According to the Evolution Lobby Committee (in the words of Dawkins), the New Atheists, and most Theistic Evolutionists, the Intelligent Design Movement [IDM] is merely "creationism dressed up in a new tuxedo." However, IDM and the Creation Science Movement both disagree. IDM says that it is different from creation science because it deals only with science--it doesn't depend on and texts or literature. Creation science emphasizes a difference because Intelligent Design does not emphasize the name of the Designer. Because of this, some have taken to referring to Intelligent Design as a "bankrupt theory." I happen to agree with this sentiment.
Intelligent Design prides itself on being unbiased--"following the evidence wherever it leads." Yet, when the evidence leads to a young-earth, or no Big Bang, or an absence of any kind of macroevolution, IDM balks. They are not prepared to entertain THAT kind of evidence! IDM also boasts of not specifying the identity of the Designer. Yet, most of the Intelligent Design Movement are Christians of some shade or fashion. In fact, most are Protestants. And, Protestants have historically taken the stand of Sola Scriptura (Scripture alone) as advocated by the Reformers. The Apostle Paul says in 1 Corinthians 10:31: "Whether therefore ye eat, or drink, or whatsoever ye do, do all to the glory of God." [KJV] Whatever we, as Christians, are to do, we should do it to bring glory and honor to God. This includes honoring Him as Creator.
There is a danger here. A danger that pervades all the ranks in IDM. There are many Christians (and Catholics) who recognize who the Creator is (if not openly, then in secret). But there are Jews, Muslims, and agnostics that subscribe to the IDM, because they see the inherent stupidity of Darwinism. One of the most prominent men in the IDM, David Berlinski, is an eminent philosopher and mathematician. He is a Jew. He is also agnostic. Yet, he recognizes the problems inherent in IDM. He is perfectly fine with bashing Darwinism (which he does quite well!). But he hobnobs with men like Stephen Meyer, William Dembski, and Phillip Johnson. What's so bad about that? These three men are Christians: they could be a good influence on him. But, he's still an agnostic. Yet he shows no signs of being bitter towards the gospel, so he must not be smothered with it. I can't say this for sure, but the desire to separate the science from God might possibly lead to Christians not directly giving the gospel to those unsaved. Instead, they may try to win them indirectly with evidence and reason, ignoring the work and Person of the Holy Spirit. This is dangerous. What if Berlinski should die? Being Christians, wouldn't most of his colleagues be mortified to know of the condition of his soul? I pray for Berlinski (and Dawkins) every night. I pray for their salvation. When God is distanced from His role as Creator and Designer, He is also often distanced from His role as Savior.
Wednesday, July 31, 2013
Thursday, July 25, 2013
BioLogos Leads the Charge . . .
Many Christians (and non-Christians alike) are familiar with the organization, BioLogos. For those who are not, allow me to identify them and their mission (agenda?). BioLogos is an organization that seeks to unify Christian belief with accepted, consensus mainstream science. In essence, they want to fully integrate evolutionary thinking (accepted, consensus mainstream science) with orthodox Christian doctrine.
Why do they want to do this? Because, in their minds, Christian scholars look flat-out stupid because we accept the Genesis creation account as literal history. They think that Christians will be more accepted into the mainstream science if we accept the evolutionary timescales. By seeking this, BioLogos treads on dangerous grounds. They seek to change the literal straightforward interpretation of God's Word to accommodate to fallible, human reasoning. That's something that I won't even pretend to comprehend. But, let's look at their reasoning. Will accepting evolution really make Christianity more palatable to the secular crowd?
As a prime example, I will use Richard Dawkins. Dawkins really doesn't need an introduction. He is (without question) the most outspoken and popular New Atheist alive today. And, he's not ashamed of what he believes. Contrast his unashamed beliefs with those of two men he debated: Francis Collins and John Lennox. Now, Collins and Lennox are both extremely intelligent men. Collins led the Human Genome Project, and Lennox is a professor of mathematics at Oxford University. But, both men made a mistake when debating Dawkins. They both confessed to belief in evolution. And Dawkins was quick to take them up on their concessions. It was sad to read Dawkins' response to Collins' confession. He questioned Collins on what kind of God would use such a brutal and merciless process as evolution. Collins really had no substantial answer. When Lennox debated Dawkins and confessed, the look of smugness and victory that crossed Dawkins' face as he briefly hammered Lennox about it was heart-breaking. In both cases, I found myself agreeing with Dawkins.
Don't take what I said as my confession to atheism. By no means: in fact, quite the opposite. I agreed with Dawkins, because he was right. And it bolstered my faith. Dawkins was completely unimpressed with two Christian scholars who accepted evolution. And I agreed with him. There is no excuse for a Christian to accept evolutionary theory when it contradicts the plainly written Word of God and even God's Nature. How could a loving God reconcile Himself with the brutalities of evolution? [I may address this in a later blog.] Dawkins' responses clearly showed his contempt for compromising religion with an obviously atheistic worldview. Dawkins has been known for saying that evolution makes it possible to be "an intellectually fulfilled atheist." Dawkins is out to destroy creation science and religion in general. He has no use for cowardly Christians who can't stand up for Biblical beliefs. Compromising with evolution surely didn't get his support.
There is another issue (and I will just briefly touch on this). They want to be accepted. Why? Paul advocates in Romans 12:2 a different philosophy: And be not conformed to this world: but be ye transformed by the renewing of your mind, that ye may prove what is that good, and acceptable, and perfect, will of God. We are not to be part of the world. Notice, also, that Paul said to renew our minds. So, we should not be in line with the world's thinking either. Evolution is part of the world's thinking. We must be separate. Which is more important: God's approval or man's? The choice is yours.
Why do they want to do this? Because, in their minds, Christian scholars look flat-out stupid because we accept the Genesis creation account as literal history. They think that Christians will be more accepted into the mainstream science if we accept the evolutionary timescales. By seeking this, BioLogos treads on dangerous grounds. They seek to change the literal straightforward interpretation of God's Word to accommodate to fallible, human reasoning. That's something that I won't even pretend to comprehend. But, let's look at their reasoning. Will accepting evolution really make Christianity more palatable to the secular crowd?
As a prime example, I will use Richard Dawkins. Dawkins really doesn't need an introduction. He is (without question) the most outspoken and popular New Atheist alive today. And, he's not ashamed of what he believes. Contrast his unashamed beliefs with those of two men he debated: Francis Collins and John Lennox. Now, Collins and Lennox are both extremely intelligent men. Collins led the Human Genome Project, and Lennox is a professor of mathematics at Oxford University. But, both men made a mistake when debating Dawkins. They both confessed to belief in evolution. And Dawkins was quick to take them up on their concessions. It was sad to read Dawkins' response to Collins' confession. He questioned Collins on what kind of God would use such a brutal and merciless process as evolution. Collins really had no substantial answer. When Lennox debated Dawkins and confessed, the look of smugness and victory that crossed Dawkins' face as he briefly hammered Lennox about it was heart-breaking. In both cases, I found myself agreeing with Dawkins.
Don't take what I said as my confession to atheism. By no means: in fact, quite the opposite. I agreed with Dawkins, because he was right. And it bolstered my faith. Dawkins was completely unimpressed with two Christian scholars who accepted evolution. And I agreed with him. There is no excuse for a Christian to accept evolutionary theory when it contradicts the plainly written Word of God and even God's Nature. How could a loving God reconcile Himself with the brutalities of evolution? [I may address this in a later blog.] Dawkins' responses clearly showed his contempt for compromising religion with an obviously atheistic worldview. Dawkins has been known for saying that evolution makes it possible to be "an intellectually fulfilled atheist." Dawkins is out to destroy creation science and religion in general. He has no use for cowardly Christians who can't stand up for Biblical beliefs. Compromising with evolution surely didn't get his support.
There is another issue (and I will just briefly touch on this). They want to be accepted. Why? Paul advocates in Romans 12:2 a different philosophy: And be not conformed to this world: but be ye transformed by the renewing of your mind, that ye may prove what is that good, and acceptable, and perfect, will of God. We are not to be part of the world. Notice, also, that Paul said to renew our minds. So, we should not be in line with the world's thinking either. Evolution is part of the world's thinking. We must be separate. Which is more important: God's approval or man's? The choice is yours.
Tuesday, June 18, 2013
Creation and Design
Oftentimes, proponents of Darwinism confuse creation science with intelligent design. And, almost every time, both creationists and the ID movement respond with a negative. They are not the same thing. Now, creationists do believe in design. And, the ID movement has definite theistic implications (just read Signature in the Cell to find out).
The other day, one of my coworkers brought up the subject of origins. Now, both of us are Christians. Neither of us was debating whether God created, or how. We're also both Young-Earth Creationists (that's really the only position the Bible allows). He brought up the fact that I had been reading a lot of Intelligent Design literature. I affirmed it. He asked why. I told him that I had been reading a lot of Intelligent Design literature rather than Creationist literature because Creationist literature is often written toward the layperson that doesn't necessarily have a background in science. But, most ID literature presumes at least some background in science (especially those books actually published by the Discovery Institute). I prefer to read the more challenging and technical literature. He rejoined with a comment about not believing in ID. This seems to be common objection among Christians. I responded that yes, I do believe in ID. Why shouldn't I?
There are several reasons why a Christian can (and should) accept Intelligent Design:
1) We as Christians believe that God created everything. Because God created everything, He also would have had to design it as well. God is also intelligent. Therefore, I should see evidence of Intelligent Design: and I do.
2) The theory of Intelligent Design is merely a scientific theory. It presupposes no metaphysical or philosophical beliefs before detecting design in nature. However, the metaphysical and philosophical implications of ID often lead to theism (the late astronomer, Allan Sandage, and the biologist, Dean Kenyon, are perfect examples). Intelligent Design has such broad implications that fitting it into creation science is relatively simple (but, remember, they're still distinct modes of inquiry!).
3) Finally, ID seeks to tear down the paradigm that Darwinism has created for science. In some ways, ID is more qualified to do this than Creationism because it doesn't come with any religious underpinnings. Scientists are more prone to doubt Darwin than accept creationism. And, we can't convert them to creationism (and Christ) without first making them doubt Darwin. ID accomplishes this. Also, because ID is hostile toward Darwinism, it tends to be rather benign towards creation science. Of all the anti-evolution theories, ID is the one that has not attacked creation science. In fact, in some ways, ID has found an ally in creation science.
These different reasons give indication that ID is compatible with creation science. Now, obviously, not every person in ID is a Young-Earth Creationist. Some believe in the Big Bang (which Young-Earth Creationism normally opposes), common descent, and a very old Earth. But, as a creationist, I can believe in ID, because I do believe that God marvelously created this wonderful universe that we live in.
The other day, one of my coworkers brought up the subject of origins. Now, both of us are Christians. Neither of us was debating whether God created, or how. We're also both Young-Earth Creationists (that's really the only position the Bible allows). He brought up the fact that I had been reading a lot of Intelligent Design literature. I affirmed it. He asked why. I told him that I had been reading a lot of Intelligent Design literature rather than Creationist literature because Creationist literature is often written toward the layperson that doesn't necessarily have a background in science. But, most ID literature presumes at least some background in science (especially those books actually published by the Discovery Institute). I prefer to read the more challenging and technical literature. He rejoined with a comment about not believing in ID. This seems to be common objection among Christians. I responded that yes, I do believe in ID. Why shouldn't I?
There are several reasons why a Christian can (and should) accept Intelligent Design:
1) We as Christians believe that God created everything. Because God created everything, He also would have had to design it as well. God is also intelligent. Therefore, I should see evidence of Intelligent Design: and I do.
2) The theory of Intelligent Design is merely a scientific theory. It presupposes no metaphysical or philosophical beliefs before detecting design in nature. However, the metaphysical and philosophical implications of ID often lead to theism (the late astronomer, Allan Sandage, and the biologist, Dean Kenyon, are perfect examples). Intelligent Design has such broad implications that fitting it into creation science is relatively simple (but, remember, they're still distinct modes of inquiry!).
3) Finally, ID seeks to tear down the paradigm that Darwinism has created for science. In some ways, ID is more qualified to do this than Creationism because it doesn't come with any religious underpinnings. Scientists are more prone to doubt Darwin than accept creationism. And, we can't convert them to creationism (and Christ) without first making them doubt Darwin. ID accomplishes this. Also, because ID is hostile toward Darwinism, it tends to be rather benign towards creation science. Of all the anti-evolution theories, ID is the one that has not attacked creation science. In fact, in some ways, ID has found an ally in creation science.
These different reasons give indication that ID is compatible with creation science. Now, obviously, not every person in ID is a Young-Earth Creationist. Some believe in the Big Bang (which Young-Earth Creationism normally opposes), common descent, and a very old Earth. But, as a creationist, I can believe in ID, because I do believe that God marvelously created this wonderful universe that we live in.
Friday, April 19, 2013
Cambrian Explosion...or Graveyard?
Creationists need to be careful when discussing the fossil record with unbelievers (or believers). When discussing the fossil record, it is relatively easy to point out the obvious absence of transitional forms, the mixed up strata, and the obvious discontinuities between fossil species. However, there is one area that creationists misuse much of the time. The Cambrian Explosion.
What is the Cambrian Explosion? About 530 million years ago (according to evolutionary time), there is an abrupt appearance of thousands of different body plans and animal phyla. These phyla have no obvious ancestors in the fossil record. Charles Darwin once said that the fossil record was one of his greatest enemies. When the Cambrian Explosion was first discovered, it caused quite a stir, and the secular scientific community still has not given a satisfactory explanation.
But, apparently, the Intelligent Design (ID) Movement has. Dr. Stephen Meyer of the Discovery Institute is publishing a new book in June called Darwin's Doubt: The Explosive Origin of Animal Life and the Case for Intelligent Design. Now, so ENV doesn't take what I say and put it on the same plane as what Jerry Coyne says (I hope they don't), I am not going to say one way or the other about what the book deals with. First, I haven't read it yet. Second, I am looking forward to reading it. I currently own a copy of Signature in the Cell (it took me awhile to find the hardcover edition!), and I am very much enjoying it. I agree with almost everything he says in the book. I am going to make one assumption about Dr. Meyer's book: because of the title, I am going to assume that the book deals with the sudden appearance of animal life.This is where ID really sticks it to the Darwinists. They point out that you cannot have all of these brand new animal phyla without a sudden, massive influx of new information. That is very true. According to the fossil record, these animals never existed before--they are brand new. Therefore, they must have been designed.
This is the point at which creationists need to take notice. It is is fallacious for creationists to use the term, "Cambrian Explosion," because there was no explosion. The one major advantage that creationism has over ID is that we have an Infallible Guide to direct our research into origins studies. The Creator has told us how He created. We know that He created in six literal days approximately six thousand years ago (yes, there has been extensive research done in this area by legitimate scientists--just check out some of the links on this blog). On days five and six, all animal phyla were supernaturally brought into existence ex nihilo. If all animal phyla were brought into existence at the same time, then how could there be a sudden appearance of more animal phyla later in the fossil record?
Because, this was not a record of appearance. It was a record of death and burial. Approximately 4,300 years ago, another WORLDWIDE event happened. Christians refer to it as Noah's Flood, of simply, The Flood. I am prepared for a round of snickers at the mention of it, but it's okay. Several good books have been written on the subject (of course, most who would derisively laugh at the idea of The Flood would never dare actually read a technical, academically rigorous book on the subject). The Flood wiped out all living things except for those preserved on the ark. The Cambrian Explosion is a testament to the catastrophe that buried them, not some random, unknown influx of design from some unidentified Designer. Creationists need to be careful not to adopt the same terminology as ID and therefore confuse the issues.
(This will make Discovery Institute and ENV happy!) ID and Creationism are not the same thing. ID merely postulates that there is design. Creationism advances a coherent origins model based upon God's record account and supplemented by scientific evidence. When Creationists speak of the Cambrian Explosion, I think a better term is in order. I think it should be referred to as the Cambrian Graveyard. For truly, it is a Graveyard--a testament to Divine Judgment.
What is the Cambrian Explosion? About 530 million years ago (according to evolutionary time), there is an abrupt appearance of thousands of different body plans and animal phyla. These phyla have no obvious ancestors in the fossil record. Charles Darwin once said that the fossil record was one of his greatest enemies. When the Cambrian Explosion was first discovered, it caused quite a stir, and the secular scientific community still has not given a satisfactory explanation.
But, apparently, the Intelligent Design (ID) Movement has. Dr. Stephen Meyer of the Discovery Institute is publishing a new book in June called Darwin's Doubt: The Explosive Origin of Animal Life and the Case for Intelligent Design. Now, so ENV doesn't take what I say and put it on the same plane as what Jerry Coyne says (I hope they don't), I am not going to say one way or the other about what the book deals with. First, I haven't read it yet. Second, I am looking forward to reading it. I currently own a copy of Signature in the Cell (it took me awhile to find the hardcover edition!), and I am very much enjoying it. I agree with almost everything he says in the book. I am going to make one assumption about Dr. Meyer's book: because of the title, I am going to assume that the book deals with the sudden appearance of animal life.This is where ID really sticks it to the Darwinists. They point out that you cannot have all of these brand new animal phyla without a sudden, massive influx of new information. That is very true. According to the fossil record, these animals never existed before--they are brand new. Therefore, they must have been designed.
This is the point at which creationists need to take notice. It is is fallacious for creationists to use the term, "Cambrian Explosion," because there was no explosion. The one major advantage that creationism has over ID is that we have an Infallible Guide to direct our research into origins studies. The Creator has told us how He created. We know that He created in six literal days approximately six thousand years ago (yes, there has been extensive research done in this area by legitimate scientists--just check out some of the links on this blog). On days five and six, all animal phyla were supernaturally brought into existence ex nihilo. If all animal phyla were brought into existence at the same time, then how could there be a sudden appearance of more animal phyla later in the fossil record?
Because, this was not a record of appearance. It was a record of death and burial. Approximately 4,300 years ago, another WORLDWIDE event happened. Christians refer to it as Noah's Flood, of simply, The Flood. I am prepared for a round of snickers at the mention of it, but it's okay. Several good books have been written on the subject (of course, most who would derisively laugh at the idea of The Flood would never dare actually read a technical, academically rigorous book on the subject). The Flood wiped out all living things except for those preserved on the ark. The Cambrian Explosion is a testament to the catastrophe that buried them, not some random, unknown influx of design from some unidentified Designer. Creationists need to be careful not to adopt the same terminology as ID and therefore confuse the issues.
(This will make Discovery Institute and ENV happy!) ID and Creationism are not the same thing. ID merely postulates that there is design. Creationism advances a coherent origins model based upon God's record account and supplemented by scientific evidence. When Creationists speak of the Cambrian Explosion, I think a better term is in order. I think it should be referred to as the Cambrian Graveyard. For truly, it is a Graveyard--a testament to Divine Judgment.
Wednesday, April 17, 2013
A Need to Stand in the Gap
This year has seen the passing of two Giants of the Faith. Dr. Duane Gish of Institute for Creation Research (ICR) and Dr. Dave Hunt of The Berean Call (TBC) have gone home to be with the Lord.
Dr. Gish was a champion of debate. He has been compared to Thomas Huxley in his skills. Many have referred to him as "Creation's Bulldog" (a reference to Huxley as "Darwin's Bulldog"). He authored many books, including Evolution: The Fossils STILL Say No! and Letter to a Theistic Evolutionist. He will be greatly missed from the creationist ranks.
Dr. Dave Hunt was a champion of logic. He co-founded TBC with T. A. McMahon in order to combat the deadly influences creeping into the Church. He did a fantastic job! He wrote many books, including Judgment Day: Islam, Israel, and the Nations, Psychology and the Church, What Love Is This: Calvin's Misrepresentation of God, and Cosmos, Creator, and Human Destiny: Answering Dawkins, Darwin and the New Atheists. He is considered one of the greatest writers and thinkers of modern fundamentalism. He will be greatly missed.
What shall we do, now? Two giants have been taken home. It is time for us, the younger Christians, to start filling in the gaps. The Lord's work has not finished yet. There is still much to do.
For further information:
Remembering Dr. Duane T. Gish, Creation's 'Bulldog'
To Our Berean Call Family
Dr. Gish was a champion of debate. He has been compared to Thomas Huxley in his skills. Many have referred to him as "Creation's Bulldog" (a reference to Huxley as "Darwin's Bulldog"). He authored many books, including Evolution: The Fossils STILL Say No! and Letter to a Theistic Evolutionist. He will be greatly missed from the creationist ranks.
Dr. Dave Hunt was a champion of logic. He co-founded TBC with T. A. McMahon in order to combat the deadly influences creeping into the Church. He did a fantastic job! He wrote many books, including Judgment Day: Islam, Israel, and the Nations, Psychology and the Church, What Love Is This: Calvin's Misrepresentation of God, and Cosmos, Creator, and Human Destiny: Answering Dawkins, Darwin and the New Atheists. He is considered one of the greatest writers and thinkers of modern fundamentalism. He will be greatly missed.
What shall we do, now? Two giants have been taken home. It is time for us, the younger Christians, to start filling in the gaps. The Lord's work has not finished yet. There is still much to do.
For further information:
Remembering Dr. Duane T. Gish, Creation's 'Bulldog'
To Our Berean Call Family
Monday, February 18, 2013
Berlinski Gives It to the Atheists!
When the New Atheists start their polemic rants against Creationism, Intelligent Design, or just religion in general, Christian philosophers and scholars rise to the occasion to defend. But the Atheists rarely (if ever) listen. They just don't have time for the petty Christian scholars. Dr. Berlinski is a different matter.
Dr. Berlinski is not a Christian, nor is he necessarily religious. He is a self-proclaimed secular Jew. In the book he references the days gone by of "sunny agnosticism." As an agnostic, you would think that he would side with the New Atheists against religion. WRONG!
Berlinski delivers an amazing defense of religious philosophy and God Himself. In some ways, he presents a more cogent and persuasive proof of God than most Christians. His book was a great pleasure to read.
It has been said that Darwin's Origin of Species was written as "one long argument." I cannot personally comment on this, for I have not read it (yet). Berlinski's book is one long (enjoyable) argument! He has fun dishing it out to the Atheists. He is very respectful of religious thought.
I definitely recommend this book.
David Berlinski: www.davidberlinski.org
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)