Why Teleology is terrifying

WARNING: The following blog contains disturbing images and descriptions of natural phenomena. This is the last cute picture on the page. Scroll down at your own risk.

I recently listened to a sermon on how to reach atheists, dealing specifically with the so called “proofs” for the existence of God – the Cosmological Argument, the Ontological Argument and the Teleological Argument. After listening to these arguments I have to say that if I was an atheist, those would have failed spectacularly to convince me of the existence of God. To me, the Cosmological Argument fails because even if you accept that there is an ultimate cause to the universe it certainly doesn’t follow that this cause has to be God. The Ontological Argument is the kind of thing that makes philosophers all giddy but anyone more practically minded would first go “Huh?” and then realize that it could just as easily be used to prove the existence of elves, unicorns and fairies. I think it’s for this reason that you don’t come across these arguments very often (at least in my limited experience). The Teleological Argument (aka the Argument from Design) on the other hand remains very popular and is the main reason most Christians feel the need to fight tooth and nail against evolution. After all, if you believe that every creature great and small is designed by a higher intellect and that this designer is God, then it follows that you will also feel that any suggestion that organisms came to their present state through natural means is in fact just another way of saying that there is no God. This is why to many Christians belief in God and acceptance of evolution will forever be mutually exclusive. This is also why the Creationism vs. Evolution debate will never be resolved as it is not about scientific evidence or reason but rather about defending the Faith. No amount of science and evidence will ever change that. Therefore I am not going to waste my energy trying to explain the facts of evolution or attacking Intelligent Design. Rather I will take the less exhausting (and futile) way out and explain why I think it’s a terrible idea to use the Argument from Design as a proof for the existence of God.

Recently I came across this satirical video that asks a question so obvious I have to wonder why it never occurred to Dr Behe – if the bacterial flagellum proves the existence of God, what does it prove about God?



It reminded me of an interview with Sir David Attenborough where he mentioned all the hate mail he gets from Christians for not giving credit to God in his nature documentaries. He said: “They always mean beautiful things like hummingbirds. I always reply by saying that I think of a little child in east Africa with a worm burrowing through his eyeball. The worm cannot live in any other way, except by burrowing through eyeballs. I find that hard to reconcile with the notion of a divine and benevolent creator.” To me that sums up the problem with the Teleological Argument in a nutshell. It’s easy to imagine that all the beauty in nature proves God, but what about all the horrors of nature? If nature is a proof of God then what exactly does that say about God? Its easy (for some, me not so much) to believe that all plants used to be good but then some grew thorns and became poisonous or that some vegetarian animals started eating meat instead because of the Fall, but what about all those creatures who seem designed for nothing else but death and pain and suffering? Snakes, spiders and scorpions are only the tip of the iceberg. For a view into the abyss, look at:

Leucochloridium paradoxum is a species of flatworm that as part of its reproductive cycle infests a snail. Inside the snail it migrates to the eye stalks of the snail and then proceeds to stretch and change them until they resemble pulsating brightly coloured caterpillars. Birds see this and come rip the (normally retractable) eye stalks off the snail allowing the parasite to finish its life cycle inside the bird.

Sacculina is a type of barnacle that latches on to a crab. The female Sacculina seeks a joint in the crab’s shell and then ejects her protective shell, reducing herself to a gelatinous blob, and invades. "Inside the host, the parasite grows long, root-like tendrils throughout the crab's body, eventually emerging as a bump on the underside. During this process she renders the crab infertile, and creates a small opening in the crab's back that will allow a male Sacculina to make residence there. Soon the crab is filled with millions of Sacculina eggs and larvae, and like a zombie, the crab cares for these eggs and larvae as though they were its own, losing all interest in mating. When a male crab is infected, the parasite alters its physiology and behavior to be female, to better care for the Sacculina's young. The parasite basically rewires the crab for its own ends, and the crab becomes a helpless vehicle, expending its energy caring for the young organisms that will move on to inflict themselves upon other crabs."

Cymothoa exigua is a small crustacean that enters through a fish’s (specifically, a red snapper) gills and uses claws to attach itself to the base of the snapper’s tongue where it survives for a while by drinking blood from an artery. Eventually the fish’s tongue will disappear (There is some confusion on what exactly happens, whether the louse eats the tongue or simply causes it to atrophy due to blood loss) and once the tongue is gone, the louse becomes the new tongue and manipulates the fish’s food and consumes the free food particles as the fish eats.

Now these animals are all designed specifically to do things that are unspeakably horrible and cruel (not to mention really disgusting) and if they owe this design to an Intelligent designer then this designer makes the Spanish Inquisition look like a lovable bunch. However if they owe their design to evolution then they are merely the products of an imperfect world and its just nature being heartless nature. This is why I think Christians would be better off just letting go of the Argument from Design and simply accepting evolution. For if Teleology proves God then the God it proves is anything but kind and compassionate.

(For more on these and other terrifying creatures check out the article: "The 7 most horrifying parasites on the planet" )

Dishonest by Design

There are many good reasons to reject Intelligent Design Theory. First of all, it doesn’t even deserve the name “theory” because it isn’t one. Unlike real scientific theories, Intelligent Design offers no mechanism, makes no predictions and cannot be falsified. Now that’s a good enough reason right there to fully reject it and all attempts to put it in the classroom. However, up to this day that has not been enough to discourage ID proponents who continue to insist that saying “Golly gee, that sure looks complicated!” is the same as doing science. There is however an even better reason to reject it, namely the fact that Intelligent Design requires massive dishonesty.

While I may completely disagree with Creationism, at least I can respect Creationists for being honest about what they stand for. Kent Hovind and friends may have their faults but at least they are not going pretend that they don’t believe the universe to be 6000 years old. In fact they tend to be completely upfront about the fact that they believe everything in existence was created in its present form in 6 days around 4000 BC and that humans and dinosaurs co-existed. Not so with the ID crowd. Most of them believe exactly the same thing, but they pretend that they don’t. Here is a great example:



Notice how that lady steadfastly avoided every question about what exactly she believes? This is what all ID proponents have to do. They have to pretend that ID is not religious, they have to pretend that they don’t really think the “designer” is necessarily God and most of all they have to pretend that they aren’t really Creationists. How can any Christian follow something that requires so much willful deceit? What happened to not being ashamed of the Gospel? What happened to always being prepared to give an answer for the hope in you? When did it become OK for the disciples of Jesus to deny Him in public?

Seems to me that Intelligent Design forces its supporters to act less like Disciples of Christ and more like followers of L Ron Hubbard! Hiding the truth about what your faith stands for (until you reach the right level/are brainwashed enough not to question it) is something Scientology is supposed to do. They lure you in with promises of mental health and only tell you the crazy story about Xenu later. Christians on the other hand have always been completely upfront about what they believe. You may think us silly but we will tell you about everything from the virgin birth to the resurrection and all the miracles in between right on day one so that you can make a completely informed decision about what you are letting yourself in for. At least that’s what we used to do in the days before Intelligent Design…

Some may disagree with me and claim that in this case the end justifies the means. Again I have to disagree. Intelligent Design is the worst thing to happen to Christian Evangelism since the Crusades! Has anyone actually thought this through? For ID to actually work 3 things need to happen:

1 – Scientists have to stop doing science, cease looking for explanations and mechanisms and simply accept that certain features were somehow designed by "someone" or "something". This alone would take a miracle on the level of the parting of the Red Sea.

2 – The identity of this designer must then be debated until Scientists are willing to completely abandon the Scientific method and simply accept that the designer was a supernatural being.

3 – Lastly, once everyone can finally agree that the designer was God the debate would then have to start regarding which God? Yahweh? Allah? Vishnu? Odin?

Only when all 3 of these issues have been conclusively settled would Intelligent Design have any claim to effective evangelism. Honestly, how many decades do you think that will take? Is it really worth compromising so much for a strategy that has so virtually no chance of ever working and if it ever did would probably take over a century?

I think not.

Who wants academic freedom?

I have always found it ironic that few things in this world demonstrate the basic principle behind evolution better than Creationism. Over the last couple of decades it has managed to survive (thrive even) in an increasingly hostile environment thanks to its ability to adapt via mutation. At first it existed as pure Creationism, later it tried to remain relevant by redefining itself as Creation Science. When that failed it became Intelligent Design and when that faced extinction after the Dover trail, it went through three more rapid transitions as calls to: “Teach both sides”, “Teach the strengths and weaknesses” and “Academic freedom”. While these evolutionary changes may seem quite severe, I would actually have to agree with Creationists that these changes simply constitute “micro-evolution” – the changes were all superficial, at its core it has remained filled with dishonesty and hypocrisy throughout.

This latest mutation of Creationism pretends to be all about honesty and fairness. It tells us that scientists are mean and petty and that they just don’t want to give all ideas equal time. They, the Creationists – sorry, Intelligent Design Proponents – on the other hand are all about academic freedom. They, unlike those mean old evolutionary scientists, don’t simply discard ideas simply because they disagree with it. For instance the moderation policy on the ID website “Uncommon Descent” states:

“that UD, unlike the Darwinists, doesn’t ban or censor ideas… Our role is not to censor ideas but to provide a forum where hard questions can be discussed calmly, fully, and fairly, and we trust that when that happens truth will prevail.”

Of course this turned out to be utter bovine excrement! Recently, one of the regular contributors to the site, ID proponent Dave Scot, dared to go against the official party line that Evolution = Racism by pointing out that some of the most racist groups out there are fiercely pro creationism and anti-evolution. Shortly after posting that, his post was removed and Dave Scot was banned from the site. Of course it's not that easy to make something disappear from the internet, you can view his original post here. The following note to all contributors appeared in its place:

“The moderation policy does not apply to you; you are held to a higher standard. I expect your posts to have at least some tangential relationship to Darwinism, ID, or the metaphysical or moral implications of each. The purpose of this site is not to provide a place for you to jump up and rant on one of your pet peeves. DaveScot will no longer be posting at UD.”

You have to admire such commitment to academic freedom and the open marketplace of ideas, don’t you? Is it really academic freedom they are after? Not in the least. Rather they just want their ideas to be given the same weight as established scientific principles without having to muck about with all that hard work and evidence that said scientific principles had to provide in order to become established in the first place.

At a glance their appeals to teach all different theories to schoolchildren and to explore the strengths and weaknesses of scientific principles seems noble enough. Once again though, that’s not what they actually care about. They don’t want to discuss how little we understand about light and gravity in physics class, they don’t want to give equal time to holocaust deniers and moon landing hoaxers in history class and they certainly don’t want to discuss all the weaknesses of creation science and intelligent design! For that matter, neither would they want to give all religions equal time in the classroom. No, the only strengths and weaknesses they care about teaching to kids are the weaknesses (a.k.a the unanswered questions) of the theory of evolution (they don’t actually want you to know that much about the strengths though) in order to make their own ideas look more plausible. Ultimately, its not all sides they want taught, it’s their side they want taught at the expense of ideas they don’t like (See the wedge document). Its not academic freedom they want, it’s the freedom to put non-scientific ideas on equal footing with established scientific fact. That’s not academic freedom at all, that is pure foolishness!

Alternative Medicine isn't

A recent trip to my local pharmacy shocked me out of my writers block and left me contemplating a change of pharmacist. While waiting for my prescription to be filled I was browsing the shelves and saw something really disturbing – they were selling Colloidal Silver! Now I’ve managed to grudgingly accept the fact that my pharmacy sells homeopathic “medicine” because at least these “remedies” won’t actually do anything to you (except lighten your wallet). Colloidal Silver on the other hand can actually do something to you. Long term use can cause argyria, a condition that turns you permanently and irreversibly blue! That’s right, blue. Forever. Behold Paul Karason:


It boggles my mind that people would still seek “alternative medicine” in an age where modern medicine is doing things that are nothing short of miraculous! Why do people choose pseudoscience from the dark ages over science based medicine that actually works?

I think a big factor is the fact that these alternative therapies are a lot less intimidating than modern medicine. Hospitals are scary places, operations are invasive and painful and some treatments (like chemo) make you feel a lot worse before it makes you better. I completely understand this. I had to get 2 surgeries and radiation to treat my cancer and I would have loved to instead be treated by something soothing and non-invasive. However, thanks to those unpleasant treatments I have my health back today. Attempting to avoid discomfort might have cost me my life. Unfortunately it is human nature to choose things that are comfortable yet ineffective over things that work well but are unpleasant.

Supporters of Alternative medicine often claim that it is just as effective as normal medical treatments. This is however demonstrably false. The only evidence for the effectiveness of alternative medicine is anecdotal evidence and as the saying goes, the plural of “anecdote” is not “proof”. To date no clinical trail has ever shown it to work better than a placebo which supports the conclusion that (when it works at all) alternative medicine only works due to the placebo effect. Call me crazy but I prefer medicine that works whether I believe in it or not! A recent study for instance found that acupuncture was effective at relieving back pain. However the same study found that there was no difference in relief gained between “real” and “fake” acupuncture. In other words there is no difference between someone who spent years learning about “chi” and memorizing the various “energy pathways” of the body and a drunken chimp randomly jabbing needles into someone. Yet another nail in the coffin of alternative medicine is the book “Trick or Treatment : The Undeniable Facts About Alternative Medicine” by Simon Singh, a physicist and journalist and Edzard Ernst. Ernst is a medical doctor who has practiced alternative medicine including homeopathy and the world's first professor of complementary medicine. He is also a scientist whose research group has spent the last 15 years vigorously seeking scientific evidence to decide which alternative treatments work and which don't – how is that for credibility? He wanted to find good evidence for alternative medicine and he couldn't. His conclusions?
•Homeopathy is a bogus industry that offers patients nothing but a fantasy.
•Acupuncture “might” be effective but only for some cases of pain and nausea, its underlying concepts are meaningless.
•Chiropractic is unbelievable, risky and only as useful as physical therapy for back pain.
•Some herbal remedies are interesting but more are unproven, disproven and downright dangerous.
•From aromatherapy to reflexology, alternative treatments fail the test of science.

Those who choose alternative medicine often claim that it is because alternative medicine uses natural ingredients where science based medicine uses artificial, synthetic products for treatments. This mindset that natural equals better is complete horsecrap (a 100% natural product btw). Lots of “100% natural” things are in fact very bad for you like Arsenic, Cyanide and Uranium and Ebola! Of course I don’t deny that certain plants and herbs have healing properties – and neither does scientific medicine. When something works, science looks at why it works and tries to find ways to make it work as well as possible with as little risk as possible. As Dr Harriet Hall explains here, a good example of this would be Foxglove: "Foxglove was a folk remedy for heart disease. It clearly worked. The effects were robust and consistent, not marginal and erratic like so many alternative remedies today. It was promising enough to warrant proper scientific testing. It was analyzed, purified, and a standardized product was developed. It had side effects and the therapeutic dose was dangerously close to the lethal dose, so scientists developed a synthetic variant that was safer. Today we can buy a Digoxin pill with a precise dose instead of crushing a foxglove leaf and taking potluck. While herbal products may work fine, the synthetic counterpart is usually just more effective and safer."

A big selling point offered by alternative medicine gurus is that their treatments are based on ancient wisdom. This is patently absurd. Firstly, the fact that it has been around for centuries should count against it, for what has it been able to cure so far? In just a hundred years, science based medicine has completely destroyed diseases like smallpox, scarlet fever and polio and is well on its way to permanently rid us of measles and mumps (or at least until the anti-vaccination wackjobs started undoing this). It has taken cancer from a certain death to a treatable ailment, given children to infertile couples, given sight and hearing to the blind and deaf and enabled us to replace failing organs with healthy ones. Those who suffer from epilepsy, schizophrenia and bi-polar disorders would once have been shunned as demon possessed but thanks to modern medicine can lead perfectly normal lives. What has alternative medicine done in all the centuries that it existed that remotely compares? Secondly this ancient wisdom is really not very wise and understandably so. It dates to a time when there was little to no knowledge of human physiology and anatomy and medical treatments had to rely on guesswork as to how the human body worked. Even a cursory glance will show you just how wrong these guesses were. Human energy fields and Therapeutic touch therapy for instance was thoroughly debunked by a 9 year old girl for a science fair project. Yet people still buy into treatments like chiropractics while completely oblivious as to the non-science it is based on. Here is a video clip explaining the principles of Homeopathy, anyone who can still think of it as science based or wise after watching this would have to be gullible on an Oprah level!



Many argue that alternative medicine is not so bad because it’s harmless. Sadly, that is also untrue. At best it does harm because it keeps people from seeking proper medical treatment. At worst it actively harms the health and well being of those who trust in it. For a laundry list of the dangers of quackery, look no further than the website whatstheharm.net – it gives details of the physical and financial damage some of these "alternatives" can do. Also, while preparing for this post I found something interesting - did you know that chiropractic neck adjustments can cause strokes?

I think that some who turn to alternative “medicine” sometimes do so after having a bad experience with the medical profession. Unfortunately it is a fact that not all doctors are equally good and the medical system is far from perfect. Doctors are not shamans though and they don’t claim to be supernaturally aided. They are human and they will occasionally fail. The correct response to this is not to turn to quackery instead but rather to find another doctor! Lance Armstrong is a great example of this – the first oncologist he saw wanted to treat his cancer so aggressively that it would have completely wrecked his lungs and future athletic prospects. The second doctor he saw offered a different treatment option that allowed him to return to racing after his recovery. The rest, as they say, is history.

In conclusion all I can say is that alternative medicine is a misnomer, there really is no such thing. Any treatment that works reliably ends up as medicine. Those treatments that do not end up as “alternatives”. Its not like we tolerate “alternatives” in any other industry, there are no “alternative airports” that specialize in “alternative flight” nor is there such a thing as “alternative engineering”. We use things that work, we discard what does not – except when it comes to our health. Why is that? I realize I cannot do much to change the minds of those who have faith in alternative medicine, they will continue to believe in it no matter how little proof exist. However I literally owe my life to modern medicine and I simply cannot let quackery go unchallenged.

For some good information on the subject, go to:
The Skepdoc
Science based medicine
Quackwatch
What's the harm?

Sunday school Morality

“In a soldier's stance, I aimed my hand
At the mongrel dogs who teach
Fearing not that I'd become my enemy
In the instant that I preach”

Bob Dylan, My back pages, 1964

I am not a parent and I certainly do not envy those who are. Raising a child must be incredibly stressful. After all, if you screw up someone’s childhood, you pretty much screw up their life. For better or for worse, the influences we receive in our formative years will continue to have an effect on us in some way for as long as we live. That is why I understand why parents can be so anal about the content of movies, cartoons, advertisement, etc. I don’t always agree with them but I can understand why they feel that way. I don’t take Christian media review sites like Plugged in Online too seriously (though I do read it for entertainment sometimes) but I think that maybe if I were responsible for the mental wellbeing of children I would be taking it a lot more seriously. I get why Christian parents feel so strongly about not exposing their children to things that may warp their still developing moral code. It’s because of this I have to wonder why these very same parents care so little about what is taught to their children in Sunday school?

Take for instance the Sunday school favourite of Joshua’s siege of (and subsequent slaughter of every man woman and child in) Jericho in Joshua 6. In 1966 and 1973, Israeli psychologist George Tamarin a study on the effect of this story on the morality of children. As a control group, Tamarin tested 168 children who were read Joshua 6:20-21 with “General Lin” substituted for Joshua and a “Chinese Kingdom 3000 years ago” substituted for Israel – the vast majority considered the actions of “General Lin” to be completely wrong and immoral. However when groups of children were presented with the unchanged story of Joshua from the Bible the vast majority would say that Joshua and the children of Israel acted rightly. Even those who disagreed sometimes did so more because they were concerned with the destruction of property and the killing of animals rather than from concern about the slaughter of babies. The disturbing part is that in a follow up question nearly half of the children who gave total approval to Joshua's behavior also gave total approval to the hypothetical question: “Suppose that the Israeli Army conquers an Arab village in battle. Do you think it would be good or bad to act towards the inhabitants as Joshua did towards the people of Jericho?”

Does it make sense to shield children from violence in movies and sex on TV while at the same time exposing them to mixed messages about the morality of genocide at church? How is teaching children that genocide is wrong except when the “good guys” are doing it any different from the morally questionable messages in the media? Is it not doublethink to teach children that Islamic suicide bombers are wrong but that Samson’s murder-suicide death is heroic?


If we are going to carefully monitor the influences on our children, should that not also include the Bible? After all, if the Bible was turned into a realistic movie you would probably not show it to your children. In fact Focus on the Family would probably be telling adults to avoid it due to all the sex, violence and bad behavior!

Now, I’m not suggesting we pretend these stories are not in the Bible. I certainly don’t suggest that we go the Scientology route in church and wait until members reach a certain “level” before we let them in on our actual beliefs. There is a big difference between hiding the truth and not sharing a morally complex tale with someone who cannot yet grasp its complexity. Let’s face it, we pretty much do this allready. In Sunday school, children are taught the story of Sodom and Gomorrah but we don’t teach them what happens with Lot and his daughters right after. We tell the cool stories from the book of Judges but we do not include the mass abduction and rape of young girls at the end of the book. My suggestion is that we apply this principle to all the stories we tell our children. Doesn’t it make sense to always take a honest look at the message a certain story sends? Maybe the problem is not so much with the “what” as with the “how” of the telling. For instance in the case of Jericho, the problem is not so much the facts of what happened but rather the approving, heroic way in which we present it. After all the mixed moral message is not in telling that bad things happened but rather in our proud endorsement thereof. Any overly simplistic, black and white retelling of history can be questionable. If we want to be vigilant about the messages our children get in their formative years, shouldn’t we make sure we include every aspect of their lives. Isn’t it only fair to expect that if you are raising your children to believe that violence is not the answer that you shouldn’t at the same time be teaching them that violence for God is glorious?

“Men never do evil so completely and cheerfully as when they do it from religious conviction.”

Blaise Pascal, Pensees, 1670

[Dr Tamarin's paper "The Israeli dilemma; essays on a warfare state" doesn't seem to be available online but discussions with extracts from it can be found here and here. ]

Crushing on the Antichrist - a history of heartbreak

Christians just love the Antichrist. Oh they would deny it if you asked them of course – they are supposed to be saving themselves for Jesus and all – but you can tell from the way they are constantly seeking the big AC with a sense of breathless excitement that they want nothing more than to marry the Antichrist and have like a million of his babies. The main Antichrist crush of the moment seems to be Obama of course. Despite all the warnings from the good folks at Snopes that Obama might not be the Man of Lawlessness (aka the man of our dreams!!) that those emails promise (internet dating profiles always seem to disappoint!) that has not diminished the hopes one bit. The fun folks over at Rapture Ready are positively dizzy with excitement that Obama might finally fulfill our hopes, dreams and prophecies and start persecuting us already! However I’m hesitant to get my hopes up about this, after all we’ve had our hearts broken before! Just look at these 6 (see what I did there?) guys who showed such promise but ultimately just failed to deliver:

Nero Caesar
The early Christians (and modern Preterists) regarded Nero as THE Antichrist. This view is certainly not popular among modern fundamentalist Christians, but a fair academic case can be made that the Antichrist described in the book of Revelations was in fact none other than Nero himself – the famed number of the Beast certainly works as a code name for Nero. He certainly showed a lot of promise too, he persecuted the crap out of the Church in cruel and inventive ways for one thing and no one doubted that he was a whole new class of evil – he did sleep with his mom and then tried to have her killed in a Bond villain-esque way (which didn’t work so he just had her stabbed) after all! The problem is that despite all the promise he showed, he never made the big commitment to our dreams of Armageddon and Apocalypse.
Odds that he’s our guy: Nonexistent. Seriously, he’s been dead for around 2000 years. I think it’s fair to say that he left us and he’s not coming back.

The Pope
It would be impossible to talk about the Antichrist without mentioning the great white hope himself – the Pope. To this day many Christians (especially Lutherans, Seventh Day Adventists and Jack Chick) still hold a candle in their hearts that any day now, the Pope will actually live up to their dreams. For one thing the office of the papacy sure seems to fulfill a lot of the prophetic descriptions. I mean come on, a woman sitting on many waters who rides a beast with 7 heads and 10 horns and fornicates with the kings of the earth? Could it be any more obvious?? In days of yore the papacy certainly behaved in a remarkably Antichrist-like way and persecuted the Protestants (as well as the Jews, Muslims and pagans) quite viciously. Also, the current Pope bears a creepy resemblance to the Emperor from Star Wars. That may be a total coincidence but it sure is creepy.
Odds that he’s our guy: Medium to low. One can’t really rule out the Pope completely since there will probably always be a Pope and you never know what the future may hold. Yet you can’t blame me for being a wee bit skeptical about this. After all the Catholic Church is nowhere near what it used to be, especially when it comes to political influence and the legal right to burn heretics at the stake. The Pope is pretty much our Mr Big (yes that was totally a Sex and the City reference). He is always around and shows so much promise but he just never seems to come through. Seriously, it’s been centuries and we are currently on Pope #265. How long before we realize that he is just not interested in us in that way?

Hitler
Now if ever there was a great candidate for the post of Antichrist its Mr. Adolph Hitler. He just seems to pass the Biblical checklist for the Antichrist with flying colors! He will rise from obscurity (a “little horn” Daniel 7:8) – check. He will speak boastfully (Daniel 7:8; Rev 13:5) – check. He will change the laws, to gain an advantage for his new kingdom and era (Dan 7:25) – check. His whole focus and attention will be on his military and he will conquer lands and distribute them (Daniel 11:39-44) – check. He will survive an assassination attempt (Rev. 13:3; 17:8) – check. He will brutally persecute the Jews (Daniel 7:25; Rev 13:7) – check. It just goes on and on. I’m pretty sure that it would have been very easy for anyone in Europe during World War 2 to believe that the Four Horsemen were out and about and that the Apocalypse had begun.
Odds that he’s our guy: Nonexistent. He may have been the perfect candidate but for one fatal flaw – a serious case of being deceased.

King Juan Carlos of Spain
The late prophecy teacher Charles Taylor was a big proponent of the idea that Juan Carlos is the Antichrist in his book "The Antichrist King: Juan Carlos" and many antichrist watchers seem to agree. They certainly make a strong case: For one thing Spain was the 11th nation to join the EU and according to prophecy the Antichrist will be the leader of the 11th nation to join the Roman Empire (Daniel 7:23-25). As we all know, the EU is like totally the new Roman Empire. With some numerological tweaking various renderings of his name (in Hebrew, Greek, Latin, English, Spanish, Portuguese, Italian, French, German and Russian) apparently add up to 666. The Antichrist is also supposed to play a big role in Middle East peace talks and Juan Carlos has been playing either an indirect or a direct role in the Middle East peace process for some time. The 1991 Madrid Conference for instance kicked off multi-lateral talks among Israel, Syria, Jordan, Lebanon and representatives of Palestine. Most damningly of all he allegedly has a yacht called The Dragon, which is obviously a reference to Satan, who is depicted as a dragon in Revelations 13: 2, 11-14.
Odds that he’s our guy: Low. Maybe it’s just me but the guy just seems a little underwhelming. I admit to not being as clued up on international politics as I should be but I just don’t see the 71 year old king of Spain as that much of a threat. Time will tell I guess. I just think we can do better.

Ronald Reagan
During the 80’s a lot of people seemed to believe that beloved US president Reagan was none other than the Beast of Revelations. Of course they based this conclusion on some pretty solid evidence: His first, middle and last name each had 6 letters for one thing. James Brady, press secretary to Ronald Reagan, was shot in the head during an attempt on the president's life. Hearing that Brady's wound was certain to be fatal, a Whitehouse staffer mistakenly informed the press that Brady had died. The major television networks announced the death of James Brady and the story traveled throughout the world at electronic speeds. Miraculously, Brady survived his surgery and the press revealed that the man they had been memorializing was still alive – exactly as Revelations 13 predicted!! Revelations also talks of the Beast having feet like a bear and the Reagan family coat of arms has a bear on it AND the state animal of California – his home and powerbase – is a bear!
Odds that he’s our guy: Nonexistent. While the proof may have been overwhelming that he was our man there are a couple of obstacles. First and foremost is the fact that he’s dead. Really with an obstacle like that do I even need to mention the Alzheimer’s or the fact that he left office without starting Armageddon?

Mikhail Gorbachev
During those heady Cold War days, that ravishing Russian Mikhail Gorbachev set Christian hearts aflutter and made the hope burn high that the Antichrist has finally come among us. He was a commie after all and we all know that those people are like totally evil incarnate right? After all, those Russians were all atheists meaning that they didn't believe in Jesus so in other words they were "anti-Christ"! He also had a mark on his forehead and the Bible does say in Revelation that the Antichrist will require everyone to "receive his mark in his forehead, or in his hand." (Revelation 14:9). I mean that’s some solid evidence right there, you have the word “mark” and “forehead” right there in a sentence AND on the person of Mr Gorbachev. Since he ran the USSR (the biggest country in the world) he would also totally be able to run a one world government!
Odds that he’s our guy: Very Low. For one thing he is no longer in power and is happily retired from politics. Instead of bringing about the nuclear war that so many Christians had hot sweaty dreams about he instead brought about the collapse of the mighty “Evil Empire”. In short he dashed all our apocalyptic hopes in a mean-spirited, cruel way. Call me crazy but I don’t think this guy deserves a second chance with our hearts.

Human Communion

communion [kuh-myoon-yuhn]:

• interchange or sharing of thoughts or emotions; intimate communication
• the act of sharing, or holding in common; participation.

In case you never heard of him, I would like to introduce you to Matt. Matt's big claim to fame is that he traveled the world and videotaped himself doing a really goofy little dance everywhere he went. That's pretty much it. Oftentimes the locals would join him and did their own goofy little dances with him. He danced alone, he danced with adults and children, he danced with Gothic Lolita's in Japan and with primitive tribesman in Papua New Guinea. He even did his dance underwater and in zero gravity. Now as far as I can tell Matt isn't doing anything we would deem important. He's not doing it to raise funds or awareness. He's not distributing food or vaccines. He just dances. Yet this seemingly pointless silliness had a profound impact on me. Everytime I watch this video I find myself really moved, it makes me smile and it brings a lump to my throat.



I'm not sure why this little video moves me so. There is seemingly nothing profound about it and yet it stirs me in a way that only certain pieces of worship music used to. Yet this is in no way worship music as Matt is not a Christian or even religious, he is an agnostic and a humanist. Now growing up in the church I was taught to fear humanism and run from it where ever I found it. Yet it seems to me that this particular humanist has remembered something that many Christians seem to have forgotten. It is easy to become so caught up in all the darkness and misery of our world that we forget about all the beauty and joy around us. We lament how lost people are and forget how worth saving they are. I'm not suggesting that we put humanity on a pedestal, but isn't it worth remembering that at its heart, the Gospel of Jesus Christ is that God thought this world and its people were worth loving?

I love this video because it reminds me that humanity is a family. Despite all the differences that polarize us, we still have a lot in common. There is common ground, even if it is only the fact that we love to act silly when you point a camera at us.

Then again, maybe the lesson here is that a little silliness is a good thing. Maybe if you make a little time to be joyfully goofy you will have a lot less time to be fearful, hateful or spiteful.