Archive for the ‘Darwinism’ Category
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?
You may not visit there often, so I’ll provide a link back. You really should read this post at Uncommon Descent: The Science Rule the Christian Darwinist Forgot by Denyse O’Leary. She concludes:
Here is one project he doesn’t want: We just look at the accumulated evidence for the history of life on this planet and ask a simple question: If Darwin’s theory did not exist and was not now the subject of a huge academic industry, would anyone suppose that it explained the Cambrian explosion? The subsequent punctuated history of life? The rise of consciousness?
Darwin’s theory is supported in order to prop up materialism, and otherwise has very little use.
She is writing to Scientists who happen to be Christians and try to shuffle God and Science into separate corners and allow them to have no contact with one another. I’m not sure I get all that she is saying, but I agree with the conclusion. Darwinism exists to serve the purposes of those who serve it and not because it is absolutely, empirically demonstrable or viable. It is a belief of convenience.
I don’t say it enough, but I really appreciate the work being done at Uncommon Descent. I’m not always in-step with the whole ID theory because I am what some would call, sometimes pejoratively, a Creationist. But, the work they do to show the logical inconsistencies and the historical absurdities and the biological impossibilities of Darwinism is greatly needed in this world. Give them a visit if you get an extra minute or two or three. The site is updated frequently by many different contributors.
PS–If Darwinism didn’t exist, would we have to invent it?
I think you will appreciate this: Is Belief in Divine Creation Rational? This is a lecture by David Anderson. I’m piggybacking on a post by William Dembski at Uncommon Descent. I listened to about the first 15 minutes online then downloaded it to my mp3. So far, I’m impressed. I think you will be too.
You may also want to read this: Evolutionary Hymn by CS Lewis.
And I know you will find this intriguing: If Neo-Darwinism Fails, then What? I too hope they put this online as mp3 or transcript. Good Luck!
For some evolutionary humor, check out this Playground Slide Recall.
How about an interview with Anthony Flew?
Finally, Can Public Schools Be “Neutral”?
Have fun with all this. Hmm. Perhaps the atheist and the Darwinist do not have a monopoly on knowledge after all.
A while back I made quick reference at this blog to an essay published by Scientific American written by Michael Shermer: Darwin on the Right. It’s an older essay (published September 18, 2006), but I think the points he made then still need to addressed by thinking people who refuse to just give up. The overall tone of the essay, brief as it is, is just that: Christians ought to just give up the fight because, according to Darwinists, there is such a preponderance of evidence for Darwinian evolution that it seems silly for anyone to argue against it. Shermer writes:
According to a 2005 Pew Research Center poll, 70 percent of evangelical Christians believe that living beings have always existed in their present form, compared with 32 percent of Protestants and 31 percent of Catholics. Politically, 60 percent of Republicans are creationists, whereas only 11 percent accept evolution, compared with 29 percent of Democrats who are creationists and 44 percent who accept evolution. A 2005 Harris Poll found that 63 percent of liberals but only 37 percent of conservatives believe that humans and apes have a common ancestry. What these figures confirm for us is that there are religious and political reasons for rejecting evolution. Can one be a conservative Christian and a Darwinian? Yes. Here’s how.
Now, I realize these figures are severely outdated, and that Shermer’s essay is over a year old, but I doubt the figures have changed much. Shermer’s approach is kind of a ‘Awe, com’on you silly Christians (and Conservatives!) get with the program!’ He also seems to think that believing in evolution (or at least making it compatible with biblical Christianity) is a rather simple thing to do: “Just follow these six easy steps and, Presto! as if by magic the synthesis will be complete.” But is it really as easy as Shermer would suggest? I think not. I’d like to take his points one at a time which means that these posts may run a little longer and may, in fact, be broken up as I address each of his six points.
First, Shermer writes that ‘Evolution fits well with good theology.’ He writes:
Christians believe in an omniscient and omnipotent God. What difference does it make when God created the universe–10,000 years ago or 10,000,000,000 years ago? The glory of the creation commands reverence regardless of how many zeroes in the date. And what difference does it make how God created life–spoken word or natural forces? The grandeur of life’s complexity elicits awe regardless of what creative processes were employed. Christians (indeed, all faiths) should embrace modern science for what it has done to reveal the magnificence of the divine in a depth and detail unmatched by ancient texts.
Well, in fact it does matter a great deal–theologically speaking, and for a few reasons at least. First, because, as I have stated elsewhere, the premise of Darwinian evolution is that it does not require any god to be involved. (I sometimes think Richard Dawkins carries more dislike for theistic evolutionists than he does for Creationists.) The whole idea then that Christians should accept a system of belief that does not require God, even the God of Scripture, is absurd. Second, because the Scripture says that God Created the world by his Spoken Word! The Scripture does not say that God used ‘natural forces’ (whatever that means). Genesis 1 is ample testimony that God spoke the world and the universe into existence. Colossians 1 is further evidence. But there is also Hebrews 11:3: “By faith we understand that the universe was formed at God’s command, so that what is seen was not made out of what was visible.” (And, please, spare me the drivel about creationism being only a matter of faith because evolution is no less a matter of faith!)
Third, ‘modern science’ is not rejected! This is the straw-man that Darwinists continue to lob out at Christians. Christians do not reject science; we reject materialistic Darwinian evolution and those ideas and beliefs that reject the Word of God as true.
Fourth, it (evolution) is not good or even bad theology or even compatible with good theology because Darwinian evolution is not any sort of Continue Reading »
I wonder if anyone really understands what the ‘debate’ is? Here’s the closing paragraph from Avery Cardinal Dulles at First Things: God and Evolution.
The recent outburst of atheistic scientism is an ominous sign. If unchecked, this arrogance could lead to a resumption of the senseless warfare that raged in the nineteenth century, thus undermining the harmony of different levels of knowledge that has been foundational to our Western civilization. By contrast, the kind of dialogue between evolutionary science and theology proposed by John Paul II can overcome the alienation and lead to authentic progress both for science and for religion.
I wonder if anyone realizes that for most Christians the debate is not between ‘science’ and ‘religion’? The ‘debate’ is between Christ and Darwin. I don’t know a single Christian who is opposed to science. Not a single one! On the other hand, I know plenty of Christians (and not-Christians) who are opposed to Darwinian Evolution and its underlying materialism and all that goes along with it.
For the record, there is also a large population of Christians who couldn’t care less what the pope has to say about anything–let alone whether there should be dialogue between Christians and evolutionists. For example:
In a widely noticed message on evolution to the Pontifical Academy of Sciences, sent on October 22, 1996, John Paul II noted that, while there are several theories of evolution, the fact of the evolution of the human body from lower forms of life is “more than a hypothesis.” But human life, he insisted, was separated from all that is less than human by an “ontological difference.” The spiritual soul, said the pope, does not simply emerge from the forces of living matter nor is it a mere epiphenomenon of matter. Faith enables us to affirm that the human soul is immediately created by God.
Yes, but the pope also things he is the voice of God in the church, that he is the head of the church, that what he says is gospel, and that we should pray to the virgin Mary. That John Paul would make such absurd statements says more about his willingness to compromise biblical teaching than it does of his leadership in forging ahead with such dialogue. And while I mean no offense to all the good catholic Christians in the world, I’d rather have them on my side than not, the pope does not speak, dead or alive, for all Christians in this matter. In fact, he was and is wrong.
But even if such ‘dialogue’ should take place, what would that mean? I don’t know a single, committed Darwinist who is willing to concede that God had anything to do with evolution. Ask them, and they will tell you that the ‘God-hypothesis’ is meaningless and unnecessary for Darwinian evolutionary forces. And for the Christian, Darwinian evolution is simply incompatible with biblical revelation. It defies the most basic, fundamental teaching of the Scripture: “In the Beginning God Created…” And our redemption in Christ is too closely tied to this verse for this verse to be ignored or explained away by materialist Darwinism. What dialogue, then, should there be? What dialogue could there be? It would be a staring contest to see who cracked first. And more and more, regrettably, it is the Christian who is cracking.
Again, this is not a matter of science vs religion. It is a matter of Christ vs Darwinism. We should at least define the parameters correctly. I need to read the rest of the essay, but these are some preliminary thoughts on the matter. Thanks for stopping by.
Friends, (I had to update this a little, because I wrote it late last night and I found a few typing errors.–j)
William Dembski has nailed it! You should hit his blog for the whole story and for associated comments by readers, but here’s a snippet:
The phrase that jumps out here is “least understood of all scientific theories.” Reality check: the basics of evolutionary theory are not hard to fathom — evolution is not rocket science (presumably Paula Apsell thinks she understands them). Moreover, tax payers have been paying megabucks to have their children indoctrinated in this theory. So perhaps the problem is not that evolutionary theory is poorly understood but that it is sufficiently well understood and disbelieved.”
I think ‘indoctrination’ is the right word here. In fact, I know it is. I’ll show you why below.
Yesterday my fourth grader came home from school and told me all about the lesson he had in ‘global warming’ that day. He then astutely pointed out that the bus driver contributed to global warming on the ride home from school by leaving the lights on in the bus the whole ride home from school. He said she ought to be ashamed of herself. Fourth grade–even he gets it!
Finally, from the world of evolutionary psychology, and Psychology Today, a note about the breasts of women. You’ll love this ladies! I’m not sure if these stories are real or not, but… Here’s what evolutionary psychologists spend their grant money on:
Until very recently, it was a mystery to evolutionary psychology why men prefer women with large breasts, since the size of a woman’s breasts has no relationship to her ability to lactate. But Harvard anthropologist Frank Marlowe contends that larger, and hence heavier, breasts sag more conspicuously with age than do smaller breasts. Thus they make it easier for men to judge a woman’s age (and her reproductive value) by sight-suggesting why men find women with large breasts more attractive.
And I’m sure you’ll love this take on the ‘saggy boobs‘ story. (If you are interested in the original ‘research’ you could click here. Oh, another funny thing these ‘doctors’ tell us is that most suicide bombers are Muslims. They mix this in, about right in the middle, with their theories about saggy breasts.) And we are supposed to trust these people with our children’s education’s. This stuff is just too funny. They want us to consider this as serious research, serious study, and serious reflection on culture. (I always thought there were other reasons for…well, nevermind.)
Friends, my point in noting all this for you is simple: To show that Darwinism is not without its challenges. They continue with their propaganda in the schools because they have to. It’s like cigarette companies who have to sell to kids and get them hooked early: No one in their right mind would start smoking as an adult after reading about all the additives that go in to cigs. It’s the same with Darwinism: Get them hooked early, get them indoctrinated young, then when they are older it will be just too much for them to overcome.
Darwinism is such a joke. We need to let more people know about how our children are not given any choices when it comes to their education. We need to let our children know that Darwinism is a false teaching, a lie, an intellectual fantasy of people who are afraid they will lose their power and their grants.
So we arrive back where we started: Indoctrination. That’s all it is, plain and simple. The rest of it is just hilarious. It’s like Rush Limbaugh says concerning why liberals hate the president, “They cannot stand faith in something larger than the self.” He is right. And so it is with the Darwinists.
Darwinism is defunct, deadly, and dying.
Charles Darwin should share with Adolph Hitler the blame for the 11 million or more lives lost in the Holocaust, a provocative video documentary explains. And, the program says, the more than 45 million American lives lost to abortion also can be blamed on that famous founder of evolutionary theory.”
This is just a bit. Click the link for more.
Also, see this amazing, 17 page pdf: A Scientific Dissent From Darwinism.
We are skeptical of claims for the ability of random mutation and natural selection to account for the complexity of life. Careful examination of the evidence for Darwinian theory should be encouraged.”
The copy I have linked to was updated in February 2007. The document lists the current position the scientist holds, and their academic credentials.
Also see: Dissent From Darwin.
You will be amazed at how many scientists question the Darwinian theory of evolution thus countering the commonly held belief and propaganda that all scientists with credentials believe in bunk theories like Darwinism.
Also see: Doctors Doubting Darwin.
Then there’s: Survival of the Fakest.
What all of this shows, at least in part, is that Darwinism is not as commonly accepted among the ‘intellectual elite’ (R Dawkins words) as we have been led to believe. One would think that Darwinism is such a lock that there would be no dissent from any scientist ever, that there would only be consensus. I think these documents point us in the direction where we can confidently say: That is not true!
Happily, there are plenty of rational people in the scientific world who understand what the real issues are in this battle. Happily, those of us who know how to think, who enjoy mystery because it gives us a reason to continue searching, and delight in the power of God, can truly see what Darwinism is at its roots: Life without God.
Have a blessed day, and if you see a Darwinist, or hear from a teacher that Darwin had all the answers, print the seventeen pages or give them a link. Don’t fear those who have no answers and thus must invent theories to explain what their small minds cannot grasp. Believe in the God of Creation.
I have an apology to make, sort of, to evolutionists. For a long time I have been referring to them as Darwinists. I am sorry I have done so because I think I may have misled them into thinking that they have more credibility than they actually have. The entire idea of Darwinism is bunk. So, I am sorry for calling you Darwinists. From now on I shall refer to people who believe in evolution as Darloserists. I realize this movement will take some time to get underway, but I think it is time for rational, reasonable, thinking people to stop assuming that Darwinism has the dominant voice or the final voice on the origins of men and women or any life for that matter. I’m tired of Darloserists thinking they are the only ones whose voice matters when it comes to science, origins, and the way life ought to be perceived–or thinking that their voice matters at all. Consider what the Lord God said through Isaiah the Prophet:
For this is what the LORD says—
he who created the heavens,
he is God;
he who fashioned and made the earth,
he founded it;
he did not create it to be empty,
but formed it to be inhabited—
“I am the LORD,
and there is no other.
19 I have not spoken in secret,
from somewhere in a land of darkness;
I have not said to Jacob’s descendants,
‘Seek me in vain.’
I, the LORD, speak the truth;
I declare what is right.
20 “Gather together and come;
assemble, you fugitives from the nations.
Ignorant are those who carry about idols of wood,
who pray to gods that cannot save.
21 Declare what is to be, present it—
let them take counsel together.
Who foretold this long ago,
who declared it from the distant past?
Was it not I, the LORD
And there is no God apart from me,
a righteous God and a Savior;
there is none but me.
22 “Turn to me and be saved,
all you ends of the earth;
for I am God, and there is no other.
23 By myself I have sworn,
my mouth has uttered in all integrity
a word that will not be revoked:
Before me every knee will bow;
by me every tongue will swear.
24 They will say of me, ‘In the LORD alone
are righteousness and strength.’ ”
All who have raged against him
will come to him and be put to shame.
(Isaiah 45:18-24, NIV)
The only voice that matters is the Voice of God.
I think it is high time that the Darloserists be exposed for what they really are: Mean-spirited egoists whose only ambition is to undermine the Word of Truth, that is, The Word of God. I think it is time that the cover come off their supposed quest for truth, which is masked by the blanket word ‘science,’ and expose it for what it is: Materialism, Humanism, Atheism, a world of anarchy without God or reference to Him or submission to His Son Jesus Christ. But this world belongs to the Father. I’m sick of my children being indoctrinated by preachers of Darloseranity. I’m sick of their religion being shoved down my throat every time they discover a new square centimeter of bone in some out of the way desert. I’m sick of their propagandists spewing out their dogmas and doctrines from their unassailable pulpits in universities, high schools, and elementary schools across the country and suppressing the voices of those who dissent. I’m tired of evolutionists assuming there is even a debate to be had!
I’m tired of their maniacal attacks on all things religious and especially all things Christian. I’m tired of their attempts to undermine the Word of God. I’m tired of their shallow logic that they believe is unquestionable because they possess a bone fragment or a, well, bone fragment. I’m tired of these elitists telling me that Jesus did not Resurrect from the dead and then telling me that life just ‘sprung up’ from nowhere. I’m tired of them telling people that the Bible is a 2,000 year old book we can’t trust but Darwin’s 200 year old book we can. (Does that mean when Darwin’s book is 2,000 we can quit trusting in it??? We should have stopped trusting in it a long time ago!)
The Scripture says: In the Beginning God Created. There are no other options.
I think science has done many wonderful things for humanity. I am pleased they continue to make advances in such areas as Nuclear, Biological and Chemical warfare. I’m glad that scientists continue to do tests on animals to make certain that their products are safe for human consumption. I’m glad scientists are able to tell us all about the human genome but cannot tell us how to solve simple problems like hunger and thirst or death. And thank God for the scientists who worked on the Manhattan Project! Where would be without them!? And where would we be without safer abortions and euthanasia??
Yes, blessed science has done many wonderful things: Penicillin, computers and the internet (although Al Gore had a hand in that too!), homogenization, chocolate and much, much more. And for these we can be truly thankful that God has imparted wisdom to us. Still it is time to keep all this in perspective and get back to the truth that this world was created by God, for God, and because of God. It’s time that the Word of God be trumpeted across the Land and around the World. It’s time that Jesus was exalted and glorified and Darwin was humiliated and left to rot. It’s time that the Darloserists were revealed for what they really are: People who believe a lie so deeply they think it is the truth, people who are easily duped (see my post on Dawkins), people who can only argue that those who disagree just ‘don’t understand.’
Yes, yes, yes. There are some broad generalizations in here. Yes, yes, yes, there are some deceived Christians who believe Darloserism. Yes, yes, yes, science has done more than give us chocolate and plastic and post-it notes. It doesn’t change the fact that Darloserism is the greatest hoax ever perpetuated on this planet by the father of lies. Every scientist in the world could announce today that they believe in Darloserism and they would be wrong. The Bible is the only Word of Truth concerning our origins and our ends.
We read in Scripture our great ‘theory of everything’, the beginning and the end, the reason for our existence and the reason for our continued safety:
He is the image of the invisible God, the firstborn over all creation. 16For by him all things were created: things in heaven and on earth, visible and invisible, whether thrones or powers or rulers or authorities; all things were created by him and for him. 17He is before all things, and in him all things hold together. 18And he is the head of the body, the church; he is the beginning and the firstborn from among the dead, so that in everything he might have the supremacy. 19For God was pleased to have all his fullness dwell in him, 20and through him to reconcile to himself all things, whether things on earth or things in heaven, by making peace through his blood, shed on the cross.” (Colossians 1:15-20, NIV)
Soli Deo Gloria!
The other day, my friend Jeff listed a whole host of blogs that belong to atheists that he has either found helpful or visited or simply found. I probably won’t list as many as Jeff because it’s late and I am tired, but I’ll add to them as I go along, and also add them to my blogroll. (Please don’t think the small number indicates a lack of sites available, I’m just not as ambitious as Jeff 🙂 .)
Here are some Creation blogs (or ID) that you might enjoy:
Post-Darwinist (Denyse O’Leary)
Uncommon Descent (William Dembski)
Intelligent Design or Evolution Blog (I didn’t really know where to put this one; I think it’s ID)
[Now, I grant you that most of these are not strictly creation blogs. In fact, they are ID blogs (Intelligent Design). I believe in Genesis 1 and these blogs may or may not (mostly not) hold to a literal interpretation of that chapter of the Bible.]
Oh, I keep being told that evolution and atheism are only coincidentally linked. Here’s proof of that Evolution Space. Note the big A and the contrasting title: Evolution space. Right. But they have nothing to do with one another.
At William Dembski’s blog, you can link to a series of essays that will help explain how Darwinists think. See this Essay: Book Review: Science’s Blind Spot: Making Sense of Darwin’s Devout. I haven’t had time to read it all yet. Still, for what it’s worth, maybe you’ll find something to help.
Alright, that’s all for tonight. I have to write a little more on my Sunday sermon. I hope you are blessed.
Soli Deo Gloria!