Hi Tim, thank you so much for your article on “Two or three are gathered..” I have held this opinion for a while but kept it to myself for fear of offending! There is another question I would like your response to: “For by His stripes we have been healed” has always been used to validate our requests for physical healing but I do’nt agree. I see the crucifiction of Christ as being a covenent regarding salvation. We know therefore that if someone sincerely asks Jesus for forgiveness and salvation, it is done. We dont doubt it for a minute. To use this scripture with physical healing, poses a problem to me as prayers for healing don’t always manifest in healing. My sister gets frustrated as she says the scripture applies to healing as well, but if we dont have the same certainty regarding prayers for healing, how do we know the new convert is saved? It is for that very reason I don’t think the two are covered by that scripture, just salvation. To my mind, it would have required a second covenant to pertain to healing!. When I pray for healing, I do it on the basis of James’ invitation James 5:14, 15 ” Is anyone sick among you…..I don’t see how we can piggyback anything onto salvation. Please respond.

Hello Tim. I am Doug from Cleveland. I met you at the creation museum Friday June 24 2011. My wife and kids were sitting in the front row for your GENESIS teaching. I came home to do homework today and this is what I was met with. I attend Kaplan University and currently taking a science class. SC300 Big Ideas in Science: Methods and Mutations. Thought you might like to read what they are teaching us.

“Young-Earth Creationism and Intelligent Design

Opposition to Darwin did not end in the nineteenth century. In the United States today, many vocal opponents to Darwin’s theory believe in young-Earth creationism, which is based on a literal interpretation of the Bible. Three central tenets of young-Earth creationism are:

1. Earth and the universe were created relatively recently, no more than about 10,000 years in the past.

2. All life-forms were created by God in a miraculous act, in essentially their modern forms.

3. The present disrupted Earth’s surface and the distribution of fossils are primarily the consequence of a great catastrophic flood.

These beliefs differ dramatically from many of the scientific ideas presented in this book. The big bang origin of the universe (Chapter 15), the origin of the solar system (Chapter 16), the span of geological history (Chapters 17 and 18), and the chemical origin and evolution of life (this chapter) are all at odds with these religious beliefs. It’s not surprising, therefore, that science and creationism have come into conflict. In particular, evidence in favor of evolution requires a very old Earth and a means for transforming one species into another. Darwin’s idea of natural selection, particularly as applied to the origin of human beings, is uncomfortable to many people because Homo sapiens cannot lay claim to a history that is intrinsically different from other species.

In the early 1980s, the Arkansas State Legislature passed a law requiring that the biblical story of creation be taught alongside the theory of evolution in public schools. Federal courts eventually ruled that this law was an attempt to impose religious beliefs in the public schools, something expressly forbidden by the U.S. Constitution. It is now against the law to teach creationism as part of any public school science curriculum.

Young-Earth creationists then adopted a different strategy by trying to eliminate evolution from public school curricula. In 1999, for example, the Kansas State Board of Education had a majority of elected members sympathetic to the creationist position. They voted to eliminate any references to the big bang, Earth’s origin, historical geology, and biological evolution from statewide standardized science tests. That decision was overturned in 2001, when a new board was elected, but similar challenges continue to arise in many states and have reemerged in Kansas.

The latest opposition to teaching evolution is in the guise of the “doctrine of intelligent design,” or ID. Proponents of ID argue that life on Earth is so extraordinarily complex that it could not possibly have emerged through any natural process. An intelligent engineer must have done the job (though ID advocates avoid talking about who designed the designers). In 2005 U.S. District Judge John E. Jones heard a case centering on the science curriculum in the town of Dover, Pennsylvania, and ruled that ID is simply another form of creationism. Consequently, intelligent design cannot be taught as a scientific alternative to evolution in the public schools (Figure 25-21).

AP/Wide World Photos.

Figure 25-21 In December, 2005, in a case in the U.S. District Court involving the Dover Area High School, Judge John E. Jones ruled that intelligent design is based on a religious belief, and therefore should not be introduced into public school science classrooms.

We maintain that it is reasonable, perhaps even desirable, to discuss different ways of knowing about the origin and evolution of life in classes on the history of ideas, or comparative religions, or even current events. However, we view efforts to eliminate the teaching of evolution or to promote the creationist agenda in a science classroom as misguided and a significant threat to the integrity of public science education. We argue that evolution is an essential unifying concept in biology and thus is a critical aspect of any scientific education. All students should be expected to understand the principle of evolution and to be familiar with the extensive observational evidence that scientists have discovered to support it, even if they don’t believe that evolution actually happened.

To what extent do you think that parents or local school boards should have the right to decide what scientific theories and ideas are presented in schools? To what extent do you think parents ought to have the right to demand that opposing religious views be taught as well? Should the views of creationism, which are primarily based on one particular type of Christianity, be given special consideration? ”

I am shocked at the teaching of “FACT” not theory. I am currently working on starting an evangelist ministry, starting with speaking to men, that leads with what God did to restore my life and my family and then tells the truth of scripture, and then delivers the Gospel as the ultimate truth and authority ovar all. I am excited to be given the chance to spread the message.
Thank you for your story, your faithfulness, and your message. We are blessed by your work.
BE GREAT.
Douglas Boose