Back in the 1990s, I published a magazine called the AntiShyster. That publication focused mainly on criticizing lawyers and the judicial system, but I also touched on issues of religion. I’d also sometimes touch on extraneous subjects that simply impressed me as interesting and important.One of those subjects was Kent Hovind’s arguments in favor of Creationism–the idea that man really was created by God in the way described in Genesis. According to Hovind, man is not the result of evolution.
At the time, I was in my 40s and regarded myself as semi-educated and reasonably intelligent. Therefore, I knew that the Theory of Evolution was rational, scientific and undeniable. I wasn’t a “holy roller,” and I dismissed Creationism as a myth unworthy of consideration.
And then I read one of Kent Hovind’s articles that both advocated Creationism and also pointed out great logical flaws in the Theory of Evolution. I was amazed. I no longer regarded Evolution as rational, scientific and undeniable. I could see that while “evolution” meant “change” and offered a very logical theory as to how animal “A” changed/evolved into animal “B” which, in turn, changed/evolved into animal “C”–the theory of evolution cannot explain how animal “A” was created and came to be in the first place.
I’m not a student of evolution, but, as I understand it, under that theory, the first living cell had to consist of both DNA and a cell wall. That presents a problem: DNA can’t exist outside of a cell wall, but the cell wall can’t be created without DNA. Thus, in evolution we’re faced with the ultimate “which-came-first-the-chicken-or-the-egg?” puzzle. We can’t have DNA unless there is first a cell wall to contain it. But we can’t have a cell wall unless there is first DNA to create that cell wall.
Thus, for the Theory of Evolution to work, it must be based on the creation of a first cell that’s every bit as mysterious, incomprehensible and miraculous as Creationism’s claim that, “On the sixth day, God created man in His image.” More, given that evolution is all about logic and science, there’d seem to be no place for God or miracles in that Theory. And yet, the Theory of Evolution is a no go, unless it starts with a miraculous premise: That somehow, the first living cell “evolved” without a cell wall, or without DNA. Insofar as Evolution denies the existence of God, it must also deny the existence of miracles. But, without something very like a miracle, evolution can’t get started.
I’m not going to argue in favor of Creationism or Evolution at this point. But I will say that if: 1) life began as something miraculous; 2) Evolution denies the existence of God and miracles; and 3) Creationism is based on existence of miracles; then, 4) in a contest between Evolution and Creationism, logic, reason and science tells that, of the two “theories,” only Creationism offers a plausible explanation for the miraculous Origin of life.
I.e., if evolution makes no allowance for miracles, and we need a miracle to explain the origin of life, then Evolution, by definition, can’t win but Creationism can.
Evolution offers a plausible explanation for how life may have changed and may still be changing, but, by definition, it can’t and does not explain how life began.
Reading Mr. Hovind’s articles 20 years ago had a big impact on my life. That impact wasn’t immediate. I published one or two of his articles in my magazine, and interviewed him once or twice on my radio show. He merely made me understand that the Theory of Evolution is weak and improbable but Creationism was viable. I was enthralled.
But, it would be at least another 10 years before I had cause or opportunity to argue in favor of Creationism. In A.D. 2006, I was charged by the Texas Attorney General in a civil suit for the manufacture and distribution of a controlled substance and threatened with fines of $25,000/day ($9 million/year). As many of you know, I read the Texas and federal definitions of drugs, and realized that those definitions presumed that I was an “animal”. I drafted a freedom of religion defense that argued that as a Christian, I could not be treated, defined or presumed to be an “animal” without violating a fundamental principle of the Christian faith: that on the 6th day of Creation, God created man in His image and gave man dominion over the animals. Thus, a man made in God’s image can’t be an “animal” nor can he be subjected to law and legal obligations that presume him to be an animal.
Faced with that defense, the Texas Attorney General simply stopped prosecuting the civil suit against me and six prior defendants. After investing 6 years and nearly $500,000 in pre-trial investigations and hearings, the Attorney General of Texas simply stopped prosecuting the case. He never said why he stopped, but I have no doubt that he stopped because of the freedom of religion defense that I, with the grace of our Father YHWH ha Elohim, had drafted.
I probably hadn’t communicated with Kent Hovind for most of ten years before I drafted my “freedom of religion” defense. Nevertheless, it was Kent’s arguments and insights concerning Creationism in the 1990s that laid the foundation for me to even imagine that I could stop the Texas Attorney General’s suit with a freedom of religion defense. If I hadn’t heard Kent Hovind talk about Creationism in the 1990s, I doubt that I would have realized the spiritual significance of the “man or other animals” phrase found the government’s definitions of “drug,” “food” and “device” in A.D. 2006
Neither Kent nor I had any idea back in the 1990s, that he was helping me to win an important case against the Texas AG–but he was helping me. That’s so strange because it implies that the Good LORD can plant seeds today, in your life or mine, that may not blossom and bloom for another decade or more.
For me, the lesson of the “man or other animals” phrase that I found in the definitions of “drugs” is that we’re engaged in massive spiritual warfare. Not many people know of suspect, but that spiritual warfare is going on right now. The cornerstone of that warfare is the government’s satanic presumption that all of us are merely “animals”. As such, we have no God-given, unalienable Rights (as declared in the Declaration of Independence). As “animals” who are presumably not “made in God’s image,” the only thing that distinguishes us from cows, pigs and goats, is the fact that we have rifles, shotguns, pistols and revolvers and we’re capable of shooting the “animals” who currently run our government. If government can ever trick us into disarming, our distinction from “other animals” will disappear and we’ll be every bit as eligible to driven into a slaughterhouse as any cow, pig or goat.
Written by: ALFRED ADASK – continue at ADASK’S LAW