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.
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)