Testing HTML Codes

A very enlightening look at the Canadian health care system

Ron Paul... and Hillary?

Very fun video, the whole thing is worth watching, but the best part is

towards the 5:00 mark.

Enjoy!

The latest from Germane Productions!

This Friday and Saturday I had the exciting opportunity to get back together with the Germane Productions team and help produce three minute short film for a 36 hour filmmaking contest hosted by ChristianFilmmakers.org.

We began at 10:00 on Friday with the announcement of the seven 'security elements': a sunrise, a $100 bill, a pair of binoculars, a disguise, a dutch camera angle, the line "You're holding it in your hand", and the line "I forgive you". In order for our film to qualify, we needed to integrate three of these into our film.

After many hours of shooting, an average of about three hours of sleep per crew-member, and endless editing and color-grading, the final cut was finally uploaded to YouTube nine minutes before the 10:00 PM deadline on Saturday.

All in all, we were very pleased with the final product. I would have have embedded it below, but YouTube does not offer an embed size that is small enough for Blogger (which makes no sense as they are both owned by Google...). You can watch it by following THIS LINK and I would highly recommend you click on the 'HQ' button on the video bar to see it in the best quality.

So, without further adu, I present for your viewing enjoyment:

The Man

Just for kicks, I would challenge you to try and figure out how many of the seven security elements we have integrated into this video (HINT: there's more than three). Leave your guesses in the comments.

Extremely Convicting Quiz

TAKE THE QUIZ HERE!

Score one for liberty!

An employee of Ron Paul's Campaign for Liberty was pulled over by the TSA in the St. Louis, Missouri airport for the heinous crime of, you guessed it... carrying cash.

The interesting thing about this situation, however, is that as this employee was getting interrogated by the police officers he was able to activate a recording device on his cell phone and tape almost the entire twenty-five minute interaction in a back room of the airport.

Below is the Fox News spot which has quickly become one of the most watched movies on Youtube, picking up more than 180,000 views in less than a week. I realize that it is long, but I guarantee you, once you start watching it, you won't be able to stop...

A bit of English humor

Something to make you think

Watch your thoughts, for they will become your words

Watch your words, for they will become your actions

Watch your actions, for they will become your habits

Watch your habits, for they will become your character

Watch your character, for it will become your destiny

I have nothing left to live for

Minneapolis Star Tribune -

HOT TEA LINKED TO CANCER

Is there anything left in life that isn't linked in some way to cancer?

Not hot tea, apparently. An international group of scientists has connected it with esophageal cancer. The problem doesn't appear to be the tea, but the temperature at which it is consumed, the study said.

Residents of Golestan Province in Iran have one of the highest rates of esophageal squamous cell carcinoma in the world. They don't drink alcohol or smoke -- the disease's two primary risk factors in the West -- but they do consume tea. Lots of it. Nearly 1.2 liters per day, on average. So local researchers set out to see if there was a connection.

They recruited 300 esophageal cancer patients and matched them with 571 healthy controls. All but one of them drank tea, and they told interviewers about their tea habits.

Teaming up with investigators from the United States, England, France and Sweden, the researchers calculated that people who said they drank "hot" tea (149 to 156 degrees Fahrenheit) were more than twice as likely to develop esophageal cancer as people who said they drank the beverage "warm" or "lukewarm" (less than 140 degrees). Those who said they took their tea "very hot" (at least 158 degrees) were more than eight times as likely to get esophageal cancer, said the study published online Thursday in BMJ, formerly the British Medical Journal.

Doctors advised tea drinkers to simply exercise some patience before enjoying their favorite beverage.

Is this reality?

I was browsing through movie trailers the other day, and I came across this one for an upcoming documentary called Nursery University. The topic is on the great lengths that parents in New York City will go to get their children into a respectable nursery school, even going so far as to move to another part of the city or pay upwards of $20,000 a semester.

There was one part that I thought was particularly thought provoking: It was towards the middle and it the suggestion that a reputable nursery school is the great deciding element between your child's future as a success or a failure. Personally, I would beg to differ, in fact, I would contend that there isn't a single thing taught at nursery school that could not be taught with equal or better ability than the child's parents. A degree in developmental psychology is not necessary here, especially when the curriculum consists of learning ABC's, shapes, numbers, colors, and play-dough. Little children need to spend time at home with their parents, not away at school.

So, how much of a homeschooler am I?

You know how it works..... put "X's" in the boxes in things you've done copy and paste to your blog!

Growing up/now:
[ ] Own/have owned a denim jumper Don't really do that much jumping...
[ ] You were at least 13 when you got your first "trendy" haircut I don't think I've ever really had a "trendy" haircut.
[X] Everything in your closet at some time was referred to as modest Is there such a thing as 'immodest' men's clothing?
[X] You do/have tucked things in that shouldn't be tucked in We're not even going there...
[ ] You have been a member of at least 3 co-ops So, who do homeshoolers 'co-operate' with?
[ ] You were a true 16 and never been kissed That's silly, I've never been a 'false' sixteen and my mom kisses me all the time.
[X] Your mom drives a van of some sort I drive a van of some sort
[ ] You have at least one childhood picture where you, your mom, and all you siblings matched
[ ] At some point in your life you were more comfortable with adults than kids your own age I dunno, I'm kind of comfortable with everybody. Except rock stars, they weird me out.
[X] Have studied ways to defend your beliefs, debate, and/or create laws Defend my beliefs and debate? That was in 2nd grade. Right now, I'm studying on how to perform deadly preemptive strikes on everybody else's beliefs and pound them into oblivion. Buahahahaha.
[ ] Used uber conservative ABeka curriculum Actually, I thought ABeka was rather liberal.

[X] You use big words that most adults could not use in conversation Only extemporaneously.

[X] You can use the words sublime, epiphany, and cognicent correctly It's not cognicent, it's cognizant. Cognicent is not a word.
[ ] You have a favorite word.
[X] You have an understanding of Latin root words and how to use them Sounds like something you'd say if you were holding up a gas station: "I've got a first declension noun here and I know how to use it!!!"
[X] People from the outside world are referred to as "public schoolers" 'Bout right
[ ]You or one of your siblings knits.
[X] You laugh at the decline in literacy in America Ha
[X] You score constantly higher than "public schoolers" on standardized tests. Ha, Ha.
[ ] You have no concept of cafeteria food Actually, I have a very clear concept of cafeteria food: It's disgusting.
[X] Family vacations are/ can be referred to as "Field Trips"
[X] Traveling on said vacations have included stopping at historical site markers along the way Gotta love those little brown signs...
[X] You have never been in a public elementary school, middle school, or high school during regular school hours You've got to take your PSAT somewhere...
[X] You have gone to or been involved in a homeschool convention
[X] You read books on a regular basis
[ ] You have taken part in a political protest I AM a political protest
[X] You were a Pride and Prejudice fan before the movie GO Lizzie!
[X] You were a Lord of the Rings fan prior to the movie GO Frodo!
[X] You were a Chronicles of Narnia fan before the movie GO Lucy! (big fan)
[ ] You speak a language other than English Parlez-vous anglais?
[ ] You dream of dating characters from books instead of celebrities Well, there was that time when I got into a relationship with Fern from 'Charlotte's Web', but we broke up. She just couldn't get over that stupid pig.

Total so far:18

It (has been) assumed that you:
[ ] Have won many spelling bees Actually, I've never been in one...
[X] Have no social life Define "social life"...
[X] Have no friends of the opposite gender Well, if they're part of your fan club, does that count?
[X] Are outstandingly smart E=MC with that little 'two' thingie on the top.
[ ] Are extremely inept Not really
[X] Only listen to classical music That's ridiculous, I actually listen to a healthy mixture of baroque, and romantic eras, with a touch of Rachmaninoff thrown in, just for kicks. Classical music is far too dry.
[X] Play piano or the violin Correct
[X] Do not own a pair of trendy jeans. Well, I don't know, I've got some jeans that are so holey that you could put them in the Vatican (ha, religious joke)
[ ] Have no knowledge of drugs or alcohol Sorry, I sing too many Irish songs for THAT to happen.
[X] Don't date, only court. Less heartache and a WHOLE lot cheaper. (ha, relationship joke)
[ ] Have never been to a "party" I try to attend my birthday party whenever I can...
[X] Know no other beliefs other than what your family believes And then I start talking about the paradoxical nature of postmodernism...

Total so far: 26

You have been asked more than 10 times:
[ ] If you wear pajamas to school Even if I did, I'd still look good.
[ ] If you get perfect grades because your mom grades you I WISH
[ ] If your mom teaches you or if somebody else's mom does
[ ] How do you meet people Try walking up to them and saying Hi.
[ ] Why you aren't in school I generally just slip on a pair of sunglasses and mutter something under my breath about that being classified. (ha, undercover CIA joke)
[ ] If you get days off whenever you want
[X] If you're going to be homeschooled through college Why not?
[X] If you have a big family I love drawing this out...

Innocent lady who has no idea what she is getting herself into: "So, how large is your family?"

Me: "Well, there are five girls..."

Innocent Lady: Wow, that's huge!

Me: "...And six boys. Last we counted that is."

[thud]

[ ] What your parents are protecting you from Actually, my parents are protecting the intellectual world at large from ME...
[ ] To quote something famous "My name is Ishmael" (Don't know why that's famous, but it is)
[ ] For the answer, because supposedly homeschoolers always have all the answers Always.

Total so far: 28

You have rebelled by:
[ ] Listening to "worldly music" Vs. Heavenly music?
[ ] Wearing black fingernail polish Ick.
[ ] Wearing tight clothes or letting your midriff show Double ick.
[ ] Watching a *gasp* PG-13 movie Gotta Clearplay box. It rules.
[ ] Breaking dress code I AM the dress code.
[ ] Listening to music with a beat Tell me, what music doesn't have a beat?

Final Total: 28

1-10 You're not really a homeschooler...you just do school at home
11-21 You're a homeschooler, but not what the world expects
22-32 You're a homeschooler
33-60 You probably wouldn't have facebook to begin with...but congrats you're the stereotypical homeschooler

Girls

Girls are complicated. The instruction manual that comes with girls is 800 pages, with chapters 14, 19, 26, and 32 missing, and its badly translated, hard to figure out.

-Hugh Laurie on raising his daughters

Color Tones in Cinematic Storytelling

An excellent summary of a speech given by Issac Botkin at the 2009 Christian Filmmaker's Acadamy: OutsideHollywood.com

Issac Botkin outlines how different colors in lighting and post production can greatly enhance and expand a story, such as Black Hawk Down. Contains cool pictures!

And they say the media is unbiased...

I opened up our newspaper this morning and was once again reminded of the liberal bias that is constantly presented in almost every form of news media. There was one article in particular, on the front page no less, that was brazenly in favor embryonic stem cell research. I have reprinted some of it down below (italics mine).

Obama Clears Way for Science

Federal funding will go to studies of new stem cells

WASHINGTON — President Barack Obama's decision to lift the contentious Bush-era restraints on stem-cell research came with a larger message for all scientists: Follow the data, not political ideology.

“Our government has forced what I believe is a false choice between sound science and moral values,” Obama declared as he signed documents changing U.S. science policy and removing what some researchers have said were shackles on their work.

“It is about ensuring that scientific data is never distorted or concealed to serve a political agenda — and that we make scientific decisions based on facts, not ideology,” Obama said.

Researchers said the new president’s message was clear: Science, which once propelled men to the moon, again matters in American life....

... Scientists focused on a new sense of freedom.

“I think patients everywhere will be cheering us on, imploring us to work faster, harder and with all of our ability to find new treatments,” said Harvard Stem Cell Institute co-director Doug Melton, father of two children with Type I diabetes who could possibly be treated with stem cells. “On a personal level, it is an enormous relief and a time for celebration. … Science thrives when there is an open and collaborative exchange, not when there are artificial barriers, silos, constructed by the government.”

Opponents framed their opposition mostly, but not exclusively, on moral grounds and the scientifically contested claims that adult stem cells work just as well.

----------------------------------------------------------

Am I the only person that sees a problem here?

Remember the Alamo!

It was on this day, March 6th 1836, that the garrison of 150 brave Americans, fighting for their lives, liberties, and families, succumbed, after a twelve day siege, to the vastly superior Mexican army under Santa Anna.

It was in the early morning that Santa Anna ordered his troops to take their battle positions. This was the third attempt of the siege, and Santa Anna had determined to use every man if necessary to crush the rebellious Texicans. The Mexicans were in their positions by 5:00 in the morning under cover of darkness and at 5:30 the general gave the order to advance. The sentries were quickly killed before an alarm was given, but the main garrison was awoken by the excited Mexican shouting. By the time they were able to get to the walls they were already within range of the Mexican muskets. Fierce fighting ensued, but the vastly superior Mexican numbers prevailed, soon gaining the wall and sending the Texicans fleeing into the Alamo and the Long Storehouse.

Unfortunately, the Mexicans gained the wall so fast that the Texicans had no time to spike and disable their cannons, which the Mexicans quickly turned around and began firing on the doors and windows of both buildings. The Mexicans charged and the Texicans offered one last, desperate defense, but were they were soon cut down. Only seventeen combatants survived that day with only a handful of civilians. Personally, Santa Anna thought that the sharp lesson he had shown the Texicans at the Battle of the Alamo would cause any other resistance in Texas to crumble, but it ended up having quite the opposite effect. Men flocked under General Sam Houston's flag and joined the newly-formed Army of Texas with "Remember the Alamo" as their battle cry.

It was less than two months later that, outnumbered 6 to 1, General Houston surprised the Mexican army near the Lynchburg Ferry. The battle was essentially over in 18 minutes as the Mexicans were routed and Santa Anna captured. The once great general was forced to order every solder out of Texas, ending any and all Mexican control over the provence, firmly establishing the new Republic of Texas.

It is hard to comprehend the bravery in the face of death shown by the defenders of the Alamo, but it is possible to get a taste of it. On the first day of the siege, the commanding officer of the garrison, Lt. Col. William Barret Travis sent an open letter by courtier requesting aid and supplies. As you walk in the Alamo today, you can read the text of this letter as it is preserved in a bronze plaque for all to see.

--------------------------------------------------------------

To the People of Texas & All Americans in the World:

Fellow citizens & compatriots—I am besieged, by a thousand or more of the Mexicans under Santa Anna—I have sustained a continual Bombardment & cannonade for 24 hours & have not lost a man. The enemy has demanded a surrender at discretion, otherwise, the garrison are to be put to the sword, if the fort is taken—I have answered the demand with a cannon shot, & our flag still waves proudly from the walls. I shall never surrender or retreat. Then, I call on you in the name of Liberty, of patriotism & everything dear to the American character, to come to our aid, with all dispatch—The enemy is receiving reinforcements daily & will no doubt increase to three or four thousand in four or five days. If this call is neglected, I am determined to sustain myself as long as possible & die like a soldier who never forgets what is due to his own honor & that of his country—Victory or Death.

William Barret Travis

Lt. Col. comdt

P.S. The Lord is on our side—When the enemy appeared in sight we had not three bushels of corn—We have since found in deserted houses 80 or 90 bushels & got into the walls 20 or 30 head of Beeves.

Travis

---------------------------------------------------------------------

May we always keep the bravery and the love of country demonstrated by the defenders of the Alamo in our hearts and our minds and may we not lightly or carelessly surrender the rights and freedoms that were bought with their blood and the blood of countless others, but rather, may we fight and protect them, even unto death.

For God and Country!

'The Shack' Review

Whenever a book makes it to the New York Times top selling list, it could be considered noteworthy, but when that book happens to be explicitly Christian in nature and has stirred up a huge theological controversy, it is definitely worth looking into. The Shack by William Young has been hailed as everything from a modern day Pilgrim's Progress to containing outright heresy. The book explores such subjects as the natures of God, the trinity, suffering, the Christian walk, and much more. Unfortunately, the author seems to manage to get almost every one of these questions answered wrong, and many of them in some very damaging ways.

Due to its success, this book could very easily become another Da Vinci Code. The only difference is that as Dan Brown's bestseller was almost universally recognized as being hostile to Christianity, The Shack is being embraced with open arms by contemporary Christians. The assaults are much more subtle and are cunningly wrapped in great emotion, but they are none the less deadly.

I could go on, but there are others out there that have done much more research on this book than I could and can do a far better job at exposing what is really happening in The Shack. I was particularly impressed by THIS REVIEW in particular (http://www.challies.com/media/The_Shack.pdf). The author, Mr. Tim Challies, offers a very well researched excursus into the doctrinal implications of The Shack and provides a compelling apologetic addressing them.

In conclusion, I would like to point out again that conservative Christians need to be aware of this. We will be feeling the effects of this book for years to come and we cannot allow these issues to continue flying under the radar. We must recognize, learn about and destroy them.

We are destroying speculations and every lofty thing raised up against the knowledge of God, and we are taking every thought captive to the obedience of Christ

2 Corinthians 10:5

Behold my brain-child

Lord willing, she will be showing more than 400 times in March on A&E, CNN, ESPN, Fox News Channel, Golf, SciFi, and TNT in the month of March!

You can watch it in much higher quality HERE.

Why Evolution is False, and the Argument Below is Wrong

A couple days ago I challenged my readership to provide a refutation to an evolutionary argument that I presented here. Having not received any feedback, I shall attempt to demonstrate the problem that imbedded here. 

For the sake of simplicity, allow me to briefly summarize the argument that has been presented by the opposing side. The author begins by offering two assumptions upon which science is based:

1. That man can accurately observe his surroundings and formulate laws to describe it. (The Observable Axiom)

2. That every event that has happened, is happening, or will happen can be explained by math, chemistry, physics, or biology. (The Naturalistic Axiom)

From this point the author makes the case that evolution, even with all of its problems, is the only possible viewpoint that is scientific, and therefore true. 

The problem here is simple: our respected opponent is offering a faulty definition of science. He is essentially setting himself up to win the argument before he even starts it. 

So, what is a correct definition of science, and why is this author wrong? Well, with any question, a good place to start is with Mr. Webster:

science |ˈsīəns|

noun

The intellectual and practical activity encompassing the systematic study of the structure and behavior of the physical and natural world through observation and experiment.

Sounds like the "observable axiom" to me, in fact I would argue that the "observable axiom" is the only real assumption that science needs to operate from. In fact, I will demonstrate a little later that the real definition of science does much more harm than good to the hypothesis of evolution. 

So what of this "naturalistic axiom"? Allow me to repeat it again: "Every event that has happened, is happening, or will happen can be explained by math, chemistry, physics, or biology." In other words, every event and phenomena in this universe is completely natural and any supernatural explanation must be rejected. Does anyone see the problem in this statement? In order to say this, you must purport to have investigated and explained "every event that has happened, is happening, or will happen" through naturalistic means. Impossible! The race of mankind, let alone one individual person, has just scratched the surface of the great secrets this universe contains. To make this argument you must assume virtual omniscience, which smacks of nothing but arrogance and folly. 

Many scientists will make this mistake of assuming that the point of science is to disprove the existence of God and provide a naturalistic explanation for everything. Thus, we have them clinging so tightly to evolution, it is really is the only naturalistic explanation to be had pertaining to the origins of the universe. But is evolution even consistent with the Observable Axiom? Is it even scientific? Let's take a look. 

As we have already established, science is the system by which we observe our natural world and discern patterns and laws concerning it. When an idea such as gravity has been researched and studied over many years and no exception has been found, the scientific community attributes the status of 'Law' to it. Any new idea that contradicts the established Law is assumed wrong until it is proved otherwise, in which case the Law is adjusted to accommodate the new information. This is all part of the Observable Axiom. 

However, once we bring evolution into the picture, many of these principles seem to fly out the window. In the first place, macro-evolution has never been observed or experimented with, that, in and of itself, flying in violation of the Observable Axiom. Having said that, there are even greater violations of science that evolution has committed. In the first place, the Biological Law of Abiogenisis states very clearly that life can never be generated from non-living materials yet a very central pillar of evolutionary thinking is that at one point in history this phenomena did indeed happen. 

There is, in fact, an entire set of laws that evolution flies in the face of: The Physical Laws of Thermodynamics. Discovered by Sir Isaac Newton, the first law states that energy can never be truly created, it can only change forms. However evolution states that at one point energy must have formed out of nothing. Also, the second law states that all matter transitions from order to disorder without the application of intelligently regulated energy. There has never been an observed instance of anything transitioning from disorder to order all on its own. However a central premise of macro-evolution is that of physical and biological entities slowly evolving from disorder to order in the course of millions and billions of years. 

To wrap up, allow me to summarize what we have just covered. The central tenant of science is that man can observe and describe the laws that govern our universe, otherwise known as the Observable Axiom. Although many scientists would have us also accept the assumption of the Naturalistic Axiom, we must realize that it is completely illogical and unscientific at its root assumption. We then examined the Hypothesis of Evolution according to the Observable Axiom and the scientific laws that have been established over the years and discovered that macro-evolution simply does not stand up to critical scientific scrutiny. 

We must realize that ultimately, evolution is not science, it is a series of religious beliefs known for hundreds of years as naturalism. It was only in 1859 that Charles Darwin wrote his infamous book and put a 'scientific' name onto this belief. The best refutation of bad logic is good logic, and the best cure for bad science is good science. As Christians we need never be afraid that our beliefs are 'unscientific' or that science at its root is hostile to Christianity. In fact, Christians should embrace good science as it can be a powerful tool to bring glory and honor to the true Creator and Sovereign of this universe: The Lord Jesus Christ. 

Government

Go Oklahoma!

The following is a bill that was introduced by Oklahoma State Representative Charles Key which was unanimously passed by the Oklahoma House Rules Committee. 

Rep. Charles Key is the sponsor of this bill and has spearheaded a national movement to put the federal government on notice that the separate states are sick and tired of having their actions dictated by Washington, D.C. 

--------------------------------------------------

STATE OF OKLAHOMA

1st Session of the 52nd Legislature (2009)

HOUSE JOINT

RESOLUTION 1003 By: Key

AS INTRODUCED

A Joint Resolution claiming sovereignty under the Tenth Amendment to the Constitution of the United States over certain powers; serving notice to the federal government to cease and desist certain mandates; providing that certain federal legislation be prohibited or repealed; and directing distribution.

WHEREAS, the Tenth Amendment to the Constitution of the United States reads as follows:

"The powers not delegated to the United States by the Constitution, nor prohibited by it to the States, are reserved to the States respectively, or to the people."; and

WHEREAS, the Tenth Amendment defines the total scope of federal power as being that specifically granted by the Constitution of the United States and no more; and

WHEREAS, the scope of power defined by the Tenth Amendment means that the federal government was created by the states specifically to be an agent of the states; and

WHEREAS, today, in 2009, the states are demonstrably treated as agents of the federal government; and

WHEREAS, many federal laws are directly in violation of the Tenth Amendment to the Constitution of the United States; and

WHEREAS, the Tenth Amendment assures that we, the people of the United States of America and each sovereign state in the Union of States, now have, and have always had, rights the federal government may not usurp; and

WHEREAS, Article IV, Section 4 says, “The United States shall guarantee to every State in this Union a Republican Form of Government”, and the Ninth Amendment states that ”The enumeration in the Constitution, of certain rights, shall not be construed to deny or disparage others retained by the people”; and

WHEREAS, the United States Supreme Court has ruled in New York v. United States, 112 S. Ct. 2408 (1992), that Congress may not simply commandeer the legislative and regulatory processes of the states; and

WHEREAS, a number of proposals from previous administrations and some now pending from the present administration and from Congress may further violate the Constitution of the United States.

NOW, THEREFORE, BE IT RESOLVED BY THE HOUSE OF REPRESENTATIVES AND THE SENATE OF THE 1ST SESSION OF THE 52ND OKLAHOMA LEGISLATURE:

THAT the State of Oklahoma hereby claims sovereignty under the Tenth Amendment to the Constitution of the United States over all powers not otherwise enumerated and granted to the federal government by the Constitution of the United States.

THAT this serve as Notice and Demand to the federal government, as our agent, to cease and desist, effective immediately, mandates that are beyond the scope of these constitutionally delegated powers.

THAT all compulsory federal legislation which directs states to comply under threat of civil or criminal penalties or sanctions or requires states to pass legislation or lose federal funding be prohibited or repealed.

THAT a copy of this resolution be distributed to the President of the United States, the President of the United States Senate, the Speaker of the United States House of Representatives, the Speaker of the House and the President of the Senate of each state's legislature of the United States of America, and each member of the Oklahoma Congressional Delegation.

52-1-5082 <11/17/08>

What is wrong with this argument?

Is Evolution True?

To answer this question, it is first necessary to understand the two assumptions on which science is based. The first is that man can accurately observe his surroundings and formulate laws to describe it (the observable axiom). The second is that every event that has happened, is happening or will happen  can be explained by math, chemistry, physics or biology (the naturalistic axiom). Science requires both axioms  to function properly.

   Within scientific circles, the theory of evolution must be true  because science has no way to disprove it. When science assumes that all events have a naturalistic explanation, it also assumes that the theory of evolution is true.  The naturalistic axiom does not allow scientists to consider the possibility that perhaps God used evolution as a tool to create life. Science simply assumes that  this possibility is  false; As a result,  scientific experiments focus on how evolution happens not whether or not the theory is true.

  The naturalistic axiom allows science to do some very interesting things. For example, science has yet to figure out how life originated. Using  the naturalistic axiom for justification, this major flaw in evolutionary  theory has been quietly swept under the rug. As a result,  today very few scientists are  involved in origins research and the origin of life will likely remain a mystery.

  Perhaps even more interesting, science does not have a plausible explanation for how the first genes and proteins evolved. Here the scientific community  has chosen to do   something completely different. Instead of sweeping this problem under the rug, they label any scientist who conducts experiments or develops mathematical and computer  models  to look at this issue a Creationist.  This label destroys the scientific credibility of both the scientist and his (or her) ideas and findings. 

    This behavior may at first seem odd. But there is a good explanation for it.  Natural selection and chance (even given 100 trillion  years to operate) do not seem to be able to explain the evolution of the first genes and proteins. This observation threatens the very nature of science because it calls attention to the fact that the naturalistic axiom might just be a faulty assumption.  The truth is no longer  important because the  scientific establishment must preserve the axioms on which it is based. Thus, scientists who do not have faith in the naturalistic axiom are labeled  Creationists and their theories about evolution  are dismissed as cleverly disguised forms of religion.

----------------------

Taken from Theory-of-evolution.net