December 23, 2004

Webcasting around the world from the desert metropolis of Phoenix, Arizona. This is the dividing line. The Apostle Peter commanded Christians to be ready to give a defense for the hope that is within us.

Yet to give that answer with gentleness and reverence. Our host is dr. James white director of Alpha Omega ministries and an elder at the Phoenix reformed Baptist Church. This is a live program and we invite your participation.

If you'd like to talk with dr. White call now. It's 602 9 7 3 4 6 0 2 or toll-free across the United States. It's 1 8 7 7 7 5 3 3 3 4 1. And now with today's topic here is James white and good afternoon.

Welcome to.

I shouldn't be reading the channel right as we start. Someone's saying I've always imagined the scene of the dividing lines to be something like Frazier. No, don't think so. Frazier was in an actual Radio station and nope.

No that there's there are knobs on the on the control panel over there and The phone system is the same post phone system. We had at kpxq and we're on there other than that I'm sitting in front of a computer at my desk surrounded by books and the other accoutrements of life.

Which means stacks of books because I don't have enough shelf space anymore for all the books I have. So anyway. So no, it doesn't look like that. Welcome to the last program before Christmas, it's 23rd of December and It's only 58 degrees outside which for Phoenicians is is rather cool and it's a little windy.

We were having to get my motorcycle in the back of a friend's truck this morning it doesn't want to start and so we were taking it to the emergency room and We had it had it up there. It actually wasn't that difficult.

It weighs over 500 pounds, but it wasn't too difficult getting in there and Then all of a sudden this this breeze came by we all looked at each other. Some of you I know are doing the I think Calvin dude said that it was like minus 5 degree wind chill there and all the rest that stuff and I I can't imagine that I've been on Long Island when it was 26 below Windchill just in past couple years.

So After about I don't know 10 doesn't really matter. It's sort of like in Arizona after 110 does it matter if it's 115 120 and that not a lot. You know, it's like it's just it's just cold or hot whichever one it is.

Hey, this just came in. Using my RSS reader Technology this just came in. And I thought it was sadly interesting. Jakarta Indonesia fearing bombings and shootings by Islamic militants some Christians in Indonesia are Abandoning traditional churches in favor of more unorthodox, but secure confines such as hotel ballrooms and office blocks.

With foreign government's warning of holiday terror attacks. Tens of thousands of police officers will guard churches in the world's most populous Muslim nation. Metal detectors will be in place for most services and armed escorts will accompany parishioners.

Church officials said armed escorts. It puts us at a lower risk for being a target for religious persecution said pastor Steve Lund originally from Seattle whose International English Service Holds worship services for a thousand people in debt in a downtown Jakarta office building.

People tell me they feel safer. He said the facility itself is not the most important thing. It's just a place to gather. The most important thing is being together and worshiping God together. Now then the article says the vast majority of Muslims in Indonesia practice a moderate version of the faith.

Are they saying they're practicing a different version of the faith and the people who are blowing people up? I guess that's what they're saying. Because the commentator puts in little comment. It says.

And the tiny minority of extremists practices wiping out Christians and other Westerners four years ago. Suspected militants from the al-qaeda linked jemaah is islami islamiya terror group. Bombed 11 churches on Christmas Eve.

Isn't that the religion of peace killing 19 people? The group was also blamed for the 2002 nightclub bombings that killed 202 people on the resort island of Bali at 2003. I talk and attack in the Marriott Hotel in Jakarta and a blast the Australian Embassy in September.

This year more than 140 ,000 police will be deployed at churches shopping malls and hotels. Where Westerners gathered during the Christmas period a police spokesman said people are still afraid said pastor Hengki Ampi.

Whose church was attacked earlier this month by suspected Muslim gunman gunman gunmen. Yeah on the central Indonesian island of Sulawesi. We hope the attack stops so we can celebrate Christmas without fear.

Plans to build new churches sometimes draw violent protests from Islamic groups which view them as an attempt to convert Muslims. Church leaders also say a 35-year-old decree requiring neighborhood approval before new places of worship can be built as being used to discriminate against them.

Reverend ryan d Hutus who to soy has eight churches and office towers in Jakarta and a ninth that was closed following protests from Muslim radicals. His drug rehabilitation center and seminary were burnt down by Muslim mobs in 1999.

There is our religion of peace update. You just need to understand folks that I don't care how moderate Islam is as Long as they believe in Sharia and the application of Muslim law then that type of stuff has to happen.

It's it's going to happen and All the people sticking their fingers in their ears including Australian judges who think they're theological experts believe me the Why don't they send judge Higgins to Indonesia?

Maybe he can explain? To the The the peaceful folks there how they've misunderstood the Quran. That's what I'd like to see. Let's raise some money to send judge Higgins Over to Indonesia where he can explain to the masked gunman.

Who are about to open up on the Christians who I've gathered for worship on Christmas Eve that they have just simply? Misunderstood the the Quran that would that would be very very useful. Oh Goodness, I may catch medved today the reason I mentioned.

He pulled a quick one everybody. I had a feeling it's what he was doing, but he he read a presidential Proclamation and he read it in such a way. He didn't say it was from Bush. But he read in such a way it sounded like it just come out today.

And they took calls on it and people are calling in about how angry they were and how offended they were because the proclamation talked about Christ and It talked about Christmas, and it talked about how we want our younger generation to know the teachings of the Prince of Peace and Everybody was up in arms and Bush is this is what Bush is about the Religious conservatives are trying to force their religion on us and daddy dee-da-da-da and in point of fact of course it was a proclamation from Franklin Delano Roosevelt and His point is a point that I think everyone does need to understand.

I am so sick and tired I Truly am sick and tired of hearing leftists saying well the Conservative Christians are trying to shove their religion down the throat. They're trying to us our throat. They're trying to establish a theocracy they've purposefully decided to to put into the context of the Argument the idea that it's the right.

The right it's the conservative Christians that are seeking to change things in our nation make it more Religious when in point of fact it's the left that is doing everything it can to destroy the history and tradition of this nation.

It the the fact that there were all these monuments that we're now having to take down. Thanks to the anti-christian litigation Union ACLU how those things get there? How did they get built 50 100 years ago?

Because of the fact that this nation didn't have the viewpoint. I mean you can go as far back as you want. Presidents have always been able to make reference to God and to make reference to Christ and Christmas and Christianity and No one raised an eyebrow except a few radical extremists in the university someplace.

And they're the ones have been cranking this stuff out. These are the folks who are who are waging a dishonest revolution. That's that's really what's going on here, and they and then you know I do debate and when you're in a debate you have to really really exercise a lot of attention To the way that your opponent phrases The the argument.

You have to pay attention and not allow. Simply by the way that they phrase their argument, and they lay their foundation not allow them to in essence control the debate. It's very very common. Especially as you watch television just to see and it's I Know it can be done on either side, but I see it primarily being done on the leftist side.

The way in which things are presented the language It is used determines the outcome of the debate before it even gets started because they're not there to debate anyways. They're not there to find out if they're what they're saying is true if it can stand up to honest to cross-examination.

They're just there to promote their viewpoint and so that kind of thing happens all the time, and that's what the left is done. It's all you're you're trying to shove your religion up. No you're trying to To Create for example an entire and then sadly because they control so many universities and hence now the judiciary.

The rule of laws being overthrown so now becomes the rule of judges. They're being successful, but all this stuff. Going back for decades now. Where the the wall of separation has been interpreted in the exact opposite intention of the founders the exact?

180 degrees all of that stuff. That's what they've been trying to they're trying to get rid of the foundations in this nation that would stand against what they want this nation to become which in essence is a Vassal state of Europe the Europeans are after us again folks.

We had to get it. We had to kick him out twice and they're they're after us again this time they're on the inside not the outside and If you want to see this nation become nothing more than a new version of France.

Or let's use another example. You know Eastern well, there's no Eastern Germany anymore, but of Germany or some of the the northern Places where socialism has absolutely sucked the humanity out of those cultures.

There is no drive for creativity there is no Recognition of man is created in the image of God you have Just dry husks of the cultures that were once there if that's what you want this nation become well.

That's that's where these people want to go. Medved also had last just a couple days ago. This one caught my attention big-time. He had what I would call a a Fundamentalist scientist and I'm not using the term fundamentalist there in a overly positive way, but at least an accurate way this fellow Would not even Dialogue with a person who would present arguments for intelligent design.

He refused to use that phraseology, and he at one point he said Well all creationist science can't be science because by nature it must be religious. Now think for just a moment what that means the fundamental presupposition of his worldview is atheism and Hence science must be atheistic.

There can be no Recognition of God whatsoever in his worldview and you know one of the biggest problems that we're having Is that we're being put at a tremendous disadvantage in the culture wars for one simple reason and that is What you've got going on is you have the secularist do not have to defend Their own worldview.

They can promote their own worldview in any context with government support but not the Religious the religious people can't can't do that the religious people cannot Promote their their worldview, but the secularist can promote theirs.

Why. Well because we don't talk about a god but the fact the matter is they have a they have a controlling worldview just like we do and They are just as dogmatic about their controlling worldview as Any Christian is.

And so what you've you know what you really need to do to set things up properly here is we need to define a controlling worldview the set of beliefs and Presuppositions that determine the actions and behavior of a person and how they interact with the world.

Now if we were to do that we would be able to to stand on the same ground we'd be able to to compete with the secular say look if you're going to promote a secularist humanist worldview. Then we have the same right to be able to promote our worldview that includes God yours just turns God into a You know into science or into random chance or whatever it is you want to talk about you.

That's your God, but you have an ultimate authority. We have an ultimate authority. Why is it the people whose ultimate authority? Happens to be at least philosophically consistent and able to be an ultimate authority.

Have to be at the disadvantage in these debates in this in this battle in our culture. Secularists are just as religious as anyone else. It's just that their God is not personal. But they get away with this constantly absolutely constantly.

And listening to this guy the oh man talk about. The only thing I could think of. The only thing I could think of in regards to this this Anticreationist was he reminded me of. The type of person that I would imagine was involved in The Spanish Inquisition and As you're sitting there, and as they're examining you about your beliefs, and you you make a question you you you they question You about your belief about transubstantiation or something and you challenge them with a biblical passage.

And they just immediately dismiss you and say the church has already spoken to this truth. You must answer properly well here. It's not the church. It's the Academy. The. He even said that the vast majority of science of the scientific community Believes in evolutionary theory, it's not just a theory.

It's the working model that the Well of course they do if they were dead if they were to dare open their mouth that they had any questions about they get themselves kicked out. Talk about dogma and the Inquisition.

You can see it today, and you don't have to believe in a god to be involved in the Inquisition. I can guarantee you that in any science Academy any science curriculum, but well anyways, that's just the view from over here and Eight seven seven seven five three three three four one eight seven seven seven five three three Three four one ongoing series of discussions on the blog.

Haven't heard anything new from up, but the Bree and call and any of their new excuses for quoting cultists about non-existent Hebrew texts and non-existent translations that somehow don't read like Calvinists want to read and They're complete disregard for the truth at that point.

Nothing new on that and we will be continuing this the response to our Islamic apologist. Folks who are attacking the canon and transmission of the Bible as long as we are able to do so. It's long as as long as we got enough ammo and the food supplies hold out.

We're gonna keep going for it goodness gracious, and yes, I will be Responding on the subject of limited atonement again in the future, but I'm gonna do that very slowly very calmly. So that it can be done the proper way and if you haven't been following the blog you have no idea what I'm talking about.

But that's okay eight seven seven seven five three three three four one. Let's Dive into our phone calls on Christmas Eve Eve and Let's talk with Aaron. Hi Aaron. Hello, how are you sir?

Happy holidays into you. I wanted to I wanted to first ask them about John six about. Well, obviously there's been a bit of an influx of John six News going on and I kind of wanted to point out a pattern maybe get your Tips on how to deal with it because I've talked with John six other people as well.

One thing I've noticed is besides the it's running around and skipping to other passages that you know are many in Our Armenian exegetes do one thing. I noticed that they have no Positive exegesis of John six, it's really just negative assertions of you know, we we when we have difficult text.

We can interpret. We can go look at other passages or look at parts of the context and then interpret it in a way that's consistent. The only thing I've seen done with John six is Looked other passages John six can't mean what it blatantly says, but then there's no there's no Positive exegesis offered of John six, which I've just seen over and over and over.

I don't know if anyone can listen to the recent John six reputations when concerning concerning the reform position like with page and others and say, okay. They make sense of John six by and I'm just left with a blank there.

They have no positive assertion of it. Their only assertion is it can't mean what it obviously says it means and we're not even going to try to interpret it in any Way because it just wouldn't make any sense.

Yeah, I've in the in the recent articles I wrote in in response to Osborne in the Pinnock edited book grace unlimited Where we were told by a certain Presbyterian scholar that there we have Serious exegesis that is provided to us as I examined that serious exegesis.

This was the the constant theme we had to keep coming back to and and that is here. You have someone who can clearly Handle the text in the sense of translate the text of answer questions concerning the grammar of the text the lexical meanings of words the semantic domain of words Discuss syntax and and all the other things that go into Properly handling the text at least from a technical perspective a someone who can obviously do that and yet clearly.

What they are offering is not an exegesis at all. It's not derived from the text it's not an examination of the text it is here's my beliefs and Here's these passages and here's how I can get around this passage.

I mean obviously the terminology isn't meant that way but Okay, so there are some who say he's not a Presbyterian or a scholar, but hey, I'll let you take that up with him. But anyway There there is a vast difference.

Have you ever Shot a rifle. Aaron, I guess I'm sorry yes, okay, and and with a scope. Many with scopes others with. Not. Okay now if you've ever Worked with a rifle scope. You know that you don't get quite the same image when you look down the wrong end of the scope, huh?

And that's the same thing with the difference between exegesis and isogesis if you if you Look down the scope the right direction. It does what it's supposed to do and you can see the reticle and And you can see way far away, and it's in focus and everything works.

You look down the other end of the scope, and you really don't see basically anything at all. Well when you come to the text of Scripture you can either derive your beliefs from it. That is go into the the text itself follow the order of presentation.

Look carefully at what it said let the text define its own terms let there be a flow of thought which by the way in any decent freshman English class my daughter's a sophomore in high school and She in in the English class has become rather famous because of what happened in there which by the way my daughter Continues to enjoy the class despite what happened in there they have to write things where they are discussing the flow of the Narrative of these novels and all the rest of this is basic stuff except when we come to the text of Scripture and If we were to allow it to do that if we were to allow it to define its own terms and flow and don't run Off like you said to do something that wasn't even written yet.

And and get something over there that becomes the definitional part of what's in John 6 go to John 12 grab something bring in. The John 6 that now determines what John 6 means you can't do that because the people standing there are left drooling.

They have no idea what you're talking about. That's exactly what's going on in the Armenian exegesis. They're they're looking down the wrong end of the rifle scope. And you wonder why what they're seeing is just a tad bit on the blurred side.

It's not supposed to work that way.

I don't know how the rifle. I know it shows far away, but at times. It's also upside down if you if you've ever.

Oh, yeah, it's magnifying glasses. Yeah, it depends it depends on where you're looking at. It's gonna do all sorts of stuff, but obviously the point is they're they're approaching it from the wrong perspective.

The Scripture. In in the in the discussion that I gave of John 6 and John 10 in Osborne's comments. It's not the text that was deriving his conclusions. His conclusions had been fixed by previous considerations.

Now of course immediately what you hear from people is. People say Welch you do the same thing. And I say no. I do not. And I refute that by simply pointing out that one of the two of us can start at Verse 35 and we can go Word by word noun by noun verse by verse verb by verb all the way through.

We don't have to go flying off over here and flying off over there. We can walk all the way through it and let it define its terms and define our theology. I don't find our minions doing that. A quick comment on what you said that that's exactly what I mean.

What one of the tactics I do is I don't know I'm into argumentative Akito. I let people define their own terms and then hang themselves by their own terms. Yeah, but one thing that when they when someone wanted to talk about John 6 in one particular conversation I remember in fact all of them I remember honestly when concerning many topics if they want to run away the other text.

I let them. I let them run away too many as possible let them show me so this is clear. I said great well using that information. You've just spent 15 or 20 minutes showing me interpret John 6 in a consistent way again.

Blank face. Let's run away. I said I just keep on dragging him back. Okay great. You've shown me these other passages. I'll do the same thing if we get a confusing part like 2nd Peter 3 9. I'm throwing it out there.

I can go to the context you know and look at it to believers and stuff like that. And I can go to other text. But then I can take what in those other text come back to the confusing part that we have a few of them for Riffin reform theology, but then I can use that to interpret the confused the the disputed text in a consistent way.

Thank you. I let them go all over the place to Wherever they want. I say great now bring that back to John 6 and be consistent interpret this in a consistent way. It's not gonna. And what are their excuses.

Well all doesn't mean all so what some that the father gives me will come to me and some I Will not cast away, or it just doesn't make there's no positive exegesis. It's all they can't mean that now.

Let's go right if you if you try to hold them to the same standards that they would use it. And this is especially it's one thing when you're dealing with a a liberal who doesn't take The text of Scripture as an inspired whole anyway.

At least they're consistent to be inconsistent about that. That's no major league big deal. What bothers me is when someone who would stand right by my side in the defense of the deity of Christ? Monotheism the doctrine of the Trinity the physical resurrection the incarnation the virgin birth whatever it might be they'll stand right by my side and They will use proper methods of exegesis and hermeneutics, and they'll catch the cultist when the cultist Starts using improper forms of hermeneutics.

They'll catch them go no no no no wait a minute now. You said over here, and you can't do that. We have to look at context. We can't just right you can't just go running away. And things like that you know.

They'll do that and then as soon as it comes to the one point where you're touching upon the the very heart of the issue the very heart of freewill. Libertarianism all of a sudden wow things change so that that is that inconsistency is Indicative of the fact that we're dealing with a system that is itself derived from philosophy and not derived from the text of scripture.

So yeah, just one more question. Just just real quick. We got two callers online.

Okay, um with the concern total depravity and obviously a issue Pierre brings up a lot is The justice of God our our sinfulness basically giving us a one-way one-way ticket to an eternal punishment.

Granted we don't have Christ backing us up. Is this some is this something that That even we as reformed view Humans don't really deserve that much punishment. But you know that's what that's what happens when you insult an infant God.

Or it does. Does the punishment punishment truly? Reflect upon how wicked we are.

Well, no it reflects upon. How wicked we are I really believe we've got there's one thing. It's frequently missing in all those two things are frequently missing. I'll briefly mention a. The vast majority of people today even those who say they believe in biblical theology and and even reformed theology Have a hard time truly believing what's called Federal theology that is the federal headship of Adam are falling in Adam or our being in Christ that Romans 5 passage From 12 onwards what is that's based on you can sort of go back to the Old Testament.

Show somebody what happened to Aiken? And the fact that not only Aiken But his wife and his kids and his doggies and kitties and donkeys. We're all stoned for what Aiken did if they look at that and go oh boy I'm glad we don't believe in that anymore, then you know we've got a problem.

And they're probably gonna have a problem with the whole idea of our falling in Adam. That's the first thing is is is federal is.

With with concern with abortion, and you know you know hacking making it Turning practically every teenager into a music thief and stuff. I I really believe that the Pole depravity there's also an intensity that goes along with it.

It appears that if you you make you make spinning easy and convenient enough for people. They will do it and I think the punishment we get reflects upon how truly wicked We are not just how unfair God is and I think that's a problem Our minions have is they need to understand how truly deeply wicked we are.

Yeah.

Well certainly I mean you look at Dave hunt trying to attack Romans chapter 3 and say it doesn't mean that we all are really Are really that dead in sin where there are there have been righteous people etc. Etc.

You can see There's a fundamental problem with our minion theology at that point. But what I was gonna say the second thing is is that we tend to not talk enough about the the restraint that God is currently practicing on the Evil of men and we don't since we don't see the evil that is restrained.

Then we end up instead of thanking God for the restraint we end up Developing a higher view of ourselves because God has restrained our evil. It's an amazing thing when you think about it, but we don't talk enough about that, and I don't think we thank God enough.

For the fact that that when you do see horrible things that take place in this world realize that's just God lifting his finger and In hell his hand is going to be completely off and that I honestly believe the greatest torment of hell Will be the lack of restraint from God it'll be the these absolute self destructive expression of hatred for God.

That is at the heart of the fallen man. That's what I think is gonna be. What what what truly Goblin?

Yeah, it's gonna. I really appreciate your ministry doc, and I don't know if you get tired of it. But I always really appreciate your your handling of Rebuttals to reform that John. Six things. I really have a lot of fun with those well.

I my hope honestly I have already mentioned this to someone who can help to make it happen my hope honestly is to Write a book in in the course of the coming year on John six. They say you've already done that that yeah a little teeny booklet called John by the father.

I want to do a extensive Think of think of the most extensive exegesis in the God who justifies and then do that for all of John six. That's the first part of the book and then the second part of the book.

I want to take every possible Response I've ever heard and I've heard a lot of them To John six starting with the published ones and then going to the internet ones then going to maybe the pal talk ones.

That'll that'll be the stuff at the end. And respond every single one of them. That's something I really really would like to do and we'll see if Given this travel schedule. I already have for next year.

Well, that's gonna that's gonna work out. But hey got two more calls get two. Thanks for your call today Aaron. Let's not. Thank you. Let's move on to Chris in Indiana. Hi Chris.

How you doing fine sir? It's good to talk to you again. I got to talk to you for just a few brief moment moments on them. All righty. I Just wondered. Copy of the Berean call that Dave Hunt puts out. I'm I'm not certain the last.

Electronic one that I got had an article about the love of God. Yeah, and I had started commenting on it on a previous issue. Addition of the dividing line. Yeah.

Yeah, well, you know he spoke to you, you know, I told you how much I appreciate in your just mm-hmm and You know those simple definitions of really passages of Scripture right now they do. Isaac eat things of course and You know, I think Dave Hunt's going to keep beating this drum Against the reformed view of salvation for a long time because that's what he keeps doing.

Yep, and.

You know the big guy to realize he Dave's not the youngest man on the planet and One of the sad things to me is he basically is making this is his final big battle and and given What has happened of late with the this this?

Absolutely wild. I'd Desire to get around acts 1348, which he says is the strongest Calvinistic verse. I've never made that claim. I don't know anybody who actually believes that. I think it's very clear, but I certainly don't consider it the strongest To go as far as he's been willing to go.

It's simply sad to me. Here's someone who has who has Defended the inerrancy of Scripture and the the inspiration of Scripture for as long as I I don't know I've at least 30 40 years He's been doing this and yet he's willing to in essence throw that out the window Without a second thought just to try to get a stronger stance to resist What is clearly the message of acts 1348 and so that to me is is very sad that is.

You know people will ask well You know when does when does someone's resistance to God's truth start to make you worried and it makes me worried when it becomes something? That's long term it is Persistent even when refuted it does not acknowledge its errors.

And it's willing to embrace falsehood in the service of defense of a false tradition.

That's when it starts becoming very very worrisome. Do you think that is a reflection of me?

Well somebody who someone who debated Dave Hunt on another issue of just a few years ago after I first Crossed his path and sort of crossed him in that radio debate Contacted me, and he said to me at that time.

He said one thing you need to remember I have never ever heard Dave Hunt say I was wrong. So You know, but when you look at what he did with Spurgeon when you look when you look at what he he's done with the first John 5 one He he quotes it.

He misquotes it. He actually inserts Parenthetically a thought that's the exact opposite of what's in the original language and when faced with that. What does he do? I don't need that verse. I've got dozens more over here, and then when he redoes his book. What happens it just disappears.

No note. No apology. No nothing. I don't know how you do that. How does I? Don't understand that kind of mindset. I honestly don't I mean I've said from the beginning This is the best example of blinded by tradition.

I've ever seen but how far does that go? I mean now we've got the the entire ministry sending out Bibliographies they they they sniped from a from a cultist website I mean, how far do you go in defense this stuff before you put up your hands say, okay, we blew it.

We didn't know what we were talking about, you know, I think people.

Starsome. When they're that bound to determine that, you know, they're going to be right no matter what, you know. I if I may I'd like to ask one brief question and talking about an evolutionist going on about Evolutionary and I wanted to ask you this especially since you emphasize the exegeting of Scripture so much in biblical hermeneutics is correctly According to Genesis 1 and whole idea of the long periods of times.

Do you believe? Exegetically was a reasoning ever take a priority when it comes to a biblical hermeneutic. Well, of course, that's the entire.

Debate over the framework hypothesis and and all the the related stuff that's that's going on in many seminaries today, unfortunately and and it is quite true that there are many people who In their view either of that narrower issue or of a much broader issue of the difference between theistic evolution and and special creation that very there are very many people who honestly believe that the only choice that you have here is between a literalist Interpretation of Scripture and simple sanity.

I mean, I remember when I was in college I started addressing this I think a week ago tonight and the last very last question. Somebody asked me the very same thing and I pointed out that I had gone through public high school.

I fought the battle I took all the accelerated classes. I was class valedictorian and meant I had to you know I would sit at lunch with one of the science teachers and we would debate Creation evolution and and he would I went way beyond the normal stuff I mean he would bring in scientific journal articles on natural selection and the genetics of natural selection and and that's the kind of stuff I was reading in high school and then when I graduated from high school and was a science major in college I was going to a Christian College.

It's like alright great no more battle. But I was the only creationist at my Christian College. Everybody there were theistic evolutionists and so the battle continued and only intensified because I was a biology major and so.

Every time for example, I remember this class on limnology we took every place we went we traveled all these in the lakes and streams in Arizona, we take life surveys and In the van on the way and on the way back what would be the subject of discussion?