Well, what did my Master do?  What did His servants do during the early days of the church that are recorded in inspired history?  When Lazarus died, Jesus wept.  Jesus, who understands the Father’s glorious plan better than anybody, wept.  Jesus, who knew that he was going to raise Lazarus from the dead just a few moments later, wept.  Jesus, the Resurrection and the Life, wept.  What about Paul, the hero of reformed and Calvinistic churches?  Did he always preach (or write, for that matter) in a calm, cool, collected manner?  Did he lecture?  Nay, he often preached with tears.  He even provided an apologetic for them: “For out of much affliction and anguish of heart I wrote unto you with many tears; not that ye should be grieved, but that ye might know the love which I have more abundantly unto you. (2 Cor 2:4).”

Indeed, God is sovereign.  If he decrees that I shall break down in tears, no passage or illustration is safe.  He can use the leprosy passages in Leviticus to bring me to my knees.  He is sovereign over my emotions; I am not.  I am but a servant; the Lord will feed his sheep as He sees fit.  I must seek to be a faithful servant of Christ.  If I maintain my composure–if I am in my right mind–let it be for the glory of Christ and His gospel!  If I am to be a fool and choke back tears in public, let me be a fool for the sake of Christ and His gospel!  If He sends tears, let them be a drink offering and a thank offering, poured out before his throne.  Only let Him feed His sheep.  He must increase; I must decrease.  Here I am, Lord, send me.  Thy will be done on earth as it is in Heaven.

But I am an American evangelical.  I have seen tears abused for wicked and manipulative pretexts by peddlers of the gospel.  Ginning up crocodile tears to pad your wallet or to make a name for yourself is an abomination.  God is not mocked; He will judge, and then the tears of those hucksters will be real.  But should the counterfeit tears of the televangelist cause us to fall into the other ditch?  There is good reason to oppose the syrupy, squishy, evangellyfishy, Jesus-is-my-boyfriend treacle that we see around us, but we need to follow scripture rather than reacting against the prevailing error.  There is a certain aspect of American reformed and Calvinist culture that operates as if our bodies only exist to take our brains to and from church.  I’d be lying if I said that I haven’t been influenced in some way by this.  We are Christians, not Vulcans.  Christianity is incarnational.  Both of these ditches have latent Gnostic assumptions and both of them are inconsistent with the Incarnation.  If you think you can do theology without it erupting into doxology, your theology is wrong.  Period.  I don’t care how many fat books with small type you’ve read.

It’s still a few weeks until I preach.  I may find as I write the sermon that the illustration doesn’t fit with my overall theme, or that it distracts from it.  The Lord may take me in another direction.  That would be a valid reason to exclude it.  A fear of looking foolish is not valid.  As for now, it stays in.  I’ll just make sure to wear my glasses instead of my contact lenses when I preach.

-Miss Scarlet, Clue (1986)

If something is inherently capitalistic in nature does that make it inherently good?

Perhaps I was a bit hasty in characterizing Walter Block as a very persuasive debater in my introductory post about Defending the Undefendable.  Block’s first chapter “The Prostitute” was underwhelming at its best and highly offensive at its worst.  I do not believe that prostitution should be illegal.  I believe that good arguments can be made against outlawing prostitution.  I just don’t think Block made any of them.  Instead of attempting to show that prostitution should not be subject to criminal sanction, Block tries to show that this is a legitimate good and somehow beneficial to society.

Block’s first argument attempts to compare prostitution to a Norman Rockwell painting where a milkman and a pieman trade wares.  Both people have made the transaction voluntarily, without force or fraud, so this is in essence the same type of situation.  Here Block makes the same mistake that many Christians do in failing to distinguish between sins and crimes.  It’s almost a “libertarian positivist” type of thinking.  If no coercion or fraud is involved it must be good.  By what standard?  Good for whom?  Block also advances an essentially utopian view of prostitution where abusive pimps are the exception rather than the rule and the prostitute can voluntarily leave the trade at any time.  He implies that any correlation between abuse and prostitution is merely coincidental.

My disagreement with Block here is metaphysical.  He must believe that sex is somehow a neutral action just as the market is amoral.  Neither of these can be supported by Block’s arbitrary worldview.  The Bible tells another story.  Sex outside of marriage is inherently sinful.  It always leads to degradation rather than glorification in all circumstances.  Block fails to prove that if a trade is not coerced, it is necessarily a good thing.  Why can’t you have a situation where a trade takes place and yet both parties end up worse off than before?

Although no Christian should ever participate in prostitution as a buyer or a seller, the solution is not to make it illegal.  The women who brought the baby before Solomon to judge between them in the famous case (I Kings 3:16-28) were both prostitutes.  In this passage where Solomon is portrayed as the wisest of kings, he did not punish them criminally for being prostitutes.  He also did not remove the child from the custody of its mother because she was a harlot (much to the chagrin of contemporary social service types).  As is readily apparent, perverted people will still engage in prostitution regardless of whether it is legal or not.  Scripture should be our standard of whether prostitution ought to be criminal or not.  The prohibitionist is trying to be wiser than God.  As the gospel permeates the world and the nations are discipled, prostitution will pretty much disappear due to decline of both supply and demand.  This will be accomplished by the church and not the civil magistrate.

Block tries to show that not only should we not make prostitution illegal, but we should not criticize it either.  That’s kind of preachy for what I thought would be a defense of the “amoral” market, and he bites off more than he can chew.  Block presses his error of conflating sins and crimes by implying that because this “trade” shouldn’t be prohibited, it shouldn’t be considered wrong either.  This is well beyond the scope of the philosophy he presented in the introduction, but he doesn’t seem to care.  He argues that many dating patterns resemble prostitution.  Here I’d tend to agree with him, but as an argument against the dating patterns rather than for prostitution.

Then Block trashes marriage by trying to use the same argument.  All relationships are trades; therefore marriage is morally little different than prostitution.  “The marriages in which the husband provides the financial elements, and the wife the sexual and housekeeping functions, also conforms clearly enough to the model.  In fact, all voluntary human relationships, from love relationships to intellectual relationships, are trades. In the case of romantic love and marriage, the trade is in terms of affection, consideration, kindness, etc. The trade may be a happy one, and the partners may find joy in the giving. But it is still a trade. It is clear that unless affection, kindness, etc., or something is given, it will not be reciprocated (Block, 6).”  Block’s reductionism here is repugnant.  I did not vow to marry my wife only if affection and kindness were reciprocated.  I vowed to unite my life with hers in sickness and health, richness and poverty, for better or for worse.  I vowed to enter into a relationship that mysteriously images the relationship between Christ and the Church.  Even if (for the sake of argument which in no way corresponds to the most joyous reality of my actual marriage) my wife never reciprocated anything, I would still be compelled to love, protect, and cherish her.  My duty to be a faithful husband is in no way impacted by what I receive in return.

Block concludes “Several social commentators have correctly [sic] likened marriage to prostitution.  But all relationships where trade takes place, those which include sex as well as those which do not, are a form of prostitution.  Instead of condemning all such relationships because of their similarity to prostitution, prostitution should be viewed as just one kind of interaction in which all human beings participate. Objections should not be raised to any of them—not to marriage, not to friendship, not to prostitution (Block 6-7).”  This is as preachy as an Al Gore documentary.  How anything like “should” exists within Block’s worldview is still beyond me.  This first chapter was truly disappointing.  I expected better.

In DtU, Walter Block attempts to show that all non-coercive elements of a market economy have an economic value and benefit society.  He looks at the most extreme cases: the pimp, the drug addict, the blackmailer, the denier of academic freedom, the person who yells “fire” in a crowded theater, the (non-government) counterfeiter, the slumlord, and the stripminer among others.  These extreme cases can be used to make an a fortiori argument for the free market.  If even these “economic scapegoats” are beneficial to a free market economy, then less controversial professions would also be beneficial.  As Dr. Block states in the introduction, “This book is a defense of the marketplace. It singles out for special praise those participants in the free enterprise system who are the most reviled by its critics. It does so because if the price system can be shown to be mutually beneficial and productive in these extreme examples, then the case for markets in general is strengthened even the more [Block: xv].”

I read the foreword by Murray Rothbard, the commentary by F.A. Hayek, and Block’s own introduction to the book.  I can already see that this will be a thought-provoking and entertaining read, but I can also anticipate where I’m likely to disagree with Professor Block.

First, Block contends that the free enterprise system must be seen as amoral–neither moral nor immoral.  As a Van Tillian Calvinist, I cannot let this slide.  Block argues that the free market is an amoral tool just like a gun or a typewriter.  Even those instruments are only neutral until a man lays hold of them and uses them (either in obedience to God toward the end of glorification or in disobedience toward the end of degradation).  In the nature of the case, every action executed within a market has human involvement and consequent ethical ramifications.  If every particular action within an economic system is either moral or immoral, how can the system as a whole (which is the set of all these particulars) suddenly become amoral?  If Block wants to look at these things hypothetically, then my critique would be that his approach ends up becoming Utopian rather than grounded in reality.  Ironically, this critique of Utopianism can also be levied against Marx’s “scientific socialism” which is on the opposite extreme ideologically.

You will not have a free enterprise system if every action or person is immoral. What is going to stop immoral people from using coercion?  Isn’t the non-coercion principle arbitrary?  Why shouldn’t you use coercion [if there's no God who will judge all men at the last day]?  The fact of the matter is that you will only have anything resembling a free enterprise system if you have a foundation built upon the Triune God who revealed himself in the scriptures.  If we do not let the Word of God depart from our mouths and we are careful to obey it, then we will have the prosperity and success of what is essentially the free market economy which I anticipate Block will ably defend.  If we build our foundation upon a would-be autonomous system like libertarianism, then we’ll get something that essentially resembles what we see around us today.  The only reason why Block can make any of his arguments is because he is borrowing capital from the Christian worldview.

That being said, I think that mature Christians will benefit greatly from reading this book.  In many cases the things that Block defends here are sins (no associated penal sanction with the commandment) in the Bible rather than crimes (which have an associated penal sanction).  When we attempt to make things like prostitution and drugs illegal (in our own attempts to be autonomous), we almost always do more harm than good.  Many of these issues truly are problems, but the only true solution to them is the preaching of the Word, the diaconal ministry, and the faithful administration of the sacraments to convert souls.

In some cases (the inheritor, the advertiser, the denier of academic freedom, the scab, the employer of child labor, and especially the rate buster) there may be no sin at all, and I imagine I’ll agree with just about everything Block says.

If you are not well-grounded in a Scriptural Christian worldview, get well grounded in that worldview before reading this book.  Walter Block is a very intelligent man and a very persuasive debater.  If you aren’t steeped in Scripture, this book may have the same subtle influence (“hath God really said…”) as the serpent in the garden.  Libertarianism, like any philosophy that is explicitly anti-Christian, can only end in weeping and gnashing of teeth if applied consistently in the real world.  I would argue that libertarianism and consistent Christianity look very similar in a lot of the external particulars, but only Christianity can provide an intelligible foundation for them.  In most cases, libertarians want all the benefits they can get from living in a Christian society without actually bending the knee and confessing that Jesus Christ is Lord.

At least that’s my impression from reading the introduction.  I’ll issue any retractions as I am convinced I need to make them.

Chapter reviews:

Chapter 1: The Prostitute

Thank you for your response. What I actually have a problem with is belief in the supernatural. I do not live by faith now, but by reason and hope. The main reason I do not believe any more is the atrocities attributed to your “god” in the bible against innocent babies and children. He actually murdered babies (See 2nd Samuel, the baby of David and Bathsheba) as well as the firstborn males and the flood (if it happened) must have caused many babies and children to perish. My question to you then is: Do you ENJOY believing and praising a being who did these things to babies and children and who would send someone to be tortured just because they exercise their right to think for themselves? Also, I have a problem wth the concept of “hell”. There are christians who believe that even good people will be tortured if they do not believe. This is riduculous. Why would anyone deserve that kind of punishment? This is a being worse than Hitler. However, there are christians who do not believe in hell. So, my question to them is: If you do not believe that part of the bible is true regarding hell, then isn’t it just common sense that the rest of the bible is not true either.

As far as evolution, it makes more sense than some invisible being in the sky judging us. I don’t believe in sin anymore, I believe in right and wrong and always striving to do what is right.

I also believe in evidence. If you are an intelligent person, I cannot believe you think the earth is only 6000 years old. To me, science equals evidence without certainty and religion equals certainty without evidence. I will stick with the evidence without certainty.

As far as faith, I believe that blind faith equals blind obedience.

As far as the trinity, no one can explain that. It was decided upon at the council of nicea.

On the bible: I will quote Mark Twain who said that “most people are bothered by passages of scripture that do not understand, but I am bothered by the passages of scripture that I do understand.

Yes, it takes an incredible amount of faith to believe superstitious things, so I will stick with reason and hope instead of christianity.

In response, I have some comments and some questions:

1. pcamper’s claim that he doesn’t live by faith is epistemologically naïve to say the least.  Everybody lives by faith.  Faith is required to believe in anything, including evidence.  (In order to accept visual evidence, you need to have faith that your eyes are more-or-less representing reality accurately.)  The use of natural science requires faith that nature behaves in a law-like manner and that the laws don’t change willy-nilly from place to place or moment to moment.  The fact that he then goes on to say that he lives by reason and hope is especially delicious.  How can you have hope in something while not having faith in anything, unless you’ve got a really odd and arbitrary defininition of faith?

2.) Is it wrong to murder babies?  If so, how is that supportable on an evolutionist basis?  If evolution is true, then it’s survival of the fittest, and killing babies (who aren’t particularly fit) can’t be wrong.  In fact if your definition of the fittest is the one who leaves the most offspring (not uncommon), then it seems almost required by evolution that you kill other people’s babies whenever possible.  

3.) I also need to address the blasphemous accusation that God is a somehow a murderer.  God gives life and God takes it away according to his eternal decree.  The reason why men can’t do this (why it’s murder for men to do so) is that they don’t have the authority to take lives, including their own.  When one human being unlawfully takes the life of another, he is attempting to usurp God’s authority.  The earth is the Lord’s and the fullness thereof.  

In the case of II Samuel 12, the Lord’s causing the death of David’s son was not a bad thing for the son.  He went to heaven.  (See 12:23 “I will go to him, but he will not return to me.”)  Even if we didn’t have that verse to indicate this, it would be reasonable to believe this because he was a covenant child.   

In the other cases pcamper mentioned, these people were enemies of God as were their children.  In Adam, all rebelled against God and are deserving of Hell.  Refusing to submit to God of heaven is certainly worthy of the punishment of Hell.  It is worthy of immediate death, but God in his common grace continues to provide unbelievers with sunshine, rain, and crops.  The reprobate does not honor God as God, nor does he give thanks for these things.  There are no innocent or good people who die or go to hell.  No one is righteous, not even one.  I am therefore not one of those Christians who believe that good people are tortured in Hell.  There are no good people, and apart from the saving grace in Jesus Christ for His church, everybody would go to Hell.  God is perfectly just and the standard by which humans ought to define justice.  I believe that every jot and tittle of the Bible is true, including the verses about Hell, to answer pcamper’s question.

4.  I find it amusing that the only defense of evolution yet offered is that “it makes more sense than some invisible being in the sky judging us.”  If this is living by reason, I’d hate to see living irrationally.  pcamper has no answer to the something- from-nothing argument.  This is clearly self-contradictory.  Either you have evolution or you have the conservation of matter.  You can’t keep both of them and remain consistent.  Belief in evolution must necessarily overthrow the validity of natural science.

5. As alluded to in point 2, pcamper has no basis for believing in right in wrong.  I’m not denying that he does actually believe in right and wrong; I’m just saying that he has no philosophical warrant for doing so.  On an evolutionary foundation, there cannot be any such thing as right and wrong.  If everything is just matter in motion, how can anything be right and wrong?  Stalin understood this better than pcamper does.  Stalin was a consistent materialist.  He believed that killing 20 million of his own people was no different than mowing a lawn.  In order for pcamper to believe in right and wrong, he needs to be a hypocrite (saying he believes one way and acting in another) and borrow from the Christian worldview.

6.  pcamper states that he believes in evidence, but ironically offers none.  He doesn’t even offer an appeal to evidence, because evidence is damning to the evolutionist.  Evidence must always be suppressed or else the whole theory will unravel.  This is, of course, because all of the evidence indicates creation by the Triune God of the Bible.  This isn’t a tradeoff between evidence and certainty.  I have both on my side, and he has neither.

 7. “As far as faith, I believe that blind faith equals blind obedience.”  This is a complete non-sequitur.  Where have I advocated blind faith anywhere?  The evolutionist is the only one here with blind faith.  I have the revealed Word of God which provides the basis for my faith and the created order that corroborates this.  pcamper wants people to believe that something came from nothing, life came from non-life, intelligent from non-intelligent, and moral from amoral–all without shred of evidence to back it up.  I’m sorry, I just can’t take a blind leap of faith like that.

8.  ”As far as the trinity, no one can explain that. It was decided upon at the council of nicea.”  I’m not sure exactly what pcamper is trying to argue here, so I’ll have to give it my best guess.  I will readily grant that the Trinity cannot be understood exhaustively by any creature.  What I fail to see is why I must exhaustively understand something in order to believe in it.  Neither pcamper nor I understand anything exhaustively.  We don’t even understand ourselves exhaustively.  A common problem with unbelieving epistemology is that you must know everything in order to know anything.  Christians don’t have that problem.  I deny that you can’t explain the Trinity at all, and so does Nicea.    

Conclusion: pcamper’s main objection to Christianity is that he believes God is evil.  He accuses God of all these things but has no philosophical basis for making these accusations.  In order for him to argue against Christianity, he must implicitly concede that his evolutionary worldview is not true and that Christianity is true.  In order to object against God, he must borrow from the Christian worldview and adopt the Christian concept of ethical absolutes (albeit in a distorted manner).  pcamper has no leg to stand on here.

 pcamper, you have no reason for hope at all, even though you claim to live by hope.  What do you have hope in?  Objecting to the concept of Hell won’t keep you from going there, no matter how loudly you complain.  You are dead, but I believe in a God that can raise the dead.  God is calling men everywhere to repent and believe that Jesus Christ is Lord of all.  God has been in the business of saving hopelessly wicked men since the Fall.  He saved Saul of Tarsus (who was on his way to kill Chrisitians) and turned him into the apostle Paul.  Obviously this is all of grace and all of God–not of man’s autonomous free will.  Nobody chooses to repent and believe unless the Holy Spirit regenerates their heart.  Jesus is reigning now.  You can either bend the knee and be adopted as a son in His church, or you can perish.  I’d personally much rather see the former than the latter.

I dispute that such things have been observed. They have been inferred, but not observed.  (And I would say they were poorly inferred.)  I would argue that all you see is differential reproduction and not microevolution. One may want to define mircroevolution as differential reproduction, but in doing so he would be equivocating on what he means by “evolution.”

The danger of capitulating to this claim without evaluating it critically is that you essentially concede the argument to the evolutionist.  After all, what is “macroevolution” other than “microevoluton” over a period of millions of years?

I’ll give you a parallel. Supose a virus came along that killed everybody who had a positive Rhesus Factor for their blood type. About 84% of the human population has positive blood. This would likely wipe out several other genetic characteristics. (For example, 99% of China is RhD+.) Over time you will have a repopulation and this repopulation would all have RhD- blood (because RhD- is recessive). Would it be correct to say that humans had microevolved if this happened?  Of course not.  A bunch of people dying and not passing on their genes isn’t evolution—it’ just changes the relative prevalance of different genes that already exist.  Microevolution implies something new in the genome that wasn’t there before, especially if you ever want it to account for the eventual origin of the species.

There is a second problem with calling antibiotic resistant bacteria “microevolution” as well. This change in the relative population of bacteria was caused by an intelligent source, not pure chance. Although it was not the intended effect, this is similar to a dog breeder selecting out a particular characteristic for his dogs. (This also comes with unintended effects.) In the nature of the case, the true evolutionist has no basis for importing an intelligent factor that selects one characteristic over another. All you have is pure blind chance.

Every observed mutation ever has resulted in a sorting or loss of genetic information.  You will never get “amoeba to man” evolution that way, as man has more genetic complexity than the amoeba.  You also won’t get “amoeba to man” evolution by killing most of the existing amoebas.  You’ll just get a thinner amoeba gene pool.  If you want to call the differential reproduction due to loss of massive amounts of genetic material I described above “microevolution,” then I won’t quibble over words.  However, if that’s all you’ve got, then you cannot explain origins at all.  You will never get more advanced species this way, even if you had trillions of years and the whole universe was a thick soup of protein chains.

How the heck can life start from abiological processes?

I believe this is the biggest problem with the theory of evolution. The belief that something can from nothing is at odds with everything we observe from science. In order for science to work, the principle of induction must have a sound basis. We observe much in nature that behaves in a law-like manner all the time. (i.e. If you drop a ball, it will fall to the ground all the time.) Believing that something can come from nothing undermines the possibility of the law-like world which science attempts to study.

But, evolutionists don’t just need to have something come from nothing once. It is the hallmark of the theory. In order for evolution to account for the existance of humans today, you need to make no less than four such leaps:

1. Something From Nothing – This is seen in the most popular cosmological theory of today, the Big Bang. There is no way to use the scientific method to account for the origin of matter ex nihilo, so the cosmologists just make it up.  As Christians we believe in the creation of matter ex nihilo, but it’s not a problem because our universe is sustained by a personal and omnipotent God.

2. Life from Non-Life – There was a time when many believed that life could begin from nonliving material, but since Pasteur, it has been a sign of ignorance to believe, for example, that maggots are spontaneously generated from rotting meat.

3. Intelligence from Non-Intelligent life – The evolutionist also needs to account for the advent of intelligence in non-intelligent life. How do you get from an amoeba to an intelligent humanoid? Something must come from nothing again.

4. Morality from Amoral Life – The last major problem that must be solved to explain humanity is how intelligent amoral life can develop ethical norms. How does a beast become somebody that stipulates that you ought not kill another of your own kind or copulate with your neighbor’s wife?

These are four huge leaps of faith. Each one, if it were true, would undermine the very possibility of scientific knowledge.

There are several other similar problems that embarrass the theory along the same lines. How do you go from cell-division to copulation as a method of reproduction. In order for this to happen, you would need the gradual evolution of genitalia over the period of millions of years. The genitalia would not be functional for reproduction during this period, so the organism would be handicapped in the race for survival. These non funcitoning organs would still need to be nourished, which would be a tremendous disadvantage in the quest for survival of the fittest. The same could be said about the respiratory and circulatory systems, vision, and every other human characteristic.

It takes an incredible amount of faith to believe these things.  I’ll stick with Christianity, thank you.

Because Christianity and Darwinism are competing religions or worldviews, there can be no harmony between the two of them. The Bible teaches rather plainly that God created the heavens and the earth over the course of about six days, approximately six thousand years ago. (There are many Christians who will dispute this, but I think they aren’t reading the text of Scripture honestly and are self-consciously capitulating to Darwinism at the outset.)

More importantly than the age of the earth is the fact that the Bible teaches that there was no death before the sin of Adam and Eve. This is not a passing detail but one that is absolutely essential to Christian doctrine.  You could not have had billions or even millions of years of natural selection where the preferred races are preserved in the struggle for life.   In principle there can be no harmony between the Bible’s theory of origins and Darwin’s.  If Darwin is true, then the Bible is not and vice versa.  This does not mean that every particular bit of scientific reasoning performed by Darwinists is false or that all of the scientific reasoning of the Creationists is correct.  However, it does mean that every bit of true scientific knowledge tangled within the mess of the evolutionary framork supports Creation by the Triune God according to the scriptures.

The job of the Christian in these debates is to remain faithful to the teaching of scripture and then to perform an internal critique of Darwinism that shows that if it were true it would undermine the possibility of gaining scientific knowledge.

We have nothing to fear from actual experiments in the natural sciences.  These experiments must be within the limits of the scientific method by being repeatable, with measurable data.  Anything that cannot be tested by experiments using this method is beyond the bounds of natural science.  It is precisely because of these restrictions that Darwinism is not science but religion.

Darwinism is afraid of the evidence.  Darwinism attempts to build immunity to evidence into its theory structure.  (For an example of this, look at the idea of Punctuated Equilibrium as advanced by Stephen Jay Gould.)

Darwinism uses the coercive arm of the state in order to suppress opposition to its theories.  If you don’t think this is the case, then you’re still living in 1925.  Evolutionists essentially have a monopoly over academia. Non-evolutionist scientists are ostracized by this establishment. They are denied admission to graduate school.  Professors who oppose evolution are not granted tenure. Their papers are neither peer reviewed nor published.  There is a large political party (the U.S. Democratic Party) that has maintaining the mandated, exclusive teaching of evolution in government schools with compulsory attendence laws as one of the main tenets of their political platform.  What we have today is the Scopes trial in reverse.  Darwinism doesn’t just act like any religion; it acts like a very insecure religion that must suppress any oppositon to it by force.  To phrase the question in Yoda’s syntax: If so confident you are in your theory, why hide behind the government instead of defending it?

I plan on building upon my critique of Darwinism in the coming days.  If you would like to learn more about this debate, I recommend the following resources: Answers in Genesis, Michael Dention’s Evolution: A Theory in Crisis, Michael Behe’s Darwin’s Black Box, and two lectures by Greg Bahnsen titled “Is Evolution Scientific?“  I’d go with Bahnsen first.