Search This Blog

Friday, May 29, 2009

Darwin versus God in Genesis One verse one


{picture credit Honey 77 of flickr}

I Corinthians 1:18-31 - NIV

For the message of the cross is foolishness to those who are perishing, but to us who are being saved it is the power of God. For it is written:
"I will destroy the wisdom of the wise; the intelligence of the intelligent I will frustrate."

Where is the wise man? Where is the scholar? Where is the philosopher of this age? Has not God made foolish the wisdom of the world? For since in the wisdom of God the world through its wisdom did not know him, God was pleased through the foolishness of what was preached to save those who believe. Jews demand miraculous signs and Greeks look for wisdom, but we preach Christ crucified: a stumbling block to Jews and foolishness to Gentiles, but to those whom God has called, both Jews and Greeks, Christ the power of God and the wisdom of God. For the foolishness of God is wiser than man's wisdom, and the weakness of God is stronger than man's strength.


Brothers, think of what you were when you were called. Not many of you were wise by human standards; not many were influential; not many were of noble birth. But God chose the foolish things of the world to shame the wise; God chose the weak things of the world to shame the strong. He chose the lowly things of this world and the despised things—and the things that are not—to nullify the things that are, so that no one may boast before him. It is because of him that you are in Christ Jesus, who has become for us wisdom from God—that is, our righteousness, holiness and redemption. Therefore, as it is written:


"Let him who boasts boast in the Lord."

One of the great barriers to salvation is man's worship of his own intellect. We think that salvation should be hard, complicated, challenging, enlightening...not simple so that even a child can receive it! Even a caveman...oh, never mind, that is somebody else's schtick. Richard Dawkins credits evolution with making atheism intellectually satisfying. The cross of Christ is distasteful to some simply because it is so simple.

Others prefer that there be no God setting the rules, like Sir Julian Huxley, because it limited his sexual activities and other things he wanted to do that were not allowed by the God of the Bible. Many who believe in Evolution do so because they believe it therefore eliminates the need for God, thus eliminating a standard for behavior and allows them to formulate their own codes and standards and social mores. This is the "if it feels good, do it" crowd.

Still others despise the concept of the need to humble themselves and admit that they need God to save them. Man wants to justify himself and he wants to sit on his own throne, neither beholding to God or kowtowing to Him. Pride goeth before destruction and a haughty spirit before a fall. Humility is not a trait easily worn by those with talent and/or riches, who are used to being admired, followed and obeyed.

So that many scientists are NOT Christians is not surprising, since science is a field that challenges the intellect. Many self-worshippers wind up as scientists. On the other hand, that desire to seek out and understand truth leads many scientists right back to God Himself. So we have plenty of believers in the scientific community anyway.

Born again believers in Jesus Christ are surely basing their salvation on the Creator God of the Bible and so therefore they must believe that the Bible is true. If the Bible is not truly the Word of God, how do you depend upon it for your salvation? How is the message of Christ reliable? I challenge you to consider this as we open the Word of God to Genesis chapter one and verse one.

In the beginning God created the heavens and the earth

This is a straightforward assertion. God is saying that He created everything, correct? From the point of view of a man, all we are able to observe is the heavens and the earth. We are situated in the arm of a galaxy in an area where we can observe much of our own galaxy and a great deal of the rest of the Universe, so we truly can see much of what has been created.

God is asserting that there was a beginning. This is an assertion that He began time and matter. Steady State theory has long been tossed aside by the vast majority of naturalistic scientists in favor of some kind of Big Bang. They are in agreement with God that there was a beginning and that all time and matter started at one point in time. They do not wish to give place to God, though, so where and how such a Big Bang could have originated, by what power, under whose supervision, etc? They frankly do not have much of a clue. The Universe does appear to have had a beginning and in that almost everyone is in agreement.

God asserts a beginning and He also takes credit for creating and specifically states that He created the Earth. God is going to modify this opening statement with further details as we go on, so at this point it is not necessary to infer that He created the heavens and then the Earth, or both at exactly the same time, for He is absolutely being a great journalist.

We were taught in journalism school to be sure to put the story into the opening line. We could then spend a few paragraphs filling in the details, but that opening sentence had better summarize the story or we were not doing our jobs! God, the Creator even of editors and J-School teachers, does exactly that. He has summarized the first chapter of Genesis in one sentence.

~~~~~~~






cartoon from jasonlove.com

Suppose detectives are called to a crime scene, and they find a man hung from a rafter in the middle of a cabin and, on the desk, there is a note.

Detective one says, "Here's a note, let's see what it says."

Detective two says, "Toss it in the trash. I only want to consider the evidence!"

Is that logical? Of course not! Homicide detectives immediately look for a note in any possible suicide scenario. Often notes are left, sometimes they are faked or forcibly written and sometimes they are honest last messages left by someone who has decided that life on this planet for them must end. Any note left at the scene is part of the evidence and must be considered!

When it comes to the idea of the beginning of the Universe, scientists are forced to be forensic investigators, because we have no way of going back in time to view the beginning. Naturalistic materialists, such as Darwinists, foolishly crumple up the note left to explain the beginning of the Universe. I am referring to the Book of Genesis, of course!

A good forensic investigator doesn't limit suspects in a crime to only right-handed men because the only people they have personally arrested were all right-handed men. They will understand that all possibilities must be considered. Sometimes investigators just begin eliminating suspects until only one is left, along the line of Occam's Razor.

Those of you who are Christians, I am going to do my best to show you that faith in Christ is totally incompatible with a belief in evolution.

Those of you who are not, I intend to challenge you to investigate your presuppositions by comparing what the book of Genesis states, what we see in the Universe around us, and what Evolution asserts.

This is year four of this blog. I have learned that there are large numbers of people who deliberately obfuscate and hide and change evidence to push their own points of view. There is evidence that Darwinists have destroyed fossil evidence that harms their pet theory. There are certainly websites that post information they know has been refuted on purpose in order to fool the masses.

I have learned that some who are actually supposed to be on my side are intentionally deceptive! There are still Creationists who will try to pass off a picture of a rotting Basking Shark as a Pleisiosaurus. There are still people who claim to have found the actual blood of Jesus Christ. There are also those who think they have a piece of the actual Ark of Noah.

There may be rabbit trails I will not run down so that I do not spend time on issues that are not on topic, such as ice cores and prison populations. I have a few commenters who want me to focus on things like that so that the main focus will be off of the preposterous claims of Evolution. I will not be thrown off-course. I am a Bloodhound focused on following the trail.

During this Darwin versus God series, I will occasionally post articles by creation scientists and a few profiles of great scientists who believe in creation to augment the arguments I will present for the veracity of God in the form of the Book of Genesis and the idea that creationists do actual science and, in fact, often do better science because they are creationists! Here we go....

9 comments:

Anonymous said...

So that many scientists are NOT Christians is not surprising, since science is a field that challenges the intellect.Well said, Radar. Though, I think you and I interpret this sentence differently.


lava

Anonymous said...

When you use the term "Christians" does that only include YEC Christians? Or is a Christian anyone who believes in Jesus as the Savior?


lava

WomanHonorThyself said...

hi radar..the opening line indeed!..have a great weekend my friend!:)

Anonymous said...

I might as well start here:

"Suppose detectives are called to a crime scene, and they find a man hung from a rafter in the middle of a cabin and, on the desk, there is a note.

Detective one says, "Here's a note, let's see what it says."

Detective two says, "Toss it in the trash. I only want to consider the evidence!"

Is that logical? Of course not! Homicide detectives immediately look for a note in any possible suicide scenario. Often notes are left, sometimes they are faked or forcibly written and sometimes they are honest last messages left by someone who has decided that life on this planet for them must end. Any note left at the scene is part of the evidence and must be considered!

When it comes to the idea of the beginning of the Universe, scientists are forced to be forensic investigators, because we have no way of going back in time to view the beginning. Naturalistic materialists, such as Darwinists, foolishly crumple up the note left to explain the beginning of the Universe. I am referring to the Book of Genesis, of course!"
.

There are several logical flaws in your analogy and your general reasoning.

1. The reason such a note would be of interest in the detective scenario is because it could be left behind by a witness to the crime (be it the victim or someone else).

The Book of Genesis, however, was not written by someone who was present at the time of Creation.

Looking at the Book of Genesis is not like looking at the note found at the scene of the crime, it's like looking at a book written many millennia after the event in question.

2. The whole approach in this blog post is fundamentally flawed, in that you are presenting the Bible itself as "evidence" when that is anything but established. You made this claim some time ago, making it out to be a sign of open-mindedness to take the Bible as evidence.

This is a classic example of the logic fallacy of circular reasoning:

"The Bible is true."
"How do we know that?"
"Because it is the word of God."
"How do we know God exists?"
"Because the Bible says so."
"How do we know the Bible is true?"

Repeat at your leisure.

But let's be open-minded about the Bible, and what it means if we want to consider it as "evidence". The thing is, what you have in mind here is not "open-mindedness" at all, but an extreme closed-mindedness, amounting to "the Bible is evidence, but all other religious texts are not, with no explanation given".

The Bible is an ancient religious text, an anthology that features different kinds of texts from different sources. Some parts of it reference actual events that can be verified from other sources.

But it would be a logical fallacy (the fallacy of composition, to be specific) to assume that because one part of the text can be verified, that all of it must be true. Do we look at the Iliad and see it as "evidence" that the Greek gods actually existed? After all, that's an ancient text that features some events that can be verified from other sources.

And are we to just accept all creation myths as "evidence"? I mean, we're supposed to be "open-minded", right? So how do we decide which creation myth is "evidence" and which isn't? Any thoughts?

-- creeper

chaos_engineer said...

I guess I'll join in the discussion, but it doesn't seem like it's going to be all that productive. It looks like you want to argue with Christians who believe in evolution, but are there any around here? I've never seen any comments from them.

If you want to correct errors in Christian belief, I'd take a different approach. From what I've seen on their blogs: The "Woman, Honor Thyself" person is in dire need of a refresher course about the Sermon on the Mount, and I don't think "Ex-Preacher Man" has ever even heard of the Ninth Commandment. Maybe you could help them out?

Anyway, as to the topic at hand: If I were a Christian, I'd probably ask, "What evidence is there that the Genesis Creation story should be read as a how-to manual that tells us what steps to take in order to create a universe? Isn't it possible that it's just using the literary technique of parallelism to emphasize that God is the creator of all things? Actually, do we really need to waste time arguing about it? If we're in agreement that God created everything, then what difference does it make if we disagree over the details of how and when it happened?"

Anonymous said...

"It looks like you want to argue with Christians who believe in evolution, but are there any around here? I've never seen any comments from them.".

Good question. We could ask, I suppose.

Are there any readers of this blog who (1) are Christians, and (2) "believe in evolution"?.

If so, just put a "Yes" in the comments below.

radar said...

Debbie has posted an answer to Dawkins.

A Christian is anyone who has trusted Jesus Christ as Savior, whether or not he believes in evolution or creation.

I am making a logical presentation asserting that it makes sense for Christians to trust God in matters of history as well as salvation.

The Bible is the most remarkable and revered book in human history. God claims authorship, He was there creating at the beginning and therefore it is the only eyewitness account of creation.

Our words for library in many languages all come from the root word for Bible or the Book. It is known that the Semetic peoples had written languages in antiquity. There is every reason to believe that the Bible is the first book and the oldest book in existence.

Myth is what you make it. My myth is your truth and vice versa. One needs to apply yourself to studying history and viewing evidence before lightly dismissing the Bible as mythology.

I have already had two people email me expressing a belief in evolution as part of God's plan. I will not expose them, but at least two do come here and read and even comment occasionally. But far more people come and never comment, which is the way of blogs.

Anonymous said...

"I am making a logical presentation asserting that it makes sense for Christians to trust God in matters of history as well as salvation."

By going through the incredibly vague wording of Genesis and seeing how it is vague enough to coincide with what we observe? "In the beginning, God created the heavens and the earth." Something that can be neither proven nor disproven. That doesn't exactly make Genesis a trustworthy history text.

"The Bible is the most remarkable and revered book in human history. God claims authorship, He was there creating at the beginning and therefore it is the only eyewitness account of creation."

It's not God who claims authorship, it's Man who claims God authored it. If you want to claim that God wrote the bible and present as evidence the writing itself, then that is circular reasoning and thus a fallacy.

For example, if I claimed there was a deity called Bob and sat down and wrote a text in which Bob claimed he wrote this text, would that be sufficient evidence for Bob's existence and for the document to have been genuinely written by Bob?

Or is there any independent evidence that God wrote the bible? On the contrary, there is plenty of evidence that it was written by a number of different humans.

"Our words for library in many languages all come from the root word for Bible or the Book."

Biblos meant "book" long before it was generally used to refer to the Judeo-Christian bible, and it's hardly surprising that the word would be included in a word referring to a collection of books.

Are you seriously trying to claim that the word for library (say, bibliotheque in French) was chosen out of reverence for the Judeo-Christian bible?

"It is known that the Semetic peoples had written languages in antiquity. There is every reason to believe that the Bible is the first book and the oldest book in existence."

By book you mean something in written form? Because there are older examples of preserved writing than the bible, right?

"Myth is what you make it. My myth is your truth and vice versa. One needs to apply yourself to studying history and viewing evidence before lightly dismissing the Bible as mythology."

You do know what a creation myth is, right? There's a handy list of them here. It means a little more than the "it's just a myth" sense in which you've chosen to take it.

The question is, what makes those creation myths wrong and the one in Genesis right?

Yep, myth is what you make it, it's all a matter of faith and yada yada - which is exactly why such texts have no place in any scientific context.

"I have already had two people email me expressing a belief in evolution as part of God's plan. I will not expose them, but at least two do come here and read and even comment occasionally."

What, are they ashamed? Weird. You're welcome to join the discussion, folks - if you exist.

-- creeper

Anonymous said...

What, are they ashamed? Weird. You're welcome to join the discussion, folks - if you exist.

Yeah, kinda like that 'friend' of Radar that said that Hartnett's calculations made sense.