Search This Blog

Sunday, October 03, 2010

Why Christianity and Darwinism can't mix - the end (for now).


Naturally commenters helped me write this last post.  Of COURSE they want to help us find our way to the correct pathway of life.  Jon Woolf said:  

"It actually is quite an interesting, if disturbing, problem in binary theology: do you believe the words that other men say are the Word of God, or do you believe the record written into the very rocks of God's Creation? You can't believe both. One or the other is wrong. So, do you sacrifice your reason on the altar of your soul, or do you sell your soul for the sake of your reason? Or do you perhaps find a third way?

I have greater respect for men who seek a third path than for men who take either of the first two."


Well, now, this is quite a comment.  "Binary Theology?"  That is a term invented by men who disagree with Jesus Christ Himself and yet want to be considered Christians.   Jesus said "I am the way and the truth and the life. No one comes to the Father except through me."  All the original Christians knew that Christ came to be the Messiah, the Lamb of God, the fulfillment of scriptures.   Historical Christianity has always been a matter of receiving Christ as Savior.   Some have added works or extra prayers or religious ceremonies to this but normal Christianity is about depending upon Christ to forgive your sins and create within you a new creature who is forever linked to God.

First, if you are a Darwinist then you believe the words written by Charles Darwin rather than the Word of God.  There are no "words" in the rock record.  It is highly unlikely that Woolf believes the rock record is "God's Creation" since he argues against a Creator God on a regular basis.

What kind of other men believed the Bible is the Word of God?
Moses
Joshua
Elijah
Daniel 
Isaiah
Jesus Christ
The apostles and the thousands of believers martyred for that belief in the first few decades of Anno Domini.
The hundreds of thousands martyred for their faith in Christ since then.
Those being martyred for their faith in Christ even in the 21st Century
John Newton, instrumental in ending the slave trade
Galileo
Sir Isaac Newton
Michael Faraday
Martin Luther
Benjamin Franklin
Lord Kelvin
Louis Pasteur
George Washington
Werner Von Braun and on and on and on...

"You can't believe both. One or the other is wrong".   False dichotomy.  The record of the rocks supports a world-wide flood and a period of cataclysmic changes including an ice age that was caused by the combination of warm waters and cold land and an atmosphere full of dust and smoke of volcanic activity.  There is no longer any good geologist who has not acknowledged that the rock records are catastrophic in nature and that all these remarkably well preserved fossils can only exist because they were rapidly buried. 

The actual choice is between Darwin's hypothesis and God's Word.  In fact you cannot believe both God and Darwin.   What does it profit a man to gain the whole world and lose his soul?

"So, do you sacrifice your reason on the altar of your soul, or do you sell your soul for the sake of your reason? Or do you perhaps find a third way?" 

Why does this sound a little like "Did God really say...?"  The words sound like a lullaby designed to put your logic to sleep while you become comfortably numb in the pot that is prepared for you.   The Big Lie again.  If we made a list of the 20 greatest scientists of all time I bet you the majority would be or were Christians.   Darwinists have had the audacity to steal the word, "science", and applied it to their religious belief so that it can become the state religion of a nation that supposedly cannot have one, the United States.   The NCSE is a censorship agency designed to stamp out all non-Darwinist thought.  If they had their way, there would be censorship of the media and that includes the internet, I am sure.



Scientists who are Christians are censured and shunned and fired and have now begun forming their own agencies and foundations.   Creation.com, Answers in Genesis, Institute for Creation Research, Rocky Mountain Creation Fellowship, Creation Safaris and many, many others are groups of scientists, writers and researchers who are doing good science while ignoring the idiotic idea that life and time and matter made themselves.

Darwinism is an entirely nonsensical illogical flim-flam set of fairy tales.   Listening to the Discovery Channel or Animal Planet is a lot like it must have been back in the 1950's and 60's listening to the radio and being fed a steady diet of communist propaganda.   Christians attribute miracles to the only Person capable of producing them, the Supernatural Creator God.   Darwinists give the natural world credit for doing its own miracles, including the most amazing one of all - creating itself!



"I have greater respect for men who seek a third path than for men who take either of the first two."

The men who are complete compromisers like the members of Biologos?   We should have respect for the people who stick a foot in both boats before heading down the stream of life?   Can you imagine putting a foot in two different canoes and trying to navigate down a class three river that way?   You would fall out and it would not take long.   No one can put Darwin and Christ together.   They are diametrically opposed.  Jesus promises life and a way to reverse the curse that causes all creation to run downhill while Darwin magically ignores the laws of both science and reason to paint a just-so picture of molecules working hard on their way up to man.   But my next post will put the lie to that idea for good in the minds of normal people, hopefully.



Let's be clear about the Bible.   The genealogies of the Bible have been proven to be true by a survey of the world's genealogies.  You find references to Noah and/or his three sons all over the world.  Versions of the flood are found around the world.   But the Bible was a record kept by God and His people that was meant to be authentic and authoritative.  The history of the Bible concerning the peoples and events of the region of Israel have been confirmed by Archaelogists.  The Bible is a remarkable book because it was preserved by an exhaustive and painstaking system by the Jewish scribes down through the centuries.   Each portion of the Bible being copied was analyzed as if by a computer program as words were counted and index words were checked and recounted and proofread before a page was considered to be kept as part of scripture.  Before there were computers and Kaizen and standard quality control methods there were Jewish Scribes and God.

The Semetic peoples are the first with a known written language according to secular sources but in fact the Children of Israel had a written Word of God since the days of Moses and surely the ability to both read and write was developed before the Flood changed the Earth.   The descendants of Abraham were the descendants of Noah and had kept the oral history of mankind carefully enough that God could tell Moses to write that history and direct his words.   From Genesis to Revelation, the Bible is written by men of God inspired by God to write the words.    Jesus Christ used the Old Testament constantly in his teaching and underlined it as the Word of God.   The entire New Testament was arguably all written before the fall of Jerusalem in AD 70 so it was all written by men who either lived at the time of Christ or certainly the books were passed around as letters by people who were witnesses of Jesus and/or his apostles so that the history within them was verified by the very people who carried the epistles with them from church to church, risking their lives in the process.   There is no book so ancient that has so much documentation for its historicity.

One could make an entire series of posts about ancient texts, why they are so rare and how and why that is true.   But it frankly doesn't make any difference to people who are determined to follow Darwinism.   But it should make a difference to Christians.   There is no other book like the Bible and to compare the writings of Darwin and Hawking and Dawkins to the Bible is unfair to them.   They cannot compare to the Word of God.
Al Mohler had this to say:

"The real question posed by Mooney’s USA Today column is whether Christians possess the discernment to recognize this postmodern mode of spirituality for what it is — unbelief wearing the language of a bland faith.
Chris Mooney might be on to something here. The American public just might be confused enough to fall for this spirituality ploy. Will Christians do the same?"

The article in question:

The War Between Spirituality and Science Is Over

The real question posed by Mooney’s USA Today column is whether Christians possess the discernment to recognize this postmodern mode of spirituality for what it is — unbelief wearing the language of a bland faith.



There are many arenas of cultural and intellectual conflict in the world today, but one of the most controversial of these arenas has disappeared. There is now no conflict between spirituality and science. The war is over, the combatants have gone home, and lilies of peace now decorate the landscape where conflict once raged. Science and spirituality are now at total unperturbed peace.

That paragraph is meaningless, of course, which is entirely the point. Monday’s edition of USA Today features an opinion column by Chris Mooney, author of Unscientific America: How Scientific Illiteracy Threatens Our Future. Mooney sets out to argue that spirituality can serve as a bridge across the science-religion divide.


Mooney is alarmed by the pervasiveness of what he defines as scientific illiteracy among the American public. In his published writings, he associates this “illiteracy” with a “war on science” being fought by anti-evolutionists, those opposed to human embryonic stem cell research, critics of climate change, and assorted others identified as obstacles to scientific advance. Of course, the fact that a large majority of Americans reject evolution only adds fuel to his fire when he cries in his milk over what he can only describe as “illiteracy.”
But, if Mooney sees conservative Christians as a serious problem, he sees the so-called “New Atheists” as similarly vexing. It is not that those figures are characterized by scientific illiteracy, but rather that their strident atheism, once associated with science, becomes a further impediment to the public acceptance of evolution and other scientific claims.

In Unscientific America, Mooney castigates the New Atheists for their strident atheism — not because he would have them to believe in God, but because he knows that their stridency alienates the public. “The American scientific community gains nothing from the condescending rhetoric of the New Atheists,” he argues, “and neither does the stature of science in our culture.”

The stridency of their atheism — a hallmark of the New Atheism — alarms the public. “Abrasive atheism can only exacerbate this anxiety and reinforce the misimpression that scientific inquiry leads inevitably to the erosion of religion and values,” he writes.

Mooney knows and documents that scientists are far more secular than the general public, and he is well aware that this poses a huge challenge to the public acceptance of their ideas and theories. The New Atheists, including Richard Dawkins, Daniel Dennett, Sam Harris, and Christopher Hitchens, just add fuel to the fire. “If the goal is to create an America more friendly toward science and reason, the combativeness of the New Atheists is strongly counterproductive,” he laments.

Why? “America is a very religious nation,” he explains, “and if forced to choose between faith and science, vast numbers of Americans will choose the former.” He is undoubtedly correct on that score.

But all this brings us to today’s column in USA Today. Give the strident atheism a rest, he demands, and adopt the language of spirituality. As he tells the atheists, the language of spirituality is utterly compatible with atheism, but it will not scare the public.
In his words:

Across the Western world — including the United States — traditional religion is in decline, even as there has been a surge of interest in “spirituality.” What’s more, the latter concept is increasingly being redefined in our culture so that it refers to something very much separable from, and potentially broader than, religious faith.

Spirituality can have little or even nothing to do with belief in God, Mooney affirms. “Spirituality is something everyone can have — even atheists.” He explains: “In its most expansive sense, it could simply be taken to refer to any individual’s particular quest to discover that which is held sacred.”

Spirituality is completely compatible with atheism, he asserts. It requires no belief in God or the supernatural in any form. As a matter of fact, spirituality requires no beliefs at all. Mooney quotes the French sociologist Emile Durkheim: “By sacred things one must not understand simply those personal beings which are called Gods or spirits; a rock, a tree, a spring, a pebble, a piece of wood, a house, in a word, anything can be sacred.”

Thus, he argues that spirituality “might be the route to finally healing one of the most divisive rifts in Western society — over the relationship between science and religion.”

In its own way, Mooney’s column serves to illustrate the vacuity that marks modern spirituality. There is nothing to it — no beliefs, no God, no morality, no doctrine, no discipleship.

Spirituality in this sense is what is left when Christianity disappears and dissipates. It is the perfect religious mode for the postmodern mind. It requires nothing and promises nothing, but it serves as a substitute for authentic beliefs.

Clearly, Chris Mooney sees spirituality as a potential public relations strategy for the advancement of secular science and the naturalistic worldview. He needs prominent scientists like Dawkins and Dennett, along with others like Stephen Hawking, to shut up about atheism and just use the language of spirituality. They can retain their atheism, but they should not sound like atheists to the public.

My guess is that Dawkins, Dennett, and Hawking will ignore Mooney’s advice. After all, they have made atheism into a cottage industry, and their books are bestsellers. They are likely to see Mooney’s advice as quaint and unnecessary, because they feel that they own the future anyway.

The real question posed by Mooney’s USA Today column is whether Christians possess the discernment to recognize this postmodern mode of spirituality for what it is — unbelief wearing the language of a bland faith.
Chris Mooney might be on to something here. The American public just might be confused enough to fall for this spirituality ploy. Will Christians do the same?
I am always glad to hear from readers. Write me at mail@albertmohler.com. Follow regular updates on Twitter at www.twitter.com/AlbertMohler.

Chris Mooney, “Spirituality Can Bridge Science-Religion Divide,” USA Today, Monday, September 13, 2010.Chris Mooney, Unscientific America: How Scientific Illiteracy Threatens Our Future (Basic Books, 2009).

~~~~~~~~

Yes, the third way is the way that leaves men open to viewing spirituality in this way: By sacred things one must not understand simply those personal beings which are called Gods or spirits; a rock, a tree, a spring, a pebble, a piece of wood, a house, in a word, anything can be sacred.”

Not me.   I consider the Word of God as a sacred thing.   The Creator of the Universe has given it to man to help understand himself and the world around him, the meaning of life and how to appreciate and have fellowship with God.  I consider the Word of God to be far more authoritative than the words of Hawking or Dawkins.    Hawking has simply substituted gravity for a mythological character and given it the power to create the Universe with absolutely not one shred of evidence that such a thing could ever happen.



The heavens declare the glory of God;
       the skies proclaim the work of his hands.


I repeat the quote:  “Evolution is an unproven theory. If what its fundamentalist supporters believe is true, fishes decided to grow lungs and legs and walk up the beach. The idea is so comically daft that only one thing explains its survival—that lonely, frightened people wanted to expel God from the Universe because they found the idea that He exists profoundly uncomfortable.”—Peter Hitchens

If you find words written on a page, you know that a man or woman authored them.   The Bible claims that God inspired the authors to write words that were a message from God to man.   Charles Darwin had no such claim.   Stephen Hawking makes no such claim.   Choose you this day, will you allow fallible men to use false claims and fairy tales to cause you to turn away from God's Word? 

11 comments:

Jon Woolf said...

What a wonderful illustration of fundamentalist thinking, Radar. You missed my actual point, jumped to a conclusion based on your stereotyped view of 'evolutionists,' and proceeded to beat the stuffing out of your own mirror image. Some of those bruises will probably be pretty spectacular in a couple of days...

"Binary Theology?" That is a term invented by men who disagree with Jesus Christ Himself and yet want to be considered Christians.

Actually, in this specific case it's a term invented by a computer programmer seeking a way to describe your foolishly rigid worldview. One or zero, black or white, A xor B, but not both (or neither).

There is no longer any good geologist who has not acknowledged that the rock records are catastrophic in nature and that all these remarkably well preserved fossils can only exist because they were rapidly buried.

[snicker.wav]

What about all the fossils that weren't well-preserved, because they weren't buried rapidly?

Each portion of the Bible being copied was analyzed as if by a computer program as words were counted and index words were checked and recounted and proofread before a page was considered to be kept as part of scripture.

Not true, as we know from the Dead Sea Scrolls.

The oldest known form of writing is Egyptian -- King Scorpion or one of his advisers invented it around 3100 BCE.

You find references to Noah and/or his three sons all over the world.

Examples?

Versions of the flood are found around the world.

No. Versions of a flood legend are found in many ancient river-valley cultures around the world. Rivers have a tendency to flood from time to time, in case you hadn't noticed. And on occasion, those floods are widespread and wreak enormous havoc, killing thousands, even millions. With no firm way of counting years, it would be impossible for travelers in 2200BCE to tell that a flood of the Ganges in 3305BCE did not actually happen the same year as a flood of the Tigris-Euphrates in 3290BCE or a flood of the Huang He in 2988BCE.

It's also worth noting that, of all the great ancient river cultures, only one -- Ancient Egypt -- was located in the valley of a river that never produced devastating floods. Curiously enough, that culture alone has no Flood myth. Well, actually it does, but the Egyptian Flood myth is so unlike the legend of Utnapishtim that it's obviously unrelated.

Then there's the small but unwelcome fact that the oldest written Flood myth appears in a Sumerian epic poem that dates to more than 1300 years before the oldest known written copies of the Tanakh. It seems highly likely that Hebrew scholars read the Epic of Gilgamesh during the Babylonian captivity, and borrowed it for their own holy tales.

Anonymous said...

Logic

Anonymous said...

"I repeat the quote: “Evolution is an unproven theory. If what its fundamentalist supporters believe is true, fishes decided to grow lungs and legs and walk up the beach. The idea is so comically daft that only one thing explains its survival—that lonely, frightened people wanted to expel God from the Universe because they found the idea that He exists profoundly uncomfortable.”—Peter Hitchens"

Why? It hasn't become any less inane and now only makes you look less informed. "Fishes decided to grow lungs"?

Anonymous said...

"Let's be clear about the Bible. The genealogies of the Bible have been proven to be true by a survey of the world's genealogies."

Jon Woolf has already corrected you on what follows after this sentence, but this part is false as well. Some aspects of the genealogies of the Bible may have found confirmation elsewhere, but the genealogies of the Bible aren't even internally consistent.

radar said...

Jon Woolf has not corrected me because ever word I wrote was based on previous posts in which I presented the arguments for genealogies around the world and flood stories around the world. Haven't you learned by now that some commenters are simply going to say no to everything?

Yes my worldview is rigid. A worldview is a vital part of every human being.

When I was a carpenter, we used to throw a plank across the stairwell openings. An ordinary board would support a man of 200 pounds or less and back then I weighed 165-175 pounds. One of the new guys put a plank across an opening that had a knot in the middle, thus ruining the weight-bearing integrity of the board. He weighed maybe 130 pounds and the other guy weighed around 150 and both of them crossed. Then I started across and heard "crack!" and down I went. I spread my arms and legs and caught myself at the edge of the open stairwell to the basement, slightly bruised but unhurt. I chewed the newbie out and he never did that again but I should have looked carefully at the board before I crossed.

Your Darwinist worldview has a "NOT" right in the middle and when it is time to depend upon it, it will fail and you will fall.

Jon Woolf said...

Jon Woolf has not corrected me because ever word I wrote was based on previous posts in which I presented the arguments for genealogies around the world and flood stories around the world.

Repeating a mistake (or a lie) often enough makes it true? I don't think so, Radar.

I don't address the question of genealogies because I don't know enough about it, except to note that after who-knows-how-many centuries of refinement, I'd expect the Israelites' mythmakers to have gotten those details consistent. However, I do know something about rivers and floods. Not every culture has a Flood myth. Of those that do, most are river cultures. Rivers flood. It isn't very farfetched to suggest that four or five thousand years ago, each of these cultures suffered a devastating river flood within a century or so, and then when they all met and exchanged notes several hundred years later, they made the logical but false conclusion that all those floods were actually the same worldwide flood.

A worldview is a vital part of every human being.

But a rigid worldview is not.

"While alive, the body is soft and pliant
When dead, it is hard and rigid
All living things, grass and trees,
While alive, are soft and supple
When dead, become dry and brittle
Thus that which is hard and stiff
is the follower of death
That which is soft and yielding
is the follower of life
Therefore, an inflexible army will not win
A strong tree will be cut down
The big and forceful occupy a lowly position
While the soft and pliant occupy a higher place"

-- Tao Te Ching, chapter 76.

radar said...

John Stewart and Glenn Beck are living lampoons. Beck because he goes a little overboard and Stewart because it pays well. Which has nothing at all to do with the fact that Eugenics was founded upon Darwinism and Secular Humanist tyrants have been emboldened by the concept to take a scientific hypothesis (now ridiculous but worth considering in the 19th century) and make it a cornerstone of a belief system that has no foundational morality at all.

radar said...

BTW "binary theology" is too simple to give a credit for an inventor. It predates the computer age, some wag just put a new label on it. Christianity has always been either/or as Jesus made quite clear in His teachings. You are lost or found, sheep or goat, in or out. Not based upon your works but strictly by whether or not you decide to give your life to Christ and become one of God's children. The dead spirit within becomes alive when a person humbles himself and asks Christ to take his sins and come dwell within.

You cannot work your way to heaven and there is no big scale where your bad deeds are on one side and your good on the other. God has given man a simple plan of salvation and they either accept or reject it. So I will stand with God and if you want to call that foolish then you will be calling God foolish as well. Good luck with that!

Jon Woolf said...

I find it difficult to admire a belief-system that says a man can murder millions, then convert on his deathbed and receive a better afterlife than his victims.

"So I will stand with God and if you want to call that foolish then you will be calling God foolish as well."

[shrug] Makes no difference to me. Like Johnny Pye said to the Fool-Killer, I wouldn't give much for a man -- or a god -- who hadn't been a fool from time to time.

Sterling said...

I recently wrote a paper on the subject of creationism, evolution, and intelligent design (which by the way is not creationism in disguise). The paper was toned toward the scientific community using proofs from evolutionists, darwinists, ID theorists, and creationist. I approached this subject carefully because I did not want to come off with a biased representation of the facts. It came off well but was difficult to understand by the average reader.
There is much confusion surrounding the arguments between christianity and the others but the fact remains that the very founder of the entire movement of evolution Charles Darwin himself even said that the facts he presented in his book could just as easily lead anyone to a conclusion exactly opposite to his.
Even the most well known evolutionary scientist cannot explain everything with their theories of evolution and attribute the unexplainable realities of nature to the interference of aliens! Aliens! Because we all know aliens are a more plausable reality than God!
In addition to my previous statement I read several academic science papers that refused to even address the rhelm of astronomy because they admitted that creationist had too strong of a case to prove wrong, so they stated that for the purpose of their paper they would stick to biological science.
There is reason in the world, and there are christians out there who have reason. But how is it that to have reason or to be a reasonable person you can't believe in God, but you can believe in aliens? There is more proof of the one over the other if you truly look with unfilterd eyes.

Sterling said...

In response to Jon Woolf's last comment I would like to say:

It's not the point that the man who slays thousands can be saved from hell. The point is that God is so good that he would be willing to save even such a man as this. If you have had hatred in you heart toward anyone, you have killed them already; whether tangibly or imiganirily. But either way of murder is equally as terrible in God's eyes.
So all of us who have cursed at the bad driver, or spat words of hatred toward another, or gossiped ill words about another to a friend are guiilty of murder. Since many of us have done these things not only once but many times we all are deserving of burning in hell beside hitler.
But God, in all His grace, CAN forgive us just as He is able to forgive hitler of his sins. So that we might be saved from the least of our sins even to the greatest of our sins. Do not so blythly judge yourself to be better than such a man as hitler just because you did not have the opportunity or the conscious to act on you terrible thoughts.