Church Planting Movements are Fueled by Discipleship, not Charity

The local pastor pulled the western Christian aside and described the effect of the aid on his congregation: Although he was grateful for the help, the shipments had depressed local initiative, as many vendors within the church and community could no longer compete with the free shipments of supplies. Instead of inspiring a spirit of generosity and giving, the shipments had created a sense of dependency on foreign aid.

He said, “We need a hand up, not a handout.”

Charity can help in a crisis, but generally … 

• reduces personal initiative,
• undermines local businesses,
• hinders long-term growth, and
• are unsustainable.

In contrast, business models can …

• cultivate personal initiative,
• generate income for house church leaders and their coaches, and
• sustainably reduce the local cost of goods.

Large-scale efforts to address poverty can be hindered by corruption at high levels and/or spiritual forces which rob the poor of their initiative and creativity. The collective discipling, personal transformation and trust relationships which develop in Church Planting Movements (CPMs) produce the kind of “spiritual capital” necessary to sustain businesses that break the poverty cycle.

CPMs are flourishing among the poor, and the relational discipling of CPMs creates an ideal environment for the propagation of literacy, hygiene education, and business development, as they pursue their main mission of leading people to Christ!

(for more, see Peter Greer, A Hand Up Not a HandoutWhy Enterprise and Business Are Changing Our Approach to Poverty Alleviation, and Robby Butler, Steve Downey, and Nick Noll, Turning Wine into Clean Water?An invitation to Explore the Possibilities, Mission Frontiers, July-August 2011)

(To receive new uMarko posts via a daily email, please click Subscribe)
(On Twitter: FOLLOW uMarko or http://www.twitter.com/uMarko)

Temptations of Dinosaur Scientists

A new dinosaur species is named somewhere in the world every 2 weeks. But over half of the named dinosaurs are misclassified, according to paleontologist Michael J. Benton. Why? Scientists are blind to the problem.

Apparently a non-scientific concept, human pride, is to blame. “Part of the problem,” according to John Horner of Science Magazine News, “is that scientists are sometimes too keen on finding and naming new dinosaurs.” Naming a new dinosaur gets you noticed and published. As a result, fossil hunters tend to magnify fossil differences that they imagine instead of the similarities. Then they rush to name a new dinosaur, and are generally rewarded with recognition and additional funding.

Too many supposedly new discoveries are actually duplicates of animals already on the books. Additionally, paleontologists are coming to realize that the bones of an adult dinosaur can be very different from those of a juvenile animal of the same species and can easily mislead scientists into thinking they are two different species.

This is a scientific Ponzi scheme, where will it stop? Scientists will continue giving in to their temptations … It will take a Biblical perspective on human nature to turn Science around to truth.

(Based on from Dinosaur Classification is a Mess, by David Coppedge, Creation-Evolution Headlines, May 2011, also published in Creation Matters, a publication of Creation Research Society, Volume 16, Number 3, May/June 2011, to appear at http://www.creationresearch.org/creation_matters/pdf/2011/CM16%2003%20low%20res.pdf)

(To receive new uMarko posts via a daily email, please click Subscribe)
(On Twitter: FOLLOW uMarko or http://www.twitter.com/uMarko)

Church Bulldozed

Simple disputes between Christians and Muslims in Pakistan often turn violent because some Muslims view Christians as infidels who do not deserve the same rights as the Muslim majority.

In November of last year, Pastor Sarwar Masih of the King of Kings Church near Lahore was confronted by an angry neighbor. "You cannot build a church building in this area!" Muhammad Habib Bhatti told the pastor. "We have a mosque in this village, and there is no need to build a church."

This is what is left of the church building.

Days later, on Nov. 15, Muhammad Bhatti and eight friends came to the church dressed as police officers and began shouting at the Christians. "They were chanting and threatening us," said a witness, "saying if anybody comes out of his home to stop us, we will kill him." The men then began throwing stones and bricks, one of which struck a 3-year-old on the head. Eventually, a bulldozer moved in and demolished the church building. Irate Muslims also tore pages of a Bible.

Later, a local official offered to pay church members 50,000 rupees, or $582, to forget the incident. The Christians refused and demanded that the attackers be arrested. The Christians said many of their Muslim neighbors had no objection to the church building or their prayer meetings.

(from Voice of the Martyrs newsletter, August 2011)

(for additional info, see Gary Lane, Church Bulldozed in Pakistan, CBN News)

(To receive new uMarko posts via a daily email, please click Subscribe)
(On Twitter: FOLLOW uMarko or http://www.twitter.com/uMarko)

Why Pain and Suffering? They are Signs of Paradise Lost…

Evolutionists cannot explain why their "Mother nature" went to all the extra effort of making pain so excruciating. But those who read the Bible can understand - sorrow, pain, and death are a result of the Fall of Man, part of the curse found in Genesis 3:16-19. And God can work through our pain to get our attention. C.S. Lewis said it best: "God whispers to us in our pleasures, speaks in our conscience, but shouts in our pains: it is his megaphone to rouse a deaf world." For those who trust in Christ, in the life to come there will be no more death, neither sorrow, nor crying, neither shall there be any more pain.

Selections from from The Evolutionary Problem with Pain, by David Woetzel.

(These selections by Marko Malyj are of the article published in Creation Matters, a publication of Creation Research Society, Volume 16, Number 3, May/June 2011, to appear at http://www.creationresearch.org/creation_matters/pdf/2011/CM16%2003%20low%20res.pdf)

So much pain and suffering in the world has always been a puzzle for philosophers and theologians. Theodicy is the name given to the question of how a just and loving God would allow this situation. But most people are unaware that for evolutionists there is a similar problem with pain.

Why is pain so intense? A false step will leave an organism writhing in pain, crying out for days, maybe weeks, before healing sets in. The cry of an animal in distress can attract predators. Debilitating pain is so intense that it overwhelms the desire to eat and procreate.

It would seem that natural selection would have favored less sensitive nerves or brain sensations. As the pain sensation was evolving there should have been some “push back” against going overboard. Why go to the extra effort of making it all so excruciating?

Leading evolutionist Richard Dawkins noted that "Pain, like everything else about life, we presume, is a Darwinian device, which functions to improve the sufferer’s survival… Why so painful? What’s wrong with a little red flag? I don’t have a decisive answer."¹

Allen MacNeill, professor of biology and evolution at Cornell University, was blogging about the intense pain he suffered while passing kidney stones. He wrote,²

I describe all of this, not to elicit your sympathy, but to introduce ‘the problem of pain’ from the standpoint of evolutionary biology. All of the rest of our senses have a physical referent: heat receptors sense heat, cold receptors cold, taste receptors sugars and ions and acids and bases and certain amino acids in our food, rods and cones sense the presence of light photons, etc. But pain receptors do not sense the presence of ‘pain.’ No, ‘pain’ is an ‘artificial sensation.’ What pain receptors are adapted to sensing is cellular damage…. Yet, two questions immediately present themselves: why should passing a kidney stone produce pain at all, and why is the pain so intense?

The brain has no pain receptors, allowing patients to undergo brain surgery while fully conscious. But the rest of our internal organs acutely sense pain. There really is no good evolutionary explanation for this.

So why do we have pain? The most satisfying answer is not found in the evolutionary paradigm.

C.S. Lewis, the great Christian writer, stated the common question in his classic book The Problem of Pain: ^"If God were good, wouldn't he wish to make his creatures perfectly happy?"³ Lewis then examines how people tend to misunderstand “divine goodness.” We tend to view goodness as merely making us happy all the time.

We need to see that for God, loving kindness is giving us what is ultimately best for us. If suffering brings us closer to Him, then it is good. Perhaps one of Lewis’ most famous quotes is: "God whispers to us in our pleasures, speaks in our conscience, but shouts in our pains: it is his megaphone to rouse a deaf world."⁴

Ultimately, pain is a result of the Fall of Man. Sorrow, pain, and death are part of the curse found in Genesis 3:16-19. God said to Eve, “I will greatly multiply thy sorrow and thy conception; in sorrow thou shalt bring forth children…” He said to Adam, “cursed is the ground for thy sake; in sorrow shalt thou eat of it all the days of thy life…”

Pain was not part of God’s original creation, and the day will come when it will be eradicated from the New Earth that He will create. Revelation 21:4 states, “And God shall wipe away all tears from their eyes; and there shall be no more death, neither sorrow, nor crying, neither shall there be any more pain.”

(To receive new uMarko posts via a daily email, please click Subscribe)
(On Twitter: FOLLOW uMarko or http://www.twitter.com/uMarko)

References (selected)

1. Dawkins, R. 2010. The Greatest Show on Earth. New York: Free Press., p. 393.

2. Retrieved May 19, 2011, from http://evolutionlist.blogspot.com/2008/03/onproblem-of-pain.html

3. Lewis, C.S. 1940. The Problem of Pain. New York: Macmillan, p. 16.

4. Lewis, Ibid., p. 93.

The evidence is exhausted - Darwin was wrong about fish evolution

Jerry Bergman reviews two centuries worth of claims for fish evolution. No empirical evidence exists for their evolution from non-fish, even though 80% of all known fossils are marine animals, mostly various types of fish. Fully formed fish appeared very “early” in the fossil record. One common theory—that fish evolved from some wormlike life-form—does not work at all, because the fossil gap between worms and fish is considerable and has never been bridged by the scientific evidence. Additional theories, such as fish having evolved from a more complex invertebrate, also fail. Dr. Bergman's conclusion: scientists cannot improve on Genesis 1:21: “God created the great creatures of the sea and every living and moving thing which the water teems according to their kinds.”

Selections from The Search for Evidence Concerning the Origin of Fish, by Jerry Bergman.

(These selections, edited by Marko Malyj, are of the article published in Creation Research Society Quarterly Journal, Volume 47, Number 4, Spring 2011)

(To receive new uMarko posts via a daily email, please click Subscribe)
(On Twitter: FOLLOW uMarko or http://www.twitter.com/uMarko)

Fish are one of the most common fossil types, with close to one half-million specimens in museums alone. But in spite of almost two centuries of searching, no evidence of gradual macroevolution has been found in this extremely abundant fossil record.

No Transitional Forms

The most common explanation is that few transitional fossils have been preserved. This is an incorrect conclusion, because we would also expect at least some of the modern fish we know today to be missing in the fossil record as well. However, every major fish kind known today has been found, indicating the completeness of the existing known fossil record (Benton, 2005). New fossil finds are almost always more of the same, and occasionally new species are discovered that only create more gaps in the fossil record and do not fill in existing gaps.

The evidence is exhaustive. Transitional forms have not been found, despite the expectations of evolutionists. Instead, all of them fit one of three categories:

Devonian ostracoderms, now extinct,
demonstrate variety, not evolution.

• Extinct fish, which may appear very different from familiar fish, and yet do not show evidence for evolution. Instead they demonstrate the enormous variation found in the natural world.



"Devonian" sharks are virtually
indistiguishable from modern ones.

• Fully modern fish that can easily be identified as such. (Many contemporary paleontologists admit that even the earliest known fossil fish has all of the basic characteristics of modern fish).
   



Holopychius turned out not
to be the Missing Link for fish.

• Fish once thought to be extinct such as the coelacanth and holoptychius (considered by many to be the “missing link” between fish and the tetrapods until the first Latimeria specimen was found off the east coast of South Africa in 1938).

Just One Connected Lineage of Fish Ancestors does not Fit the Evidence

In contrast to evolutionary assumptions, the fossil record of all basic classes of fish, including Agnatha, Placodermi, Acanthodii, Osteichthyes, and Chondrichthyes, began at close to the same evolutionary time, mostly during the Devonian or before (Botella, et al., 2007, p. 585).

There exists so much variety compared to all other life-forms that some evolutionists are forced to conclude that fish must not represent a single “lineage of creatures that evolved from a common ancestor” (Maisey, 1996, p. 10) but several separate lineages. But this requires even more fossils to support the separate lineages. Evidence of those kind of fossils once again does not exist.

Sometimes a single discovery can move the earliest known example of a vertebrate back by as much as 40 million years, forcing a major reevaluation of the fossil record (e.g., see Repetski, 1978, p. 529; Jablonski, et al., 2003). The problem for evolution is that new findings tend to push the origin of fish farther back in time. This makes it even harder to explain fish origins, because less time exists for them to evolve.

The Worm Theory does not Work Either

The putative oldest fish ancestor, and the ancestor of all chordates, is considered by many paleontologists to be a small wormlike fossil animal called Pikaia (Long, 1995, p. 30). But the changes required to evolve small round worms like nematodes to fish were enormous, because the “worm” that became a fish

did not look much like a fish. It probably had no paired fins, no real head, brain or advanced sense organs, jaws or teeth. Most likely, its body was cylindrical, with simple digestive organs, a nerve cord running its length from front to back, and below that a sort of stiffening, supporting rod which was its only skeleton, made of a soft material surrounded by a tough sheath. This forerunner of a backbone, or vertebral column, is called a notochord and from it the animals that possessed it, including all the vertebrates, derived their name—the chordates (Ommanney, 1971, p. 60).

Furthermore, to evolve a fish from a worm, the worm nervous and vascular systems would need to be flipped over, because the fish main organs are upside-down when compared to the worm organs. Furthermore, although some worms “have tiny eye-spots, earstones, and tactile or taste organs,” these structures are all relatively simple and microscopic in contrast to the fish’s welldeveloped eyes, rostrum, and a large head with an advanced vertebrate brain (Kyle, 1926, p. 3).

Most round and flat worms lack a heart, whereas fish have a very well-developed, powerful muscular pump that lies ventrally just behind the head. Each of the aforementioned unique fish features must have evolved, and one of the easiest to document should have been the evolution of fins because they show both “early” in the fossil record and with great clarity.

In fact, no evidence exists for any of these speculative transitions. 

Many Generations of Evolutionists are Still Stuck on the Fish Problem

Eighty five years ago the fish biologist Kyle (1926, p. vii) concluded that fishes “occupy a peculiar position in the hierarchy of animal life” and that we “cannot be sure whence they came.”

Over fifty years ago, Gregory (1959, p. 123) was forced to say that “there are still many gaps” in the fossil record among fish.

Twenty four years ago, the creationist Gish "finds all the confessions he needs” in the writings of paleontologists to support the conclusion that each of the fish classes “appears suddenly and with no trace of ancestors” in the fossil record. (Strahler 1987, p. 408)

Today, the same is still true, and any possible evidence to the contrary has been exhausted. There is a complete lack of fossil evidence for fish evolution. Darwin’s claim has been falsified, thus supporting the creation account recorded in Genesis 1:21, which reads, “God created the great creatures of the sea and every living and moving thing which the water teems according to their kinds” (NIV).

References (selected)

Benton, M. 2005. Vertebrate Palaeontology. Blackwell, Malden, MA.

Botella, H., H. Blom, M. Dorda, P. E. Ahlberg, and P. Janvier. 2007. Jaws and teeth of the earliest bony fishes. Nature 448:583–586.

Gregory, W. K. 1959. Fish Skulls: A Study of the Evolution of Natural Mechanisms. Eric Lundberg, Laurel, FL.

Jablonski, D., K. Roy, J. W. Valentine, R. M. Price, and P. S. Anderson. 2003. The impact of the pull of the recent on the history of marine diversity. Science 300:1133–1135.

Kyle, H. M. 1926. The Biology of Fishes. The Macmillan Company, New York, NY.

Long, J. 1995. The Rise of Fishes: 500 Million Years of Evolution. Johns Hopkins University Press, Baltimore, MD.

Maisey, J. G. 1996. Discovering Fossil Fishes. Henry Holt, New York, NY.

Ommanney, F.D. 1971. The Fishes. Time Life Nature Library, New York, NY.

Repetski, J. E. 1978. A fish from the Upper Cambrian of North America. Science 200:529–531.

Strahler, A. N. 1987. Science and Earth History—The Evolution/Creation Controversy. Prometheus Books, Buffalo, NY.