Lies evolutionists tell: The origin of life has nothing to do with evolution

People who militantly defend evolution (AKA evolutionists) like to look down their noses on the “lay” public and smugly drone on about how science is the key to knowledge, how evolution is the most rigorously tested theory in science, and how they only go where the evidence leads. If that were true, why do they feel the need to tell lies to support their theory? I'm not talking about a mere difference of opinion – like how I believe the earth is around 6,000 years old and they think it's 4 billion years old. I'm talking about continuously repeating things that are objectively false. The sad thing is, many members of the public have heard these lies repeated so often, they assume they are true.

I've written series in the past where I list 5 or 10 of some of the most egregious examples but I'm not going to write a series now. Instead, I'm going to visit this topic from time to time and make each, entire post about a single lie. If you want to read all the posts published under this topic, click “lies evolutionists tell” in the label cloud in the left column.

Have said that, on to the next lie!

THE ORIGIN OF LIFE HAS NOTHING TO DO WITH EVOLUTION

Tyler Franke, a self-described “theistic evolutionist,” once wrote:

[You don't understand evolution if] you think it has anything to do with the origin of life, let alone the origins of the universe.... This is like the king of all straw men, and it’s extremely common. It involves something like the thoroughly debunked theory of spontaneous generation (the idea that life can come from non-life under normal circumstances) being used as evidence against the theory of evolution. Hear me on this, guys: Evolution has nothing to do with the origin of life.

The original site where he posted this has been removed but it was republished (plagiarized?) here if you'd like to read the entire article in context. I like to cite original sources but, let's face it, I've heard this point made so many times that it really doesn't matter who said it. I just used this quote because Franke was so emphatic about it.

When evolutionists claim all life on earth is descended from a single ancestor that supposedly lived 3.5 billion years ago, the first question that usually comes to mind is, “Where did the first common ancestor come from?” It's a rather obvious question, yet if you press them on the subject, they invariably resort to saying, “that's not part of the theory!”

Strictly speaking, biological evolution does not address the origin of life. I get it. So if evolutionists say, “that's not part of the theory,” why do I call it a lie? Primarily, it's because they're not giving a sincere response. It's more of a dodge – a cover-up for the embarrassing fact that they don't have an answer. They invent a theory that all life descended from a single ancestor then excuse themselves from explaining where that critter came from. How convenient.

I think it's strange that critics ever use this objection. I mean, for something that's not part of their theory, they certainly spend a lot of time talking about it. For example, Berkley.edu has a web page called, Understanding Evolution, which begins with a section titled, “From soup to cells – the origin of life.” From that site, we read the following,

“Evolution encompasses a wide range of phenomena: from the emergence of major lineages, to mass extinctions, to the evolution of antibiotic resistant bacteria in hospitals today. However, within the field of evolutionary biology, the origin of life is of special interest because it addresses the fundamental question of where we (and all living things) came from.”

It seems, at least, that Berkley feels the origin of life is of special interest “within the field of evolutionary biology.” So at the same time they're telling us the origin of life isn't part of evolution, Berkley admits that evolutionary biologists are keenly interested in studying it.

There's also a pop-science article from LiveScience.com that suggests 7 Theories on the Origin of Life. From that article, we read the following:

Life on Earth began more than 3 billion years ago, evolving from the most basic of microbes into a dazzling array of complexity over time. But how did the first organisms on the only known home to life in the universe develop from the primordial soup?

First, let me point out the casual use of the word theory in the headline. If a creationists says, “evolution is just a theory,” he's met with a chorus of groans and a lecture about the technical meaning of the word theory and that a “scientific” theory doesn't mean guess... but here, they just mean a guess, don't they? //RKBentley shakes his head//

Any way, see how LiveScience begins the article by saying life evolved “from the most basic of microbes into a dazzling array of complexity” before getting into their 7 guesses? They seem to tacitly agree that a discussion of evolution should include a discussion of how life began. Indeed, that's the whole point of their article. Of course, if a creationist wants to discuss it, then all of a sudden it's NOT part of the theory.

Finally, do I even need to point out all the biology text books that still include the Miller-Urey experiment from nearly 70 years ago! If you read the Wiki article on abiogenesis, there's the Miller-Urey experiment. Why is such an old experiment, one which failed to produce life, still included in biology books if abiogenesis has nothing to do with evolution?

We have never seen life form naturally. Neither have we been able to create life in a lab. By every measure, bringing non-living matter to life seems to require a miracle which is why I sometimes use the origin of life as evidence for biblical creation.  Evolutionists don't have a response, so they try to convince me the issue isn't even relevant.  Yeah right!

Evolutionists can't have it both ways. They expend gallons of ink writing about the origin of life, yet when creationists point out there is no natural explanation for the origin of life, evolutionists retreat to saying that has nothing to do with evolution. Their smug confidence and feigned exasperation are all a ruse. They simply don't like being called out for clinging to an idea that is virtually indistinguishable from “spontaneous generation,” which was discarded about the same time as blood-letting. Their lack of any plausible scenario that might make matter become alive is a gaping whole in their theory. Yet when it's pointed out, they want to end the discussion. People who say this are seldom sincere; they just want you to shut up.

Who's really indoctrinating whom about evolution?

In my last post, I made some observations on how certain half-truths and misunderstandings about evolution are encouraged and perpetuated by the pro-evolution establishment. Some might even call it a “conspiracy.” You can read that post here. Whenever I make that claim, I'm usually met with boos and hisses from militant evolutionists who accuse me of being a flat-earth, science-denying, nut case. Instead of cliché ad hominen, wouldn't it be at least a little interesting to discuss the claim itself? Maybe they could even offer something in the way of a rebuttal. Is that asking too much? Sigh.

Rather than simply ignore their empty words, I thought I'd explore the issue a little deeper. Some people simply don't understand the lengths to which rabid evolutionists will go to bolster and perpetuate their flagging theory. Let me direct your attention to an article on Slate.com titled, Give Me An “F!” Creationists Fail a Fourth Grade Science Test where self-described “science-evangelizer,” Phil Plait, laments that elementary students are being taught creationism. In the article he said:

My complaint is one of simple reality. Young-Earth creationism is wrong, and it’s certainly not science. For that reason alone, ideally it shouldn’t be taught as truth anywhere, let alone a science class.... In fact, all of science shows creationism is wrong, because creationism goes against pretty much every founding principle of and every basic fact uncovered by science. If creationism were true, then essentially no modern invention would work. Since you’re reading this on a computer, that right there is proof enough. [Italics and bold in original]

Really, Mr. Plait? All of science shows creationism is wrong? “No modern invention would work” if creationism were true? Computers are proof that evolution is correct? His comments are hilarious and, what's worse, he means them! No exaggeration I could make about Plait's comments could be any more extreme that what he's actually saying.

I shouldn't have to rebut any of these outrageous claims because they are absurd on their face. It makes no sense to say that things like computers or satellites or rockets wouldn't work if God created the universe. I'm fairly certain that Plait is unaware that Charles Babbage, the man credited with inventing modern computing, was a creationist. However, the point of my blog, today, isn't to detail the contributions creationists have made to science. Rather, it's something else that Plait said that piqued my interest.

What really makes my heart sink is the reality that this is actually being taught to young children. Kids are natural scientists; they want to see and explore and categorize and ask “why?” until they understand everything. And we, as adults, as caretakers, have a solemn responsibility to nurture that impulse and to answer them in as honest a way as possible, encouraging them to seek more answers—and more questions—themselves. That’s how we learn. ¶But this? This isn’t learning. It’s indoctrination. [bold added]

Indoctrination is a strong word to use. The ordinary definition of “indoctrinate” is to teach someone to accept a set of beliefs uncritically. Yet there is a pejorative connotation to the word. I taught my children to speak English; does that mean I indoctrinated them to speak English? Is it indoctrination to teach our kids right and wrong? To be nice? To pick up their things, to get good grades, and to work hard? Teaching our children our values isn't indoctrination – it's called raising them. We also tend to raise our children to share our religious beliefs. I'm sure the parents who send their kids to the private school Plait is ridiculing, are Christians who believe in creation. That wanted to send their kids to a Christian school that reinforces the same values the kids learn at home. To accuse the parents of “indoctrinating” their kids is a type of ad hominem.

What I find most curious about militant evolutionists is how angry they become whenever someone doesn't believe in evolution. In the introduction to his article, immediately following the photo of the 4^th grade quiz, Plait assumes the reader would be, “screaming in rage and/or pounding your head against the desk.” Why? Because some people actually believe in creation and neither Plait nor his cohorts can stand it. He says later, “I am deeply saddened that there are places teaching this to children.”

Worshipers of scientism virtually froth at the mouth over the simple fact that people exist who doubt evolution. They obsess over it. They stay up at night worrying about it. They wring their hands and plot about ways to stamp out science deniers. Yet they can't see their hypocrisy through their blinding contempt. They are the ones interested in indoctrination! Do you think I'm exaggerating? Let's look at some facts.

THEY LIE

Think about the things Plait said in this article:

• all of science contradicts creationism.

• no modern invention would work if creation were true.

• Creationism goes against every founding principle and every basic fact of science.

If he made just one statement like this, I might dismiss it as hyperbole. To repeat it over and over shows he's being very deliberate. It's rather ordinary for evolutionists to lie to bolster their theory. I've written about some examples of this on my blog before but there are many more than those I've discussed. Just click on the “lies evolutionists tells” lable of this post and see a few of them.

When people tells lies to advance an agenda, that's the very definition of propaganda.

THEY SQUELCH

Several years ago, the Cobb County Board of Education placed a sticker in school science books that said, “This textbook contains material on evolution. Evolution is a theory, not a fact, regarding the origin of living things. This material should be approached with an open mind, studied carefully, and critically considered.” Note that the stickers didn't mention creation or even religion. Instead, they said that evolution should be examined carefully, critically, and with an open mind. Critical thinking should be a staple in educating our kids and Mr. Plait seems to agree based on his comments above. Questioning everything is supposed to be a fundamental principle of science – except when it comes to evolution. No one is allowed to question evolution! In the matter of Cobb County, the case ended up in court where a judge ordered the stickers be removed. Such is always the case when any criticism of evolution is suggested in the public classroom. Any policy that might treat evolution as anything less than an absolute fact is challenged in court. Any teacher who seems sympathetic to creation or intelligent design risks losing his job.

Groups have been organized, like the National Center for Science Education, whose sole mission is to insure that the teaching of evolution is not diminished in any way. They recently took up arms against the School Superintendent in Arizona who was rewriting science standards for the state. On their website, NCSE bragged, “NCSE, of course, is constantly on guard for threats to the integrity of science education, including in Arizona.” By “science education” they mean “teaching evolution.” What was their complaint? One example from the article says, “First, although evolution is still listed in the edited standards as a core concept, the description of the concept was changed for the worse. The writing committee explained it by saying, correctly, “The unity and diversity of organisms, living and extinct, is the result of evolution.” This was then edited to say, ‘The theory of evolution seeks to make clear the unity of living and extinct organisms.” The difference, of course, is that the writing committee’s version clearly says that evolution is correct, while the edited version is studiously agnostic.”

It seems the edited version didn't seem to state evolution was a fact. Oh the horror! I used to think evolution was theory only theory protected by a political lobby – of course, now there's the whole virus thing going on. //RKBentley bites his tongue//

THEY PROSELYTIZE

Education is supposed to be about imparting knowledge. It's supposed to make kids “critical thinkers.” We make sure kids understand the material but teachers are not supposed to take sides. Right? I have a degree in business. Part of my studies in college included learning about different economic philosophies but let me ask you this: do you think it's possible to understand an economic theory without endorsing it? Of course it is. I can learn about – and understand – socialism while remaining a capitalist. Likewise, a person could learn about and understand evolution while still being a creationist. When it comes to teaching evolution, though, it's not enough for these people to make sure every student understands the theory. They won't stop until every student utterly rejects creation and wholly embraces evolution.

Remember in Plait's bio, he is described as a “science evangelizer.” What do you think he means by that? I think it's obvious. And he's not alone in his zeal. In a NY Times interview, Bill Nye was asked, “do you imagine a child in a creationist-friendly household managing to get his hands on the book [you've written about evolution] and stealing away with it?” Nye's answer is very telling:

A man can dream! It would be great if the book is that influential. My biggest concern about creationist kids is that they’re compelled to suppress their common sense, to suppress their critical thinking skills at a time in human history when we need them more than ever. By the time you’re 18, you’ve made up your mind. It’s going to be really hard for you, as they say in the Mormon tradition, to “lose your testimony.” But if you’re 7 or 8, we got a shot.

“We got a shot”? We should be concerned that someone with such poor grammar wants to teach our kids but I'm more alarmed by his obvious intentions – reach the kids young enough, and we can convince them evolution is true.

I came across an article in The Conversation that says, “The best way to get children to understand evolution is to teach genetics first.” That paper was a little more candid than many about the motive to teaching evolution. In the following excerpt, pay attention to the parts I've highlighted in bold:

An understanding of evolution and acceptance of the idea of evolution are two different things. Acceptance is the belief that the scientific view of evolution is the correct version: you can understand evolution but not accept it and you can accept it but not understand it. We found that students typically accepted evolution to a greater degree after taking the genetics class.....

We also set up a series of focus groups to find out why the understanding and acceptance of evolution are not more strongly coupled. Evidence from these suggests that what is more important for evolution acceptance is not what is taught, but who provides the endorsement. For some students, being told that key authority figures such as parents or teachers approve of scientific evidence for evolution made a big difference to their ability to accept it.....

Whatever the underlying cause, the data suggest a really simple, minimally disruptive and cost-free modification to teaching practice: teach genetics first. This will at least increase evolution understanding, if not acceptance. As with many emotive subjects, it takes more than teaching the facts to shift hearts as well as minds.

So there you have it. Do you still say there's no conspiracy? You can read their words for yourself. They are not coy about their intentions – they want to indoctrinate our kids! They are just angry that pesky little things like the kids' parents and religious liberty keep getting in their way.

Is evolution a hoax perpetuated by a conspiracy among scientists?

Some years back, I read an article written by a professing “theistic evolutionist” named Tyler Franke. I would link to some of his posts now but they seem to have been taken down. Fortunately, though, I had responded to some of his arguments online and I have some quotes Franke at that time. Virtually all of the points Franke made were typical strawmen used to attack young-earth creationists. He did make one point, though, that I'd like to leverage now and discuss something I've seen happening in the scientific community regarding creation and evolution.

In an article titled, The Top 10 Signs That You Don't Understand Evolution At All, Franke said, someone doesn't understand evolution if “You think our modern understanding of it rests on a long series of hoaxes perpetuated by scientists.” From that article, Franke explained, Affirmed by the likes of everyone’s favorite nut-job conspiracy theorist meets cartoonist, Jack Chick, this idea is alive and well in evangelical culture. And why shouldn’t it be? Repeatedly assured by young-earth creationist groups that there is “absolutely no evidence for evolution,” what else would explain the theory’s unshakable dominance in the scientific community, courts and public schools besides a vast atheist conspiracy? And so, young-earthers on the Internet commonly parrot blatant falsehoods like “Archaeopteryx was a hoax”... and “Java Man and Peking Man were frauds”.

Let me start with a quick clarification. Evolution is indeed the prevailing opinion within the scientific community – presumably because they feel it's supported by the evidence (but maybe more so because it's the only theory that fits the “natural-explanations-only” paradigm which I'll address in a moment). However, “the theory's unshakable dominance” in the courts and public schools is not because the evidence for it is so overwhelming. It is because any criticism of the theory in a public school is challenged in court as a violation of the so-called “separation of church and state.” To my knowledge, no court has ever tried the evidence for evolution and judged it to be true. Rather, any competing theory – indeed, any criticism of the theory – is simply declared a religious belief and, so, is banned from public schools.

OK, back to the point. I absolutely believe that, if more people understood evolution, fewer people would believe it. The acceptance of evolution by the lay public has been made more successful by intentional deception committed by the scientific community. I wouldn't call it a hoax, per se, because the scientists may actually believe this one interpretation of the evidence. Is it a conspiracy? I'm reluctant to use that word because it is so often associated with people like Jesse Ventura. There is definitely something going on in the scientific community. For the lay public, academia allows untruths and half-truths about evolution to continue to be believed by the masses. I'm not even talking about Piltdown Man and Nebraska Man, which Francke mention in his article. I'm talking about modern examples of objectively false information currently believed by the public to be evidence for evolution.

I could talk about the persistent spin that evolution has been declared true by the supreme court but I've already discussed that. Let's see... oh, here's one: Have you ever heard that human and chimp DNA is 98% similar? This is often cited as “proof” that humans and chimps are related. But have you ever heard the people who cite this statistic also explain that chimp DNA is 10% longer than human DNA? I'll bet you haven't.

In the book, Anthropology: The Human Challenge, we find the following quote: Moreover, the genetic comparison is misleading because it ignores qualitative differences among genomes. Genetic evolution involves much more than simply replacing one base with another. Thus, even among such close relatives as human and chimpanzee, we find that the chimp’s genome is estimated to be about 10 percent larger than the human’s.... [T]he tips of each chimpanzee chromosome contain a DNA sequence that is not present in humans.

The seemingly amazing 98% similarity is achieved only by comparing sections of the DNA and not the entire genome! Of course, the lay public thinks our DNA (the entire genome) is nearly identical to a chimp's. A letter by letter comparison of the entire genome shows human and chimp DNA is only 70-80% similar.

I'll give only one more example of a commonly believed lie. Have you ever heard that 99% of all the species that have ever lived are now extinct? If life evolved from a single cell to everything that exists today, it would sort of make sense there would have been countless species in between. I heard an evolutionist once say in a debate that we see this in the fossil record. What a liar! Did you know there are more identified species living today than there are extinct species found in the fossil record? I'll bet you didn't. The statistic is merely an estimate that makes certain assumptions about how long ago the first life form appeared and how long it takes new species to appear. There are about 1.7 million species that have been named. There are maybe 10,000,000 that are believed to exist but haven't been classified or even discovered. Compare that to only 250,000-500,000 extinct species known only from fossils. There is NO fossil evidence for “billions of species” having lived in the past.

There are many, many other other examples of these types of “factoids” that are either blatant lies or grossly misunderstood. For some more examples, click the “Lies evolutionists tell” tag on this page. Yet lay people believe them and repeat them to support their belief in evolution. What's worse though – far worse, in fact – is the coordinated effort within the scientific community to squelch any research that might challenge evolution.

Since evolution is not real, it really has no impact on any part of science. Evolutionary biologists talk a lot about evolution and hash out their theory in peer reviewed papers but none of their work has anything to do with science. All other scientists are able to do their work just fine without ever thinking about evolution. If everything we think we know about evolution turned out to be wrong, no one else would change a single thing about the research they're doing right now. It makes me a little curious about why they so zealously defend a theory that contributes so little to science.

The first reason is because they have a commitment to naturalism. Scientific American admits to a natural bias. In an article containing 15 half-truths and strawmen aimed at confusing the public, they said this:

A central tenet of modern science is methodological naturalism—it seeks to explain the universe purely in terms of observed or testable natural mechanisms.

You'll have to ignore the irony for a moment – like, how can I observe or test this tenet of science? My point in quoting this is to show how mainstream science has disqualified, a priori, a miraculous creation as a possible explanation of the universe. Not because they've carefully studied the evidence for creation and are more persuaded by the arguments for evolution. No, it's because of their tenet - an opinion, belief, or principle that is held as absolute truth – that says they will only ever consider a natural explanation for anything.

Ben Stein made a movie several years ago called, Expelled: No Intelligence Allowed, where he detailed some of the systematic discrimination in the scientific community against creationists and proponents of Intelligent Design. This has always been the case and I've observed it for decades.

From one Answers in Genesis article, we find the following quote:

In the summer of 1985 Humphreys wrote to the journal Science pointing out that openly creationist articles are suppressed by most journals. He asked if Science had “a hidden policy of suppressing creationist letters.” Christine Gilbert, the letters editor, replied and admitted, “It is true that we are not likely to publish creationist letters.”

In 2004, Smithsonian editor, Richard Sternberg dared to allow a paper favoring intelligent design to be published. In his account of the “controversy” he said, Because Dr. Meyer’s article presented scientific evidence for intelligent design in biology, I faced retaliation, defamation, harassment, and a hostile work environment at the Smithsonian’s National Museum of Natural History that was designed to force me out as a Research Associate there. These actions were taken by federal government employees acting in concert with an outside advocacy group, the National Center for Science Education. Efforts were also made to get me fired from my job as a staff scientist at the National Center for Biotechnology Information.

Very early in my blogging career, I wrote about the Woods Hole Oceanographic Institution firing a researcher solely because he was a creationist. In a Boston.com article about the case, Woods Hole, studies how aquatic animals respond to chemical contaminants by examining '. . . mechanisms from a comparative/evolutionary perspective.' Did you catch that? “from an evolutionary perspective.” Anyway, Hahn, the senior scientist as Woods Hole is quoted as saying, This position is incompatible with the work as proposed to NIH and with my own vision of how it should be carried out and interpreted. In other words, Woods Hole only ever considers the evidence from an evolutionary perspective and is not interested in hiring someone who interprets the evidence any other way.

More recently, Bob Enyart, a radio talk-show host and creationist, offered Jack Horner, a paleontologist, a $20,000 grant if Horner would just give permission to test a t-rex fossil for carbon-14. After much hemming and hawing, Horner refused saying, Your group is a group of creationists and... and... and... the spin they could get off of it, doing it, is not gonna help us.

Does anyone remember the Seinfeld episode where George Costanza had a job interview, but at the end of the interview he wasn’t sure if he’d been offered the job or not? The hiring manager was going to be out for a week so George had the idea that he would just show up at the office while the manager was gone and say he’d been hired. Whenever the manager returned, it would be hard to deny his employment because he would already be “ensconced.” It finally dawned on me that evolutionists have been using this same tactic for years. Think about it: scientists present questionable evidence for evolution, they convince the public that evolution is true, we later discover the same evidence doesn't really support the theory, scientists quietly dismiss the evidence, and the public continues believing in evolution. Evolution is “ensconced.” It's brilliant. It's the Constanza Tactic!

I've heard a thousand times that science goes wherever the evidence leads but that's just another lie. Devout evolutionists refuse to consider any evidence that goes against their precious theory. They organize groups like NCSE to make sure nothing critical of evolution is ever spoken in public schools. If a teacher so much as says, “we should critically examine evolution,” he is branded a creationists and slapped with a lawsuit. Any scientist who is even suspected of being sympathetic to creationism is at risk of losing his job. Is it a conspiracy? Well, if it looks like a duck, walks like a duck, and quacks like a duck, then maybe it is a duck.

Keeping Your New Year's Resolutions

The New Year is often seen as an opportunity to reflect on the glory and mercy of God and to ponder how we might spend the time He has given us in this new year. At this time, many people start out the year telling a great big fat lie called a “new year's resolution.” I call it a lie because the failure rate for these resolutions is staggeringly high. Some statistics that I've read say that only 12 percent of the people who make a resolution ever reach their goal. One third fail before the end of January. Twenty percent fail in the first week!

With so few people actually keeping their resolutions, there has been much discussion about whether or not Christians should even make resolutions. I have my own opinion about this. First, resolutions tend to be things that most people realize they should be doing already. If there is something worthwhile that you should be doing, why not take the opportunity of the New Year to simply do it? Secondly, I believe that many of reasons we fail to keep our resolutions are also the reasons we struggle in so many areas of our spiritual lives. If we examine the reasons why we fail to keep our resolutions, it may help improve our walk with Christ. For these reasons, I see nothing necessarily wrong with a resolution and believe there is actually value in examining why we fail when we make them.

The Bible is certainly the best judge of human nature. From Scriptures, I believe I have identified at least five reasons why people do not keep their resolutions.

I. We don't take our oaths seriously

Matthew 5:33-37 Again, ye have heard that it hath been said by them of old time, Thou shalt not forswear thyself, but shalt perform unto the Lord thine oaths: But I say unto you, Swear not at all; neither by heaven; for it is God's throne: Nor by the earth; for it is his footstool: neither by Jerusalem; for it is the city of the great King. Neither shalt thou swear by thy head, because thou canst not make one hair white or black. But let your communication be, Yea, yea; Nay, nay: for whatsoever is more than these cometh of evil.

Jesus talked about the foolishness of making empty oaths. A person might say that he swears by heaven but would still not keep his word. Today, we sometimes swear on a Bible. Jesus reminded us that these oaths are not frivolous. The heaven and earth on not trivial things that we might vainly invoke to add weight to our promise. Instead, we should simply mean what we say. If you say “yes” then mean yes. If you say “no” then mean no.

Perhaps it might benefit people to look up the definition of “resolution.” You are resolving yourself to do something. If you abandon your goal in the first week, it's not very likely you were ever very resolute about it.

If you make a resolution, take it seriously.

II. We don't count the cost

Luke 14:28-30 For which of you, intending to build a tower, sitteth not down first, and counteth the cost, whether he have sufficient to finish it? Lest haply, after he hath laid the foundation, and is not able to finish it, all that behold it begin to mock him, Saying, This man began to build, and was not able to finish.

Sometimes we resolve to do something without fully realizing what all will be involved in keeping it. Some people, for example, might resolve to save 10% of their paycheck every time they get paid. That sounds like a great idea but they continue spending money the way they always have. Before they get their next paycheck, they realize they've spent all of their money and immediately have to dip into their savings. Before starting their resolution, they should have planned what they will give up in order to make their resolution possible.

Included in this category is the vague resolution. Someone might resolve to “be a better person.” Exactly how is that measured? Without some quantitative or measurable standard, one cannot tell if he is keeping his resolution. He could just as vaguely justify that he has - “Well, I feel like I haven't yelled at my kids as much.”

III. We have unrealistic expectations

Some people believe that if they keep their resolution, the world will suddenly become a better place. It's as though they feel if they lost 30 pounds, they would suddenly feel like a teenager again. They feel like if they could save money, then they could travel, have nice things, and pay off their mortgage in a year.

Jesus said, (John 16:33) These things I have spoken unto you, that in me ye might have peace. In the world ye shall have tribulation: but be of good cheer; I have overcome the world.

The old saying is that life is strife. The world will not suddenly become a paradise because you have lost 10 pounds. The things that added stress to your life will still be there. If what you have resolved is worthwhile, don't be discouraged if it doesn't create the Utopia you had imagined.

IV. We labor in the flesh

Isaiah 64:6 But we are all as an unclean thing, and all our righteousnesses are as filthy rags; and we all do fade as a leaf; and our iniquities, like the wind, have taken us away.

Rags are not necessarily worthless. We use them for many things like cleaning. But the Bible says our righteousness is like filthy rags. A filthy rage really is worthless. If you tried to clean off your hands with a filthy rag, you will simply get your hands dirtier.

Any attempt we make to clean up our act is doomed to fail if we try to do it on our own. We are simply trying to clean ourselves up with our own righteousness – our own dirty rags. If we're pursuing something worthwhile, we shouldn't rely only on our own abilities to accomplish it. Ask the Lord for strength and guidance.

V. We have misguided motives

James 4:3 Ye ask, and receive not, because ye ask amiss, that ye may consume it upon your lusts.

When you make a resolution, ask yourself why you want it. Why might we want to lose weight, for example? Is it out of simple vanity? If so, then God might not be interested in helping us keeping our resolution. If we make a commitment to do something that's not really worthwhile, we're certainly going to be more apt to abandon it.

A lot of our resolutions center around the material. That doesn't automatically make them bad but they're not necessarily worthwhile either. Consider if your resolution is truly important. Besides the usual resolutions to lose weight, go to the gym, quit smoking, save money, and payoff bills, consider some of these resolutions:

• I resolve to attend church every week this year

• I resolve to tithe

• I resolve to read the Bible all the way through this year

• I resolve to share the gospel with at least one person per month this year

• I resolve to lead someone to Christ this year

In conclusion

There's a danger in associating our resolutions with the New Year. If we have planned since November that we would lose weight in the New Year, it means we probably ate like a pig since Thanksgiving. Also, if we fail, there is an attitude of, “Oh well, maybe I'll try again next year.” If you fail then just pick yourself up, dust yourself off, and try again.

If you make a resolution, take it seriously, count the cost, have realistic expectations, pray for guidance, and examine your motives. There's no need to wait to do better. Just do it.