Search This Blog

Tuesday, November 08, 2011

Compromising Christianity for the sake of Darwinism? Epic Fail!

Previously credited

Cartoons added by Radar

The Danger of BioLogos

Blurring the Line Between Creation and Evolution

by John UpChurch

Charles Darwin knew his “dangerous idea” contradicted biblical creation. Rather than exposing the contradictions, however, some church leaders want to blend the two. The newest effort by BioLogos has taken the evangelical world by storm. But at what cost?
According to Darrel Falk, A Point Loma Nazarene University professor, people like me shouldn’t exist—at least in theory.

The congenial president of the up-and-coming think tank BioLogos, which advocates God-directed (or “theistic”) evolution, Falk minces no words when it comes to biblical creation: “It is a travesty that young people who begin the journey of following Jesus are told that they have to believe something which a little science education makes clear cannot possibly be the case.”

Given that view, my journey should have ended where it started. Raised by a former pastor who embraced evolution and Christianity, fed on a steady diet of PBS science programs and The Discovery Channel, insulated from any notion of a young earth through public education, I was handed a faith “broad enough” to handle Charles Darwin.

According to Falk, I already had it all. I knew enough facts to embrace evolution over millions of years and Christianity. I had escaped what he calls evangelicalism’s “barrier” to faith, which forces young people to abandon the Christian journey once “they’ve studied the science or trust those who have.”
Contrary to his view, embracing evolution derailed my “journey” toward Christ. I didn’t join the parade. Instead, like millions of my peers, I rejected—and even despised—the church.

 Same source above

Trying Not to Fail

Proponents of theistic evolution claim they rescue people from a hopeless and unnecessary choice. As Falk puts it, “People don’t have to choose between age of the earth and Bible-believing Christianity, nor between evolutionary biology and Bible-believing Christianity.” But in reality their position dangles us over an abyss.
Karl Giberson, an Eastern Nazerene College professor and former executive vice president of BioLogos, admits that the organization has staked out a “precarious” middle ground.1 He calls it the “accommodationist” position between Christians who accept the “long-disproved” notion of a young earth and atheists who will have nothing to do with religion because science has proven it to be obsolete.

But the very notion of a shaky “middle ground” suggests a fundamental flaw in this bridge’s design. Namely, what’s the standard for deciding what’s correct and what’s not? If some scientists’ claims contradict Scripture, what, then, is the final authority?

Giberson instructs Christians to trust the recognized experts in their respective fields. For example, you should listen to Dr. Francis Collins at the National Institute of Health on matters of biology, over those who are outside the mainstream. And you should trust Giberson himself because he is “active” in the creation/evolution debate.2
And that’s where the problems begin—where theory meets reality. Finding such a balance requires inserting a layer of interpreters—in this case, naturalistic and atheistic scientists—between the reader and the Bible. But if we rely on human interpreters who reject the possibility of God, what of the balance then?
For Giberson, duct-taping a work-around is simple. Reject what atheistic scientists like Jerry Coyne and Stephen Hawking say about God, but accept what they teach about biology and cosmology. The problem is that both men advocate theories about the unseen past that rely on prior assumptions, which reject the possibility of God from the outset.

In reality, BioLogos’s balancing act doesn’t remove barriers to trusting Christ. It establishes new ones. By separating matters of God from matters of science, they build a wall that leaves God out of efforts to explain the real world. While the Bible claims that God is not only the Creator but also the foundation for all understanding (Proverbs 1:7, 9:10), BioLogos takes a position that relegates Him to insignificance.

Though an atheist, Coyne recognizes the end result of BioLogos’s balancing act: “Theology changes when either science or secular reason forces it to.”3 In essence, biblical interpretation must change when secular “science” says it must. Sola scriptura (Scripture alone) gives way to scriptura per scientiam (Scripture through “science”).4
Theologian and author E. Calvin Beisner explains just how precarious a position theistic evolution is in. “Anyone familiar with the history of science should laugh at the notion that ‘science’ (as if it were some monolithic, unchanging body of knowledge) should determine our interpretation of Scripture rather than vice versa. Unlike the shifting sands of science, ‘the word of God stands forever’ (Isaiah 40:8).”

Battle Lines Over the Bible

Modern-day theistic evolution is more nuanced than to reject the Bible’s authority outright. BioLogos and similar groups claim that the Bible is God’s Word from beginning to end. At the same time, they minimize the importance of the origins debate, especially in light of the gospel. But what happens when their views are put to the test?
At the end of the day, the theological modifications required by the acceptance of evolution are vast and utterly disastrous for biblical Christianity. —Albert Mohler “Science and Religion Aren’t Friends,” October 2010 Blog
While a person’s belief about creation is certainly not a precondition of salvation, that fact alone doesn’t remove the significance of the doctrinal issue. Al Mohler, president of Southern Baptist Theological Seminary and one of the most outspoken critics of theistic evolution, asserts that a great deal is at stake: “At the end of the day, the theological modifications required by the acceptance of evolution are vast and utterly disastrous for biblical Christianity.”

Some write off such criticism as exaggeration. But Mohler is not alone. Stephen Davey, president of Shepherd’s Theological Seminary, summarizes a key point that theistic evolutionists seem to overlook: “God’s creation is not some incidental paragraph in a creed—creationism is a vital part of Christianity. In fact, it is absolutely connected to the gospel and to the believer’s future hope.”

These leaders point out that theistic evolution, even if some of its supporters are sincere Christ-followers, promotes a position that ends up watering down the gospel itself. The distinctives of the Christian faith—including the broad impact of Christ’s work on the Cross—get washed away. If God did not create a perfect, sinless world, why does the Apostle Paul call Jesus Christ the Last Adam, whose work on the Cross redressed the sin and death that Adam brought into this world (Romans 5:11–19)? If there really never was a Curse, how can the cosmos be awaiting restored peace and perfection (Romans 8:19–22; Revelation 21:1–7)?

BioLogos’s president, and others like him, contend that such complaints are fundamentally flawed—and, in fact, harmful. Falk believes that we give people a “crutch” to support their rejection of Christ if we portray belief in evolution as inconsistent with biblical Christianity. “This proposition is exactly what gives atheists the excuse they are looking for.”5
But is that really the case? God opens His Word with a literal, historical account of creation in six literal 24-hour days. How could those revealed facts hinder anyone’s ability to believe what the Lord says about Christ’s miraculous resurrection and redemption? Do we really believe that the gospel is more effective if we hide, discount, or contradict other portions of Scripture?

That approach is what drove me away from trusting Jesus Christ. My father handed me the ready ingredients for a smooth theological blend. But evolution and faith proved to be an insoluble mix—with faith being scraped off the top.

And I’m not alone.

Today the United Kingdom looks quite a bit like what BioLogos would like to see in America, but a willingness to wed evolution with faith hasn’t produced a vibrant Christianity there.6 In fact, the opposite seems to be true. Two-thirds no longer have a connection with any church.7 And similar stories have been repeated throughout the once-Christianized West, which has “accommodated” evolution for generations.
No one can serve two masters. “Either he will hate the one and love the other, or else he will be loyal to the one and despise the other” (Matthew 6:24). I came to understand that Christ expects us to make a choice. Who is our Lord? You can’t make the demands of the gospel any clearer or more helpful than that.

Biblical Creation Vs. Evolution—Does It Really Matter?


Since it was founded in 2007, BioLogos has risen to international prominence as the leading advocate of theistic (“God-directed”) evolution. Its primary goal is to convince evangelical Christians to embrace evolution and an old earth, claiming that they have no impact on the gospel and can be harmonized with “the belief that the Bible is the inspired and authoritative Word of God.” How do their claims hold up under scrutiny?

Theistic Evolution Undermines the Bible’s Authority

If God’s Word is “authoritative,” as BioLogos claims, it should be the foundation for understanding all truth. Jesus said to His heavenly Father, “Your Word is truth” (John 17:17), and He told His disciples that this truth would set them free (John 8:30–31). While the Bible never claims to be a scientific text, everything it says about living things and earth history is true.

The Bible is clear about our origins. Genesis 1–3 were written in a historical narrative style, like the rest of Genesis, depicting historical people and events. Moses later confirms that Genesis was a literal, historical account of God’s creation “in six days” (Exodus 20:11). Jesus Christ confirms that God made Adam and Eve “at the beginning of creation” (Mark 10:6). These passages exclude any possibility of evolution and an “old earth.”

Since evolution over millions of years contradicts the Bible’s history, BioLogos resolves this conflict by arguing that the early chapters of Genesis “are not meant to be interpreted as a step-by-step account of when or how God created the world.” The only way to reach this conclusion, however, is to ignore the basic rules of Bible interpretation (hermeneutics) and to reject the Bible’s supreme authority—inspired by the all-knowing God whose Word trumps humanity’s ever-changing ideas.

BioLogos gives priority to the claims of secular scientists. Their website says, “Overwhelming scientific evidence points to an old earth,” and “The data are clear that humans have been created through an evolutionary process and there was never a time when there was a single first couple.” But no evidence speaks for itself; all must be interpreted. By relying on fallible dating methods, which depend on unproven assumptions, rather than Scripture itself, BioLogos is guilty of exalting man’s fallible ideas above God’s Word.

Theistic Evolution Degrades the Gospel

In their effort to reconcile evolution with the Bible, proponents of theistic evolution also wipe away the cosmic impact of the Curse and of Christ’s full redemptive work. Romans 8:22 makes it clear that the whole creation groans as a result of Adam’s sin. Acts 3:21 and Colossians 1:15–20 teach that when Christ, the Creator of all things, comes again He will restore all things. At that time, the Curse of Genesis 3 will be removed, and a glorious new heavens and earth will exist (Revelation 22:3).

The denial of a “first couple” similarly attacks the gospel. “Jesus and the apostle Paul clearly consider Adam and Eve to be historical,” explains theologian Cal Beisner. “Paul makes our whole understanding of the relationship between the redeemed and Christ contingent on Adam’s being a historical individual just as Christ is (Romans 5:12–19; 1 Corinthians 15:22, 15:46–49). Take away Adam as a historical person, and the whole understanding of the federal (covenantal) relationship between Christ and believers collapses—and with it the gospel of justification by grace alone through faith alone in Christ alone because of the federal (covenantal) imputation of His righteousness to believers.”
John UpChurch serves as the editor for and is a contributor to the Answers in Genesis website. He graduated summa cum laude from the University of Tennessee with a BA in English.


Science was born out of philosophy.  When we think of great Greek thinkers like Plato, they often made statements we would now consider scientific.  The fact is that it is difficult to remove worldview from science but it is possible.  ID proponents have decided to study what is observable NOW and make statements that relate to the world we can test and observe now.  What ID does is take you to the threshold of worldview but at some point you have to step across and decide to believe in one thing or another. 

Both Creationists and Darwinists also look at the past and tell stories about what happened in the past based on both evidence seen today and the information we have about the past (rock layers, historical documentation, art and artifacts and so on).   The most common subject on this blog is the presentation of evidence that supports a Creator God and shows the lack of evidence for Darwinism.  Perhaps the best way to put it is that, the more we learn, the more we realize Darwin had it all wrong.   Secular science keeps trying to stuff this concept back into the bottle but frankly in the end truth wins out.  The Earth is not flat nor is it a disk nor does the Sun revolve around it.  Life does not come from non-life.  Nothing is now being created or destroyed (simply converted and all conversions are moving from energy to entropy).  The population of the Earth is in accord with a population beginning with a family stepping out of the Ark 4300 years ago.  The intricacies and interdependence of DNA and the Cell and ATP and other components make the step-by-step evolution of such a thing impossible.  

There is no need for Christians to fit anything from unbelieving scientists into the Bible.  You see, if God did create then His Word will be true in those areas it speaks to science even though it is not a science book.  It is accurate when it discusses history.  It contains prophecies written long ago that were fulfilled.  It claims a beginning and also and end to this material Universe.  I can see why a non-Christian might hesitate to consider the Bible when thinking about the meaning of life, since there are many religions and many claim to be true.  But I cannot understand why a Christian would not hesitate before throwing large parts of the Bible away to fit into the latest secular pronouncements.  They continue to change because they do not know the truth.  Their idea of the age of the Universe will ebb and flow.  Their postulations on how the heck it got here in the first place will continue to be completely illogical and mostly wishful thinking.  A Christian should know better.

I will put it this way - only God's explanation of the beginning of the Universe makes any sense.  I've read enough Big Bang and Multiverse scenarios to make your head spin.  Really, when most of what you say is not observable and apparently impossible, you either need miracles or a new idea.   You have God, you have the miracles.  Only a miracle makes sense in considering where the Universe came from.

Also, if God used evolution and long ages to make things, why?  Couldn't He just make things as He wanted them?  Doesn't death before the Fall mean that Jesus Christ was of no use?  Be logical, use your heads, think on it for a minute.   Do not let a bunch of scientists who have no certain worldview convince you that we MUST have 13.7 Billion years.  They do not know this and they cannot prove it.  Despite the light-years evidence, there is plenty of evidence that proves the Earth and the entire Solar System is young and could not have happened by chance.  I promise to keep bringing more information to the discussion!


Anonymous said...

Wow. No comments. What a surprise. Radar, have you noticed that this happens pretty much every time you post a blog directed towards other christians?

I wonder why all those supportive "readers" you often refer to, chose to completely ignore posts dedicated to them. At the very least, perhaps you're doing it wrong? I mean, just take a look at that title.

Personally, I think they either don't exist (Yay! More lying for Jesus!) or aren't nearly as supportive of your loony YEC worldview as you think. I also think that us "Darwinists" aren't the only ones to notice just how poor your understanding of the very thing you're arguing against, actually is.

Maybe it's time to do some thinking on how you see yourself relative to how the world at large sees you? Who knows, it just might help you with that pesky "pride issue" you've admitted to struggling with.


AmericanVet said...

Most comments are opposing points of view. Most readers do not leave comments. Typical of blogs the reader checks out the post and reads the beginning. If they are interested they read the entire post. Rarely do those in agreement say anything. So I do not expect much positive feedback from commenters.

I know I have students and family members who read the blog. There are friends and my own pastor who recommended it as a resource. I also have a counter tool that lets me know how many readers I get per day/week/month and from where they come, etc. I could drill down into IP addresses and seek to identify networks of readers but that seems kind of intrusive so I never do that. But contrary to your assumptions there is a pretty large number of readers from every continent except Antarctica that read this blog.

It is in fact a pain in the neck to do the blog and I do it to be a servant to God and not for my pride as you assert. In fact you have an odd view since my testimony is that I had to completely throw pride away and humble myself before God in order to become a Christian. Since most commenters are negative and many like to attack me personally, this is hardly a way to boost my ego. It is in fact an assault on my intellect and character on a regular basis from people who are usually safely anonymous.

My "loony" worldview has been the same as the majority of the great scientists of the last millenium. It is also shared by many accomplished scientists and academics and professionals around the world. Darwinists have the bullhorn and they have the key to unlock grant money, tenure and access to secular scientific organizations and they choose to be prejudiced against YEC and ID and sometimes even OEC and exert their scientific version of Jim Crow in order to protect their own worldview. This cannot be anything but cowardly. If Darwinists were not afraid of YEC they would let them have the same chances they have to join organizations, teach, publish and obtain research grants. Say what you will, Darwinists are speaking by their actions. Censorship is a sign of fear not freedom.

AmericanVet said...

Just for the heck of it I looked at my visitors for just today and I have at least one from all the major continents and well over 200 partway through the day. Whether you like it or not I manage to reach multiple thousands of people every month. I think some Darwinists subscribe to my page just so they can be sure to put something negative on every single post in the comments thread. But you think just because you do not like me I will stop blogging? By now you should have guessed that I do not do this to please people.

Canucklehead, you are not really mad at me, your issue is with God. You do not like God. I am playing the part of Sam I Am and I am offering you Green Eggs and Ham.

Anonymous said...

Comment deleted. Perhaps you can get this glitch fixed Radar? Are you going to grab it or do I have to repost in parts?

By-the-way, what IS your problem with Zeus and/or Odin? I mean, by your logic it appears that they're the ones you're really angry with. And why are you so mad at the easter bunny and Santa Claus.
Non-belief in no way equates to anger towards said mythological entity and to imply such is really quite silly.


Anonymous said...

Again, I'm deleted. Trying again in multiple parts.

As I said in one of my, now many, deleted comments, it's been almost a week and nothing. So I'm left to assume that Radar is no longer interested in recovering deleted comments from the mysterious "spam folder" (At least when they're made by us "darwinist" commenters). Fortunately I kept a copy.


Anonymous said...

- Response to Radar's comment above - Part A -

For the record, "hits" do not equate to actual readers. You have just puked so many posts up onto this blog that you end up appearing relatively high on Google searches when it comes to some of the topics you choose to post on (I actually stumbled across Radaractive, way way back, when looking for info on ice cores - Thank goodness for creeper). The fact that the only individuals that stick around are the ones that vehemently oppose the BS you constantly produce here, is very telling.


Anonymous said...

- Response to Radar's comment above - Part B -

Oh and I would also like to clear something else up for you, what you're referring to is actually false humility. The belief that you are a special and unique snowflake that the creator of the universe cares deeply about is not a humble one. Sorry to break it to you. Your belief, and inability to see the evidence provided to you, and even your constant crazy postings on this blog are all the direct result of your overblown self image. In a word, PRIDE.


AmericanVet said...

No, Canucklehead, the idea is that EVERYONE is a unique individual and not just me. No two snowflakes are alike, even identical twins have differing retina scans and finger prints, the entire Universe is full of unique individuals. So you are no more or less unique than I am. Not sure where pride enters in there>

AmericanVet said...

Also, work keeps me busy enough without worrying about spam filters on bloggger. Unless there is a special reason to mess with them I don't.

Anonymous said...

- Response to Radar's comment above - Part D -

You say, "My "loony" worldview has been the same as the majority of the great scientists of the last millenium." and yet, it is shared with virtually no modern scientists actually working in their chosen fields. Don't you find that odd? I'm sure you would acknowledge that technology has advance incredibly in the last 100 years, why would you deny that the same is true for science? Oh right you are a brainwashed believer that starts with a preconceived conclusion (that the bible is literally true).

And not the grand conspiracy again. Please man. You're just embarrassing yourself.


Anonymous said...

And there goes "Part C". It was up and now it's gone.

What a joke.

What's the point of leaving the comments section open if you're going to suppress discussion like this, Radar.


Anonymous said...

No Radar, you believe that god, the same god you say created the entire universe (out of nothing, I might add), directly intervenes in your life and the lives of your family (i.e. helps keep relatives safe while in combat etc.) That is in no way a humble thought. All the while this god of yours ignores the prayers of innocent children suffering at the hands of pedophile priests, as just one example. You think you are special in the eyes of your god. Not only that you think you are more special than those he allows to die or be abused. Wheres the humility again?


Anonymous said...

- Response to Radar's comment above - Part D -

Finally, ID is not welcome in the scientific community because it isn't science. Pure and simple. And if you say otherwise please provide some of those testable verifiable ID predictions we've been asking you for for the last decade or so.


AmericanVet said...

The only way your comment disappears is if you accidently deleted it. I didn't do it.

Also Darwinists are being sued and paying for the conspiracy that is in place. Check out the NCSE and tell me what else they do besides censorship?

AmericanVet said...

Canucklehead, your ignorance of historical Christianity and the beliefs thereof is equal to your lack of scientific knowledge. Since I have been posting ID science for the world in this last series concerning Biogenesis, which is testable and falsifiable and verifiable, you must either fail to comprehend or refuse to accept it. Either/or you have no argument with me. Be mad at God if you like.

Anonymous said...

Radar says, "Also Darwinists are being sued and paying for the conspiracy that is in place."

Got any proof, Radar? You keep saying this but when asked for evidence you fall silent. Weird.

I didn't delete my own comment, as you know, I post anonymously and therefore cannot delete anything once it's posted.


Anonymous said...

You say, "Since I have been posting ID science for the world in this last series concerning Biogenesis, which is testable and falsifiable and verifiable, you must either fail to comprehend or refuse to accept it."

You know, if this was actually true you should be able to cite a single testable and verifiable ID prediction. Because as you know, this "law of biogenesis" you prattle on about (which actually deals with the spontaneous generation of complex life, not that you'd let facts slow you down, of course) predates ID by a long shot. So what are those ID predictions again, even one, just give me one.


Anonymous said...

Again with the "mad at god" thing, Radar? Seriously? Does it just feel good to write that or something?

I mean, just cuz you are so unbelievably furious at Darwin/Evolution that you can't even think, let alone see, straight, does not mean that you can say with authority that I'm mad at anything. Let alone something that is completely imaginary. I think you're projecting again here dude.


AmericanVet said...

Canucklehead, you do not get it. I am not mad at you and I am quite happy. Nothing you say is really making an impact. If you cannot see what I post as evidence, then why do you bother reading it and posting comments? I fail to see what it gains you?

Me, I will keep posting scientific evidence and historical evidence and keep on keeping on. Now I really gotta go back to work, so have a good one!

Anonymous said...

For the record, Radar, and I've said this many times, I rarely even read your posts (and can probably say that I've never read a full one from start to finish, ever). I go straight to the comments section. That's where the action (and intelligence) is.

I didn't say you were mad at me Radar. I said you were mad at Darwin. And you are. Oh, and you're clearly mad at Jon too.


Another comment (one on the NCSE) was deleted, by-the-way.

AmericanVet said...

Ok, some comments are seen by Blogger as spam. Redo them if they do not appear. I do not delete comments unless they contain bad language.

Also I am not mad at Darwin, he is dead. Actually if anything I feel his story is tragic. He grew up in a home destined to confuse the child. He saw the version of Christianity that his father claimed was nothing but a front. His grandfather was a virulent atheopath. His marriage was okay, but the tragic death of his daughter broke his heart and he blamed God for it.

As a scientist, he was fooled by Lyell but definitely was a plagiarist who stole the work of Hutton and Blyth and Wallace, among others, to compile his books and papers. Of course he took Blyth's natural selection and turned it on it's head by giving it creative powers rather than seeing it for what it is, the mechanism of conservation of kind.

As a human being, his work tormented him as he began to believe that there actually was design in the Universe and that he had done a great wrong. Within his mind was a dichotomy.

Anonymous said...

Radar says, "oh, I don't hate Darwin..." and then proceeds to attempt to drag his name through the mud by hurling more insults at him and his immediate family. So you're now some kind of psychoanalyst to the dead? I'm sure you took a few "college courses" on the subject. LOL. Its kinda sad that you feel the need to malign Darwin's character in order to discredit his theory. Pathetic, really.

Radar, it is pretty clear to all that visit this blog that you do not understand evolution enough to dispute it and the same can clearly be said about your unfounded claims and beliefs about Darwin.