land bridge but favored the hypothesis that these fish traveled out of Africa, up through Asia, across the Bering land bridge, down North and Central America, and finally into South America (Darlington, 1957). The most amazing part of this story is the disjunct distribution is also explained by extinction in the intermediate parts of a wide distribution that did not leave a single fossil behind!

Continental Drift



Generalized reconstruction of the supercontinent,
Pangaea in latest Paleozoic time.

 In the 1960s many evolutionists opted for what is called vicariance biogeography, i.e., that most plants and animals were widely distributed on the super continent Pangaea and the discontinuities we observe today are largely due to the breakup of this continent. The cichlids, along with other fish, would not have had to travel tens of thousands of miles from Africa to South America (as Darlington claims); they needed only to disperse a short distance while the continents were still together. With vicariance it appeared that evolutionary biogeography was saved from the embarrassing theories of the past. Or has it?

For example, if the continents were once connected, why are there not more fauna and flora similarities between the southern continents?

Also, it requires many taxa to have originated preceding the breakup of Pangaea. Recently, evolutionary dating methods have shown that many plants and animals evolved after the continents separated. This would include freshwater fish (i.e., aplocheiloid, cichlid), ratite birds, parrots, frogs, baobab trees, and anolis lizards (Briggs, 2003; De Queiroz, 2005). Evolutionists are now forced to acknowledge that longdistance dispersalism must have played an even greater role than many have suspected.

So which is it, Land Bridges, Oceanic Dispersal, or Pangaea? Are we in the midst of another paradigm shift and a return to “a science of the improbable, the rare, the mysterious, and the miraculous” (Nelson, 1978, p. 289)?

Is this Science?

Evolutionary biogeography has now come full circle. The “recent flood of evidence” that McGlone and others talk about is not evidence, per se; rather it is lack of evidence for drift. Alan De Queiroz (2005, p. 70) notes, “A main objection to dispersal hypotheses is that they are unfalsifiable and thus unscientific … However, this can be countered by noting that, if plausible vicariance hypotheses are falsified, then dispersal is supported by default.”

The explanations given for the dispersal of freshwater fish are just as eclectic. Evolutionists originally postulated a land bridge between Africa and South America (Eigenmann, 1909). Darlington (1957) followed this idea by moving these fish across almost every continent. Along came vicariance with its explanation of short-distance dispersal before the continents fragmented (Stiassny, 1991; Murphy and Collier, 1997).

Now that many freshwater fish are judged as too young to have been moved by drift, the explanation is that they are tolerant of saltwater and made the long journey across the Atlantic Ocean.

Biogeography can “explain” every distribution in a multitude of ways, while never making a prediction that could subject the theory to falsification. Even evolutionists have long recognized that it is an explain-all theory. How is this Science?

We began by with the early creationists, who were Universal Flood geologists. They postulated that all animals dispersed from the Middle East, as suggested by the Biblical worldwide flood described in the book of Genesis. In the second part of this article, we will reexamine this old viewpoint. It turns out to be a far superior explanation.

References (selected)

Briggs, J.C. 2003. Fishes and birds: Gondwana life rafts reconsidered. Systematic Biology 52:548–553.
 
Corliss, W. 1970. Mysteries Beneath the Sea. Crowell, New York, NY.

Darlington, P. 1957. Zoogeography: The Geographical Distribution of Animals. John Wiley and Sons, New York, NY.

Darwin, C. 1959. Life and Letters of Charles Darwin. Basic Books, New York, NY.

De Queiroz, A. 2005. The resurrection of oceanic dispersal in historical biogeography. Trends in Ecology and Evolution 20:68–73.

Eigenmann, C. H. 1909. The fresh-water fishes of Patagonia and an examination of the Archiplata – Archhelenis theory. In Scott, W.B. (editor), Reports of the Princeton University Expedition to Patagonia 1896–1899, pp. 227–374. Princeton University Press, Princeton, NJ.
Haeckel, E. 1892. The History of Creation. Appleton, New York, NY.

Mayr, E. 2001. What Evolution Is. Basic Books, New York, NY.

Mayr, E., and W.H. Phelps. 1967. The origin of the bird fauna of the south Venezuelan highlands. Bulletin of the American Museum of Natural History 136:273–327.

Murphy, W.J., and G.E. Collier. 1997. A molecular phylogeny for aplocheiloid fishes (Atherinomorpha, Cyprinodontiformes): the role of vicariance and the origins of annualism. Molecular Biology and Evolution 14:790–799.

Stiassny, M. 1991. Phylogenetic interrelationships of the family Cichlidae: an overview. In Keenleyside, M.H.A. (editor), Cichlid Fishes: Behavior, Ecology and Evolution, pp 1–35. Chapman and Hall, London, UK.

Parents of 12 children? That's not possible!

Olga and Anatoliy Sukach, Christians living in Ukraine, had the desire to adopt a girl after their 4th son was born. But years of home troubles and routine hid the intention. A good while later, the family visited a church in Dubechne village. Olga and Anatoliy had a good time communicating with the pastor, Mykola Krykota, who adopted three boys and is part of the Orphan Care program. After all they heard about orphans, Olga and Anatoliy felt a great desire to adopt a child that minute. The couple got the detailed information from the pastor and the next day started the document process. They wanted to adopt a girl, but instead they were offered four biological brothers and sisters. Though Olga and Anatoliy had not expected it, they trusted their Father in Heaven, Who through the Holy Spirit led them in the process of adoption. That's how 5) Olya, 6) Vitya, 7) Natalya, and 8) Vasyl came to the family.

Two years then passed and Olga read a newspaper article about children from Chernivtsi who lost both parents almost simultaneously. She read it to her husband and they decided to adopt those children. Looking at the picture in the newspaper, they already imagined how the kids would feel at home with them. But then the dream was broken when they were told they could not adopt children from another region. Since this couple was so ready to adopt again, they made their way to the Kovel Rehabilitation Center, where they were offered three brothers: 9) Roma, 10) Misha, and 11) Oleg. A girl named Vika, who is the boys' aunt, was with them in the center. Olga and Anatoliy adopted the brothers and promised Vika that they would find her a good family too. But a year later, they adopted 12) Vika as well.

Sukach family.

If someone would have told Anatoliy and Olga just a few years ago that they would be parents of 12 children today, they would have simply laughed and said that's impossible ...

Seeing what has done in this family, I am reminded that for God, all things are possible. I have the privilege of seeing this again and again, and I am so happy to share this example with you, my dear friends!

For more information on the New Hope Ukraine Orphan Care Program, see Change the World for One Child)

(from New Hope International, May 2012)

Scientists still frustrated in finding the Gay Gene

Are people naturally homosexual? Scientists who face this question squarely must say no, homosexuality is not natural. They can't find a gay gene, they can't explain why identical twins are not both homosexual, they can't explain how it could have evolved. They have found that therapy can help people change their sexual orientation. Also, if it was natural, why is homosexuality so unhealthy? The best science links homosexuality with abuse. Kevin Anderson concludes: a society that no longer sees homosexuality as deviant inevitably accepts other destructive behaviors also. Only Christ has the power to pull us through our addictions!

Selections from Not so Gay, editorial by Kevin Anderson.
(These selections by Marko Malyj are of the article published in Creation Research Society Quarterly Journal, Volume 42, Number 2, Winter 2012).

Advocates of homosexuality have argued that some people are naturally homosexual, just as others are naturally heterosexual. As people are born with brown hair or blue eyes, so homosexuals are born with a genetic disposition toward homosexual behavior. Thus, they are genetically programmed to be homosexual, just as others are genetically programmed to be heterosexual.

The X Chromosome?

In an early attempt to detect a “gay gene,” a research group lead by Dean Hamer suggested a tendency of homosexuals to have a unique DNA site on their X chromosome (Hamer et al., 1993; Hu et al., 1995). In response, Fausto-Sterling et al. (1993) claimed that Hamer’s work lacked adequate controls and failed to present sufficient analysis to justify any claimed homosexual link with the Xq28 chromosome site. In addition, subsequent attempts to verify the results of Hamer’s studies have not been successful (Rice et al., 1999; Wickelgren, 1999).

More recently, Hamer’s group was unable to find a link between male sexual orientation and differences in pre-natal brain exposure of estrogen (DuPree et al., 2004). Also, even with much greater detail of the human genome than was available in the 1990s, they were unable to obtain any conclusive results (Mustanski et al., 2005).

Aren't Identical Twins both Homosexual?

Studying twins has also been pursued as an indirect means of detecting a “gay gene.” Since identical twins share identical genomes, there should be a higher correlation of homosexuality between identical twins than found between non-twin siblings (i.e., both twins should either be homosexual because they possess the “gay gene,” or heterosexual because they do not have the gene). Following this line of reasoning, various studies have attempted to detect such a correlation. Bailey et al. (2000, p. 534) studied a large number of twins and concluded if any homosexual gene existed, it was in the study group at a “low penetration or low frequency.” In a later study, Långström et al. 2010, p. 75) also analyzed a large number of twins and found a low-level of genetic correlation with homosexual twins but were obligated to note that the data had a very high variance, which “suggest cautious interpretation.”

Homosexuals can stop being homosexuals

Of related interest is the potential ability of homosexuals to “stop” being homosexual. If any genetic predisposition were significant, such reverse behavior would not be very plausible and certainly not very frequent. Masters and Johnson (1979) stated that “reparative therapy” was often effective for individuals who wanted to change. I personally remember the sharp criticism they received for making such a claim. This idea was repugnant to gay activists since it suggested their behavior may simply be a choice, and it suggested that their behavior could even be regarded as needing to be changed. They felt that Masters and Johnson—hardly friends of any anti-homosexual thinking—had betrayed them.

Additional studies have continued to suggest possible “transformation” of homosexuals (e.g., Nicolosi et al., 2000; Throckmorton, 2002). Spitzer (2003) studied 200 individuals and reported that “reparative therapy” could be successful. Not surprisingly, his report precipitated a series of critical letters, including concern that a journal would even publish such a report. The journal’s editor acknowledged the emotional tension surrounding the topic was so “contaminated by rhetorical fervor” that it will cloud any type of conclusions (Zucker, 2003, p. 400).

Homosexuality Healthy?

An oft overlooked but significant aspect of the homosexual lifestyle is the medical dangers it presents. Homosexual behavior and practices by males make them very vulnerable to a wide array of diseases and medical conditions. The homosexual male has “an increased risk of contracting sexually transmitted diseases (STDs) and HIV” (Eriksson and Berglund, 2007, p. 207).

In fact, homosexual males are the reservoir (i.e., the continual source) of virtually all STDs. Most “gay” males have had at least one infection of an STD (Handsfield, 1981) and will likely have more in their lifetime. A Center for Disease Control (CDC, Atlanta, GA) report states that the majority of HIV infections in America are found in homosexual men, even though they comprise only 2% of the population (CDC, 2010). Even homosexual females have a high incidence of many common STDs (Edwards and Thin, 1990; Hughes and Evans, 2003; Marrazzo, et al., 1998; Skinner, et. al., 1996).

The simple question to ask would be: If homosexuality was created by God or was even simply “natural,” why would it involve such physical and mental health problems?

Homosexuality Evolved?

Evolution also has difficulty accounting for the origin of human homosexuality. What evolutionary benefit does homosexuality provide? It would provide little reproductive advantage (at least as defined by Darwinism). Why would the behavior even evolve initially? By Darwinian criteria, only those behaviors and adaptations that increase survivability would be favorably selected.

A variety of speculations have been offered for the evolution of homosexuality. These include enhanced survival of isolated males, balanced polymorphism, and sexual antagonism (Ciani, et al., 2008; Kirkpatrick, 2000; Muscarella, 2000). Each of these scenarios has serious weaknesses (e.g., see discussions in Ciani at al., 2008, and in Schwartz et al., 2010), and few address the evolution of the homosexual female. In fact, some of these scenarios are just as effective for explaining the extinction of the female homosexual as they are for explaining the origin of the male homosexual.

This is not exactly what homosexual advocates are seeking.

The evolution myth also struggles to explain the institution of marriage—often relegating it to a social construct that a female found was necessary to enhance her and her children’s survival. As technology reduces the female’s dependency on male protection and food gathering, marriage becomes less evolutionarily necessary. Little wonder societies that readily embrace evolution soon embrace a nonbiblical view of marriage as well.

Homosexuality's Link with Abuse

What is typically downplayed in understanding the origin and persistency of homosexual behavior is its link with abuse. Numerous studies have found a significant connection between childhood abuse (physical, emotional, and sexual) and the subsequent development of homosexual behavior (e.g., see review of these studies in Wilson and Widom, 2010). The connection may be even more prevalent if it is sexual abuse of boys by another male (Eskin et al., 2005). Lack of a supporting father may also be a contributing factor (Eskin et al., 2005).

Homosexuality appears to have its origin in perversion. Should we be surprised? We abuse our children (those who depend upon us for love, comfort, and protection), and the effect can be devastating and lifelong. The “sins of our fathers” can directly and tragically impact several generations afterwards (Exod. 34:6–7; Deut. 5:9). Homosexuality becomes one of the many possible consequences of the child’s emotional scars. Homosexual advocates may not like this conclusion. They certainly do not want to hear that the behavior is just another consequence of a fallen creation, just another sordid tale of human travesty. But the evidence is clear enough that it keeps appearing in study after study—attempts to “spin” it otherwise notwithstanding.

When All is Said and Done

Over the years I have increasingly observed how little importance actual evidence is to most people. Modernistic man merely gives lip service to evidence. He pretends to carefully evaluate the facts and use them to make a logical decision. In reality, people’s decisions are often based upon their limited perception of reality, which is heavily shaped by their emotional state of mind (and simple wishful thinking). In our sinful world, truth has little meaning. Ignorance, not truth, guides people’s thinking (Rom. 1:21; Eph. 4:18). Sadly, this applies even to many who identify themselves as Christian.

What is more, a society that no longer regards homosexuality as deviant inevitably accepts other destructive behaviors also: sexual promiscuity, spiritualism, abortion, and the list goes on and on. While some may eventually decry the social destruction occurring all around them, few will recognize it is the consequence of defying God’s laws (Isa. 3:9).

Yes, A society that broadens God’s boundaries of marriage inevitably has no boundaries. Such a society will decay at its very core. Only Christ, as our Creator, has the power to pull us through our addictions.

References (selected)
Bailey, J.M., M.P. Dunne, and N.G. Martin. 2000. Genetic and environmental influences on sexual orientation and its correlates in an Australian twin sample. Journal of Personality and Social Psychology 78:524–536.

CDC Report. 2010. HIV among gay, bisexual and other men who have sex with men. http://www.cdc.gov/hiv/topics/msm/index.htm (accessed July 2, 2011).

Ciani, A.C., P. Cermelli, and G. Zanzotto. 2008. Sexual antagonistic selection in human male homosexuality. PLoS One 3:6:e2282.

DuPree, M.G., B.s. Mustanski, S. Bocklandt, C. Nievergelt, and D.H. Hamer. 2004. A candidate gene study of CYP19 (aromatase) and male sexual orientation. Behavior Genetics 34:243–250.

Edwards, A., and R.N. Thin. 1990. Sexually transmitted diseases in lesbians. International Journal of STD & AIDS 1:178–181.

Eriksson, L.E., and T. Berglund. 2007. Health-related quality in homo- and bisexual men attending a sexually transmitted disease clinic in Sweden. International Journal of STD & AID 18:207–211.

Eskin, M., H. Kaynak-Demir, and S. Demir. 2005. Seme-sex sexual orientation, childhood sexual abuse, and suicidal behavior in university students in Turkey. Archives of Sexual Behavior 34:185–195.

Fausto-Sterling, A., E. Balaban, R. Diamond, D. Hamer, S. Hu., V. Magnuson, N. Hu, and A. Pattatucci. 1993. Genetics and male sexual orientation. Science 261:1257–1259.

Hamer, Dean H., Stella Hu, Victoria L. Magnuson, Nan Hu, and Angela M.L. Pattatucci. 1993. A linkage between DNA markers on the X chromosome and male sexual orientation. Science 261:321–327.

Handsfield, H.H. 1981. Sexually transmitted diseases in homosexual men. American Journal of Public Health 71:989–990.

Långström, N., Q. Rahman, E. Carlström, and P. Lichtenstein. 2010. Genetic and environmental effects on same-sex sexual behavior: a population study of twins in Sweden. Archives of Sexual Behavior 39:75–80.

Hughes, C., and A. Evans. 2003. Health needs of women who have sex with women: healthcare workers need to be aware of their specific needs. British Medical Journal 327:939–940.

Kirkpatrick, R.C. 2000. The evolution of human sexual behavior. Current Anthropology 41:385–413.

Marrazzo, J.M, L.A. Koutsky, K.L. Stine, J.M. Kuypers, T.A. Grubert, D.A. Galloway, N.B. Kivat, and H.H. Handsfield. 1998. Genital human papillomavirus infection in women who have sex with women. Journal of Infectious Diseases 178:1604–1609.

Masters, W., and V. Johnson. 1979. Homosexuality in Perspective. Bantam Books, New York, NY.

Muscarella, F. 2000. The evolution of homoerotic behavior in humans. Journal of Homosexuality 40:51–77.

Mustanski, B.S., M.g. DuPree, C.M. Nievergelt, S. Bocklandt, N.J. Schork, and D.H. Hamer. 2005. A genomewide scan of male sexual orientation. Human
Genetics 116:272–278.

Nicolosi, J., A.D. Byrd, and R.W. Potts. 2000. Retrospective self-reports of changes in homosexual orientation: a consumer survey of conversion therapy clients. Psychological Reports 86:1071–1088.

Rice, G., C. Anderson, N. Risch, and G. Ebers. 1999. Male homosexuality: absence of linkage to microsatellite markers at Xq28. Science 284:665–667.

Schwartz, G., R.M. Kim, A.B. Kolundzija, G. Rieger, and A.R. Sanders. 2010. Biodemographic and physical correlates of sexual orientation in men. Archives of Sexual Behavior 39:93–109.

Skinner, C.J., J. Stokes, Y. Kirlew, J. Kavanagh, and G.E. Forster. 1996. A case controlled study of the sexual health needs of lesbians. Genitourinary Medicine 72:277–280.

Throckmorton, W. 2002. Initial empirical and clinical findings concerning the change process for ex-gays. Professional Psychology; Research and Practice 33:242–248.

Wickelgren, I. 1999. Discovery of ‘gay gene’ questioned. Science 284:571.

Wilson, H.W., and C.S. Widom. 2010. Does physical abuse, sexual abuse, or neglect in childhood increase the likelihood of same-sex relationships and cohabitation? A prospective 30-year follow-up. Archives of Sexual Behavior 39:63–74.

Zucker, K. 2003. The politics and science of reparative therapy. Archives of Sexual Behavior 32:399–402.

How can we glorify God?

  God is glorified

when we reach out

and take someone

    into our heart.

(Dr. Robert A. Cook, Walk with the King Ministries)

Even Chi-Comms are drawn to Christianity, as the West is throwing it away

Niall Ferguson, British Historian, argues that the days of Western predominance are numbered because the China and the Rest of the world have started downloading the six applications the West once monopolized - competition, science, the rule of law, modern medicine, consumerism, and the work ethic. Meanwhile the West has literally lost faith in itself, and in Christianity, its greatest legacy which gave birth to these many advantages.

(From Niall Ferguson, Civilization, The West and the Rest, Penguin Press, New York, 2011, pp.284-288).

Luggage Factory, Wenzhou.

The city of Wenzhou, in Zhejiang province, south of Shanghai, C\hina, is the quintessential manufacturing town. With a population of 8 million people and growing, it has the reputation of being the most entrepreneurial city in China - a place where the free market rules and the role of the state is minimal. The landscape of textile mills and heaps of coal would have been instantly recognizable to a Victorian; it is an Asian Manchester. The work ethic animates everyone from the wealthiest entrepreneur to the lowliest factory hand. Wenzhou people not only work longer hours than Americans; they also save a far larger proportion of their income. Between 2001 and 2007, at a time when American savings collapsed, the Chinese savings rate rose above 40 per cent of gross national income. On average, Chinese households save more than a fifth of the money they make; corporations save even more in the form of retained earnings.

Wezhou General
Protestant Church.

The truly fascinating thing, however, is that people in Wenzhou have imported more than just the work ethic from the West. They have imported Protestantism too. For the seeds the British missionaries planted here 150 years ago have belatedly sprouted in the most extraordinary fashion. Whereas before the Cultural Revolution there were 480 churches in the city, today there are 1,339 churches- and those are only the ones approved by the government. The church George Stott built a hundred years ago is now packed every Sunday. Another, established by the Inland Mission in 1877 but closed during the Cultural Revolution and only reopened in 1982, now has a congregation of 1,200. There are new churches, too, often with bright red neon crosses on their roofs. Small wonder they call Wenzhou the Chinese Jerusalem. Already in 2002 around 14 per cent of Wenzhou's population were Christians; the proportion today is surely higher. And this is the city that Mao proclaimed 'religion free' back in 1958. As recently as 1997, officials here launched a campaign to 'remove the crosses'. Now they seem to have given up. In the countryside around Wenzhou, villages openly compete to see whose church has the highest spire.

Christianity in China today is far from being the opium of the masses. Among Wenzhou's most devout believers are the so-called Boss Christians, entrepreneurs like Hanping Zhang, chairman of Aihao (the Chinese character for which can mean 'love', 'goodness' or 'hobby'), one of the three biggest pen-manufacturers in the world. A devout Christian, Zhang is the living embodiment of the link between the spirit of capitalism and the Protestant ethic, precisely as Max Weber understood it. Once a farmer, he started a plastics business in 1979 and eight years later opened his first pen factory. Today he employs around 5,000 workers who produce up to 500 million pens a year. In his eyes, Christianity is thriving in China because it offers an ethical framework to people struggling to cope with a startlingly fast social transition from communism to capitalism. Trust is in short supply in today's China, he told me. Government officials are often corrupt. Business counterparties cheat. Workers steal from their employers. Young women marry and then vanish with hard-earned dowries. Baby food is knowingly produced with toxic ingredients, school buildings constructed with defective materials. But Zhang feels he can trust his fellow Christians, because he knows they are both hard working and honest. Just as in Protestant Europe and America in the early days of the Industrial Revolution, religious communities double as both credit networks and supply chains of creditworthy, trustworthy fellow believers.

In the past, the Chinese authorities were deeply suspicious of Christianity, and not just because they recalled the chaos caused by the Taiping Rebellion. Seminary students played an important part in the Tiananmen Square pro-democracy movement; indeed, two of the most wanted student leaders back in the summer of 1989 subsequently became Christian clergymen. In the wake of that crisis there was yet another crackdown on unofficial churches. Ironically, the utopianism of Maoism created an appetite that today, with a Party leadership that is more technocratic than messianic, only Christianity seems able to satisfy.... It is not hard to see why the Party prefers to reheat Confucianism, with its emphasis on respect for the older generation and the traditional equilibrium of a 'harmonious society'. Nor is it surprising that persecution of Christians was stepped up during the 2008 Olympics, a time of maximum exposure of the nation's capital to foreign influences.

Pastor Jin Mingri.

Even under Mao, however, an official Protestantism was tolerated in the form of the Three-Self Patriotic Movement based on the principles of self-governance, self-support and self-propagation - in other words no foreign influences. Today, St Paul's in Nanjing is typical of official Three-Self churches; here, the Reverend Kan Renping's congregation has grown from a few hundred when he took over in 1994 to some 5,000 regular worshippers. It is so popular that newcomers have to watch the proceedings on dosed-circuit television in four nearby satellite chapels. Since the issue of Party Document Number 19 in 1982 there has also been intermittent official tolerance of the 'house churches' movement, congregations that meet more or less secretly in people's homes and often embrace American forms of worship. In Beijing itself, worshippers flock to the Reverend Jin Mingri's Zion Church, an unofficial church with 350 members, nearly all drawn from the entrepreneurial or professional class and nearly all under the age of forty.

Gao Hong.

Christianity has become chic in China. The former Olympic soccer goalkeeper Gao Hong is a Christian. So are the television actress Lu Liping and the pop singer Zheng Jun. Chinese academics like Tang Yi openly speculate that 'the Christian faith may eventually conquer China and Christianize Chinese culture' - though he thinks it more likely either that 'Christianity may eventually be absorbed by Chinese culture, following the example of Buddhism ... and become a sinless religion of the Chinese genre' or that 'Christianity [will] retain its basic Western characteristics and settle down to be a sub-cultural minority religion.'

After much hesitation, at least some of China's communist leaders now appear to recognize Christianity as one of the West's greatest sources of strength. According to one scholar from the Chinese Academy of the Social Sciences:

We were asked to look into what accounted for the ... pre-eminence of the West all over the world ... At first, we thought it was because you had more powerful guns than we had. Then we thought it was because you had the best political system. Next we focused on your economic system. But in the past twenty years, we have realized that the heart of your culture is your religion: Christianity. That is why the West has been so powerful. The Christian moral foundation of social and cultural life was what made possible the emergence of capitalism and then the successful transition to democratic politics. We don't have any doubt about this.

Zhuo Xinping, director of the
Institute of World Religions.

Another academic, Zhuo Xinping, has identified the 'Christian understanding of transcendence' as having played 'a very decisive role in people's acceptance of pluralism in society and politics in the contemporary West':

Only by accepting this understanding of transcendence as our criterion can we understand the real meaning of such concepts as freedom, human rights, tolerance, equality, justice, democracy, the rule of law, universality, and environmental protection.

Yuan Zhiming, a Christian film-maker, agrees: 'The most important thing, the core of Western civilization ... is Christianity.' According to Professor Zhao Xiao, himself a convert, Christianity offers China a new 'common moral foundation' capable of reducing corruption, narrowing the gap between rich and poor, promoting philanthropy and even preventing pollution. 'Economic viability requires a serious moral ethos,' in the words of another scholar, 'more than just hedonistic consumerism and dishonest strategy.'

President Jiang Zemin.

It is even said that, shortly before Jiang Zemin stepped down as China's president and Communist Party leader, he told a gathering of high-ranking Party officials that, if he could issue one decree that he knew would be obeyed everywhere, it would be to 'make Christianity the official religion of China'. In 2007 his successor Hu Jintao held an unprecedented Politburo 'study session' on religion, at which he told China's twenty-five most powerful leaders that 'the knowledge and strength of religious people must be mustered to build a prosperous society'. The XIVth Central Committee of the Chinese Communist Party was presented with a report specifying three requirements for sustainable economic growth: property rights as a foundation, the law as a safeguard and morality as a support.

The minister may have come from apes, but we've always been human

In 2010, the government in Quebec, Canada “ordered some private evangelical schools to teach evolution” as fact (Schultz). As a result several parents in a remote Inuit (Eskimo) community on Ungava Bay complained that their children arrived home from school claiming their ancestors were apes.

When the local principal reprimanded his new science teacher for teaching evolution to an increasingly evangelical population, the minister of education himself stepped in to order the provincial science curriculum restored, an intervention that won no applause from at least one aboriginal mother in the town of Salluit. “The minister may have come from apes,” Molly Tayara told the Montreal Gazette, “but we’re Inuit and we’ve always been human.” (McDonald, 2010, p. 196)

The Inuit have been a target of evolutionists before...

---

---

Not long after Darwin published On the Origin of Species in 1859, an Inuit from Canada became a zoo exhibit in Germany, to serve as an example of primitive savage people that evolutionists judged were links to lower animals.

"Savages" On Display.

Abraham Ulrikab, an Inuit from Hebron, Labrador, along with his wife and two daughters plus four other Inuit, were lured into coming to Germany by Adrian Jacobsen on behalf of Carl Hagenbeck's Zoo, in Hamburg, Germany, and on September 24, 1880, they became a zoo exhibit. Moravian missionaries desperately tried to persuade Ulrikab not to go, but he let himself be persuaded by the local Hudson Bay trader, Mr. Ford, to disobey the missionaries, and to join Jacobsen’s enterprise.

They had agreed to be in a display partly because they were misled to believe the display was set up only to show the Inuit’s native way of life. The zookeepers instructed them to simply walk, talk, wear their fur parkas, and throw harpoons. The Ulrikab group, though, soon became aware of the real purpose of their being displayed: “They know fully well that they are being exhibited” wrote an article in the Magdeburgishe Zeitung of October 21, 1880 (quoted in Lutz, 2005, p. 23). A literate man, and an accomplished violin player, Ulrikab was a devout Christian and became the natural leader of the eight Inuits.

Within weeks of arriving in Europe and taking up residence in the zoo, the families realized they had made a big mistake. Their European keepers concluded that “the Inuit were incapable of progressing” socially and intellectually because they were the dullest of all savages. Furthermore, they were “a vanishing, feeble race” a fact that their keepers believed justified displaying them in a zoo (Hegel, 2000, p. 43). The “exhibit” was a big success — some 16,000 people had visited the display in Berlin alone (Lutz, 2005, p. xxii).

One fatal mistake their hosts made was, prior to leaving Canada, the Inuits were to be vaccinated against smallpox. Lack of facilities in Hebron forced the authorities to promise the required vaccination would be done in Germany. It never happened. The Inuits were vaccinated only after three of them died, but by then it was too late. Just five months after their arrival they all had died of smallpox.

The struggle against forcing Darwinism on groups of people still goes on today, not only with the Inuit, but with other ethnic groups (Sewell, 2009).

(based on Jerry Bergman, Humans on Display, published in Creation Matters, a publication of Creation Research Society, Volume 17, Number 1, January/February 2012, to appear at http://www.creationresearch.org/creation_matters/pdf/2012/CM17%2001%20for%20web.pdf)

(To receive new uMarko posts via a daily email, please click Subscribe)

References (selected)

Hegel, G. W. F. 2000. Anthropology, Encyclopaedia of the Philosophical Sciences, pp. 38–44, in R. Bernasconi and T.L. Lott (eds), The Idea of Race. Indianapolis and Cambridge: Hackett.

Lutz, H. (editor). 2005. The Diary of Abraham Ulrikab: Text and Context. Ottawa: University of Ottawa Press.

McDonald, M. 2010. The Armageddon Factor: The Rise of Christian Nationalism in Canada. Toronto, Canada: Random House.

Schultz, Gurdrun, no date. Quebec Government Forcing Evangelical Private Schools to Teach Sex Ed, Darwinism. Sexuality Information and Education Council of the United States.

Sewell, D. 2009. The Political Gene: How Darwin’s Ideas Changed Politics.London: Picador.