State Controlling Parenting

     This question depends completely on the extent of the control and what world view the state holds to, or claims to hold to.  For example, a state that holds to a Marxist-Leninist world view would want to control parenting to the point of controlling what is taught because in order to have a large population of innately sinful men all working together unquestioningly they would have to begin the development of these values at a very young age.  In fact, I believe this already happens in many communist countries.  This idea of training children from birth and on through the control of parenting is actually the very reason why this question is appalling.  Young children are extremely susceptible to believing anything they are told because they have not lived long enough to develop the kind of awareness required to discern truth from lies or good from evil.  This is especially true if it is told to them by their parents.  They can easily be taught to be a morally good person or taught to be a serial killer.  Therefore, there must be a sort of state regulation over parenting but at the same time, opportunities for parental liberties.  
     A state that values the welfare of children should regulate such things as abusive and extremely damaging home lives in order to protect the innocence of a child.  It's sad that some parents are not motivated to have decent and wholesome homes without the state looking over their shoulder, but in this sinful world with people who have no integrity, state regulations are forced to overlook the home.  This sort of regulation is in the states best interest in that the state as a whole would have a higher percentage of wholesome balanced individuals being raised in the home, thus creating better communities and so on.
     However, a state regulating the home to the point of controlling exactly what is taught is too much power and control.  The most plain reason why is that it's a lot of work.  The state would probably lose more money than people it gained, and that is definitely not in the states best interest.  Furthermore, controlling everything taught in the home would be near to impossible.  That kind of widespread control is never as effective as desired.  And lastly, once a state forces its authority to that extent to shape generations of people, the people aren't going to respect the state's authority.  No person naturally likes to be completely submissive and do exactly what they're told when it's not something they would do on their own, thus any kind of widespread control that is not wholly agreed upon is not going to go without rebellion.  Thus a state should not control the home to the extent of regulating everything taught in it. 

3 Problems of a Naturalistic Biological Worldview

3 Problems of a Naturalistic Biological Worldview
         One problem of the naturalistic biological worldview is that they claim that their view, evolution, is a fact.  They are correct when speaking of microevolution, something that has been tested and observed in many cases of life on earth, however, when they talk about macroevolution (what most people mean when they say evolution) they are completely incorrect.  They are applying the well-tested fact of microevolution to the creation of life from non-life, something that has never been observed, tested, or proven.  Therefore, they claim something to be a fact that is in fact just a theory, or more specifically, an assumption.  And we all know what assuming does.
         A second problem of this worldview is the lack of transitional beings in the fossil record.  For evolution to be true then there must be evidence of these transitional stages that Darwin talked so much about.  For evolution is a series of slow and small changes that change one species to another.  Yet there is no fossil proof!  The one major problem they have, in fact, is what they call the Cambrian explosion.  All of a sudden, a plethora of species just showed up on the earth, according to the very visible and real fossil record.  If they have to call it an EXPLOSION to cover up the fact that it appears like CREATION, well, that's just really sad.
         A third problem of the naturalistic biological worldview is the problem with transitional forms and the likelihood of these chance transitions occurring.  The intricacies of life are abundant, even in a single-celled organism.  The probability of a chance, mindless process actually causing every single one of these intricacies to occur is as close to zero as you can get.  Any sound, reasoning, intellectual mind would say that such happenings are impossible.  Furthermore, for something to get from say a wing to an arm, there must be a transitional phase that is congruent with "survival of the fittest".  However, Walter Brown put it, "If a limb were to evolve into a wind, it would become a bad limb long before it became a good wing" (Noble 170).  Therefore, these transitional phases would not fit with the "survival of the fittest" theory of Darwinian evolution.