Tim Ellsworth

The new Creation Museum built by Answers in Genesis opened this week with much fanfare — and protests by those who disagree with what the museum is promoting.

I’m fascinated by the amount of vehement opposition to this museum. Of course most scientists disagree with it. But why are they going to such great lengths to protest? If someone opened a museum touting the truth of aliens living among us, I’d disagree with their conclusions, but I wouldn’t feel the need to stage a protest. If I were firmly convinced that my position is the correct one, I wouldn’t feel threatened by someone promoting an opposing viewpoint.

The answer, of course, is that for evolutionists, this museum is doing more than offering a scientific theory with which they disagree. It is providing scientific evidence that their very worldview of naturalism is based on a faulty premise. For so many scientists, evolution is much more than science. It’s their religion. And they know that Ken Ham’s Creation Museum provides compelling evidence that their religion is a false one.

As Chuck Colson writes in “How Now Shall We Live”:

“The truth is that much of Darwinism is not science but naturalistic philosophy masquerading as science. So an honest debate between Darwinism and Christianity is not fact versus faith but philosophy versus philosophy, worldview versus worldview.

We must be clear about what is at stake here. As long as Darwinism reigns in our schools and elite culture, the Christian worldview will be considered the madwoman in the attic — irrational and unbelievable. That’s why we can no longer allow naturalists to treat science as a sanctuary where their personal philosophy reigns free from challenge.”

Ken Ham has taken Colson’s challenge seriously, and evolutionists are scared to death by it. They know how feeble their belief system is, and the extent of their protests only betrays that weakness. Methinks they protest a bit too much.

Republican presidential candidate Sam Brownback addresses the issue of evolution in an opinion piece in today’s New York Times.

Ultimately, on the question of the origins of the universe, I am happy to let the facts speak for themselves. There are aspects of evolutionary biology that reveal a great deal about the nature of the world, like the small changes that take place within a species. Yet I believe, as do many biologists and people of faith, that the process of creation — and indeed life today — is sustained by the hand of God in a manner known fully only to him. It does not strike me as anti-science or anti-reason to question the philosophical presuppositions behind theories offered by scientists who, in excluding the possibility of design or purpose, venture far beyond their realm of empirical science.

Brownback nailed it with this one.

Jacksonville Jaguars’ linebacker Mike Peterson’s foundation has been involved in charitable causes for a couple of years. This year, Peterson is hosting a free football camp for children, with several NFL players scheduled to take part.

“It cuts out a lot of kids when it’s not free,” Peterson said. “That cut me out when I was a kid. I never went to a camp.”

Space is limited to approximately 250 campers and each participant will receive a camp t-shirt and an autographed photo from Peterson. While football will be taught, Peterson is looking forward to also having the young children interact with his teammates and peers.

“We are going to take breaks from playing ball and just talk to them,” Peterson said. “I want them to see a NFL player with their pants pulled up or a NFL player respecting an older woman with ‘yes maam or no maam’ in a lunch line. These kids see that and then they know how it’s supposed to be.”

In a day when we hear too much about thugs like Pacman Jones, Michael Vick and practically the entire Cincinnati Bengals team, it’s refreshing to read something like this.

Hat tip: Gordon

A Baltimore man was arrested at a Best Buy for using $2 bills, apparently because the geniuses at the store didn’t realize that $2 bills are legal tender.

It reminds me of my experience on a youth choir tour when I was in junior high. We received a $3 allowance per meal, and my youth minister would give us a $2 bill and a Susan B. Anthony dollar to use. He was a bit combative, and everyone suspected that he gave us the money in that form because he was hoping a restaurant wouldn’t accept it. Then he could raise a ruckus and demand they take the money.

Last night Daniel and I were reciting Psalm 23 together (he can recite the whole thing). After we finished, he asked, “What’s mercy?” Thrilled at his interest and curiosity, I proceeded to explain to him the meaning of the word.

A few minutes later, this is the conversation that ensued:

Daniel: Mercy is kind of like a penguin.

Me: What do you mean?

Daniel: Like a polar bear, and there are little penguins, and they jump high into the air and down into the water.

Me: Um, OK, but what does that have to do with mercy?

Daniel: It’s kind of like a big bear, but not really, and there are penguins.

Ah, the joys of a theological discussion with a 3-year-old.

Rosie O’Donnell says she might never speak to Elisabeth Hasselbeck again after the two argued on “The View” last week.

I’m sure Elisabeth is shattered.

Albert Mohler has written about a new book hitting the United States this year, “The Dangerous Book for Boys.”

The book instantly recalls the great Victorian era of books for boys — books about boy heroes, adventurers, soldiers, and naturalists. …

This book will tell a boy how to read cloud formations, make a battery, make a periscope, and construct “the greatest paper airplane in the world.” Boys are told of the essential gear of boyhood — including Band-aids. Young adventurers will also learn of famous battles, the history of artillery, and how to understand girls.

On the subject of girls the authors warn that young females are likely to be “unimpressed by your mastery of a game involving wizards, or your understanding of Morse Code.” Boys are also soberly warned that girls, as a general rule, “do not get quite as excited by the use of urine as a secret ink as boys do.” This is important to know.

Of course, some raging feminists are all hacked off by the book, as you can see if you read some of the reviews on Amazon.

After reading Mohler’s post, I stopped by Books-a-Million over the weekend to check it out. I was impressed with the book, and plan to purchase it for my son in the near future.

Barry Bonds has said he might not donate souvenirs from his record 756th home run to the Hall of Fame.

“I’m not worried about the Hall,” the San Francisco slugger said during a recent homer drought. “I take care of me.”

Imagine that — Barry Bonds being a selfish jerk. Next you’re gonna tell me that Bonds does steroids or something equally shocking.

In my column for Baptist Press Sports, I developed my thoughts on the lawsuit Josh Hancock’s father, Dean Hancock, has filed against those who played no role in his son’s death.

We as a society have zero sense of personal responsibility, and a victim mentality has taken up permanent residence in the courtroom. There’s good reason for that, however – because it long ago took up permanent residence in our hearts. …

The blame-shifting and buck-passing of which we’re all capable began in the Garden of Eden, when Adam blamed his wife – and ultimately, God — for his sin. We’ve since become masters of the skill.

When we’re impatient with our kids, it’s because they aren’t behaving properly. When we cheat on our taxes, it’s because the government has already taken enough of our money. When we don’t work as hard as we should, it’s because our supervisors are too demanding. And on it goes.

UPDATE: It seems the BP site is down, and I don’t know how long it’s been that way or how long it will be that way. So, if you’d like to read my column, here it is in its entirety:

Like father, like son?
By Tim Ellsworth

JACKSON, Tenn. (BP)–Josh Hancock managed to dirty his reputation enough in the way he died – with a blood-alcohol content of nearly twice the legal limit.

But now Hancock’s father is doing even more harm to his dead son’s memory.

Read the rest of this entry »

And I want to sue somebody.

The father of St. Louis Cardinals pitcher Josh Hancock is suing everybody even remotely involved in the accident that took his son’s life last month — Mike Shannon’s restaurant, the driver of the tow truck that Hancock slammed into and the driver of the stalled car that the tow truck had stopped to help.

Dean Hancock said in a statement that the “facts and circumstances” of Josh’s death “have caused great pain to all of Josh’s family.” As administrator of his son’s estate, Dean Hancock said he has an obligation to represent the family on all issues, “including any legal actions necessary against those who contributed to the untimely and unnecessary death.”

Are you kidding me? Are you kidding me? Look, I’m terribly sorry for Dean Hancock’s loss, and I can’t even begin to understand the grief he must feel. Nobody should have to endure that.

But the person at fault in Josh Hancock’s death was Josh Hancock — and nobody else. He’s the one who got plastered. He’s the one who foolishly got behind the wheel of a car. He’s the one who was speeding, talking on his cell phone and not wearing his seat belt.

For Hancock’s dad to try to ruin the lives of so many innocent people is horribly wrong — and it ought to be criminally wrong. Let’s hope a judge has enough sense to throw this thing out of court fast, because irresponsibility evidently runs in the family.

UPDATE: For a more in-depth look at my thoughts on this, see my column in Baptist Press Sports.

He’s in Marion, Ill. — a member of the new independent league Southern Illinois Miners.

Tony has suggested the topic of tattoos and piercings for discussion, as it’s an issue that we’ve not talked about before.

Are tattoos and piercings acceptable for Christians? Where do you draw the line about what’s acceptable and what’s not — for example, is an ear piercing OK, but a nose piercing wrong? How should churches respond?

While I don’t think tattoos and piercings are inherently wrong, I think they can be a manifestation of a rebellious heart — and that’s obviously cause for concern.

What are your thoughts?

Who wins?

From AP:

Washington Redskins players Clinton Portis and Chris Samuels defended Michael Vick on Monday by ridiculing the notion that dog fighting is considered a crime.

In an interview with WAVY-TV, Portis said that if the Atlanta Falcons quarterback is charged and convicted of being involved in a dog fighting operation, then authorities would be “putting him behind bars for no reason.”

“I don’t know if he was fighting dogs or not,” Portis said. “But it’s his property; it’s his dogs. If that’s what he wants to do, do it.”

Portis said dog fighting is a “prevalent” part of life.

Portis later issued a statement that said, “In the recent interview I gave concerning dog fighting, I want to make it clear I do not take part in dog fighting or condone dog fighting in any manner.”

No, of course not, Clinton. How would we ever get that idea?

I think dog fighting is reprehensible, but it’d be interesting to see about 10-15 pit bulls have a crack at Portis.