"Was Darwin Wrong?" - National Geographic - Jan 31, 2006 - response/letter by Randall F. More

January 31, 2006

Mr. David Quammen

c/o National Geographic Society
1145 17th Street N.W.
Washington, D.C.
U.S.A.
20036-4688

ATTENTION: Mr. David Quammen

RE: National Geographic – November 2004 "Was Darwin Wrong?"

I write in response to the aforementioned article.

I very much appreciate your up-front acknowledgement that evolution is a theory. Much of your article, however, states or implies that evolution is a fact.

Of course the theories with respect to relativity, planetary orbits, atom dynamics, and electrical physics have become universal laws but that is primarily because, firstly, there is universal acceptance by scientists and, secondly, the science is directly or indirectly both observable and repeatable. Neither of these conditions, however, is present with respect to the subject of our origins, not for evolution and not for creation (pp. 4, 6).

Sure, there is "honest confusion and ignorance among adult Americans" but that is primarily because they have not had the opportunity to understand the scientific support afforded to creation. It is also for this fundamental reason that intellectual thought with respect to BOTH theories, creation and evolution, should be encouraged through the teaching curriculum in the school system. It should be acknowledged from a scientific standpoint that BOTH creation and evolution are theories only and that is all they will ever remain. They do not conform to the scientific method as basically neither can be repeated nor observed. It is intellectually dishonest to think otherwise (p. 6).

Your article states that there is a "vertical column of geologic strata, laid down by sedimentary processes over the eons." This would all make sense except for the fact that nowhere on earth is there an actual geologic column. The geologic column is a theoretical and artificial construct. With such a construct, one can postulate all sorts of things but there is no substantiated basis (p. 12).

Just because Darwin wrote that "the embryo is the animal in its less modified state" and that state "reveals the structure of its progenitor" does not make any part of his statement a fact. God, in His infinite wisdom can have us transformed in utero into any shape, manner, or form in which He chooses for His own purpose. The in utero transformation is no more consistent with evolution than it is with creation (p. 13).

"Such a pattern of tiered resemblances - groups of similar species nested within broader groupings" is not a proof of anything. Again, it is an observation. With creation, one would also reasonably expect that there would be an abundance of similarities amongst His created works. With a Creator, one would reasonably expect significant commonality of features, design, and purpose (and one would also expect many very distinct differences as well). Again, noting tiered resemblances is an observation; it is not a proof of any one theory any more than another - not creation nor evolution (p.13).

"The number of shared characteristics between any one species and another indicates how recently those two species have diverged from a shared lineage." Shared characteristics say absolutely nothing about time. Any statement about time is an assumption only. With creation, one would expect innumerable shared characteristics and that is exactly what is observed (p. 13).

Contrary to your assumption, morphology does not substantiate evolution. With common ancestry, one would expect more commonality, not less. Any "hierarchy of categories," once again, is an observation, not a proof of anything. Just because you see monkeys in one area of a zoo, alligators in another, and fish in another is an observation only and such an observation is no less consistent with a Creator God. As a matter of fact, if we all evolved from the same muck and mire, one would actually expect to find us all in the same cage at the zoo as we'd all just be part of one continuum progressing from the first amoebae (p. 13).

"All plants and fungi, as well as animals, have nuclei within their cells. All living organisms contain DNA and RNA." So what? Again, that is an observation which one would also expect with creation (p. 13).

"The concept of homologues - that is, superficially different but fundamentally similar versions of a single organ or trait, shared by dissimilar species" is exactly what one would expect with creation but certainly not with evolution. Regardless, similar to all other scenarios, if any such postulation is to be a proof for evolution, then it must be so to the exclusion of all other possibilities or theories, including that of creation, but that is not the case (p. 13).

Contrary to your assertion, all scientists do not acknowledge that Archaeopteryx is a "long-extinct bird-reptile." In fact, it is very much fully bird. It has fully-formed flying feathers and a brain with a large cerebellum and visual cortex consistent with that of a bird (p. 13).

"The parts of their strangely modified flowers...correspond to the flower parts on simpler plants, suggesting evolutionary change." Sure, yourself and Darwin may think that it "suggests" evolutionary change but that is all that it is, a suggestion. Such an observation should also lead one to understand that all the genetic coding ever needed for all variations was available at the moment of creation. A person may have brown eyes but remarkably that person has the capability to produce offspring with blue eyes and that is because all the genetic coding was available from the outset. It has absolutely nothing to do with evolution (p. 14).

Your article states that "vestigial characteristics are still another form of morphological evidence, illuminating to contemplate because they show that the living world is full of small, tolerable imperfections." Sure, it may appear that way but that is only until we have enough information to see the full picture. Forty years ago evolutionists believed that appendices and tonsils were two vestigial organs in humans until they found out that these organs serve very important and specific purposes. Because of their erroneous belief, many doctors were prone to extricate these so-called "vestigial" organs at a whim (p. 20).

You say that, "evolution by natural selection represented Darwin at his best - which is to say, scientific observation and careful thinking at its best." Natural selection has NOT resulted in the evolution of ANYTHING and certainly not a more complex life form. The impact of differing or changing environmental conditions results in speciation but this is NOT evolution. In the process of speciation, NO NEW genetic information is added to anything. A vast amount of genetic information was already available in the original species but some of that is actually lost in the process of speciation. This is exactly, however, what the creationist would predict in accordance with the generally accepted concept of "fixity of kinds" (p. 20).

It is true that "similarities of anatomy imply common origins" but that is exactly what one would expect with a common Creator. This assessment is certainly not unique to evolution (p. 21).

You say that the whalelike creature (Dorudon) had "useless little legs." There is no evidence whatsoever to indicate that the legs were useless. It is presumed that the legs were useless because of a prior supposition and because there appears to be no other information or explanation. As a matter of fact, if the premise was different, one would instead conclude quite to the contrary, that the tiny little legs were indeed extremely useful for some purpose. Just because we do not know the purpose does not mean that there was none (p. 25).

You say that, "illuminating but spotty, the fossil record is like a film of evolution from which 999 of every 1000 frames have been lost on the cutting-room floor." In what other science could there be virtually NO INFORMATION - only 0.1% of the facts available with 99.9% of it missing - and yet a conclusion is still formulated? That is ludicrous! In actuality, and ironically, most scientists, creationists and evolutionists alike, concede that there is, in fact, an overwhelming abundance of fossilized evidence. It is just that the evolutionist doesn’t like the evidence (p. 25).

Isn't it interesting that the evolutionists cannot find ANY transitional fossils? Evolutionists cannot find any transitional fossils which show a giraffe, for example, with shorter legs or a shorter neck as is expected with the evolutionary hypothesis. Any giraffe found in the fossil record is just like the giraffe that we all recognize today. In the fossil record, the sheep resemble sheep and the cows resemble cows. There are no intermediate forms of ANY animal found in the fossil record. This is completely consistent with the creationist’s concept of “fixity of kinds.”

With respect to the diversity on remote islands such as the Galapagos, "it seemed more logical than assuming they had been created and placed in the Galapagos individually." There are other reasonable and possible explanations with respect to diversity but assuming one of them because it "seems" more logical is not part of the scientific method when other explanations are equally valid (p. 26).

Even though "500 species (of flies) had acquired resistance to at least one pesticide," let's face it, they're still flies. No new genetic information has been added to the flies in question and in fact, some genetic information has been lost in the change to become more pesticide resilient (p. 30).

You say that "speciation, when a lineage splits into two species, is the major phase of evolutionary change." Speciation contributes nothing to the process of evolution. Speciation is no evidence of anything evolving. Speciation is NOT evolution. With speciation, ALL of the genetic coding for any adaptation is already present and available from the outset. As a matter of fact, speciation involves a loss of genetic information, not an increase in genetic information as would be required with evolution (p. 30).

One representative example of the impossibility of evolutionary development is the bat. Evolutionists propose that the bat evolved from a small, mouselike creature whose forelimbs, or front toes, developed into wings by gradual steps. Imagine the process as the front toes grow longer and the skin begins to grow between them. The animal can no longer run without stumbling over the toes and yet the forelimbs are not long enough to function as wings. During most of the hypothetical transition stages, the poor creature would have limbs too long for running and too short for flying. There is no conceivable path for the bat wings to be formed in gradual stages. In fact, the animal would flop along hopelessly and helplessly and soon become extinct. The fossil record very clearly confirms this wherein there are NO transitional fossils leading upward to bats. Anything found in the fossil record resembling a bat is indeed identical to the bat as we know it today. Instead, we might consider that God designed this amazing animal perfect and complete from the outset! Is that just too simple or is the problem then that we would have to invoke a Creator? This is just one example outlining the impossibility of evolutionary ascent.

Living things cannot simply change piecemeal with a new organ here and a new limb there. Any organism is a fully integrated system and any isolated change in the system is almost invariably detrimental, not constructive. The interdependency of systems within an organism is recognized as irreducible complexity.

The eye constitutes an excellent example of irreducible complexity. The eye has no use at all unless all of its parts are fully formed and working together. Even a slight alteration destroys its function. How, then, could the eye evolve by slight alterations? Even Darwin conceded that the mere thought of trying to explain the eye gave him a "cold shudder."

Contrary to your assertion, the evidence for evolution is NOT overwhelming. It is overwhelming ONLY if you start with a bias and continue with that bias and ignore the real facts.

Contrary to your assertion, Charles Darwin, in fact, had NO "extraordinary commitment to intellectual honesty" whatsoever. Instead, he deliberately chose to believe something counter to God's revelation of Himself in His Word, the Bible, and then he intentionally and methodically set out to attempt to prove his notion. His conclusions were already prematurely prejudiced and predetermined by his atheistic worldview (p. 9).

One of the root problems is that evolutionists, in their search for answers, use a fallacious premise. Their construct is that if a THEORY (evolution) predicts an OBSERVATION and the OBSERVATION is then observed, then the THEORY (evolution) must be true. What they fail to acknowledge, however, is that such an OBSERVATION may also support, equally well, an ALTERNATE THEORY (creation).

You say that "the evidence for evolution is overwhelming." In actuality, upon examining all of the facts, there is no concluding evidence supporting evolution, but a very significant amount of genuine scientific support for creation (p. 4).

It is not that surprising that some people find the evolutionary theory unacceptable, as, contrary to your assertion, they do not feel that there is a "vast body of supporting evidence" (p. 6).

You say that "evolution is a beautiful concept, more crucial nowadays to human welfare, to medical science, and to our understanding of the world than ever before." From a scientific perspective, it should never be considered more than a concept, theory, unsubstantiated hypothesis, or conjecture. Implicit in your comment, human welfare, medical science, and our understanding of the world is contingent upon our understanding of our origins. This is true as the philosophy of our origins will inevitably determine what one believes concerning one’s destiny and the meaning and purpose life. The doctrine of origins is the foundation of every other doctrine. It is important to note that the theory of evolution is the philosophical foundation of all secular thought today. It is the platform from which socialism, communism, fascism, humanism, and determinism have been launched. All of these ideologies, with some being built upon the concepts of racism, are direct products of the Darwinian evolutionary doctrines of struggle for existence and the survival of the fittest (pp. 8-9).

Does it really matter what we believe regarding the subject of our origin? What we believe about our origin is truly fundamental to a complete and full understanding and appreciation of who we really are and the purpose of our being! Truthful answers to the questions of origin are important because our worldview, our philosophy of life, and our human behaviour are all related to such answers. How can we hope to raise children with any real moral accountability if we teach them that they are no more than the chance product arising out of the muck and slime of a primordial earth and that their ancestors are no more than monkeys and amoebae?

Every ideology which has majored in the struggle for supremacy of race, class, or other social group over others has been structured on the premise of evolution. The evolutionary philosophy is the intellectual basis of all anti-theistic systems. The philosophy served Hitler as the rationale for Nazism and anti-Semitism and it served Marx as the supposed scientific basis for communism. Hitler was devoutly convinced that evolution produces the only real basis for national policy, securing the destiny of his master race by organized slaughter.

When explored in all its fullness, one will find that science confirms with all integrity and truth the Creation account exactly as recorded in Scripture. Recognized by many as the greatest scientist of all time, Sir Isaac Newton remarked that, "This most beautiful system of sun, planets, and comets could only proceed from the counsel and dominion of an intelligent and powerful Being." His observation is just as relevant today.

Even evolutionists will admit that scientists close ranks to present a false image of scientific certainty where none is warranted. Further, the dominance of Darwinism has nothing to do with scientific evidence. It is primarily related to a worldview perspective which rejects God.

I challenge you to research and write with the same vigour an article which outlines the scientific aspects rendering support to the creation model. Readers can then choose without prejudice the model which best explains our origins. This would be the true scientific approach.

As part of my own personal journey, I came to realize that if there was a God, and He was the God of the Bible, then He was also the God of all science and I knew that if that was the case then science and His Word would not contradict each other. I believe that there is nothing – absolutely nothing - about His Universe, His Creation, His Science, or His Word which is contradictory.

The very good news is that anyone can confirm this for himself! Something that the God of this Universe promises is that when we diligently seek Him, we will find Him. He says in His Word, "You will seek Me and find Me when you seek Me with all your heart" (Jeremiah 29:13). That is His promise and His promise is trustworthy!

The subject of our origins is one of the most challenging and contentious contemporary issues. Please know that I intend no disrespect or impertinence with any remark or comment. Thank you very much for your consideration.

Your acknowledgement, thoughts, and comments would be most welcome.

Yours truly

Randall F. More, P. Eng.

P.S. The numbers in parenthesis refer to the page numbers in the November 2004 National Geographic issue.

"Evolution is Just a Theory" - The Record editor - Dec 27, 2005 - by Randall F. More

December 27, 2005


Letter to Editor
The Record
Kitchener, Ontario


Re: "Evolution is Just a Theory" 

The ruling by Judge John Jones in the District Court of the U.S. to exclude intelligent design from the scientific classroom is appalling.

If evolution is to be taught, and it should be, then creation should be taught in the same classroom.

Many people wrongly elevate the study of evolution to some exclusive level. From a scientific perspective, both creation and evolution are hypotheses or theories only, and that is all that they will ever remain.

Science can be used to explore either theory, but neither evolution nor creation conform to the scientific method because, essentially, they can neither be repeated nor observed. Unlike gravitational, thermodynamic, hydraulic, chemical, biological, structural, electrical or other laws about our universe, the study of our origins will always be outside the realm of scientific proof.

Does it matter what our schools teach about our origins? It sure does. It shapes our entire world view.

How do we teach our children, for example, to adopt moral accountability if we teach them that they are no more than the chance product arising out of the muck and slime of a primordial Earth and that their ancestors are monkeys and amoebae?

The pathetic irony in all of this is that it is the same God of creation who is the God of all science.

Canadian Prime Minister Martin - Civil Marriage Act Bill C-38 - Mar 1, 2005 - letter by Randall F. More

March 1, 2005

The Right Honourable Paul Martin

Prime Minister of Canada

House of Commons

Ottawa, ON
K1A 0A6

Email: pm@pm.gc.ca

Dear Mr. Prime Minister

RE: Bill C-38 Civil Marriage Act (Same-Sex Marriage Legislation)

This letter is in regard to the legislation recently introduced by your government into the House of Commons which would legalize same-sex marriages.

Your government apparently intends to pass this legislation on the basis of equality under the Charter of Rights and Freedoms. There really is no inequality; men and women are already equal. A man has the right to marry a woman and a woman has the right to marry a man. That should be sufficient.

This legislation is not an issue of finance, health, tax, education, industry, commerce, or other “intellectual” issue but instead is an issue primarily of personal faith and belief. Sadly, the issue is not even fundamentally about homosexuality, heterosexuality, constitutionality, or even minority rights; it is ultimately an attack on the sovereignty of God.

The real, true, and time honoured meaning of marriage has been known by all since the beginning of time: the legal union of one man and one woman as husband and wife. No impertinence is intended but it is really quite ludicrous to think that anyone anywhere anytime needs to have “marriage” redefined.

The marriage covenant, ordained by God, is very clearly designed and intended to include one male and one female. "He who created them from the beginning made them male and female, and said, 'For this cause a man shall leave his father and mother, and shall cleave to his wife; and the two shall become one flesh'" (Matthew 19:4-5).

Marriage, as we all presently know it, is the longest standing time honoured human institution in history. Marriage is not a man made concoction; it is an institution ordained by God.  

Many of those who are opposed to the legislation believe that the very best for each one of us as individuals and as a nation is as outlined in the Bible, which is what they believe to be God's written Word and revelation to us; His handbook to mankind. He is the Creator and it was part of His plan to write a manual to go with His created works. As much as we may not like it, His counsel through His Word says:

• “You shall not lie with a male as one lies with a female; it is an abomination” (Leviticus 18:22).
• “But we know that the Law is good, if one uses it lawfully, realizing the fact that law is not made for a righteous man, but for those who are lawless and rebellious, for the ungodly and sinners (that’s all of us), for the unholy and profane, for those who kill their fathers or mothers, for murderers and immoral men and homosexuals and kidnappers and liars and perjurers, and whatever else is contrary to sound teaching…” (I Timothy 1:8-10).

From an intuitive perspective, we may not agree or like what God instructs but these are not His suggestions; these are God’s commands and not believing in what God says does not make it untrue. God has designed us very specially and He knows in His awesome love that which is best for us and He wrote it accordingly. It is quite probable that very few of us understand how much God really loves each one of us!

One may choose to believe that there is no God. However, just in case there is a God, surely one would believe that He has the power to either bless or to curse a nation, and if that is a possibility, then surely one would want to err on the side of blessing, rather than cursing. This, in itself, should be sufficient reason to consider carefully what He has written and to write laws accordingly as our lawmakers have done at times in our nation's history.

Unfortunately, those who speak against homosexuality are increasingly being labeled as ones who dislike or even hate homosexuals. The irony is, in fact, quite to the contrary, that in most cases, those who are opposed to the proposed legislation by reason of personal faith genuinely care very much for others including homosexuals, so much so that they desire God's very best for every human being. Without question, we need to be genuinely loving and caring of homosexuals as individuals who, like each of us, have infinite value and worth, but we can do that without affirming or condoning the behaviour.

We should never lose sight of the fact that God loves each one of us, homosexuals and heterosexuals alike, and as individuals, we have a God given responsibility to display that same love towards each other. Nevertheless, God asks us, for our own well-being, to honour His commands with respect to our own sexuality. God’s purposes are thwarted when we choose to do it our own way.

If our government, by way of the laws it passes, chooses, for whatever reason, to make concessions to homosexual unions, then that is exactly what the reference should be: homosexual union, homosexual life partnership, permanent homosexual relationship, same-sex union, same-sex partnership, or whatever. One may call the union of two or more homosexuals anything one wants but it certainly isn’t “marriage.” To call it marriage is intellectual dishonesty. With such a law, we would then have same-sex brides, same-sex grooms, same-sex husbands, and same-sex wives. If asked, a heterosexual husband would need to respond that he is married to an opposite-sex wife. Absurdity will have risen to the highest level!

One might be inclined to dismiss this position because it may be perceived to be a right wing or Christian perspective. It is worth noting, however, that every major religion in the world acknowledges the wrong of homosexuality. Legalization of same-sex marriages consists in rejecting all counsel of history, religion, faith, nature, and common sense. We seem to be more concerned with offending a small segment of our society than in doing what most know is right. We have become a nation which tolerates everything but stands for nothing.

If there are many Canadians who because of their faith and beliefs understand homosexuality to be wrong, then why would others who have no similar strong convictions argue so vehemently against those individuals of faith? Shouldn't the strong convictions of many be honoured?

It is a dark time in our nation when we blatantly reject and ignore what many reasonably understand to be God's Word. When we reject Him and His Word, whether we acknowledge it or not, there will be consequences. Fortunately, the God of this Universe is rich in mercy and slow to anger, but one does not need a prophet to know that in the long term no nation on earth will survive intact the sanctioning of homosexual behaviour. This proposed legislation constitutes one of the greatest assaults on the blessings, permanence, and stability of our nation.

Marriage was established thousands of years before we had a nation, a Constitution, or a Charter. If the Charter can now be used to justify same-sex marriage, then it really only points to a flawed Charter. It is marriage as we all know it that should be honoured first, not the Charter! Sadly, we have it all backwards!

No constitution or Charter should be used to defend or justify something that may be considered morally wrong by a very significant proportion of the population. When we denigrate the sacred and time honoured institution of marriage by making it something that was never intended, we begin the gradual but eventual destruction of the family and history has shown that only strong families build strong nations.

When any group, minority or otherwise, tramples on what many believe, with reasonable justification, to be a sacred and sanctified institution, we have reached an all time low with respect to honouring others in our country.

When Mr. Harper, Leader of the Conservative Party, suggested that polygamy will be the next thing to be legalized, you mockingly responded, “Polygamy is against the law, and as far as I'm concerned it will always be against the law.” You may have forgotten that homosexuality itself was against the law until the Liberal government legalized it in 1969. When we throw out God's Word as the absolute standard, there is no standard worth having. If same-sex marriage can be legalized under the Charter, then virtually anything can be legalized and readily justified, and it will be. It makes a farce of the Charter.

The Canadian Bill of Rights of 1960 affirmed that “the Canadian Nation is founded upon principles that acknowledge the supremacy of God.” Sadly, since that time, governments across this land have deliberately and methodically chosen to displace and dismiss God while at the same time elevating the “rights” of minorities. Proper provision should be made for every minority group in this country but not at the expense of dishonouring God. To willfully pass such legislation is to deny the supremacy of God. We should not deceive ourselves; ultimately, God will not be mocked and it will be at our own peril, both as individuals and as a nation. What in 1969 was called sodomy may soon be called marriage! Why has this happened? This has happened because there has been a blatant rejection of absolute moral standards. Instead, we have allowed God’s instructions for living to be replaced by what we think and “feel” may be right.

It would be a travesty for the solemnization of marriage to become the sodomization of marriage. The proposed legislation is not something for which this nation should be proud. Same-sex marriage is an oxymoron of the worst proportions.

If we truly desire that “God keep our land glorious and free,” as our national anthem bids, we would be wise to honour Him when given the opportunity, such as now!

I ask you and your government to pass and uphold laws which respect and honour the sanctity of marriage of one man with one woman only.

I thank you in advance for your consideration.

Yours truly

Randall F.  More, P. Eng.

cc

The Honourable Irwin Cotler
Minister of Justice and Attorney General of Canada
Department of Justice Building
284 Wellington Street
Ottawa, ON

K1A 0H8
E-mail: Cotler.I@parl.gc.ca

Mr. Stephen Harper
Leader of Her Majesty's Loyal Opposition
House of Commons
Ottawa, ON

K1A 0A6
E-mail: Harper.S@parl.gc.ca

M. Gilles Duceppe
Leader of the Bloc Québecois
House of Commons
Ottawa, ON

K1A 0A6
E-mail: DucepG@parl.gc.ca

Mr. Jack Layton
Leader of the New Democratic Party of Canada
1001-75 Albert Street
Ottawa, ON

K1P 5E7
E-mail: jack@fed.ndp.ca

Mr. Andrew Telegdi, M.P., Kitchener - Waterloo

22 King Street South

Waterloo, ON

N2J 1N8

Email: andrew@kw.igs.net

Commentaries on Marital Unfaithfulness - compiled by Randall F. More

September 2004

Randall F. More, P. Eng.

COMMENTARIES on MARITAL UNFAITHFULNESS

1. The foundation of marital faithfulness is love, honour, respect, purity, honesty, commitment, genuineness, trust, openness, and integrity. Marital unfaithfulness and adultery represent the ultimate betrayal and violation of all that is pure and right, virtuous and lovely, genuine and faithful. Within a marriage, there is no issue or problem that is too big that cannot be overcome through faithfulness. Faithfulness involves being there to share in each struggle or trial and to come out with a stronger and better marriage. There is very little hope for any marriage in which adultery or divorce are even considered as solutions to marital difficulties. There is no lasting peace or joy for anyone who embarks on the path of adultery.

2.    "For this reason a man will leave his father and mother and be united to his wife, and the two will become one flesh. So they are no longer two, but one. Therefore what God has joined together, let man not separate" (Matthew 19:5-6 NIV).

3.   Real and genuine love is a decision and a commitment, not a feeling or emotion. Adultery becomes a bankrupt option for a troubled marriage resulting when there is no genuine commitment. During tough times within the marriage, the vow of faithfulness is designed and is essential for ensuring that the relationship is sealed for permanence.

4.  "The heart of any good marriage is commitment. The love then flows out of the commitment. The commitment comes first. A good marriage starts with a rock solid foundation of honesty and integrity between two people. Unfaithfulness is called adultery and yet unfaithfulness takes place in terms of the honesty between one another long before any sexual act destroys the marriage. If you are in a marriage and not speaking the truth to one another, if you're not honest with one another, you cannot ever hope to have intimacy, and communication will be a word which is not even in your vocabulary. We are to speak the truth lovingly, in love and grace." ("The Good Ship Matrimony Sails on Three C's" - Turning Point - Dr. David Jeremiah)

5.   God's Word, the Bible says, "You shall not commit adultery. You shall not covet your neighbor's house. You shall not covet your neighbor's wife, or his manservant or maidservant, his ox or donkey, or anything that belongs to your neighbor" (Exodus 20:14,17 NIV). Even without God's Word and His commandments, one knows in his heart, mind, and conscience that stealing and murder are wrong and there will be consequences. The adulterer, however, convinces himself, even against his own conscience, that adultery is okay and that coveting someone else's spouse is okay. Coveting, like adultery, is a violation of God's commandment and it puts one in a most dangerous place.

6.    "Something has gone wrong in us, very wrong indeed. So wrong that we have to be told that joy is not found in having another man's wife." ("The Journey of Desire" - John Eldredge)

7.    Adultery attempts to make a mockery of God, His instructions, His provisions, and His commandments. In doing so, and in despising what God has said, one must live with the consequences of adultery, some of which are very serious and some of which are lifelong. No one breaks God's laws and comes away unscathed. When we break our covenant with God and with our spouse, we deem their love and respect expendable for the sake of fulfilling our own desires. Judgment for immorality comes in a multiplicity of ways, but it always comes. (portions from "Sex... According to God" - Kay Arthur)

8.   "The marriage covenant is a solemn binding agreement, never to be broken. In the covenant relationship the two are to be bound to protect and defend one another until death. So solemn is the arrangement that God becomes the sovereign administrator ensuring that it is fulfilled, and if not, to defend the violated one and deal out retribution against the violator." ("Sex... According to God" - Kay Arthur)

9.   "When you have sex with a person to whom you are not married, you are defrauding yourself and that person. Sex outside marriage is one of the most self-centred acts that you can participate in. You are asking, cajoling, persuading, coercing, or forcing another person to sin against God and themselves. This is an abomination. The adulteress on the hunt is not a myth; sadly she trades in seduction every day, leading young men to their destruction." ("Sex... According to God" - Kay Arthur)

10. "If a man commits adultery with another man's wife - with the wife of his neighbor - both the adulterer and the adulteress must be put to death" (Leviticus 20:10 NIV). "If a man is found sleeping with another man's wife, both the man who slept with her and the woman must die. You must purge the evil from Israel" (Deuteronomy 22:22 NIV). Death, in the Old Testament, seems like a rather extreme punishment for adultery. Why was God's judgment so severe? God did not hate the adulterer or the adulteress but He hated the sin and desired foremost to purge the evil from the nation. Still, today, sex outside of marriage will be judged in His way and in His time. God never abdicates His throne. God still hates what He has always hated. (portions from "Sex... According to God" - Kay Arthur)

11. "The Law tells us that to desire another person's mate or to have sex with a married person is a transgression of God's commandments." ("Sex... According to God" - Kay Arthur) "Do not be deceived; neither fornicators, nor idolaters, nor adulterers... nor the covetous... shall inherit the kingdom of God" (I Corinthians 6:9-10 NASB).

12. Jesus tells us that there is only one reason for which divorce would be permitted. “But I tell you that anyone who divorces his wife, except for sexual immorality, makes her the victim of adultery, and anyone who marries a divorced woman commits adultery” (Matthew 5:32 NIV).

13. "But the things that come out of the mouth come from the heart, and these make a man 'unclean.' For out of the heart come evil thoughts, murder, adultery, sexual immorality, theft, false testimony, slander. These are what make a man 'unclean'" (Matthew 15:18-20 NIV).

14. "What comes out of a man is what makes him 'unclean.' For from within, out of men's hearts, come evil thoughts, sexual immorality, theft, murder, adultery, greed, malice, deceit, lewdness, envy, slander, arrogance and folly. All these evils come from inside and make a man 'unclean'" (Mark 7:20-23 NIV).

15. God's plan for our lives is always better than our own plan. One of His foremost commands is that we do not destroy our marriage covenant for which He is a witness. “…the LORD has been a witness between you and the wife of your youth, against whom you have dealt treacherously, though she is your companion and your wife by covenant” (Malachi 2:15 NASB). Adultery is never part of God's plan for us under any circumstance.

16. Divorce is an abomination to Him. God's perspective on divorce is quite clear. God says, "For I hate divorce" (Malachi 2:16 NASB).

17. Man rationalizes his reason for divorce but God tells us that there is only reason for divorce and that is, "Because of your hardness of heart" (Matthew 19:8 NASB). There is no difficulty within any marriage that cannot be overcome with genuine love and commitment unless a person’s heart becomes too hardened by his own pride and selfishness.

18. "Divorce leaves a devastating aftermath. Divorce is often sinful, usually ruinous, and always tragic. Divorce does not solve problems, it evades them. It often creates more difficulties of its own. Clearly, we should solemnly proclaim the serious consequences of marital betrayal." ("Readings in Christian Ethics" - David K. Clark, Robert V. Rakestraw)

19. "God's purposes in marriage are thwarted by unfaithfulness." ("Biblical Teaching on Divorce and Remarriage" - Charles C. Ryie)

20. "Divorce is to be avoided at all costs. Divorce is wrong because it violates a covenant of permanent love made before God to another person made in God's image. A tough marriage is not an excuse to bail out. The summons of His kingdom is to be servants, to lay down our own desire and to seek reconciliation and healing, not just repressed hostility, in our marriages. Jesus demands that we make our marriages work. Jesus' message to everyone is plain enough: to those contemplating divorce, don't." ("Final Words" - Craig S. Keener)

21. "God loves people so much that He made a list of restrictions to protect us from things that would destroy our lives. The consequences of adultery roll on and on, growing in their destructive intensity and affecting generation after generation. Why should purity and faithfulness in marriage be so important to God? Because He ordained the home to visibly model His love. With adultery, you find yourself thinking about what you want, what you 'need' and what by all 'rights' you should have. When God says to honour His Word, we need to remember that He has watched countless people walk across this planet. He has watched the pain and trouble that have come from every violation of this seventh commandment." ("Right with God" - Ron Mehl)

22. Adultery is the most selfish and self-centred act ever perpetrated by mankind. One who justifies adultery can justify anything. If adulterers first had to experience the same pain and devastation that they cause their spouses, there would be no adultery. Adultery is ultimately rooted in and born out of selfishness.

23. "Do you not know that he who unites himself with a prostitute is one with her body? Flee from sexual immorality" (I Corinthians 6:16,18 NIV). Sex outside the marriage relationship always hurts someone. It hurts others because it violates the commitment so necessary to a relationship. It hurts God because it shows that we prefer following our own desires instead of God's desire for our lives.

24. King David sinned in his adultery with Bathsheba and although he repented and sought forgiveness, he would regret his sin for the remainder of his life. David thought that no one would know his sin but God knows and David would have to pay the penalty for his willful disobedience. God's judgment was fourfold: the sword would never depart from David's house (four of his sons would die and there would always be war and destruction), there would be rebellion and calamity in his house (one of his sons would rape his daughter and other tragedies), his wives would commit adultery in broad daylight for the world to see, and his child from the adulterous relationship would die. God forgives, even adultery, but His forgiveness will not obliterate the earthly consequences and sadly, the repercussions aren't always limited just to the offender. Adultery sets into motion events with irreversible consequences. (portions from "Sex... According to God" - Kay Arthur and II Samuel 12 commentary)

25. "Sin is always born in a damp, chilly heart. The law of God is crystal clear about sexual involvement with someone who is married. It is adultery and it is wrong. There is no such thing as hidden sin. David thought his sin was hidden, but it came out. All sin will. If it does not come out in this life, it certainly will in the life to come. God is committed to setting sin in the full glare of light. Evil acts always lead to evil consequences. Sin never leaves us where it finds us. It always brings misery and woe. David's sin is one of the saddest tragedies recorded for us in the Word of God. David had engaged in a blatant orgy of self. He had put the gratification of his flesh on the throne of his life and had callously trampled on everyone else. Sin always has painful consequences. Sin always promises us that we can enjoy its pleasures and avoid its consequences. But it never works out that way. As David's life abundantly shows, there are instances in which we bring suffering upon ourselves through disobedience. Sin brings heartache and ruin." ("The Shepherd King" - Roger Ellsworth)

26. "Marriage should be honored by all, and the marriage bed kept pure, for God will judge the adulterer and all the sexually immoral" (Hebrews 13:4 NIV). "No man transgress and defraud his brother in the matter (of sexual immorality) because the Lord is the avenger in all these things" (I Thessalonians 4:6 NIV). God is the One who ensures that judgment for sexual immorality is rendered.

27. "We also know that the law is made not for the righteous but for lawbreakers and rebels, the ungodly and sinful... for murderers, for adulterers and perverts... and for whatever else is contrary to the sound doctrine" (I Timothy 1:9-10 NIV).

28. "The mouth of an adulteress is a deep pit; he who is under the Lord's wrath will fall into it" (Proverbs 22:14 NIV).

29. "Let us behave decently, as in the daytime, not in orgies and drunkenness, not in sexual immorality and debauchery, not in dissension and jealousy" (Romans 13:13 NIV). Just as hatred leads to murder, so jealousy leads to strife, and lust to adultery. (Romans 13 commentary)

30. "You must not associate with anyone who calls himself a brother, but is sexually immoral" (I Corinthians 5:11 NIV).

31. Drunkenness in the Bible is almost always associated with lewdness and sexual immorality.

32. "Sexual behavior is moral only when it is holy. According to God's plan, sexual intimacy is the exclusive prerogative of husband and wife within the context of marriage. Our sex lives are moral only when conducted according to God's standards. Concepts of sexual morality founded upon anything other than God's holiness always pervert God's standards of sexual moral purity. God's standard is moral purity in every thought about sex, as well as in every act of sex. God's standards for sexual moral purity are meant to protect human happiness. Divorce is never God's ideal; lifelong commitment should always be the Christian goal. Divorce for reasons of dissatisfaction, difficulty, or disappointment is never morally justified. Sex outside of marriage is never moral. The moral corruption of sexual sin can be fully forgiven through repentance and faith in Christ's atoning work but physical and psychological scars caused by sexual sin cannot always be erased in this life." ("The Colorado Statement On Biblical Morality")

33. "Wisdom will save you from the ways of wicked men. It will save you also from the adulteress, from the wayward wife with her seductive words, who has left the partner of her youth and ignored the covenant she made before God. For her house leads down to death and her paths to the spirits of the dead. None who go to her return or attain the paths of life" (Proverbs 2:12,16-19 NIV).

34. Pride appeals to the empty mind which says, "I deserve it." Sexual immorality appeals to the empty heart which says, "I need it." Adultery appeals to both an empty mind and an empty heart which say, "I deserve it, I need it, and I don't care who gets hurt in the process." (Proverbs 2 commentary)

35. "My son, pay attention to my wisdom, listen well to my words of insight that you may maintain discretion and your lips may preserve knowledge. For the lips of an adulteress drip honey, and her speech is smoother than oil, but in the end she is bitter gall, sharp as a double-edged sword. Her feet go down to death; her steps lead straight to the grave. She gives no thought to the way of life; her paths are crooked, but she knows it not.... Keep a path far from her, do not go near the door of her house.... May your fountain be blessed and may you rejoice in the wife of your youth... Why be captivated, my son, by an adulteress? Why embrace the bosom of another man's wife? For a man's ways are in full view of the Lord, and He examines all his paths. The evil deeds of a wicked man ensnare him; the cords of his sin hold him fast. He will die for lack of discipline, led astray by his own great folly" (Proverbs 5:1-8,18,20-23 NIV).

36. "The lips of a seductive woman are oh so sweet, her soft words are oh so smooth. But it won't be long before she's gravel in your mouth, a pain in your gut, a wound in your heart. She's dancing down the primrose path to Death; she's headed straight to Hell and taking you with her. She hasn't a clue about Real Life, about who she is or where she's going" (Proverbs 5 MSG).

37. Proverbs 5 tells us that "the adulteress is not a thinking woman. She lives for the present or is entangled by her past. She does not ponder the path of life. Her ways are unstable and she does not even know it." ("Sex... According to God" - Kay Arthur)

38. "Adultery is a brainless act, soul-destroying, self destructive" (Proverbs 6 MSG).

39. "For these commands are a lamp, this teaching is a light... keeping you from the immoral woman, from the smooth tongue of the wayward wife. Do not lust in your heart after her beauty or let her captivate you with her eyes, for the prostitute reduces you to a loaf of bread, and the adulteress preys upon your very life. Can a man scoop fire into his lap without his clothes being burned? Can a man walk on hot coals without his feet being scorched? So is he who sleeps with another man's wife; no one who touches her will go unpunished. But a man who commits adultery lacks judgment; whoever does so destroys himself. Blows and disgrace are his lot, and his shame will never be wiped away; for jealousy arouses a husband's fury, and he will show no mercy when he takes revenge. He will not accept any compensation; he will refuse the bribe, however great it is" (Proverbs 6:23-29,32-35 NIV).

40. "My son, keep my words and store up my commands within you... They will keep you from the adulteress, from the wayward wife with her seductive words... Then out came a woman to meet him, dressed like a prostitute and with crafty intent. 'So I came out to meet you; I looked for you and have found you! I have covered my bed with linens from Egypt. Come let's drink deep love till morning; let's enjoy ourselves with love! My husband is not at home; he has gone on a long journey... and will not be home till full moon.' With persuasive words she led him astray; she seduced him with her smooth talk. All at once he followed her like an ox going to the slaughter, like deer stepping into a noose till an arrow pierces his liver, like a bird darting into a snare, little knowing it will cost him his life. Now then, my sons, listen to me; pay attention to what I say. Do not let your heart turn to her ways or stray into her paths. Many are the victims she has brought down; her slain are a mighty throng. Her house is a highway to the grave, leading down to the chambers of death" (Proverbs 7:1,5,10,15-16,19,21-27 NIV).

41. God, through King Solomon, the wisest person who ever lived, cautions us to stay away from the adulteress and from the immoral and illicit relationship. It only leads to heartache for all. “I find more bitter than death the woman who is a snare, whose heart is a trap and whose hands are chains. The man who pleases God will escape her, but the sinner she will ensnare” (Ecclesiastes 7:26 NIV).