Search This Blog

Sunday, April 10, 2011

Deluded Darwinists and Compromising Christians make for a nasty stew. Save room for Whack-A-Kitty!

Proverbs 30: 4-6 

Who has gone up to heaven and come down?
   Whose hands have gathered up the wind?
Who has wrapped up the waters in a cloak?
   Who has established all the ends of the earth?
What is his name, and what is the name of his son?
   Surely you know!
  “Every word of God is flawless;
   he is a shield to those who take refuge in him.
 Do not add to his words,
   or he will rebuke you and prove you a liar.

Three years ago Jonathan Sarfati wrote an article that was no doubt inspired at least in part by the recent tendency of so-called Christian organizations to kowtow to Darwinist canards.   Logic dictates that Evolution and Christ are not able to co-exist in the same reality.  Yet many organizations with some claim to being associated with God and many individuals have just folded when people play the "science" card.   It is not in any way true that Darwinism is a fact of science and frankly even as an hypothesis it is fatally flawed.   

But most people are frankly just too lazy to long-disproven Darwinist canards are still believed by the common man, such as:

Peppered Moth evolution
Haeckel's Charts and general recapitulation
The Geological Column
Vestigal organs
Junk DNA
Various so-called "missing links"
Horse evolution chart
Spontaneous generation of life
Alien life forms
Progressive fossil record from simple to complex

Now, if you are a Darwinist there is no need to read any further because you have already been thoroughly brainwashed and reading farther down might confuse you.   So I have included a fun game for you to play instead:

Still with us?   Okay, you are either a Christian who wants to think seriously about the dangers of compromise or you are a Darwinist with a very strong and powerful will to evade the lure of Whack-A-Kitty.  So you really want to read more about why Christians should not compromise in any way with the assertions of your foolish belief system?  

The Bible states in Psalms 14 and repeats in Psalms 53 that "The fool has said in his heart, “There is no God.”  

So you are not going to like it.

Still want to read on?

Last chance.   Return to Whack-A-Kitty! 

Whack-A-Kitty Part Two?

Are you sure?

Okay, read on...

What we know is this - there is no evidence of any kind of organism becoming any other kind of organism.  We also see that reproduction is designed to ensure that the child will be the same kind of organism as the mother but that there are multiple mechanisms to allow for variation within kind aka speciation so that organisms can fill every niche in the ecosystem.   Science has actually proved that life does not come from non-life, so Darwinism is dead before it even starts.   Science has also firmly stated that matter does not pop into existence and that the entire Universe is running downhill from a starting point in the past.    We also know that information only comes from intelligence and that organisms are crammed full of information.   The conclusion is obvious - God created the Universe and every thing and everyone in it!

Christians actually should know that the Bible is authoritative in those areas and subjects that it addresses.   The Bible doesn't present a table of the elements, but it does have an account of the formation of the Universe.   The Bible doesn't speak to relativity theory, but it does give us the history of ancient man beginning with Adam and Eve.   Whenever Christians choose the fallible opinions and findings of fallible man over the Eternal and Supernatural Word of God, they are compromising and they are also unwise.   What subjects God does not speak to we may seek to find out for ourselves, but every word of God is true. 

Chamberlain and the Church

Neville Chamberlain Neville Chamberlain
This article was first published in 2008 in Creation Magazine.
This year marks the 70th anniversary of one of the most disastrous blunders of history. On 30 September 1938, British Prime Minister Neville Chamberlain signed an agreement with German Chancellor Adolf Hitler (as well as with France and Italy) at Munich. This agreement, signed behind the back of Czechoslovakia, agreed to give Hitler that nation’s Sudetenland region, which had a high proportion of ethnic Germans. Chamberlain returned to Britain, waving the paper of the agreement to cheering crowds, and famously declaring:
‘My good friends, for the second time in our history, a British Prime Minister has returned from Germany bringing peace with honour. I believe it is peace for our time.’
However, Winston Churchill, who would lead the free world to finally defeat Hitler, bitterly denounced this agreement in the house of Commons. He had previously argued over the previous decade that the free world should have stood firm against Hitler while he was still weak (cf. Jesus’ point that the threat of superior force can induce peacemaking early on, Luke 14:31–32). After the Munich agreement, Churchill correctly predicted that Chamberlain’s appeasement of a ruthless despot would have terrible consequences, and invoked some biblical imagery:
‘We have suffered a total and unmitigated defeat … you will find that in a period of time which may be measured by years, but may be measured by months, Czechoslovakia will be engulfed in the Nazi régime. We are in the presence of a disaster of the first magnitude … we have sustained a defeat without a war, the consequences of which will travel far with us along our road … we have passed an awful milestone in our history, when the whole equilibrium of Europe has been deranged, and that the terrible words have for the time being been pronounced against the Western democracies: “Thou art weighed in the balance and found wanting”. And do not suppose that this is the end. This is only the beginning of the reckoning. This is only the first sip, the first foretaste of a bitter cup which will be proffered to us year by year unless by a supreme recovery of moral health and martial vigour, we arise again and take our stand for freedom as in the olden time.’
As Churchill realized, this appeasement merely emboldened Hitler, who now thought of Chamberlain as a weak old man and had nothing but utter contempt for him. Also, the agreement gave Hitler the massive Škoda Works that strengthened him immensely, and made him even harder to stop—opponents would now face waves of Czech-made tanks. And as we now know, it wasn’t too long before Hitler engulfed the rest of Czechoslovakia.

Less than a year after Munich, Hitler invaded Poland, so on 3 September 1939, Chamberlain declared that Britain was at war with Germany. Britain came very close to losing this war, which cost 60 million lives and about a trillion 1944 US dollars worldwide. In his massive six-volume work, The Second World War, Churchill relates:
‘One day President Roosevelt told me that he was asking publicly for suggestions about what the war should be called. I said at once “The Unnecessary War”. There never was a war more easy to stop than that which has just wrecked what was left of the world from the previous struggle. … It is my earnest hope that pondering upon the past may give guidance in days to come, enable a new generation to repair some of the errors of former years and thus govern, in accordance with the needs and glory of man, the awful unfolding scene of the future.’

What is the lesson for the Church?

But many in the Church have not learned from Munich about the folly of appeasement.

As the saying goes, ‘Those who cannot learn from history are condemned to have George Santayana quoted at them.’1 But many in the Church have not learned from Munich about the folly of appeasement.

Modern theistic evolutionists and long-agers have basically appeased atheists by conceding matters of real-world history and science to them. And like Chamberlain, they fondly believe that the atheists might be won over, or at least won’t go any further. But in reality, the compromising churchians have immensely strengthened the atheists’ hands by turning such powerful armament over to them:
  • While modern science owes its existence to Christianity whereas it was stillborn in other cultures,2 atheists now often use science (or rather, materialistic philosophy masquerading as science) as a powerful weapon against the church.
  • The Apostle Paul states that the evidence from creation is so powerful that people are ‘without excuse’ for disbelieving in God (Romans 1:18–32). But if evolution were true, then according to the leading evolutionist Stephen Jay Gould, the living world shows no evidence for creation: ‘there’s nothing else going on out there—just organisms struggling to pass their genes on to the next generation. That’s it.’3 So if evolution were true, there is no evidence for a God from what has been made, but evidence only for ruthless struggle for existence. So why would unbelievers be ‘without excuse’ if evolution were true?
  • The Apostle Peter says that ‘scoffers’ would be ‘willingly ignorant’ of the fact that the whole earth was deluged and destroyed (2 Peter 3:3–7). But if millions of years were true, then there could have been no Noachian Flood, or at least not one that left any traces (e.g. sedimentary rock layers and fossils). So how could the scoffers be held culpable for ‘deliberately ignoring’ the fact of the Flood if there were no geological evidence?
  • In the early19th century, many in the church capitulated to the long-age dogma of Hutton and Lyell, ignoring the scientific problems and spiritual warnings of the Scriptural Geologists.4 And after they had accepted geological evolution, they were powerless to resist Darwin’s biological evolution.5 First, they had already jettisoned Genesis as a source of authority. Second, Darwin could link slow and gradual geological processes with slow and gradual biological processes. Third, without the history of Creation, Fall, Flood and dispersion, they had no real history at all. Darwin could easily refute the counterfeit creation ideas of the compromised church. These included God creating disease germs and carnivores as such (ignoring the Fall and Flood),6 extinctions (Flood), and creatures in their present location (ignoring the Flood and dispersion).
And like Hitler, why should atheists make any concessions when the enemy is displaying such craven weakness? In reality, all the concessions are on the churchian side. The atheists concede nothing of value in return. Why shouldn’t they hold out for still more appeasement, while they use the Christians’ weapons against them?

A recent example of the continued appeasement is Howard van Till of Calvin College, who argued for decades that evolution was no threat to Christianity, and his college supported him. But after retirement, he showed his true colours (which blind Freddy’s deaf guide dog could have discerned) by abandoning any pretence of believing in any supernatural God. One report says, ‘Over the next two decades, he became the heretic his critics had suspected.’7 Thus Van Till is just the latest in the long line of apostates, whose slippery slide began with appeasement on Genesis, e.g. Billy Graham’s fellow evangelist Charles Templeton (1915–2001).8

What should the Church do instead?

Those in the Church should take the lessons from Churchill, who led the free world to finally defeat Hitler. But before the war, he was in his ‘wilderness years’ precisely for warning about the dangers of Hitler. He pointed out:
‘If you will not fight for right when you can easily win without bloodshed; if you will not fight when your victory is sure and not too costly; you may come to the moment when you will have to fight with all the odds against you and only a precarious chance of survival. There may even be a worse case. You may have to fight when there is no hope of victory, because it is better to perish than to live as slaves.’
Similarly, far too many in the Church failed to stand firm on the direct teachings of Scripture (as opposed to models used to explain its teachings9 ). Now much of the Church needs to recover its main weapon, the ‘Sword of the Spirit’ (Ephesians 6:17). And it’s vital that those in the Church are trained to use it as well as to defend it, as the apostle Peter commands (1 Peter 3:15), and to destroy the opposing spiritual strongholds by demolishing arguments (2 Corinthians 10:4–5).10 And since much of the world’s attack is on the Bible’s history, that must be a major focus of our efforts.

Martin Luther (1483–1546), the leader of the Reformation, was clear that avoiding doctrines that are ridiculed by the world was gross dereliction of Christian duty [But see Addendum 13 November 2009. Ed.]:
‘If I profess with the loudest voice and clearest exposition every portion of the Word of God except precisely that little point which the world and the devil are at that moment attacking, I am not confessing Christ, however boldly I may be professing Him. Where the battle rages there the loyalty of the soldier is proved and to be steady on all the battle front besides, is mere flight and disgrace if he flinches at that point.’11

Addendum 13 November 2009

The famous “battle” quote has been attributed to Luther for decades, including by Francis Schaeffer. But though Luther said many similar things, this quote did not actually come from Luther but from a 19th century novel about Luther and the Reformation. See Where the battle rages—a case of misattribution.

Further reading

Recommended Resources

References and notes

  1. Cf. ‘Those who cannot remember the past are condemned to repeat it’—Santayana, G., The Life of Reason, Constable & Co. Ltd., London, p. 82, 1954.
  2. Stark, R., For the Glory of God: How monotheism led to reformations, science, witch-hunts and the end of slavery, Princeton University Press, 2003; see also review by Williams A., The biblical origins of science, Journal of Creation 18(2):49–52, 2004;
  3. Wieland, C., Darwin’s real message: have you missed it? Creation 14(4):16–19, 1992;
  4. Mortenson, T., The Great Turning Point, based on his Ph.D. thesis at Coventry University, ; Philosophical naturalism and the age of the earth: are they related? The Master’s Seminary Journal (TMSJ) 15(1):71–92, Spring 2004,
  5. See Sarfati, J., Refuting Compromise, Creation Ministries International, Australia, ch. 8, 2004. 
  6. See Sarfati, ref. 5, ch. 6; and Batten, D., et al., The Creation Answers Book, Creation Ministries International, Australia, ch. 6, 2007.
  7. Manier, J., The New Theology, Chicago Tribune, 20 January 2008;
  8. Wieland, C., Death of an apostate, Creation 25(1):6, 2002;
  9. Wieland, C., ‘Hanging Loose’: What should we defend? Creation 11(2):4, 1989;
  10. See Christian Apologetics Questions and Answers
  11. Cited in Schaeffer, F.A., The Great Evangelical Disaster, Crossway Books, Illinois, USA, pp. 50–51, 1984.


Jon Woolf said...

"What we know is this:"

That the structure of modern science stands against the crying of creationist horns without so much as a quiver.

"there is no evidence of any kind of organism becoming any other kind of organism."

Except for all the evidence from the fossil record, anatomy, genetics, biochemistry...

"We also see that reproduction is designed to ensure that the child will be the same kind of organism as the mother"

whatever a 'kind' is - which creationists carefully refuse to answer, because as soon as they give a definite answer, a counterexample can be produced. We also see that thanks to entropy, the best genetic-safety mechanisms still fail frequently, providing variations that are fodder for the evolutionary process.

"Science has actually proved that life does not come from non-life"

under some conditions

"Science has also firmly stated that matter does not pop into existence"

except when it does, such as in pair production, Hawking radiation, and probably others that we just haven't discovered yet.

"and that the entire Universe is running downhill from a starting point in the past."

Wow, you got this one right. Congratulations.

"The conclusion is obvious"

-- that creationism fails completely to explain the physical evidence, lies about the physical evidence, lies about its opponents, relies on logical flaws and propaganda to spread its doctrine, and generally serves the Dark Side rather than the Light.

Jon Woolf said...

Oh, one other thing ... in a Universe that features such things as this, why do you even bother looking for a rational entity behind it all?

radar said...

I will say this clearly. Either Jon Woolf is a liar, or I am. All of you who read this blog, I challenge you to read the material posted and the comments and decide for yourselves. But there is no middle ground.

The same is true of our origins. If God made us, then give Him His due. If we have happened by accident then I have no moral authority to suggest that you do anything at all nor does Woolf. It is every man, cell, molecule, atom and particle for themselves!

radar said...

Oh, and I prefer to depend upon the Bible and expert scientific opinion over whatever a show-jumping cow represents?

Anonymous said...

"Either Jon Woolf is a liar, or I am."

Seeing as, unlike Jon Woolf, you have posted untruths and stood by them or at least neglected to retract them, the answer is pretty clear.

But I suspect you're engaging in a false dichotomy. You left out the possibility that when you stand by an untruth, you don't do this knowingly.

Anonymous said...

"If we have happened by accident then I have no moral authority to suggest that you do anything at all nor does Woolf. It is every man, cell, molecule, atom and particle for themselves!"

Neither your personal beliefs nor your strawman argument ("no supernatural = no morality") gives you that moral authority anyway.

allied said...

As a reader for many years, I agree with you that it is time to vote. I vote for Jon Woolf. He makes sense every time he responds. You on the other hand duck and dodge. I believe in God and I believe in science. They just have different roles.

Jon Woolf said...

If we have happened by accident then I have no moral authority to suggest that you do anything at all nor does Woolf. It is every man, cell, molecule, atom and particle for themselves!

Charles Darwin knew better than that. Maybe you should read his works instead of maligning them and him.

radar said...

I do not attempt to take aim at Charles Darwin. I cannot think of anything he asserted that is actually true offhand, but I have read much of his output so I am not ignorant of his assertions. They were wrong. My intention is to illustrate how wrong modern Darwinists are in all these various ways. I really do not care about Darwin himself, he is dead and gone and oh, well. The living are my concern.

Woolf is a fount of opinion rather than evidence. I have not actually encountered actual evidence being asserted by Darwinists. If you happen to find any evidence rather than simple opinion I would be glad to see it.

Meanwhile, evidence points to intricately designed organisms that are still so sophisticated that we make our best attempts to copy God's designs and utilize them as best we can. As yet we have not fully understood all aspects of reproduction, but what we do know demonstrates design that accounts for contingencies of all sorts. There are also lots of redundant parts, for which there is no Darwinian explanation, but any engineer will tell you that redundancy is vital to any critical design.

You think man would go into space without redundant systems in place? Of course not! God did not put life on this planet without redundant information and systems that allowed for myriad choices to adapt to ecological pressures. Darwin's folly is that he so badly wanted an explanation that did not involve God. In his defense, he did not know much about geology or biology or genetics. He did not even realize all the birds he was observing were finches! Your folly is to hang on to that poor hope when modern science has made it a preposterous concept.

radar said...

Nothing Darwinist about eating real food...

Jon Woolf said...

"I cannot think of anything he asserted that is actually true offhand,"

In The Descent of Man, Darwin pointed out the flaws of selfishness, and extolled the virtues of cooperation and moral behavior. I posted one of the relevant passages in a comment a month or two ago.