Chapter 1: Finding Your Perspective

Everyone has their own bias and opinions concerning a variety of matters ranging from morality to food and beyond. Each of us grows up under certain physical or cultural conditions, have been taught certain values, and have lived through unique life experiences. We spend our lives creating and modifying our value system based upon our personal analysis and these life experiences and other input, and then we use this information to govern how we live and perceive life. These set of values we create for ourselves is called our personal worldview and is largely based on your perspective and perception of reality.

Your personal worldview is made up of a set of "lenses" that you see the world through combined with preconceived biases. It is based upon a series of habit-forming beliefs or understandings you have concerning a variety of topics. Sometimes our experience in life matches or doesn’t match the values we were raised with, and what we learn from others. 

When your worldview is challenged, it will often trigger an emotional response. Everyone generally goes through the following three stages when faced with information that can potentially change their personal worldview:

Denial. That couldn't possibly be true.

Violent Opposition. Conviction brings anger. People who debate against the theory or new idea become angry and agitated at the mere mention of the information or even the premise itself. 

Widespread Acceptance. The concept or theory is accepted as fact and believed to be common knowledge. 

Once someone goes through these three stages, they replace their previous opinion or belief with the new one they just accepted. This new belief becomes a part of their overall worldview which shapes their perception of reality. For example, your parents may have told you about the tooth fairy. That you should place your lost tooth into an envelope and place that envelope under your pillow so that the "tooth fairy" will bring you money. You believed it because your parents (someone in authority) told you. However, when you get older you discover that the tooth fairy isn't real. After you get over your disappointment caused by the sudden loss of expected cash flow, you eliminate that belief from your worldview. This process of evaluation and adjustment happens repeatedly over your lifetime as you further experience life and learn new things. This is how we grow.

Your worldview affects how you think, feel about yourself, and live your life day to day. It also affects how you answer the big questions in life like:

·      Does God exist?

·      How did everything begin?

·      Who am I?

·      Why am I here?

·      Where is here?

·      Am I living a good life?

·      What happens after I die?

·      Do heaven and hell exist?

You may find yourself asking, if people are basically good, then why is there so much evil in the world? The answers to these questions are critical, so it's important to shape your worldview with opinions that stem from the absolute truth of a subject matter. But is there a such a thing as absolute truth? Can we measure facts and make logical assumptions that support an absolute truth? The answer to both questions is a resounding yes. 

However, your acceptance of truth will be determined by your willingness to both honestly perform and review the facts, combined with your willingness to change your world-view perspective based upon your new discoveries. We perceive new information based upon our own worldviews and live our lives making daily decisions based upon them. Sometimes old habits and beliefs are hard to change, but that is exactly what holds us back from personal growth. You must ask yourself the question, what makes the most sense? Then, you adjust your worldview to the new normal.

Reshaping Your Worldview

There are certain aspects to our worldview that concern our existence and the universe around us. These perspectives are critically important to the way we measure our own self-worth, as well as our relative purpose and importance in life. Your environment and the worldviews of the people in your life shape your personal worldview which will change over time as you learn from personal life experiences. 

Changes in your worldview can be caused by a variety of logical, emotional, or social reasons. These reasons serve as check points along the road to establishing a change in your personal worldview about a given subject. The first check point is whether or not the information presented to you is accurate or most likely true. Emotional and social stimuli caused by grasping new facts can result in a radical change in someone’s personal worldview. Unfortunately, far too many people maintain worldviews that have been created by emotional or social reasons alone, rather than based on facts or logic. 

Not having the correct worldview is dangerous and can prove to be fatal. Don’t assume that a friend, broadcaster, doctor, or teacher is right just because of your relationship with them, or their status of authority or education. This fact alone doesn’t make them right or even accurate. Finding and discovering information for yourself provides the best opportunity to discover an absolute truth or form the most likely hypothesis.  

There are special interest groups everywhere that hope to win people over to their way of thinking. These groups can be institutionalized like an education system or a government organization. Other groups are more social in nature and consist of people who are in your sphere of influence or share your particular interests like a religious organization or a political party. The people making up these groups all have their own word-view that either closely agree with each other or have some variations that are not enough to influence a member to leave the group. 

Each of these groups have an agenda to support or reshape your worldview based upon their ideals, directives or through their curriculum. This social engineering process over time can have either a positive or a negative impact on you personally, as well as on society as a whole. Groups are formed by likeminded individuals that want to change a baseline of thought concerning a given subject or make a change in processes or protocols. Some changes these groups support can be viewed as a positive or as a negative based upon your personal worldview.   

There is a new trend of late that has creeped into our society today called political correctness. This principle when used is intended to stifle freedom of speech by imposing a baseline of thought or opinion and discouraging debate. When someone offers a new idea, it is often met with harsh opposition or even violence. Through the course of a conversation, they’ll say your reasoning or evidence used to validate your position is invalid, even when it’s not, and will often resort to outright false or fraudulent evidence to support their premise. 

The pressure exerted by groups who believe in this concept of political correctness chastise others for speaking out against changes to a commonly held value or belief system. The struggle is usually over changes to a common baseline of thought or practice that is conceptually considered either liberal or conservative. Groups that practice political correctness often will chastise criticism of their way of thinking through degradation of others who don’t agree with them.  This practice serves to silence other opinions by force which restricts freedom of speech. So, without open discussion, how can you have an open and honest debate? 

So how do baselines get established? Some baselines are created experientially or through education. Others are the result of our human nature or the way that we are programmed. For example, there is a moral baseline that stipulates that stealing is wrong. This baseline is reinforced with laws that punish those who steal and must be taught. There are other moral baselines that are instinctive. An example of this would be the sense of guilt you feel after you said or did something that violates a moral directive. 

Moral directives or baselines are something that have been established over time and reinforced through emotional or physical punishment. They originate at birth and are impacted by the way we were raised as children. Our parents often impose their personal worldview on their children who either maintain and promote that view or change it based upon personal choice. How are these moral baselines established in the first place? That will come down to the particular lens that’s used in your personal worldview. A naturalistic one based on what mankind says, or a theistic one based upon a higher authority called God. These philosophies that we will explore in greater detail later are normally at the heart of every controversy in the struggle over shifting away from conservative values established by religion to more progressive or liberal ideas established by mankind. 

There are special interest groups everywhere that are attempting to exert a change in your worldview by collectively forcing you to change which “lens” you use to perceive morality or your physical reality. They will use any means necessary to get you to change including presenting false or misleading arguments to justify you change in perception about a given subject. Examples of special interest agendas to modify a moral baseline can be found in the hotly debated subjects involving our origins, the LGBTQ+ lifestyle, abortion, and Christianity. 

Special interest groups on both sides of this philosophic debate will argue that their position is the correct one. Normally these discussions of ideas are fact based, or theoretically the best answer. Unfortunately, many special interest groups are purely based on emotion, greed, or selfish ambition. Some of them are just plain sinister in their motives and choose to ignore the science and social repercussions of their philosophical agenda on society and family life. 

To make matters worse, some of these philosophes have been systemically propagated by our academic and scientific communities over many years causing generational shifts away from commonly accepted conservative baselines to liberal positions. They present faulty evidence as fact or settled science, even when evidence is presented contrary to their position. The first example of this attempt to reshaping worldviews can be found in the debate concerning our origins which we will explore in greater detail later. The point I want to make here is how a piece of false information can be presented as fact in order to agree with a special interest hypothesis or personal believe. 

Ernst Haeckel’s fraudulent embryo drawings.

A German biologist named Ernst Haeckel promoted and popularized the work of Charles Darwin in Germany. He created these embryo drawings shown here to support his belief in a species' evolutionary development as defined by Darwin. Haeckel created several of these drawings including one that suggested a fetal development similarity between dogs and humans. His drawings here suggest that during latter stages of human fetal development we somehow swerve off look like pigs or monkeys to support Darwin’s theories.

Modern fetal growth illustration.

Haeckel’s drawings have been used since the 19th century in textbooks to support the hypothesis of a universal common ancestry that Charles Darwin wrote about in his book Origin of the Species. Even though these drawings have been exposed as highly inaccurate and even fraudulent, they are still being widely used today in supposedly “modern” biology textbooks[1]. Granted, Haeckel did not have the advanced scientific equipment that we have today available to him in the 19th century, however, what is the excuse for textbook publishers who still print Haeckel’s fictional drawings today and pass it off as an accurate fetal growth chart? One look at this modern fetal grown chart clearly shows the formation of a human being from start to finish demonstrating evidence to the contrary of Darwin’s theory.What would be the motivation to continue to teach and use outdated illustrations derived from Ernst Haeckel’s originals to support an origins theory produced in the early 1900s that many scientists have debunked? Could it be a clever attempt by naturalists that control the scientific and academic community seats of power to reshape our society’s worldview away from theistic origins in favor of a naturalist viewpoint that is consistent with Darwin’s theories? When the facts are presented the truth becomes evident. 

Another example of how clarity of facts can change or reshape your worldview can be found in the abortion debate. As you know, in 1973 the U.S. Supreme Court decision resulting from the case known as Roe v. Wade established a woman’s constitutional right to choose to arbitrarily terminate a pregnancy by abortion. This ruling also made unconstitutional most state efforts to regulate abortion practices. Today, some states even allow abortions in the 3rd trimester. 

The original law even allowed partial-birth abortion which was finally outlawed in 2003. Unfortunately, in the 30 years it was legal, millions of children suffered and died by this gruesome practice. This year is the 45th anniversary of Roe v Wade and, according to the CDC, 652,639[2] children will never know life this year alone due to abortion. To make matters worse, many in the legal profession recognize that the abortion laws used shaky legal reasoning to support the adoption of this law in the first place. 

On the other side of the abortion debate is the pro-life group also known as the anti-abortion or right to life movement. They oppose elective or therapeutic abortions on both moral and sectarian (religious) grounds and are fighting its legal prohibition or restriction. Many members of this group support the life of the unborn even if the pregnancy came by rape or incest. They point to scientific evidence supporting the humanity and individuality of the unborn to make their case. They also often disagree with the court’s use of viability outside the womb as justification for the procedure. 

What I find so amazing about this debate is that there is a duplicity in America when it comes to abortion and the humanity of unborn children. We have court cases acknowledging their humanity by charging a defendant with two counts of murder because the woman they killed was pregnant. That pregnancy gets recognized by the court as a human life even though it is a third trimester pregnancy which some states allow to be aborted. How can the involuntary termination of a woman’s unborn child be a crime, while an elective termination by a mother of an unborn child be considered legal? A baby can’t be human and not human at the same time. 

Fact based education is critical to forming the proper perspective on any subject and is always the key component to arriving at the correct world-view – even with an emotionally charged subject like abortion. Advances in technology over the last 50 years mean that we now know radically more about life before birth than any previous generation. Even upon presenting the evidence, would mothers change their mind about terminating a pregnancy? Let’s examine the arguments supporting abortion and compare them to those that demonstrate the humanity of the unborn. Is logic alone enough to change anyone’s mind? 

Let’s first look at the “it’s my body argument” through a hospital analogy. Let’s say that your significant other was critically injured in a car accident and is placed in the intensive care ward of a hospital out of town. When you arrive at the hospital to inquire about their condition and location you find out that some random nurse decided to unplug your significant other from life support because the hospital needed the bed. Given this scenario, the nurse murdered the patient out of convenience or perceived necessity and would be prosecuted. 

Following that principal, now we have a woman who finds herself with an unplanned or unwanted pregnancy. According to the law she can use the same convenience excuse the nurse did earlier that was illegal. She can say that the pregnancy will interrupt her career, or she had an affair, or perhaps in extremely rare cases, wants to avoid embarrassment because the pregnancy was due to rape. In the first example you will say the relative was still alive and their life was arbitrarily terminated for convenience by the nurse. The second? “Well, it’s just a bundle of tissue and it’s my body and my decision alone.” 

Given that bundle of cells definition of the unborn, it sounds like someone is just getting a mole or cyst removed. Compare that to a significant other you would say that the argument is invalid, right? Abortion isn’t murder it’s just outpatient surgery. Well, what if the definition or understanding of “bundle of tissue” and “it’s my body” changed?  Would that be enough to reshape someone’s worldview from finding abortion acceptable to finding it murder?

Let’s explore this concept starting with the “bundle of tissue” statement. Unlike a cyst or a mole that does not require any other genetic material, a baby requires 23 chromosomes from each parent in order for conception to occur in the first place. Moles and cysts don’t conceive and don’t have a different DNA structure from the mother. Anyone can have their bodies produce variations or imperfections that may need to be removed for personal health, cosmetic or for reasons of convenience. Yes, that’s a personal choice. However, the difference here is that the resulting so called bundle of tissue at conception actually has its own genic code making it a unique individual comprised of both parents. A mole just has the mother’s DNA. An unborn child in its embryonic period has its own DNA just like any other individual so it’s not just a bundle of tissue.

Let’s now take a look at the woman’s body argument compare that to the hospital intensive care scenario. When you are on life support in a hospital you are given fluids, oxygen, and in some cases, organ assistance. Similar to life support, when a woman is pregnant her unborn child is connected to the mother through the umbilical cord. This develops within the early weeks of pregnancy and carries blood rich in oxygen and nutrients from the mother to her baby. Two arteries are also present that return deoxygenated blood and waste products, such as carbon dioxide, from the unborn baby back to the placenta.  Like a hospital, the womb or uterus “houses” the unborn during development. This life support system, while located inside a woman’s body is actually keeping another human being alive. The hospital analogy is valid since severing that connection between mother and unborn through any means is the same as removing life support from that significant other.

Sometimes the names used to describe things can be misleading. Even the way something or someone looks can even cause prejudice or bad assumptions. The labels we use like Blastocyst, Zygote, Embryo and Fetus can be dehumanizing all my themselves just like racial slurs can. Terms like these that define medical stages of a baby’s development can contribute to the notion that this is just a bundle of benign tissue. Even though this 5-week-old baby pictured here, while being the size of a grain of sand, has a beating heart. At this Embryonic stage of development, most other organs have already begun to develop. All this child needs are time and love and a mother to take care of him or her through good prenatal care. 

The abortion special interests are shaping our worldview concerning abortion and the Supreme Court has enabled them. The US government funds organizations like Planned Parenthood that really just perform abortions on demand with little to know education being offered to persuade the mother from making the abortion choice. Women have the right and the duty to be fully informed. Clearly the womb is basically a biological life support system for a unique human. Does this make sense, or is our society just closing its eyes and sacrificing the innocent for convenience or medical research? If it’s just a routine procedure of removing extraneous tissue, then why do 94% of women regret their decision to abort their babies? What would have happened if they really knew their decision would have a lasting negative impact on them emotionally and possibly physically if for some reason, they can’t get pregnant again? 

Imagine what would happen if these mothers were exposed to the humanity of their unborn child and that at just 10 weeks after conception, a preborn child has their own brains, fingerprints and can feel pain. In many cases that’s before a woman even realizes she’s pregnant and is not just late but will be missing her period altogether. In 18 days, a baby’s heart begins to beat. In 8 weeks, all of the baby’s organs are functioning. In just 9 weeks the baby has individual fingerprints. In 10 weeks, a baby can feel pain[3]. They can even smile at 12 weeks. I wonder what makes them smile.  Sometimes logic and evidence are not enough though. Seeing the abortion procedure and the physical and emotional impact it has on the mother and the live unborn child is far more powerful than words or a protestors whistle. 

That’s exactly what Live Action[4] found in their experiment to prove how education and dissemination of the real facts about the unborn and abortion can change the abortion worldview. They shot a video[5] called “Watch Their Minds Change on Abortion” that was posted in Facebook. In their video, they interviewed several people concerning their personal position on abortion. Each respondent they interviewed espoused all the typical opinions supporting abortion rights we’ve discussed, and they were generally accepting of any form of abortion that did not threaten the mother’s life. However, when confronted with video evidence[6] that illustrate abortion procedures as well as the humanity and vibrancy of an unborn baby, every respondent who watched the video changed their abortion rights stance within their worldview and now side with the right to life movement. 

The physical evidence that exists as shown on websites like Here’s the Blood[7] is unmistakable and clearly demonstrates the careless savagery leveled against a defenseless human life out of convenience, or worst yet, blood money to supply body parts for the global fetal research machine. I think it’s insane that special interest groups go to war over pounds euthanizing animals or farmers cutting down trees, but they could care less about a defenseless child. 

23-week-old preborn baby

Isn’t it interesting that the Bible says that “we were fearfully and wonderfully made” (Psalm 139:14) and that God “formed our inward parts; You covered me in my Mother's womb.” (Psalm 139:13). This picture of a 23-week-old baby can still be legally murdered in most states even while feeling the pain of dismemberment. According to a New York Times article published on June 17 of 2013, In many of the states, the law bans abortion when a fetus is deemed viable outside the womb, which is generally in the range of 24 to 26 weeks. However, they can feel pain at 10 weeks which are well within the guidelines for abortion. Another special interest group attempting to reshape your worldview can be found in the LGBTQ+ (Lesbian, Gay, Bi-sexual and Transvestite) debate. The groups supporting this lifestyle have successfully penetrated the public opinion and political forums of many countries. They compare their movement to the civil rights movement led by Reverend Martin Luther King Jr and others as a means to fortify their position and cast down opposing arguments to this lifestyle as hate speech. Are these arguments valid? Is there scientific, medical, or social evidence supporting or even validating this group’s agenda? Why do we see in the media countless portrayals of families with LGBTQ+ members as if their existence in our society is widespread? 

Gender is an important factor of how you identity with the world around you. Do we now really have up to 71 gender options as Facebook promotes in the United Kingdom[8]? Or 51 new gender options you can choose from in America. Can someone really ‘identify’ as female or male and then just pursue that course outside of the reality of their physical makeup? Traditionally, most societies have only recognized two distinct, broad classes of gender roles, masculine and feminine, that correspond with the biological sexes of male and female. We can even observe these differences in every aspect of physiology and microbiology, including the obvious differences in genitalia.

Can sociological philosophies or medical procedures really change a person’s gender at the cellular level? That answer is no. Men will always be men and women will be women. Multiple modern-day studies have found a gender difference in this respect: cells from males and females can behave differently[9]. Dr. Robert Allen wrote in the Journal of Surgical Research confirmations of the same findings. The fact of the matter is that someone cannot be born into homosexuality like being born Black or Hispanic. This is purely a special interest group attempting to legitimize their philosophy and lifestyle, and in this case, are using civil rights laws and baseless arguments to shape our worldview.  

Many sympathize with the statement that ‘you can’t help who you fall in love with’. While this statement is true, that doesn’t make homosexuality right or even safe as we will discover in chapter 9. This movement wants to change our perception of their cause and have pulled out all the stops including introducing this lifestyle as normal. Consider how many movies and TV shows today depict a widespread LGBTQ+ presence in society. There are even scientists like Bruce Voeller who founded the U.S. National Gay Task Force (NGTF) that suggested 10% of our U.S. population was gay. Like political polls, research can be manipulated by how you choose the respondents of your poll and the way you ask a question. As with so many pieces of knowledge (and myths), repeated telling will not make it so, especially with the mountains of contradicting scientific and sociological evidence. The NGTF survey was shown to be severely flawed by the American Statistical Association, yet it continues to be quoted as fact. 

The Office for National Statistics (ONS) in the UK found that number of those reporting their identity as gay or lesbian to be 1.1% of the population. The National Survey of Sexual Attitudes came out with the same basic percentage[10]. A 2017 Gallup poll concluded that 4.5% of adult Americans identified as LGBTQ+ with 5.1% of women identifying as LGBTQ+, compared with 3.9% of men. A different survey in 2016, from the Williams Institute, estimated that 0.6% of U.S. adults identify as transgender. As you can see the numbers are all over the place, so most use a range to identify the statistic of the LGBTQ+ population. 

Studies from several nations, including the U.S., conducted at varying time periods, have produced a statistical range of 1.2% to 6.8% of the adult population identifying as LGBTQ+. Online surveys tend to yield higher figures than other methods, a likely result of the higher degree of anonymity of Internet surveys, which elicit reduced levels of socially desirable responding. The U.S. Census Bureau does not ask about sexual orientation in the United States Census.[11]Identifying as another gender does not make you that gender in any way, but is there a trigger chemically while a person is unborn that causes a tendency to be LGBTQ+? Despite songs by artist that claim that homosexuals are ‘born that way’, is this really true or just another myth to sway our worldview on the subject? Let’s look at the science then you decide. 

There are two main scientific theories as to what causes homosexual attractions. One is that a homosexual orientation is essentially dictated by genetic and or biological factors—put simply, that people are ‘born gay’. The other theory is that homosexual attractions develop as primarily as a result of psychological and environmental influences and early childhood experiences. In the public square, the latter psychological and environmental theory has appeared to be in decline and the theory proposing biological factors is gaining favor in recent decades. I believe this trend towards suggesting biological factors is the result stemming from the efforts to shift worldviews towards supporting the ‘born that way’ argument used to attach this lifestyle to the civil rights movement. But what does the research show? Also, if people are really born to be LGBTQ+, then why are so many of them able to completely walk away from the lifestyle and marry a heterosexual partner? This fact alludes and bonifies that it is a lifestyle that can be changed by choice and not something you are born with. Let’s look at the science.

The LGBTQ+ community will point to studies performed by Dr. Kinsey and the Institute for Sex Research, as well as A handful of studies published during the 1990s have claimed to offer evidence in favor of a biological or genetic cause for homosexuality. Three of these in particular—a study of brain structure by Simon LeVay, a study of twins by J. Michael Bailey and Richard C. Pillard, and a study of “gene linkage” and “gene markers” by a team led by Dean H. Hamer—attracted considerable media attention and are largely responsible for the popular belief that a “gay gene” has already been found. 

LeVay’s study, however, suffered from serious methodological errors, including the failure to adequately identify a control group. This mean the study was severely flawed and highly inaccurate. LeVay made questionable assumptions regarding the orientation of the “heterosexual” cadavers by assuming some were homosexual when in fact they were heterosexual. He also had to admit that “the existence of ‘exceptions’ in the present sample (that is, presumed heterosexual men with small INAH 3 nuclei, and homosexual men with large ones) hints at the possibility that sexual orientation, although an important variable, may not be the sole determinant of INAH 3 size.” 

In other words, his research did not prove that to be a factor in determining a variation in sexual orientation at birth. LeVay, in fact, admitted that his claim of a correlation between this brain structure and sexual orientation could not prove causation, or even the direction of influence. Other studies also raised questions concerning his initial findings. These studies investigating gene or brain abnormalities were also inconclusive. Many also were devoid of proper research protocol, yet the LGBTQ+ community points to these as ‘fact’ to support their lifestyle, suggesting that they can’t help but be LGBTQ+. Again, the science does not support any of these assertions[12]. 

Drs. Byne and Parsons found in their research titled Human Sexual Orientation: The Biologic Theories Reappraised, stated on page 228 that “the biologic theory remains unproven. Critical review shows the evidence favoring a biologic theory to be lacking. In an alternative model, temperamental and personality traits interact with the familial and social milieu as the individual’s sexuality emerges.” In other words, the person’s environment or social stimuli provoke the tendency to be LGBTQ+, indicating this is a lifestyle choice driven by psychological factors and not physiological ones.

The groups driving the LGBTQ+ agenda politically would have you believe that we have a biological causation, however, “political arguments have no impact on biologic realities, including the extent of genetic or hormonal influences on the emergence of sexual orientation.”[13] The media and the special interest groups will distort these scientific findings to try and reshape your worldview on the legitimacy of the LGBTQ+ movement. So, what causes homosexuality if it is not biological?  Do Upbringing, experience, and the social environment contribute to the development of homosexuality? 

In 1973 the American Psychiatric Association removed homosexuality from its list of mental disorders. That decision did not come as a result of new research. Ronald Bayer, author of the most exhaustive treatment of the 1973 decision, has described what actually happened:” A furious egalitarianism that challenged every instance of authority had compelled psychiatric experts to negotiate the pathological status of homosexuality with homosexuals themselves. The result was not a conclusion based on an approximation of the scientific truth as dictated by reason but was instead an action demanded by the ideological temper of the times.”[14] In other word, a special interest group asked to ignore the science in favor of their own ideology. 

In reality, there is evidence that points to early childhood developmental factors as the real cause of homosexual tendencies. A 1969 study in the Journal of Consulting and Clinical Psychology concluded: “We found a remarkable number of conditions and circumstances that may result in homosexuality.…What happens after the child is born is complicated by many factors; there are not only inner biological and emotional factors, parental and familial surroundings, social and cultural circumstances; but the various pressures and expectations shift as the child grows and hardens as he establishes his ways into his eventual adult character structure.”[15]

Similarly, Psychiatrists Byne and Parsons, writing in Archives of General Psychiatry, state that “it seems reasonable to suggest that the stage for future sexual orientation may be set by experiences during early development, perhaps the first 4 years of life.” The authors conclude: “The inadequacies of present psychosocial explanations do not justify turning to biology by default—especially when, at present, the biologic alternatives seem to have no greater explanatory value. In fact, the current trend may be to underrate the explanatory power of extant psychosocial models.”[16]

We have a larger gay population which feeds their argument of a persecuted “minority” in need of protection from prejudice. There is evidence that the LGBTQ+ population is growing in America. Is this due to people just “coming out”, or the result of a lifestyle being promoted legally, socially and enabled by medical science? Are objections to this lifestyle, which we have seen is clearly a chosen lifestyle based upon psychological factors vs. being born into an ethnic group, be seen as bigotry or a protection mechanism driven by a moral absolute? Or given the risks to society which we will further explore in a later chapter, is it just plain common sense to discourage this lifestyle as God does and sees as sin? Is this latter fact playing out in the health and well-being of those who choose this lifestyle? We will explore this in greater detail as we observe the impact this lifestyle trend has Jason the traditional family.  

What Is the Truth?

Technically speaking, truth is derived in accordance with fact or reality. Now a fact is defined as something that is indisputably the case, while reality can be confused with idealistic theories, suggestions or ideas like in our previous examples concerning the origins, abortion, and LGBTQ+ debates. If you do not have all the facts, or a completely honest grasp of the realities of clinical science, you will never arrive at the absolute truth on any subject. Sometimes the pressure to ignore the facts and give into the sway of an angry mob protesting your opinion or worldview can be more than you’re willing to put up with, so some just remain silent. Unfortunately, this approach leaves the status quo in place which contributes to cultural shifts that we will later see can be damaging.

Another consideration is perspective. In each of the previous examples you were presented with evidence that pointed to a particular outcome. This conclusion may have solicited a positive or negative emotional response based upon your existing perspective. Even with all of the evidence, can decisions be arrived at simply by analytics of the facts? Is there is still a missing underlying component required to determine absolute truth? I believe the guidepost to changing your worldview and is your personal perspective shaped by moral and religious absolutes. But how do we arrive at a moral absolute if not through religious instruction? What’s more, how can an investigator arrive at the proper conclusion when their worldview does not hold any potential for God, or belief that absolute truth is even possible?

It's been said that all people process information presented as truth differently. A theory starts off being a hypothesis until evidence and facts are presented. This evidence must be the result of an applied scientific method or predetermined and protocoled observation of an experiment. When factual evidence is uncovered pointing to the likelihood that the theory may be true, it then becomes a possibility until all possibilities are uncovered. When the evidence mounts overwhelmingly in support of the principal possibility, the theory moves from a possibility to a probability and then eventually after time it is held as a fact or absolute truth. What’s called “settled science” often does not equate to absolute truth, but where the scientists stopped exploring based upon available facts or the lens, they view their own worldview, or both.

In order to know or accept truth, I would encourage you to look at the evidence without personal bias then draw your own conclusions based upon your personal fact checking - not by pure emotion or someone else's opinion. Your prosperity, happiness, sense of fulfillment in life, as well as your final resting place in eternity depends upon your success in getting this right. What did you say, Eternity? I thought that when you die that’s it, your worm food. Well, read on and decide for yourself. Your life really does depend on knowing for sure what is absolutely true and if God really does exist.

Can truth ever be relative? Is the statement “what’s true for you isn’t necessarily true for me” ever a valid argument? We can observe moral, physical, and spiritual absolute truths or laws in the world around us, so absolute truths do exist. For example, if you jumped off a building on earth without a means to counteract the physical properties controlling gravity, you will always fall to the ground. In a moral sense, everyone has been imprinted with moral absolutes that free will can violate. You know instinctively that murder is wrong, yet someone can override that feeling and kill someone. The circumstances, self-defense being one example, can change your perspective giving you a feeling of justification for your actions, but without an acceptable justification, the universal moral law that murder is wrong hasn’t changed. 

Are there spiritual absolute truths? To an Atheist or an Agnostic, that answer may be no since they only recognize the natural and disregard anything that is spiritual. If they do acknowledge any spiritual laws, often their perspective is that they stem from the mind. There are several philosophies concerning spiritual laws that only focus on principles of hope, life, and truth. 

There are several spiritual principles that are illustrated throughout scripture that have often been relabeled laws of Karma or of the universe. Isn’t it interesting how these spiritual laws or principles others espouse map directly back to laws communicated in the Bible. While there are many scriptures present that address each law, I have just cited the following examples to make the point:

·      Creation: Genesis 1:1 “In the beginning God created the heavens and the earth.”, 

·      Humility: Matthew 23:12: “And whoever exalts himself will be humbled, and he who humbles himself will be exalted.”), and 

·      Giving or Hospitality: Romans 12:13 “distributing to the needs of the saints, given to hospitality.” 

·      Growth: 2 Timothy 1:6 “For this reason I remind you to fan into flame the Gift of God.”

·      Compensation: Psalm 115:44 “May the Lord give you increase more and more, You and your children.”

It seems that any decision made concerning your worldview on a given subject will change once you arrive at the absolute truth. That lens you perceive your worldview through will sharpen, reshape, color, as well as potentially distort your understanding of reality as we’ve observed can be possible in our previous examples. Your settled worldview will shape your answers to the questions of life, all based upon the range of quality and validity of the raw data you use to make your decisions with. 

We are all constantly modifying perspectives that shape the lens we view our world through every time we experience one of the stimuli, we previously discussed, that forces a shift in your worldview. Historically, scientists, governments, the entertainment industry, and academia around the world have shaped public opinion by distorting or controlling the information the public is exposed to. This forces us to look “outside the box” and spread a wider fact-finding net rather than relying on someone else to deliver the information to us. 

This practice of data manipulation can over time engender the public’s emotional or psychological disposition on a subject based upon any direction the controlling entity(s) choose. Changing or controlling key aspects of a population’s or audience’s worldview can cause general beliefs, established morals and behavior to trend in a different direction. Over time, this causes a generational shift in behavior. Consider just 100 years ago what the average worldview was towards religion, marriage, patriotism, gender, morality, or the sanctity of life, then compare those ideals to the trends and attitudes we have today.

­Some of the worldviews such as the “big bang” and Darwinian evolution have been taught to us by our parents and teachers, then reinforced by the media, scientists, philosophers, and government institutions. Even the media has jumped in with documentaries and feature films that reinforce our alleged ape ancestry or a universe that is supposed to be self-composed and billions of years old. These theories are taught as if they are facts. Are they true or are these theories shaped through a perspective that will obstruct the discovery of what is true?  

Given the deep importance to these questions, isn't it vital to have total freedom from bias or censorship to find the right answers? What’s more, isn’t finding the truth to these questions vitally important to our sense of who we are, where we came from and why we are here? We often blindly accept a doctor or professor’s opinion without question simply because of their social status or achievements in education. Neither of which makes them right. In fact, often educators infer that something is correct when in fact the information or statement shared is nothing more than their opinion. 

What we learn in school is supposed to be supported by empirical evidence derived from verifiable experience or observations made through experimentation in a lab, or by mathematics that support deductions or theories. When error is found in a previous theory, or if a new discovery is made that contradicts the previous findings, researchers are supposed to adjust their conclusions based upon the new evidence. 

But what happens if the empirical evidence scientists or academia uncovers contradicts a point of view that is driven by trillions of dollars in research like global warming historically has? Dr. Ivar Giaever, a Nobel Prize-Winner for physics in 1973, declared his dissent on man-made global warming claims at a Nobel forum on July 1, 2015, by saying “I would say that basically global warming is a non-problem.” Giaever now mocks President Obama for warning that “no challenge poses a greater threat to future generations than climate change”. Giaever called it a “ridiculous statement.”[17]. Why don’t we ever hear this on the news? Or why do we have what seems to be a totalitarian support of an atheistic naturalistic worldview that is driven to denigrate the uniqueness of mankind as well as the potential for God’s existence like Darwinism has? 

What happens when the research uncovers the likelihood that a long and fiercely held theory like Darwinism is not true? Or that there is scientific evidence pointing to the likelihood that there may be superior explanation for the origins of our universe rather than the Big Bang theory? Does this new evidence get presented and debated, or is it covered up or ignored due to prejudice? Or is there a larger agenda for shifting the public’s worldview on these and other subjects?

Does Mainstream Science & Academia Have an Agenda?

There is a rising theory called “Intelligent Design” that offers a counter theory to Darwinism. Many scientists believe this theory better explains the origins of our universe and life on earth, while simultaneously being fiercely opposed by the mainstream scientific community. This opposition is not limited to boisterous debates, but in fact, researchers who favor this theory over Darwinism and the Big Bang are being subjected to personal and professional attacks resulting in loss of grants and often jobs. In the spirit of scientific discovery, what could possibly be the point of stifling new theories in favor of the former ones when evidence favors the new theory? Could there be an underlying agenda?

In the documentary called Expelled: No Intelligence Allowed [18], we learn about professors like Dr. Carolyn Crocker of George Mason University who merely mentioned Intelligent Design on a couple of slides in her cellular biology class and was fired for doing so. She was accused by her administrator of teaching creationism when all she did was to have Intelligent Design written on a few of her slides. Not only was this well-loved professor fired from her job, but she found herself blacklisted and unable to get another position anywhere. Her college professes to students that they have academic freedom to learn and discover, but why was this not the case when it came down to Intelligent Design?

Professors are not the only ones being persecuted over Intelligent Design. Dr. Michael Egnor, MD who is a certified neurosurgeon and professor at the University of New York Stony Brook found himself in hot water as well. He wrote in an essay to high school students that said, “doctors did not need to study evolution to practice medicine”. Darwinists were quick to viciously attack him professionally when he went public with his doubts concerning the adequacy of Darwin’s theory. Some detractors even suggested that he should lose his job for having this opinion. Why?

We find yet another example in Professor Robert J Marks II, a distinguished professor of engineering at Baylor University, and author of over 120 journal publications and conference papers. After his interview for that movie Expelled: No Intelligence Allowed, Baylor University shut down his research website, and forced him to return grant money because of the link between his work and Intelligent Design. Doesn’t there seem to be a systemic pattern to these attacks?

This looks like a trend. Consider what happened at Iowa State University. Dr. Guillermo Gonzales who has a Ph.D. in astronomy found himself in a bloody battle after he published his book Privileged Planet[19]. His book writes about his evidence supporting Intelligent Design and challenges the consensus cosmological view. Despite an amazing research record which has led to the discovery of several planets, his application for tenure was denied which put his career in peril. He found out that if you wanted to get grants or keep your job you had better not challenge Darwinism or the Big Bang. Why does empirical research that supports Intelligent Design garner so much anger from the academic and scientific communities? Why is it purposely not being included in science textbooks? 

So many other scientists and professors who contributed to that documentary did so anonymously in fear of losing their credentials and their positions. It seems that any challenge to the core view of Darwinism or the Big Bang is being met strong resistance on a widespread institutional level. Why is the freedom of speech of these prominent doctors, professors and even students being systematically violated and efforts to professionally publish dissenting views being crushed? Why is this seemingly overt and covert war being waged against these individuals in what appears to be an effort to prop up and maintain Darwinism and the Big Bang? Even newspaper journalists like Larry Witham of the Washington Post found that his reputation was being called into question by even writing about this controversy!

After reviewing these testimonies, I had so many questions and realized that the dynamics of this debate are multi-faceted. After all, this is America, and we are supposed to have freedom of speech. So why are schools blocking the open discussion comparing the evidence supporting Darwinism vs. the evidence supporting Intelligent Design? Why are teachers and professors getting fired or belittling or maligning students who reject Darwinism and the Big Bang in favor or Intelligent Design? Why is there so much fear and anger in the academic and scientific communities over what should be the unfettered pursuit of discovery? Why do they associate Intelligent Design with Creationism and the ‘religious right’? Could there be an agenda to silence any open discussion or the discovery of a better explanation for origins? Is there an effort abound to keep supporting evidence of a designer or the existence of God out of the research equation of our existence? Is there a larger progressive agenda at play? 

I know that sounds like a conspiracy theory, but what is the explanation? I often wondered why people involved in this debate of origins always seem to get so angry when their positions are challenged by what seem to be verifiable facts that point to the evidence of a potential author or designer. At least the discussion should be on the table. Then I realized that the lens these scientists and members of academia were looking through to form their worldview actually blinded them from considering any other alternative other than their own.   

Naturalism vs Theism

I discovered at the core of this debate driving what seems to be scientific and academic bias in research are the world-view lenses called Naturalism and Theism. These two philosophies are at odds with one another and serve to shape the biases we’ve discussed earlier. In philosophy, Naturalism is the idea or belief that only the natural (as opposed to the supernatural or spiritual) laws and forces operate in the world. They assert that these laws:

•       Govern the structure and behavior of the natural universe, so nothing else can provide causality, 

•       The changing universe at every stage is a product of these laws, 

•       The universe is all that exists,

•       The ultimate reality is mass/energy or the universe or the multi-verse,

•       The universe explains itself bottom up, and

•       The universe gives no evidence of the supernatural or potential for God to exist.

The antithesis to Naturalism is Theism, or the belief in a deity representing a perfectly conscious understanding being, or mind, exists of itself from eternity, and was the cause of all other things. Theists believe that:

•       The universe is not all that exists, and that God does exist,

•       Ultimate reality is God not the universe,

•       The universe gives evidence of God both bottom up and top down, and

•       The universe provides many pieces of evidence that support the existence of God.

The percentage of Atheists and those indifferent to religion is rising and represents roughly 18% of the world population. The other 82% believe in a God or a god. During my exploration, I noticed that many of the prominent scientists and scholars driving and shaping the status quo of philosophy and scientific theory are Atheists, so the world-view lens they perceive raw scientific data through is based upon the Naturalist point of view. This fact suggests that their conclusions are tainted by a worldview without the potential for God’s existence or role in anything.  

The ruling factions of the academic and scientific establishment today views everything through a world-view lens that is Atheistic in perspective and considers the theory of Intelligent Design to be a racket, or nonsense, despite the evidence that supports it. They claim that if Intelligent Design was taught alongside Darwinism, that this would somehow stunt the academic and intellectual growth of the students, and that proponents of any other theory aside from Darwinism or the Big Bang are “uneducated fools”. But isn’t the refusal of openly discussing theories that have so much evidence to support them already stunting our student’s growth?  What are these institutions so afraid of? Could it be that the students and the public would find Intelligent Design vs. Darwinism or the Big Bang a more logical explanation? 

The establishment further voices an opinion, or perhaps a fear, that if Intelligent Design were to be taught in the classrooms, that it would be an excuse to let the notion of creationism slip into the schools. They say that “next we will be bringing back prayer in the classroom”. Isn’t this opposition just another form of repressing our freedom of speech? Aren’t these suppressive policies resulting in an outright attack on the personal liberty of teachers, scientists, and students? In addition, is freedom of religion being restricted in America? 

Let’s put God aside for a moment and just talk about the validity of Darwinism and the Big Bang theories by themselves. These two theories have been shredded by stronger more logical arguments based upon an abundance of scientific evidence produced by well-respected and pedigreed researchers using technology that did not exist in 1859 when Darwin launched his theory, or in 1927 when the Big Bang theory was first proposed. Just on the science alone, a plethora of prominent professors and scientists have denounced the validity of both theories and presented more evidence that supports the higher probability of Intelligent Design. Evidence we will explore together later in this book.

Aside from violating Darwinism, why does the mere mention of "Intelligent Design" cause such an angry uproar from evolutionary scientists like Richard Dawkins? Could it be that he’s viewing probability through an Atheistic lens? When anyone looks at the mathematical improbability of life springing from nothing, doesn't it beg the question "how did it really happen"? Especially when the science used to justify the premise has been found in error or has been deliberately fabricated. In a nutshell, why is Darwinism being propped up? 

Since Dawkins is an Atheist, his worldview rejects any other theory that suggests an Intelligent Design, because if that were true, the next question which he cannot bear to consider is who the designer might be. So, his worldview is being threatened by the mere suggestion of Intelligent Design. As previously discussed, anger is one of the primary stages a person goes through when their worldview is threatened. Another is the resorting to name calling and slander when they don’t have a credible response. Are these actions of a person who honestly wants to find the facts and to know the truth, or to cover it up? Or is the research bias towards a Naturalistic explanation so strong that it prevents these researchers from seeing anything else? 

Unless or course there is an agenda to preserve the status quo that keeps God or any theory concerning Intelligent Design out of any discussion. I also wondered with all our modern advances in microbiology illustrating the enormous complexity of life, why aren’t scientists and academia willing to have both theories explained side by side in our textbooks and allow the students to conduct a fair and balanced debate comparing the evidence supporting these theories? The students are certainly capable of deciding for themselves. Perhaps they will see a more likely explanation than what’s being taught? We will contrast Intelligent Design with the existing Naturalist philosophy in a later chapter, then you decide which one is more likely than the other.

What is amusing and questionable to me is how Darwinists can consider the debate between their view and Intelligent Design to be over when there are an overwhelming number of inconsistencies, as well as outright fraud being uncovered concerning the evidence supporting Darwinism? Could it be because Darwinism leads to Atheism, and that the scientific and academic communities’ worldview demands that there is no God? Isn’t that what Hitler claimed and demanded others believe? We will discuss how men like Hitler justified killing millions of non-Arians based upon his belief of a superior race which Darwinism supports in a later chapter.  

What is also interesting is that these supposed learned scientists always try and associate religion with the concept of Intelligent Design. Many nonreligious scientists and authors already support this theory of our origins vs. Darwinism. The evidence stands apart from pure religious faith. Anyone who looks at the observable evidence supporting design draws the same conclusions. I feel at the heart of that matter, and an Atheist’s worst nightmare, is that when anyone contrasts Intelligent Design with the Biblical creation story, that startling realization could renew faith in a "Creator", and I don’t mean little green or grey men. A concept we will also address in a later chapter. 

I believe these Atheists and education zealots are afraid that Darwinism will become unraveled if there is a mainstream discussion comparing it to Intelligent Design. The outcome they fear is what "label" are you going to use to call that “Intelligent Designer”? I believe that it is this shock to an Atheist’s worldview that is what is causing the institutional anger and outright unwillingness to honestly evaluate evidence that points to the high probability of Intelligent Design being a more logical conclusion what both previous theories suggest. The response to this in the past has been to silence the offenders by any means necessary including ruining someone’s reputation and career.

Truly at the heart of the Darwinism debate is God and His existence which we will explore. Complicit in this evolutionary theory is that there is either no God, or God had no role in evolution. I also believe that there is an agenda supported by our state-run education and research institutions to reinforce Atheism and eliminate God from the discussion which is being backed up by grant removals and firings of brilliant researchers and professors. 

This strategy started even before the government removed prayer in public schools back in the 1960’s and continues with the assertions of separation of church and state only as it relates to and references to Christianity, as well as court appeasement of ACLU suits to tear down or abolish any symbols or seasonal references to Christianity in America. Since America was originally founded as a Christian nation, of course there are symbols of Christianity everywhere including those that are embedded in our government buildings. So, what do they mean by this statement “separation of church and state”?

Well to start with, did you know there is no constitutional or legally established ruling or law called “separation of church and state”? Yet that term is often coined by those who oppose any mention of God in the public square. This phrase actually refers to a letter that Thomas Jefferson wrote to a Baptist Christian church assuring them that our new American government would not have mandated religious objectives like England did, but that they would be free to exercise their Christian faith. That did not mean that the government entities or the citizens that worked for them would cease from expressing their Christian faith through nativity scenes and illustrations of the ten commandments. Jefferson’s letter was never meant to mean that we are to separate our Christian values and heritage from the “state” or our government and its institutions like our education system. We will explore our American Christian heritage in a later chapter. 

Making Sense of the Evidence

“For since the creation of the world His invisible attributes are clearly seen, being understood by the things that are made, even His eternal power and Godhead, so that they are without excuse, (Romans 1:20 NKJV)

This passage in the Bible points to attributes of creation that can “clearly be seen”. Historically, most of the early scientists[20] like Galileo used a worldview that included a creator God to help understand the science by looking at these attributes. Sir Isaac Newton, a Christian, actually held the same science chair that Stephen Hawking did who was an Atheist. The worldview of these early scientists recognized and embraced the spiritual or Deistic side of reality that served to guide and motivate them to try and unlock the mysteries of how the universe originated. 

Hawking and his fellow Atheists do not see the world through that same lens, so they favor a universe without God or even His potential. They even claim that Darwin’s evolution theories can take on the appearance of order. The only problem with that conclusion is where did energy come from and how were the atoms assembled? Something from nothing which violates causation looks like or becomes order? We will also explore these principles then you decide what’s more likely. 

So, when did the generational shift in thought begin? During the Renaissance Period modern thought began to shift towards a humanistic man centered sense of reality later fueled by the rise of Darwinism. The previous theistic worldview of our science community was replaced by an atheistic worldview that is now shaping mainstream science’s conclusions. If the evidence these scientists find does not match their naturalistic worldview, which only acknowledges or accepts the physical discounting concepts of the supernatural or existence of God, then the hypothesis gets thrown aside. In the pursuit of truth and what would serve mankind best, is this approach even scientifically or academically ethical?

You will note through this book that I have posted and referenced various videos and photographs of actual scientific, archeological, and historical evidence that supports my theories. My intent with this survey of information is to provide a mosaic if you will that contrasts what we see around us together with available Biblical, historical, scientific, and archeological evidence. I believe you will see that it provides a strong and logical explanation for what we see and experience. Perhaps seeing the picture in a start to finish fashion may help us better understand how the research data fits together and help us draw our own conclusions apart from prejudice, fiction, or fear. 

Methodology for Finding Answers

As I started to do my own research, I wanted to try and focus on data gathered from scientists and scholars that are looking for the truth, and don't have any other agendas beyond that. This is hard to do, but not impossible. It just requires more digging. In addition to several historical documents, Apocryphal books, scientific journals, videos, and testimonies that will either be linked or footnoted in each section, you will also notice I include the New King James Bible, in addition to other historical texts often referenced in the Bible, to help provide contrast to the science we will be reviewing. 

One of the many questions non-Christians will ask is whether the Judeo-Christian Bible is trustworthy as a resource. We will explore and discover this document in great detail later in this book. You will see through documented evidence that there is more evidence for the Bible’s authenticity than for any so called “literature of antiquity”. I will review the evidence supporting this claim later in the book and offer the following brief statements to support its use in my research.

The New Testament was written in first century A.D. by eyewitnesses 30 years after Jesus’ death and resurrection. The Bible has roughly 20,000 manuscripts[21] in existence supporting its textual accuracy. Historians have documented that the Bible as we know it today was derived from hand copied manuscripts penned by devoted men that considered it both a duty and an honor to render these copies without error. If a mistake was made, the page was destroyed, and the worker had to ceremonially wash and change clothes before beginning again. This copying method was so exact and so precise that the New Testament alone is considered by historians to be 99.5% textually pure[22]. This means that of the 6000 Greek copies (the New Testament was written in Greek), and the additional 21,000 copies in the other languages (Hebrew and Aramaic), there is only one half of 1% variation. The difference of .05% is attributed to areas that do not change the integrity of what is being said.

Moreover, the Judeo-Christian Bible as published today is unique beyond its historical value among all books ever written because of verifiable prophesies. It accurately foretells specific events-in detail-many years, sometimes centuries, before they occurred. For example, there are approximately 2,500 prophecies that appear in the pages of the Bible, with approximately 2,000 of which have already been fulfilled to the letter—without error. It is so exceedingly accurate in its transmission from the originals to the present copies, that if you compare it to any other ancient writing, the Bible is light years ahead in terms of number of original manuscripts as well as prophetic, archeological, and historical accuracy[23]. Due to this fact, no serious field archeologist that exists today would dream of not keeping what will surely be a well-worn copy of the King James Bible close by for reference. We will explore the uniqueness of this book and it's contrasts with science in greater detail. Yes, the Bible agrees with science. You have just been told that it doesn’t which is false.

Summary

In this section we discussed what a worldview is and how it can be impacted and changed by factors that often don’t make any sense but are being driven by special interest groups with an agenda to achieve generational changes in behavior. Some agendas are well intending, while others are purely motivated by greed, power, or social control. Can the correlation of facts and probabilities alone determine what absolute truth is, or at least the most likely conclusion based upon probability? Is there such a thing as absolute truth? If there is, then your perspective of whether to believe in God, or be aware of the sanctity of life, or your ultimate destiny after you die, or where and why are we here and what your purpose in life is, will be critically important factors that will color your worldview allowing for absolute truth.

Cleary there is a battle raging to reshape your personal worldview. There are viewpoints that have been institutionalized and embedded into our society over many years that try to eliminate the possibility of the supernatural or God from the equation of our existence. The subsequent dehumanization of life has caused the deaths of more than 50 million unborn children. What’s more, now the powers that be question the validity of the gender you were born with. The absence of any open and encouraged comparative analysis in the schools, media or the scientific communities serves to systematically reinforce opinions and philosophies that I believe are contrary to evidence you will continue to review in this book. I believe that this unwillingness to have an open and honest discussion in our schools and within the larger scientific and academic communities is meant to serve a predetermined objective. 

“As iron sharpens iron, so a man sharpens the countenance of his friend.” 

Proverbs 27:17 

Don’t let anyone confuse or delude you. Your challenge is to look at the research, do your own homework and learn the truth. Remember, no matter how difficult accepting that truth may be, knowing the difference between fiction and reality can save your life in more ways than you can imagine. 

“And you shall know the truth, and the truth shall make you free.” 

John 8:32

The truth will make you free. In the following pages, we will explore how the scientific, archeological, cosmological evidence that scientists have uncovered can actually be reconciled with the Biblical narratives of our origins. You will also learn that some mythologies and conspiracy theories won’t seem so crazy when you look at the evidence and find that some may actually have foundations in fact. 

Could the history or scientific evidence supporting some of these mythologies been removed or altered to support an alternative worldview? As we’ve seen in our previous examples concerning origins, abortion, and the LGBTQ+ movement, there are forces at work that have no issue with using false data to woo you into a specific direction that pressures a change in your perspective. The challenge is keeping an open mind while looking at the evidence and honestly asking yourself, does this make logical sense? Let’s start our journey with our origins.

[1] Haeckel’s Fraudulent Embryo Drawings Are Still Present in Biology Textbooks

[2] In 2014, 652,639 legal induced abortions were reported to CDC from 49 reporting areas

[3] Pro-life Across America  Facts Card

[4] https://www.facebook.com/liveaction/?hc_ref=NEWSFEED&fref=nf

[5] https://www.facebook.com/liveaction/videos/10154168301463728/

[6] http://abortionprocedures.com/

[7] http://herestheblood.com/

[8] 71 gender options: Oh, boy! Paul Kengor TribLive

[9] Sex differences at cellular level: "cells have a sex". www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pubmed/23027445

[10] https://www.theguardian.com/society/2015/apr/05/10-per-cent-population-gay-alfred-kinsey-statistics

[11] https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/LGBTQ+_demographics_of_the_United_States

[12] “What Causes Homosexuality?” – Family Research Council

[13] Byne and Parsons, “Human Sexual Orientation: The Biologic Theories Reappraised,” 236

[14] Ronald Bayer, Homosexuality and American Psychiatry: The Politics of Diagnosis (Princeton, NJ: Princeton University Press, 1987), 3.

[15] Ralph H. Gundlach, “Childhood Parental Relationships and the Establishment of Gender Roles of Homosexuals,” Journal of Consulting and Clinical Psychology, 33 (April 1969): 137.

[16] William Byne and Bruce Parsons, “Human Sexual Orientation: The Biologic Theories Reappraised,” Archives of General Psychiatry, 50 (March 1993): 236.

[17] http://investmentwatchblog.com/top-scientist-resigns-admitting-global-warming-is-a-big-scam/

[18] Expelled: No Intelligence Allowed-Video

[19] Watch Privileged Planet

[20] List of Christians in science and technology

[21] http://www.icr.org/bible-manuscripts/

[22] https://carm.org/is-the-bible-reliable

[23] http://www.reasons.org/articles/articles/fulfilled-prophecy-evidence-for-the-reliability-of-the-bible