Posts Tagged ‘Darwinism’
Christian posted a short exercise in theology at Church Voices a few days ago. That I think you should take 60 seconds of your time to read.
I’m currently reading the book Total Truth by Nancy Pearcey. In it she proposes Creationism as foundational to communicating the gospel. I have to agree. The story of Jesus’ death on the cross only makes sense in light of creation. Which is why it can be difficult to evangelize in cultures (such as ours) that declare that we are only a part of nature which has it’s roots in itself (Darwinism is a form of this naturalistic worldview).
He’s right. To further the problem is that many preachers are simply terrified to preach it (creation). To make matters worse, those who do preach creation (that is, Genesis 1 & 2 as historical accounts of human origin and not, necessarily, the popular creationism so often mocked by the secular humanists of our culture) simply do not understand the profound theological ramifications of Genesis 1 & 2 (and 3-50!) so they preach Creation not as something historical, but as a mere poem or an allegory or something merely polemical. But as my professor stated so beautifully, there can be no true doctrine of atonement apart from a doctrine of creation that begins in Genesis 1.
In fact, 3 of the four Gospels understood this all too well and began their Gospels in this way (Matthew, Mark & John), that is, by referring us back to creation before pointing us forward to Jesus. Their understanding is that the person and work of Jesus are only properly understood when the world belongs to God and is His to redeem. To take it a step further: they understand that the work of Jesus actually began at the creation. Apart from this, Christianity is yet one more myth among myths (and likely not a very good one). But creation is also foundational to the writings of Paul (see in particular Colossians and Romans), John (the Revelation), and Peter (see 1 & 2 Peter).
In fact, a careful reading of the Bible demonstrates that what took place at the beginning, the record of which is found in Genesis, is crucial to every page of the Bible. Creation permeates the Psalms, is underscored by the Prophets, and is the foundation of the Law. It is hard, difficult, impossible to understand the 66 books that make up the Christian Scriptures apart from understanding the very first verse.
Indeed, I agree with Christian (and his wise 4 year old daughter): When it comes to our preaching and teaching: Let’s begin at the beginning.
Always For His Glory!
Powered by ScribeFire.
I found this somewhat amusing. Enjoy. I have no idea who produced it or anything. It is just well done and amusing.
HT: Copache (Although, only go here if you have a strong stomach and are interested in the same tired regurgitated Darwinist propaganda and nostalgia.)
I realize the blog world is huge and so, at the risk of diminishing your constant support of my own blog, I have decided to step out a little bit and begin to highlight some other blogs that I happen to come across here at wordpress. I don’t know if I’ll get to it every day, but as often as I think about it I will. I want to expand my blogroll and hopefully make some new friends, join in some new conversations, and perhaps even increase my daily hit count (yes, there’s never anything done for purely unselfish reasons.
Today’s blog is called Eternity Matters. This is a well done blog written by a Christian whose name I have discovered to be Neil. The blog is family friend, and contains links to many well known Christian organizations and people like Ravi Zacharias, Lee Strobel, and more. There is an extensive blogroll and the host is decidedly pro-life. There are also many links to bible study websites and the host also includes a link to his personal website where one can find family photos and links to more Bible Study material.
So, these questions arise: Where do unborn humans and apes and born humans and apes allegedly without consciousness fit in the chain? Can you have ape abortions? Can you have ape infanticide? Is a 2 yr. old ape worthy of more protection than a 1 yr. old human?
His thoughts echoed thoughts that I had, although I think I was a bit more sarcastic:
You know, there is a great irony in all this. Here’s what I think. I don’t recall reading anywhere, in the vast annals of scientific literature, that the Great Ape ’societies’ and ‘cultures’ have developed medical facilities where female apes can go to get clean, sometimes free, discreet, safe abortions on demand, up to and including partial-birth abortions as late as 5 months into the pregnancy. I have read nowhere in any of these books about the Great Apes debating before a supreme court over whether or not it should be legal to kill another ape just because it is unborn. I haven’t read anywhere, in any scientific journal, that the great apes had developed a systematic, legal, mechanized manner by which they might efficiently and effectively destroy the lives of other apes just because they were unborn. And yet the same humans who have developed and done such things are now going to extend the courtesy of the ‘right to life’ to apes?!? Forgive me if I don’t put too much stock in the survival of the great apes.
Neil has many posts that are of interest. I Don’t Know But I’ll Find Out deals with giving answers to questions about faith; The Audacity of Being an Abortion Survivortells of Gianna Jessen who survived and abortion attempt, and also explains Barrack Obama’s position on abortion (this is a remarkable blog post); finally, What Jesus Didn’t Say? refutes claims that Jesus had nothing to say about abortion or homosexual ‘marriage.’ He summarizes this last post, writing:
So to summarize: Arguing from silence is a logical fallacy, Jesus inspired all scripture, He supported the Old Testament law to the last letter, the “red letters” weren’t silent on these topics in the sense that they reiterated what marriage and murder were, He emphasized many other important issues that these liberal theologians completely ignore (Hell, his divinity, his exclusivity, etc.), He was equally “silent” on issues that these folks treat as having the utmost importance (capital punishment, war, welfare, universal health care, etc.), and abortion and homosexual behavior simply weren’t hot topics for 1st century Jews.
I encourage you to visit Neil’s blog. You will be thoughtfully challenged on a variety of subjects and I found myself agreeing with much of what he wrote (not something I do frequently with any writer). Take a look at Eternity Matters, you will find a lot of challenging and thought provoking posts and comments.
What is strange about this post is NOT the content per se, but the seriousness of the quotations attributed to certain people, the seriousness with which people are approaching this issue, the pride people are taking in the decision of the Spanish parliament.
I can only hope that this is a joke, but it appears not so. Evidently, there really is a Great Apes Project! This is from their home page:
The idea is founded upon undeniable scientific proof that non-human great apes share more than genetically similar DNA with their human counterparts. They enjoy a rich emotional and cultural existence in which they experience emotions such as fear, anxiety and happiness. They share the intellectual capacity to create and use tools, learn and teach other languages. They remember their past and plan for their future. It is in recognition of these and other morally significant qualities that the Great Ape Project was founded. The Great Ape Project seeks to end the unconscionable treatment of our nearest living relatives by obtaining for non-human great apes the fundamental moral and legal protections of the right to life, the freedom from arbitrary deprivation of liberty, and protection from torture.
Also, there’s this:
The organization is an international group founded to work for the global removal of non-human great apes from the category of mere property, and for their immediate protection through the implementation of basic legal principles designed to provide these amazing creatures with the right to life, the freedom of liberty and protection from torture.
Well, this is all fine and good. It is important that apes are afforded rights that many, many humans on the face of the earth are not afforded. But they are apes; so, why not? Evidently, their motto is ‘Equality Beyond Humanity.’
So, this article by Reuters. Here’s the first bit:
MADRID (Reuters) – Spain’s parliament voiced its support on Wednesday for the rights of great apes to life and freedom in what will apparently be the first time any national legislature has called for such rights for non-humans.
Parliament’s environmental committee approved resolutions urging Spain to comply with the Great Apes Project, devised by scientists and philosophers who say our closest genetic relatives deserve rights hitherto limited to humans.
“This is a historic day in the struggle for animal rights and in defense of our evolutionary comrades, which will doubtless go down in the history of humanity,” said Pedro Pozas, Spanish director of the Great Apes Project.
Here’s the last bit:
Philosophers Peter Singer and Paola Cavalieri founded the Great Ape Project in 1993, arguing that “non-human hominids” like chimpanzees, gorillas, orang-utans and bonobos should enjoy the right to life, freedom and not to be tortured.
The irony is that animals should enjoy ‘the right to life.’ Animals will not argue with such a sentiment. Animals do not ask to be put in the zoo, or the circus, or in films; animals do not even ask to be studied by humans. In fact, animals ask for nothing but to be left quite alone to hunt, eat, sleep, and reproduce at their leisure. Humans should be stewards, not tyrants. But that fact (animal ‘rights’) has nothing to do whatsoever with evolution; nothing to do whatsoever with genetic stuff; nothing to do whatsoever with science; nothing to do whatsoever with ‘scientific proof’ (since there is none whatsoever). But because a scientist says it, a philosopher ‘confirms’ it, and a politician makes it happen, it is something that should be done.
If this story were not so laughable I might actually think that apes were on the verge of constructing a great city or developing a microchip or planting crops instead of hunting and gathering. I was almost persuaded that the great apes were on the verge of writing novels to share with one another.
You know, there is a great irony in all this. Here’s what I think. I don’t recall reading anywhere, in the vast annals of scientific literature, that the Great Ape ‘societies’ and ‘cultures’ have developed medical facilities where female apes can go to get clean, sometimes free, discreet, safe abortions on demand, up to and including partial-birth abortions as late as 5 months into the pregnancy. I have read nowhere in any of these books about the Great Apes debating before a supreme court over whether or not it should be legal to kill another ape just because it is unborn. I haven’t read anywhere, in any scientific journal, that the great apes had developed a systematic, legal, mechanized manner by which they might efficiently and effectively destroy the lives of other apes just because they were unborn. And yet the same humans who have developed and done such things are now going to extend the courtesy of the ‘right to life’ to apes?!? Forgive me if I don’t put too much stock in the survival of the great apes.
If the great apes populations are in decline and need saving it is because humans have killed them too. Now we must protect them via legislation. I suppose before long the great apes will be asking us for freaking welfare too! Then they will want food-stamps. Then they will want tax-breaks. Then they will want free medical care. Then they will want social security. Damn, what has Spain gotten themselves into? If these apes ever figure out the way government really works, then we are up the proverbial creek without a paddle!
I know another endangered species that needs protection: Unborn human beings. Yes, that’s right. I believe that human beings, especially helpless, defenseless, voiceless, unborn human beings should have a Right to Life. This right to life should be as protected as that of the Great Apes–after all, we are much more closely related to unborn humans than we are to great apes.
You can learn more about the plight of humans by clicking the National Right to Life link I am providing. If you really, truly care about species survival, then write to your congressman and let him or her know that you think the United States should follow Spain’s lead and give unborn humans the same right to life as the Great Apes. I think this would be a good thing for evolution’s progress.
God have mercy on us! Lord we are so far from reality it is beyond imagination. Lord God, save us from ourselves and our own stupidity. Lord, don’t wait. And yet, give us the moral courage, fortitude, strength of conviction, and devotion to prayer to see an end to abortion and the destruction of unborn, innocent human life. And, have mercy on the great apes. Seriously. Because if the government is getting involved in their lives, the apes would be better off in zoos, circuses, and films.
PS–Good Job Spain!!
Just a couple of quick-hits tonight.
First, I have a short post at Advance Signs tonight concerning the Church in China.
Second, thank you, today is my birthday. I am now officially 38.
Third, please boycott Slice of Laodicea as now John Tesh is the latest heretic to fall victim to the Sword of Laodicea.
Fourth, why is Barack Obama so afraid of associating with American Muslims? Last week he asked some Muslim women wearing their head-coverings not to appear in a photo. Now, he is distancing himself from another:
As Senator Barack Obama courted voters in Iowa last December, Representative Keith Ellison, the country’s first Muslim congressman, stepped forward eagerly to help.
“This is the ‘hope campaign,’ this is the ‘change campaign,’ ” said Ellison, Democrat of Minnesota. Muslims are frustrated, he added, that “they have not been fully engaged in it.”
“The community feels betrayed,” said Safiya Ghori, the government relations director in the Washington office of the Muslim Public Affairs Council.
And you know what happened? The good senator, presidential candidate, rejected his help. I just don’t get that at all. I am confused. According to the article, the Senator has visited churches and synagogues, but he has not visited a mosque. I think this should change. The Senator will (if elected) represent ALL Americans, not just the Christians ones or Jewish ones. He will also represent the Hindu ones, the Atheist ones, the Buddhist ones, etc. I think the Senator should visit a Mosque and deliver a sermon speech.
Fifth, and finally, James Dobson is apparently involved in a war of words with Senator Obama:
As Barack Obama broadens his outreach to evangelical voters, one of the movement’s biggest names, James Dobson, accuses the likely Democratic presidential nominee of distorting the Bible and pushing a “fruitcake interpretation” of the Constitution.
Well, that seems about right. I have reviewed some of the Senator’s citations of Scripture and I agree that he has a tendency to distort absolutely obliterate the Scripture with his usage. I don’t know too much about his interpretation of the Constitution; although, I have heard that he is quite liberal. I don’t know if liberals can interpret the Constitution properly or not.
“Folks haven’t been reading their Bibles,” Obama said.
Well, this is the first thing the Senator has said since the joke of a presidential race (on both sides) started the day after George W Bush’s second term began.
Dobson and Minnery accused Obama of wrongly equating Old Testament texts and dietary codes that no longer apply to Jesus’ teachings in the New Testament.
“I think he’s deliberately distorting the traditional understanding of the Bible to fit his own worldview, his own confused theology,” Dobson said.
“… He is dragging biblical understanding through the gutter.”
Dragging he may be, but I’ll say this: He is evidently reading it. Ironically, there are many preachers who stand up on Sunday mornings and do little else but ‘drag biblical understanding through the gutter.’ The Senator is a politician so we cannot expect him to be fully verse in all such matters of theology. But at least he, or at least a speech writer, is reading it.
“Even if we did have only Christians in our midst, if we expelled every non-Christian from the United States of America, whose Christianity would we teach in the schools?” Obama said. “Would we go with James Dobson’s or Al Sharpton’s?” referring to the civil rights leader.
I vote for neither. I think we should go with the Christianity of Jesus.
It amazes me that in this culture, so in tune with unrighteousness and and ungodliness as it is, presidential candidates are still judged by Christians by the amount of Scripture they quote in stump speeches, and by how well they do or do not understand it.
I love irony.
Oh, one last thing. I read this today: “Charles Darwin even said that any truly other-directed trait would negate the theory of evolution. Natural selection cannot produce it.” If you happen to be one of my Atheist, Darwinist, Evolutionary, God of the gaps, or Theistic Evolution friends, could you please tell me if this is true or not? I do not have time to peruse Mr Darwin’s work and I am curious. Is this why some Darwinists are always so quick to jump on the altruism bandwagon? I am asking a serious question here; I’m not being sarcastic or mocking at all.
I just want you to know that I have arrived! After 13 months of blogging here at wordpress my moment is finally here: I have been linked at Wikipedia! That’s right, Wikipedia! I wrote this post about an Iranian film that is a sort of ‘response’ to Mel Gibson’s The Passion of the Christ and it was linked at Wiki. In honor of this special occasion, I have a few people and things I’d like to thank. This is a special day for me and my family and I don’t want it to pass by without recognizing the people who have gotten me this far. (Any offers to write books can be sent to my email which I’m sure you can find somewhere on my blog.)
I’d like to thank my mom, my dad, my wife and sons, my dogs, my cat, all those who through the years have put up with my sarcasm and mood-swings, attempts to learn guitar, and preaching. The church I serve which tolerates my use of blogging conversations as sermon illustrations on Sundays. And, of course, Nader Talebzadeh for making such a ridiculous piece of film. I’d also like to thank my mother in law for buying our family a PS3 for Christmas this past year. Our PS2 was on the blink and wouldn’t play my Resident Evil (from the PS1) games any longer. Thanks to Sony for producing such an amazing machine as the PS3 which is backward compatible all the way to the days of Atari and Colecovision.
I’d like to thank the members of my band Mustard Seed for their undying patience while I took a 30 day hiatus from the band (we should be on Behind the Music soon). The break gave me time to think and blog. I’d like to thank BlackBerry for producing the amazing BlackBerry Pearl 8130 which enables me to check my blog’s hit count several hundred times a day. And I should also thank Verizon for packaging such an amazing price for all the features I enjoy: Unlimited texting, Internet access, free calls to other Verizon customers; and my son’s texting habit (that alone is worth the price).
At this point, you probably think I am merely rambling on, but I have a few more ‘thank-yous’ to mumble. I’d like to thank the Internet. If the internet didn’t exist I wouldn’t have all the stress I have in my life that comes from the pure pleasure of blogging and justifying to my wife and sons the time I waste doing it (not to mention the sex with my wife that I give up so that I can blog ). I’d like to than Al Gore for inventing the Internet and for bringing to our attention the plight of the polar ice caps. I’d like to thank Global Warming for giving me the opportunity to blog. I’d like to thank all the Darwinists and Atheists who make me laugh. I’d like to thank Barak Obama for continuing to quote Scripture during his
circus campaign for presidency as it gives me a lot to critique these critiques becomes eye-candy for all the word voyeurs around the world who care what an insignificant nobody like myself has to say about something so significant as a presidential election. I’d like to thank the 150-200 people who visit here every day and pump up my ego a little more. Imagine, several billion people in the world and I get a thrill when 200 of them happen to visit my blog each day. What a loser!
I’d like to thanks the House of Representatives of the United States and the Senate of the United States for continuing to do nothing about the price of gasoline in this country. It has given me much more time to stay at home and blog about things like Iranian Hollywood’s production of blasphemous films about Jesus (can you imagine the outrage and the bombings that would take place around the world if someone produced such a film about Muhammed?) I’d also like to thank them for not renewing President Bush’s tax cuts and yet still managing to pass a budget worth several trillion American Dollars. (That was smart!) That will give me even more time to sit at home and blog since I won’t have any money to spend. (Hey congress, you want to boost the economy? Do something about the price of fuel for our vehicles!)
I’d like to thank all my friends out there in the blogosphere who have intentionally or inadvertently linked to my blog either to criticize a post or in their blogroll. I am truly humbled and honored that you think so highly or lowly of me as the case may be. Truly, blogging has been one of the most rewarding aspects of my life and I graduated magna cum laud from college, have three sons, a hot wife, and a well-paying job. Is this really what it has come to? Is this really my life?
I’d like to thank WordPress. I used to have a blog at blogspot, but moved here a little over a year ago. For the first 5 months, I probably didn’t have 300 hits. Then, in the sixth month this blog went off. (Of course, it was about then that I learned what a ‘tag’ was!) I owe it to a tight marketing campaign by wordpress–they got my blog out there–google, mama, dogpile, etc. I should also thank technorati, Digg!, and Del.ic.ious (whose widgets I never did learn how to use.) (Also Slide.com and myspace.com.) I love the wordpress interface, the layouts, the widgets, feeds, and stats page. I appreciate that I have so much free space to write and post pictures and link to important stories. I love that I can do this for free and not get paid. Thank you wordpress. I’m sure somehow or other you are making a buck. I’m glad I can help.
Finally, I’d like to thank you, the intrepid reader of all things blogged. You have an amazing ability to sift through the muck and develop a solid opinion of life based upon what you read at unchecked, non-refereed, non-peer reviewed essays, articles, and editorials. You sort through the blogs and separate the real from the fake, the ham from the spam, the worthy from the unworthy. You make blogs successful or consign them to the rubbish bin (or compost heap–a little ‘green’ lingo there). You blessed web-surfer, internet troll, drive-by comment poster–you are the ones who keep this business alive and well. You feed our addiction and we are addicted to the rush (Daryl, I miss you and love you man!) you provide when you raise our hit count! You are the ones who make blogging the joy that it is even if your voyeurism adds significantly to our stress levels (Gotta post! Gotta post! Need new material! Gotta post! Need fresh stuff!). All of us who blog thank all of you who read. We’re glad the American Education system has done so much for you. We’re glad that words on computer monitor screens are more vital to your life and worldview than a good hardcover book from the library. God Bless You, blog readers.
Oh, and to the person who linked me at Wikipedia…*sniff*…thank you. Now I can die.
your blogging friend for at least today,
jerry aka dangoldfinch
Here’s what evolution has us looking forward to: Domo Arigato: Hooker Roboto:
If you’re younger than 35, you’ll probably live long enough to put David Levy’s prediction to the test. Levy says that by 2050 we’ll be creating robots so lifelike, so imbued with human-seeming intelligence and emotions, as to be nearly indistinguishable from real people. And we’ll have sex with these robots. Some of us will even marry them. And it will all be good.
Levy lays out his vision of a Brave New Carnal World in Love and Sex With Robots: The Evolution of Human-Robot Relationships, which, despite its extended riffs on sex toys through the ages, is a snigger-free book. Levy’s no Al Goldstein. Rather he’s a 62-year-old British chess master turned artificial-intelligence expert persuaded that robot sex can brighten the lives of many, many unhappy people. “Great sex on tap for everyone, 24/7,” he writes on the final page of the book. What’s not to like?
Even though I found it on Amazon, I still think this might be a joke. I guess the upside to it is that probably only Darwinists will be curious enough to try it, and if they do, the theory will prove true as their line of the human species will soon become extinct. (Oh, I’m just joking fellas. Don’t go and get your DNA in an uproar. PS–the comments at the article are priceless!)
PS-here’s what Amazon.com says about the author David Levy:
“David Levy is an internationally recognized expert on artificial intelligence. He is president of the International Com-puter Games Association and in 1997 led the team that won the Loebner Prize—the world championship for conversational computer software. In 2006 he became the first person ever to present papers on intimate relationships with robotic partners at an international conference. He is also the author of Robots Unlimited. Levy lives in London with his wife, Christine, and their cat.”
This is someone who really knows how to put his intelligence to good use. Does it say he was the first to ‘present papers on intimate relationships with robotic partners at an international conference’?? What a distinction! Let’s hope to God he is the LAST to do so! That is a scholars convention that must have been a real doozy! How lonely must a person be to even desire sex with a robot? How degenerate is a culture where such ideas are even considered, let alone published? Seriously, this must be some sort of joke. We might have to change Scripture a bit from ‘lust of the eyes, the lust of the flesh and the pride of life’ to something like the ‘lust of circuit boards, the lust of metal, and the pride of life’ (some things will never change.) This has to be a joke.
Evidently, the Discovery Institute is fighting back. According to the Christian Post:
The Discovery Institute plans to post a slide show presentation critiquing the online materials from PBS-NOVA’s “Judgment Day: Intelligent Design on Trial” documentary on www.judgingpbs.com.
According to the site:
PBS asserts that the evidence “unequivocally supports [Darwin’s] theory of evolution by natural selection.” Do all scientists who approach biology with an open mind believe that the data “unequivocally” supports Darwin’s view? The following slides show that scientists are increasingly skeptical that natural selection is the primary agent of evolutionary change. Moreover, key postulates of Darwin’s theory – universal common descent, the continuity of life, and transitions in the fossil record – have come under intense scientific scrutiny from a diverse array of fields, including molecular biology, developmental biology, genetics, biochemistry, and paleontology. Some of Darwin’s failed predictions include:
- The failure of evolutionary biology to provide detailed evolutionary explanations for the origin of complex biochemical features;
- The failure of the fossil record to provide support for Darwinian evolution;
- The failure of molecular biology to provide evidence for universal common descent;
- The failure of genetics and chemistry to explain the origin of the genetic code;
- The failure of developmental biology to explain why vertebrate embryos diverge from the beginning of development.
Well, have fun. What is sad is that in this age of enlightenment and erudition and scientific progress there are people still clinging to such antiquated ideas as Darwinian Evolution. I guess we can only hope and pray for those tired souls who grasp at the illogical straw that is Darwinism. Here’s hoping…
Those of you who are interested might trying visiting the new blog Design of Life. Lead blogger is Denyse O’Leary who also blogs at PostDarwinist and Uncommon Descent. I have added this blog to my blogroll as well. Here’s a sampling from one of her first posts. It concerns several myths that are currently propagated by the materialist culture:
- Humans and chimps are 99% genetically identical?
- Christian Europe believed and promoted the idea that the Earth is flat? Debunked here. In reality, the old cosmology pictured Earth as a sphere.
- The US government denies the age of the Grand Canyon? Believe it or not, someone at TIME Magazine was promoting that one. Remember that when you get the subscription renewal notice.
- Oh, and here’s a good one: Religious folk opposed anesthesia in childbirth?
- Isaac Newton was the soul of materialism? Wait till you hear what he had to say about the end of the world …
- And lastly, Charles Darwin invented the idea of evolution? What he invented was unguided materialist evolution. We explain that clearly in The Design of Life. (Prediction: You will soon be awash in nonsense because of the bicentenary of Darwin’s birth.)
If you enjoy The Design of Life, we are sure you will enjoy the blog too. And, if you enjoy the blog, the book will help you get up to speed on the reasons we have started this blog. Here you will read the news about evolution that does NOT support the propaganda that is – increasingly – legislated as the only information you or your kids or grandkids are allowed to learn in tax-supported schools. Why do we call it propaganda? Well, let’s start with the fact that the history of life has – so far – proceeded entirely differently from what Darwin’s theory of evolution would reasonably suggest.
Now, to be sure, I don’t buy the notion that the earth or universe is as old as O’Leary believes (millions upon millions) because I believe in a literal reading of Genesis (without the constraints of misinterpreted genealogies to set dates), but I do think there is something to be said about her careful observations concerning the logical inconsistencies and materialist underpinnings of Darwinian evolution. I think this new blog deserves a chance to get going assuming it will be something substantially different from the (at least) two other blogs she contributes to.
On another note, I read this short article about 10 days ago and forgot about it. Turns out that evolution in humans has been advancing rather more rapidly than scientists had previously thought:
WASHINGTON (Reuters) – Human evolution has been moving at breakneck speed in the past several thousand years, far from plodding along as some scientists had thought, researchers said on Monday.
Then there is this:
For example, Africans have new genes providing resistance to malaria. In Europeans, there is a gene that makes them better able to digest milk as adults. In Asians, there is a gene that makes ear wax more dry.
The changes have been driven by the colossal growth in the human population — from a few million to 6.5 billion in the past 10,000 years — with people moving into new environments to which they needed to adapt, added Henry Harpending, a University of Utah anthropologist.
“The central finding is that human evolution is happening very fast — faster than any of us thought,” Harpending said in a telephone interview.
“Most of the acceleration is in the last 10,000 years, basically corresponding to population growth after agriculture is invented,” Hawks said in a telephone interview.
Kind of makes you wonder what else scientists have been wrong about, doesn’t it? Oh, yes, I know. All this shows is that science is self-correcting. And I am glad they are. It is amazing to me that science, as it continues to improve and correct, keeps coming closer and closer to the Scriptural revelation. I wonder how many years it will take for science to evolve out of the silly idea of Materialist Darwinian evolution?
Isn’t it amazing how much we have changed in the past 10,000 years since God created us?
PS–BTW, I accidentally watched this last night. I thought you might like to see one of the proponents of Darwinism:
Perhaps we can all learn a little wisdom from Phoebe in these scenes. But it is funny how she puts Ross in his place. (I can’t believe I’m putting a Friends video on my blog.)
I have blogged here a bit concerning the stupidity and inanity of Darwinism (not to mention its utter unbelievability and un-provability and, well, you get the point). Well, I came across an interesting post at Uncommon Descent this evening by Denyse O’Leary that poses the question: What would happen to science if Darwin ceased to be God? If you have visited here before and debated with me about Darwinism or agreed with me that Darwinism is bunk, no matter which side of the proverbial aisle you are on, you should visit this link and follow this blog post. Here’s a taste:
2. If the hold of the materialist atheists is broken, we will see evidence restored to its rightful place as the hallmark of science. Instead of hearing empty rhetoric like “Nothing in biology makes sense except in the light of evolution”, we will hear “Nothing in biology makes sense except in the light of evidence.” How will this affect research? Well, for one thing, people will be able to follow the evidence without fear of losing their positions. That will – necessarily – lead to the discovery that many materialist truisms are poorly supported. Honest discussions will be possible again. I reasonably believe that advances in knowledge will result.
If you wish to follow at O’Leary’s blog you can link here. I’m very interested to see how all this pans out in the course of the post and replies. I hope she has more to say on this question. What if the ends and the means of scientists were no longer Darwinian evolution, but rather something useful and hopeful? What if Darwinists escaped from the circular reasoning they so often accuse Christians of? What if there was truly room in this world for dialogue on the issues of what the ‘evidence’ really means? I dare say it might actually be a fun place to live.
Some want humanity to be captured in their web and under their control whether it is the strident Global Warming activist or the ardent Darwinist. This is not good for thinking people. However, there is hope:
Darwinism is in its evidential, mathematical, intellectual, philosophical, and ethical death throes — thus all the hysteria on the part of its adamant proponents, whose meaning in life (or lack thereof) is inextricably linked to it.
Sad it is for the Darwinist whose only link to life is a lie. Sad that their only life is in something already dead.
“But as for me, I know that my Redeemer lives, and that in the end He will stand upon the earth.” (Job 19:25)
For those of you who visit regularly, you are aware that I have been pointing out that there is a significant gap between Darwinism (materialism, Darwinian Evolution, Dawkinsian Evolution, Gouldian Evolution, Jon Evolution, evolution, macro-evolution, Jurassic Park Evolution, theistic evolution, God-of-the-gaps Evolution, etc.) and Genesis 1 (Biblical) Christianity. I believe it is very hard to escape this notion.
Denyse O’Leary has a post today at Uncommon Descent about this very subject. Her post is an excerpt from an interview Casey Luskin conducted with Philip Johnson concerning some program that is to be on PBS. Johnson notes how it is the scientific community that constantly tries to reassure the public that ‘science’ doesn’t conflict with ‘religion.’ All I can guess is that when the scientific community says this ‘science’ is a blanket term that includes all things, innocently enough, like Medicine, 3M, Microsoft, astronomy, Hubble Telescope, Volcanology, and that tucked away in innocent ‘science’ is Darwinian Evolution. This is what the scientists, under the umbrella of ‘science’, won’t tell the public. Consequently, the Darwinist can say that the Christian is opposed to ‘science’ when really we are only opposed, necessarily, to Darwinism (and it’s offspring–which are many and varied.)
As Christians, we believe that all wisdom and truth (scientific included) comes from God. Darwinism, however, denies there is a God to supply such wisdom. So while we are not opposed to science, we clearly reject atheistic Darwinism (too, because there is not nearly enough ‘evidence’ to support the Darwinists claims of a completely unified theory) because Darwinism denies the most basic and fundamental and necessary tenet of truth, viz., the existence of God. Let me clarify.
On the one hand, I’ll say this: Science is not opposed to religion. Of this we can be fairly certain and shout a hardy ‘Amen’ to our scientific brethren not least of which because God has designed this world in such a way that it can in fact be studied scientifically. However, and this is where it gets rather uncomplicated, Darwinian Evolution is opposed to Biblical Christianity (and, for that matter, Torahic Judaism, and Qu’ranic Islam.) All one must do to figure this out is read the works of Richard Dawkins. That will be convincing enough. (Again, I don’t accept the ideas of so-called ‘theistic evolution’ either. This is an oxymoron since evolution necessarily excludes the miraculous, outside intervention of any such Divine Person.)
On the other hand, Biblical Christianity is not opposed to science–for that matter, I don’t know any Christians who are necessarily opposed to learning about what Darwinian evolution has to teach and say about our origins and diversity; if there is truth in it, I want to know because all truth is ultimately from God. But Biblical Christianity is opposed to the materialistic, un-guided, anti-Scriptural Darwinism that is constantly being shoved down people’s throats and touted and assumed to be the answer to all of life’s mysteries. We are opposed to it being taught de facto as if there are no other alternative stories and as if there are no inherent problems within the theory itself. From my point of view, all I am saying is this: Be honest about what Darwinism is. Teach it all, the good, the bad, the pro, the cons and the cons and the cons and the cons–ad infinitum. Be honest about its roots, its aims, its goals, its proponents. Tell us why it necessarily excludes God. Don’t try to hide the truth and then say something ridiculous like, ‘Darwinism and Biblical Christianity are compatible.’ That is absurd and the honest Darwinist knows it.
The last part of the interview goes like this:
Luskin: And yet public skepticism of evolution remains very high. What does this say to you? Why are these attempts to, as you put it, soothe religious people regarding evolution, really seems like it is failing (at least) the public that is largely religious and is still very skeptical.
Johnson: Yes, they are still very skeptical, and they don’t believe the reassurances. They know in fact what’s going on. The fact is that the public is not as stupid as the experts wish them to be.
No, we are not as stupid as the ‘experts’ wish us to be. Nor are the ‘Brights’ nearly as bright as they hope to be either. But, as silly as this might sound, if those in favor of teaching Godless Darwinism would simply be honest about their intentions and motivations perhaps we might find some sort of common ground. But it seems to me that as long as they continue to try and hoodwink thinking people in this country they will be rejected. I wonder if the Darwinists have thought about why there is so much opposition, by so many people, at so many levels, to something that they are convinced is so abundantly evident? I wonder if they have thought about why so many people from all walks of life, from the seventh grade girl in a lunch room to Ph D’s, from all states, from all economic tax brackets, both Christian and not Christian, have rejected out of hand this nonsense called Darwinism? Surely the Darwinist jests when he says that all such people are merely uneducated, right?
I wonder what the Darwinist thinks is at stake in this conflict? I wonder if they have truly counted the cost of their belief system? I wonder if they think that they have more energy and strength behind them for the long haul? I wonder what will happen to all those Darwinsts when that final piece of evidence becomes fully known and their entire world comes crashing down around them? Maranatha! Maranatha, Lord Jesus! “They will flee to caverns in the rocks and to the overhanging crags from dread of the Lord and the splendor of his Majesty, when he rises to shake the earth.” (Isaiah 2:21) “The arrogance of man will be brought low and the pride of men humbled; the Lord alone will be exalted in that day, and the idols will totally disappear.” (Isaiah 2:17-18)
Unlike some, I’m not afraid to invoke Biblical Christianity to make the point that needs to be made about Darwinian Evolution.
I haven’t yet figured out this fella named Dinesh D’Souza. He seems to be all the rage nowadays among certain wings of churchianity. However, I came across this little essay he wrote and published at Townhall.com and I thought it was a rather interesting piece: Are Atheists the New Gays? Mr D’Souza spends the majority of the short essay mocking Richard Dawkins (which is fine as far as it goes) because of his campaign to style the atheists of the world as the ‘new gays’ (as if atheists have to go through all the terrible ordeals that homosexuals have to go through, like getting married, and suchlike. Imagine how tough it must be for a homosexual atheist to get married! Just kidding. Sort of.) Anyhow…Mr D’Souza writes:
Dawkins has also suggested that atheists, like gays, should come out of the closet. Well, what if they don’t want to? I doubt that Dawkins would support “outing” atheists. But can an atheist “rights” group be far behind? Hate crimes laws to protect atheists? Affirmative action for unbelievers? An Atheist Annual Parade, complete with dancers and floats? Atheist History Month?
Honestly, I think the whole atheist-gay analogy is quite absurd. It seems strange for Dawkins to urge atheists to come out of the closet in the style of the all-American boy standing up on the dining table of his public high school and confessing that he is a homosexual? Dawkins, being British, doesn’t seem to recognize that this would not win many popularity contests in America.
He also writes about Dawkins’ ongoing attempts to re-tool the whole atheist movement by giving atheists a new name: Brights. (I like the name the Bible gives them in Psalm 14:1.) Whatever. Does it really matter to most atheists what they are called? Does the change of the moniker really change the identity or belief? Will putting a positive spin on un-belief really change the general conception of atheists in this world? (Uh, no?) I suspect that some atheists would be content to be called Happy, Beer Drinkers, Liberals, or Red Sox Fans.
But here’s the part of the essay I like the best because it addresses some of those assumptions that people make that really irritate me. Mr D’Souza wrote:
Basically Dawkins is saying if you are religious, then science is your enemy. Either you choose God or you choose science. No wonder that so many Americans say they are opposed to evolution. They believe that evolution is atheism masquerading as science, and Dawkins confirms their suspicions. Indeed Dawkins takes the same position as the most ignorant fundamentalist: you can have Darwin or you can have the Bible but you can’t have both.
Oh, but here, ironically, I agree with Dawkins far more than D’Souza. Fact is, you cannot have both Darwin and the Bible. This is a serious issue and for as much as D’Souza seems to be bright, he has missed the mark here. I might suggest there is a difference between what he refers to as an ‘ignorant fundamentalist’ and a ‘by faith we believe that God made what is seen out of what is unseen evangelical Christian’ who accepts Genesis as an accurate reflection of history, and the foundational substance for evangelical theology. In this case, I agree with Dawkins and, in my opinion, D’Souza loses big time precisely because he seems willing to exclude faith (I could be reading him incorrectly.) He evidently misunderstands the troubling tension that exists between these two fundamentally discordant world-views. I haven’t read enough of D’Souza’s work to know if this is what he thinks, but if I take that last sentence at face value, he has lost me as an audience already because I reject out of hand that faith and reason stand opposed to one another as Darwin and the Bible do.
One cannot have both. I agree with Dawkins 100% on this because the entire premise of Darwinism is that it does not need God, god, a god, Zeus, Thor, Mars, or gods to work (unless, of course, natural selection or selfish genes are divine.) Why would the Darwinist concede to theistic evolution when it would defeat the entire premise to Darwinian evolution? I’ll go ahead and say it for the record: You can’t have both. To my knowledge, Darwin made no concessions or room for the ‘theistic’ in theistic evolution. (Correct me if I’m wrong.)
But I understand. There are certain people in the world of churchianity who are terrified to let Genesis stand on its own. They are horrified at the thought of being labeled unthinking rubes who rely on faith in order to believe in fairy-tales. They are terrified to admit to the unbelieving world that they have a simple faith and trust that ‘in the beginning God created the heavens and the earth.’ Here’s what it is: They are so consumed with the idea of silencing the Dawkins’ and Hitchens’ of the world that they have to resort to arguments that lack faith instead of promote it lest they be accused of being little more than those dunderhead, ignorant fundamentalists who actually believe what Scripture says. In their attempts, in other words, to undo the ‘brightness’ of the Brights, they fall into the same error as the Brights by dismissing faith as compatible with reason and relying soley on reason to accomplish their task. It’s not that we (Christians) need Darwin and the Bible to be compatible, that’s not the error because we know they are not, and trying to make them compatible (through things like theistic evolution) does not advance the cause of Christ. (And this is a matter of the Cause of Christ.)
The error he makes, rather, is in assuming there is no compatibility between Faith and Reason, as if they stand in opposition to one another! Nothing could be further from the truth. This is D’Souza’s error. He evidently thinks that those who believe in Genesis do so without Reason, that they rely too much on faith (as if!), and that faith and Reason are incompatible (this was also Stephen Jay Gould’s error in Rocks of Ages.) Christians are not unthinking people, nor are we un-Reasonable people. The very fact that we cling to a book (that contains letters (and numbers), words, sentences, paragraphs, chapters, and books of varying style and genre) is evidence that we are thinking, Reasoning people. We do not serve a God who is unreasonable either. He tells us: Count the Cost of being a disciple. He says, “Come let us reason together” (Isaiah 1). Frankly, no reasonable person is going to become a disciple without counting the cost.
PT Forsyth wrote,
“If we have any sense of judgment we have much reason to fear. I cannot understand how any one with a sense of judgment can discard the atonement and live without terror. But, if we have the sense of the holy and the faith of judgment, the faith that Christ took God’s judgment on the world, we must be of good cheer. The world is judged for good and all in Christ. The last judgment is by. All our judgments are in its ascending wake” (The Justification of God, 221.)
Thus we come full circle. It is not the Christian who lives in opposition to reason, and it is not faith that stands opposed to reason, it is the atheist: “The fool has said in his heart, ‘There is no God.’” Who is opposed to reason but the one who rejects God?
To be sure, I’ll need to read some of D’Souza’s work before I know if this is really how he thinks about us ‘ignorant fundamentalists.’ But for the time being, isn’t it rather ironic that ‘ignorant fundamentalists’ and Richard Dawkins actually agree on something?
UPDATE: I just came across this: Militant Atheism Gives Rise to Christian Apologetics.
“[I]f people look at science, they will find faith and they will find reason; the two cannot be incompatible and they have one author, namely God,” said Midland theologian Norbert Dickman, who was scheduled to present what the Christian response should be to the rise of the atheist voice at an Illinois church on Tuesday.
I have had my debates here with Darwinists and atheists. There is a great debate taking place at Uncommon Descent where BarryA has noted the Darwinian tendencies of two incidents of students shooting up their schools and killing their fellow human beings. The essay Darwin At Columbine is not a casual reading of the incident at Columbine and the recent incident of a student in Finland who killed 8 students.
Well, the internet is all abuzz with stories and blog postings concerning this horrible event. The posts at Uncommon and Post-Darwinist make many important statements and raise some very serious concerns about the nature of ‘social-Darwinism.’ Consider this from Uncommon:
I am not suggesting that Auvinen’s and Harris’ actions are the inevitable consequences of believing in Darwinism. It is, however, clear that at least some of Darwin’s followers understand “survival of the fittest” and the attendant amorality at the bottom of Darwinism as a license to kill those whom they consider “inferior.” Nothing could be more obvious.
I don’t know if such statements are typical or not of what bloggers are saying about this latest link in the concatenation of human tragedies. Something bugs me though about the whole thing. I am no friend of Darwinism. In fact, I detest all that it stands for, but let’s not put the cart before the horse. Here I’m not defending Darwin, but I’d like to suggest something that perhaps is being overlooked and that is this: Sin.
Cain was no Social-Darwinist when he killed Abel. The Lord said to him, “Sin is crouching at your door, waiting to overtake you,” not ”Darwinism is crouching at your door.” Darwinism may be a necessary (convenient?) catalyst, but it is not sufficient to explain the troubles of this planet. I have been, I confess, blinded by this very fact. Have we, in our efforts to undo Darwin and place the blame for the world’s ills at his doorstep, overlooked the troubling, pervasive, and completely debilitating nature of unchecked sin and rebellion? When God destroyed the earth with the flood, the Bible says, “The Lord saw how great man’s wickedness on the earth had become, and that every inclination of the thoughts of his heart were only evil all the time…Now the earth was corrupt in God’s sight and was full of violence. God saw how corrupt the earth had become, for all the people on earth had corrupted their ways.” (Genesis 6:5, 11-12, NIV).
My point is this: Is blame the point? I think we are all guilty (“All have sinned and fallen short of the glory of God.”) I understand completely what BarryA is saying (I didn’t fully read Denyse O’Leary’s post), and for the most part I agree. To be sure, I don’t think he is necessarily excluding sin. I fully understand that at some level this sort of natural selection becomes a catalyst of action. Ideas have consequences. But, and we all need to know this, natural selection is not a sufficient cause nor should it, however wrong it is, shoulder the blame. The blame should be shouldered by the only thing that can shoulder it: Sin. Darwinism is a natural outgrowth of sin. Darwinism necessarily happens when God is rejected. Darwinism, at its core, is a form of rebellion against the Holy and Righteous God.
No matter how much Darwinism is in the world, no matter how much natural selection is taught in schools, and no matter how many people sport t-shirts espousing the joys of natural selection, we must not allow ourselves to shift the blame from where it belongs (sin) to where it cannot be sustained (natural selection.) Natural selection is not sufficient to sustain the blame for all the world’s ills–even I have made that mistake. The problem is sin from first to last. Jesus did not come to earth to rid the world of some vague 20th century atheistic, biological philosophy called natural selection. He came to rid the world of sin. “God made him who had no sin to be sin for us, so that in him we might become the righteousness of God” (2 Corinthians 5:21).
There are many people who oppose Darwinism–I am included among them. It is absurd and ridiculous and explains absolutely nothing about the world in which we live: not the ills and wickedness, nor the evil and suffering. What explains all of this is sin: A real, thriving, living presence of rebellion and unrighteousness among humans. I believe some day it is sin that will finally and forever be eradicated because Christ Jesus, the Propitiation for our sins, has done it.
The question we have to ask is this: What are we opposed to? Is it sin or some thoroughly uninteresting, inadequate, explanation of life and sin? What will Christ ultimately do away with? Is it death or the mere philosophies that try to explain death? What is the solution to these problems? The eradication of Darwinism or the Exaltation of Christ? “But I, when I am lifted up, will draw all people unto myself.” We must exalt the Lord and Savior Jesus Christ.
I’m asking you Christian: What are you fighting for?
I’m in a sort of writing kind of mood tonight so I’m going to share a little more of my list of things that tick me off (I’m smoothing out my language a little.) Here are numbers 21-35.
21. The assumption that all Christians are evil because of people like the folks at the Westboro ‘Baptist’ ‘Church’ or because of pedophile priests.
22. The assumption that anyone has a right to membership in the church without meeting the requirements for membership in the Church.
23. The assumption that liberalism (theological and/or political) is more progressive and forward thinking than conservatism or orthodoxy.
24. The assumption that freedom is found in the ability to live without reference to God or His Son Jesus Christ.
25. The assumption that homosexuality is not a sin just because people are ‘born that way’. (The assumption that (insert sin here) is not sin because people are ‘born that way,’ ‘had no father,’ ‘grew up in West Philadelphia,’ ‘had a crack-whore for a mother,’ ‘the government made it legal,’ ‘Clinton did it,’ etc.)
26. The assumption that persistence in sin will not lead this country, into free-fall and destruction. The parallel assumption that persistence and tolerance of sin in the church will not cause the church to ‘lose it’s place’.
27. The assumption by some Christians that voting a certain way, for a certain candidate, for a certain party assures and protects God’s Sovereignty. (And also the assumption that the opinions of Pat Robertson or James Dobson matter when it comes to political decisions by the rest of us.)
28. The assumption that the holocaust discredits or mitigates God’s essential goodness, Sovereignty, or Plan for this world through Jesus Christ.
29. The assumption that atheists have an intellectual advantage over Christians because they don’t need ‘faith’ or ‘God’ to sustain their point of view.
30. The assumption that if we just do enough ‘good deeds’ that all will be well in the world.
31. That assumption that morality doesn’t matter. (And the assumption, ironically, that morality can be legislated.)
32. The assumption that the Biblical point of view doesn’t matter or is flawed or is outdated or is irrelevant or is meaningless. (It is the only ‘point of view’ that matters.)
33. The assumption that people can just say, “God doesn’t exist” and that it somehow makes it true.
34. The assumption that atheists do not need to prove the major premise of their argument (that is, that God doesn’t exist.)
35. The assumption that Darwinism is sophisticated enough to explain all of life’s complexity and diversity. (It’s not.)
That should keep some folks busy for a while. My list is just short of 70 and my list of things that do not P me off is even longer. (I like that list better ) Thanks for stopping by and reading.