Freedom of Religion

We do not need to do anything today that the first Christians did not do to "go about preaching the gospel." Our lackadaisical attitude in the assembly. Sitting and listening does not promote evangelism. Playing at "worship" does not promote evangelism. Meeting to provoke one another to love and good works does promote evangelism. Those first Christians met to encourage each other not to go to practice a litany of liturgy.

Results

The Psalms has many places where David thanked God for answering his prayers. I cannot find an example of the results of such a prayer. David was afraid of Saul, he ran, he hid. What example can we find where one of David's prayers was answered. Similar to our prayers. We say we believe in prayer and that prayer "works." What example can we find where one of our prayers (public) produced results? The basis for the question is Muslims pray, what results does it produce? Methodists pray, what results does it produce. Are we deluding ourselves or are we erroneously praying? If the prayer of a righteous man "availeth" much does it mean I have never met a righteous man? I find it intriguing that for over 40 years I have never seen an example of a public prayer producing results. Apparently God can handle the flu and a broken leg or wrist but history indicates cancer or other serious illnesses get the best of him every time. He can even find a parking spot but when it comes to the more serious problems his batting average is -0-. I wonder why. No one questions just continues. Are we deluding ourselves?

Faith is a Risk---Whatever You Believe / Ben Carson, MD

Faith is a Risk---Whatever You Believe

Ben Carson, MD

Where did the first living cell come from? Darwin built his entire theory of evolution on the premise that the cell is the simplest, foundational building block of life.

The electron microscope and countless other contemporary tools have only begun to show us how incredibly complex a cell truly is. You have a cell membrane with lipoproteins phasically interposed with positive and negative charges that can allow certain types of molecules to pass through or not, a very complex nucleus and nucleolus, endoplasmic reticulum with ribosomes on it that are able to understand and replicate genetic patterns, and Golgi apparatuses that generate energy. We haven't even begun to discuss genes, the intricate communication patterns of DNA, or any number of additional subcellular ingredients and their functions. If cells are the original starting point of life, how did all of those complex interrelated parts and processes come to be?

But let's just concede that somehow, mysteriously, the first cell about. Where did the great diversity of other cells come from? Darwinism holds that all life evolved in a gradual, progressive, step-by-step process from the simple to the complex. So how did the earlier, simpler single cells all get together to form more complex multi celled organism?

Consider a single eye. How did a rod cell just sit there for millions and millions of years until a cone cell could develop? Then how did multiple rods and cones come together into an intricate visual-sensory apparatus, embedded into the retina as part of a complex neurovascular network, which converts images into electrical information to be passed through the neural network along the optic nerve and reinterpreted in the occipital cortex of the brain as a recognizable image? Even before we get to the retina, what about the pupil? Where and how did it develop in isolation---because there would be no purpose for it without those other things? Nor would there be any purpose for the iris without the pupil and the anterior chamber. There would be no purpose for the cornea, no purpose for the short ciliary nerves, no purpose for any of it without all the other stuff.

Did each type of cell develop on its own and then sit around and wait for a couple of billion years in the hope that some perfectly compatible cell type might come along to finally make it not merely relevant but indispensable as part of an elaborate system that itself complements even more complex systems that are in turn part of the larger organism? How does that jibe with the "survival of the fittest" premise, in which function is a key factor in deciding what genetically useful characteristics are passed on and ultimately which organisms last another generation? Are we then to believe that specialized cells survived for millions of years, fit for no real purpose, until other specialized and completely worthless and unfit cells came along, which also survived for untold eons, to one day combine with them in anticipation of filling some future need that would take millions of more generations and evolutionary steps?

Believing that the origin of life can be explained by Darwinian evolution requires more faith than I have. Evolution and creationism both require faith. It's just a matter of where you choose to place that faith.