I actually want to make an informed decision about evolution. I want to know what it actually teaches so that I can decide for myself if it is an accurate portrayal of origins.

Of course, the book takes numerous swipes at religion in the first chapter alone, which makes me wonder about the objectivity of the authors.

I’m going to try to remain as objective as I can. We’ll see what I learn, and hopefully some interesting debate will result on this site.

More to the point, it appears that there is simply a lack of evidence to prove that there is a so-called “gay gene,” and that same sex attraction (SSA) is an environmentally induced decision. At least that is what Joseph Nicolosi, founder and director of the Thomas Aquinas Psychological Clinic says.

His message to gays: You can change. He has had success in reparative therapies for homosexual persons, and believes that we, as Christians, should witness to our gay brothers and sisters and let them know that they don’t have to be homosexual. That homosexuality is nature rather than nurture is actually a political statement by the American Psychological Association (APA), and has no basis in scientific fact.

Read the entire article here.

Let me back up to when I was a manager at Wendy’s.  I had purchased a lot of books that showed how to build a team by tactics mined from Scripture.  These included The 21 Irrefutable Laws of Leadership by John C. Maxwell and Teach Your Team to Fish by Laurie Beth Jones.  I used a lot of the tactics I learned, but one thing I never did was give Christ the credit.  Neither in prayer nor to the people I managed.

I think that that was a very bad move.  Scripture says that “whoever denies me [Jesus] before men, I also will deny before my Father who is in heaven” (Mt 10:33).  I was a coward; I thought it was more important to not offend people by bringing religion into the issue than to give any credit to where the techniques I was using came from.

And so I met with little success.

Now, I’m using the same techniques at Burger King, but I’m acknowledging their source–God–proud and loud.  Not surprisingly, I’m meeting with much more success.

My point is the Scripture I quoted above: “whoever denies me [Jesus] before men, I also will deny before my Father who is in heaven” (Mt 10:33).

As I understand Intelligent Design, it is merely a scientific expression of the creation account of Genesis without naming the entity that created.  It acknowledges a supernatural creator without defining that creator.  Sounds an awful lot like what I did with the leadership techniques.  I acknowledged that I got them from the Bible, but did not acknowledge God.

Intelligent design does the same thing: acknowledges a creator without acknowledging God.  “[W]hoever denies me before men, I also will deny before my Father who is in heaven” (Mt 10:33).

The problem is that God is inextricably tied to His creation.  To know His creation is to know Him: “For his invisible attributes, namely, his eternal power and divine nature, have been clearly perceived, ever since the creation of the world, in the things that have been made. So they are without excuse” (Rom 1:20, emphasis added).

The Flying Spaghetti Monster has been used by atheists to shoot down intelligent design.  Or has it?  Perhaps the Noodly Master has been used by God to shoot down intelligent design because God doesn’t appreciate being taken out of the equation by otherwise well-meaning scientists.

Let’s be honest: Is intelligent design really how we want to preach God?  Do we really want to leave the possibility of other creator deities open for discussion?  It doesn’t seem as though that is how God would want it.  Did He not say to Moses:

You shall have no other gods before me. . . .  You shall not bow down to them or serve them, for I the LORD your God am a jealous God, visiting the iniquity of the fathers on the children to the third and the fourth generation of those who hate me, but showing steadfast love to thousands of those who love me and keep my commandments. (Ex 20:3, 5-6)

Why on earth would we think that intelligent design is God-honoring?  Leaving open the possibility of other deities invites people to worship and serve them.  But what is the Great Commission?  Is it to get people to think that the universe has a creator, and it might be the Christian God, and you can serve Him if you think that He is the creator?

No!  It is to “Go . . . and make disciples of all nations, baptizing them in the name of the Father and of the Son and of the Holy Spirit, teaching them to observe all that I have commanded you” (Mt 28:19-20, emphasis added).  Note that Jesus doesn’t talk about possibilities; He gives concrete commands.  He tells us in no uncertain terms that we are baptizing these people in the name of the Father, the Son, and the Holy Spirit: the triune Christian God, the creator of the universe.  There are no maybe’s with Jesus.

There should be no maybe’s with us either.  We should be able to stand up and say what Paul said to the Ephesian elders: “Therefore^(A) I testify to you this day that^(B) I am innocent of the blood of all of you, 27for^(C) I did not shrink from declaring to you^(D) the whole counsel of God” (Acts 20:26-27).  We, too, should not shy away from preaching the whole counsel of God.  Like Paul, we should not be ashamed of the gospel (cf. Rom 1:16; 2 Tim 1:8-12).

Look at Ken Hamm compared to ID proponents.  I’m not saying that I agree with a 6,000 year old earth and dinosaurs living side-by-side with humans.  I’m starting to lean back toward a more scientific view, which includes evolution.  But, I admire people like Dr. Hamm much more than I admire ID proponents because Ken Hamm is preaching the whole counsel of God!  He isn’t afraid of the gospel.

ID proponents should spend more effort to put God’s name into their work.  Maybe it would become more recognized.  Maybe even accepted in scientific circles.  It doesn’t sound likely, but neither is Christianity.  Putting God’s name back into the tips and tricks I learned certainly worked for me, and I believe that it can work for ID.

Mike will be interested to know that I finished the critique of the founding principles of Geocreationism.  You’re a real sport, buddy!  I’m not converted, sorry, but you do have some really good ideas.  You’re welcome to keep trying to convert me, however.

Internally, I alphabetized the list of articles under my Articles tab, and placed a star next to all of the ones that aren’t done yet.  Readers won’t notice that, but it will help me.  That is when I noticed that I have three articles that I started but never finished.  So I will finish those over the next three to four weeks, in addition to my regular posts.  I’m going to start with finishing my answer to the Jesus Tomb documentary (better extremely late than never), followed by a critique of open theism, and finally a more satisfactory answer to this video than this guy (part 2).

I’m going to try to get back into a 4-6 post per week habit, as that is the only way to increase my blog’s rank, attract more readers, and retain the readers that I have.  If I were asked the secret to blogging success, I would have to say that regular posting is it.  Regular posting gets me more hits per day than any links that float out there.  Although I’m still going to try to collect those by interacting with some other blogs, and maybe by conversing on TheologyWeb.

That is a preview of what is to come on Josiah Concept Ministries.  Stay tuned!

Imagine finding a wristwatch.  Your first thought upon picking up this wondrous timepiece is not, “Gosh, I’m so glad that all of these pieces randomly came together to form a watch!”  You know, upon finding something complex like a watch, that it must have had a designer.  So the same goes with ecology: seeing nature and how it works together so well, one should infer a designer.  Blind forces couldn’t have constructed a watch anymore than random chance could have constructed our planet and built its ecology.

The Penitent Atheist claims that he destroys the argument in his post.  But he doesn’t.

Complexity evolves, he says.  Everything starts out simple, then gradually evolves complexity.  Nature orders herself, building gradual layers of complexity.  The good changes are kept through natural selection, while bad changes eventually die off.

Our penitent friend is very correct in his assertions.  There is an intelligence behind nature, how she orders herself by selecting appropriate changes to survive and eliminating the rest.  With this line of thinking, the watchmaker argument is rather absurd.  Design is not necessary–evolution can take care of this, giving the appearance of design.

It is a gaping hole in the watchmaker argument.

However, there is a gaping hole in the Penitent Atheist’s argument, too.  Evolution cannot be disputed.  It is as much a fact of life as rain.  The problem lies with origins–a subject that evolution never purports to explain.  Evolution is a fact of life, but it requires life in the first place.

Last I knew, something cannot come from nothing.  Sorry, Penitent Atheist–try again.

His website also proclaims that Mr. Copperfield has “sold more tickets and grossed more money than Lion King, Cats, Phantom of the Opera, and Chicago even during their best weeks.”  In fact, he still holds the Broadway record.  His London show sold out 20 straight performances.  His television specials outperform top sporting events and won him 21 Emmy Awards.  Over the past ten years, he has grossed $1 billion in ticket sales.  We keep coming back for more and more, even though we know that he’s playing tricks on our eyes and our minds.

In other words, we understand that there is a rational explanation behind his illusions.  Some recent TV shows have taken us behind the scenes of magician tricks, showing audiences how the illusions actually work.  Yet we still keep coming back for more illusory magic.

Why, then, is the battle between atheist vs. theist so heated on the “God of the gaps” point?  Science, the atheist says, narrows God’s province as we furnish more and more phenomena  with a rational, scientific explanation.  Instead, why can’t we just be in more awe of God, who provided nature with that design in the first place?

We humans are still in awe and wonder of other humans who do amazing things.  As I’ve shown above with David Copperfield, even though we know that a rational explanation exists, we still keep coming back for more.  So I don’t see why science should drive us away from God; rather, it should pull us closer.

The snobbery, narcissism, and alleged scientific, academic, and intellectual superiority are all present in the author’s tone.  So far, he has taken great pains to attack creationism rather than to defend evolution and scientific naturalism.  Normally, I wouldn’t take that so personally, but he actually says in the introduction that that is what he sought to do by writing the book.

An example of the snobbery is evident in the very organization of the book.  Isaak numbers his chapters and subheadings based on the McBee Keysort System for Mechanically Sorting Folklore Data.  He says that this is appropriate since creationism is nothing more than folklore.  Yet, I thought that one of his goals was to write to creationists to show us the flaws in our arguments.  It seems doing something like this would offend many people, the same way Bill Nye offended people when he said that the Bible was false based only on the fact that the moon refracts light from the sun.

All said, the book has created (pardon the pun) a desire in me to read more about evolution and scientific naturalism.  Not because I believe in it, mind you, but because I read in the book itself that no Christian who speaks against evolution has ever studied it, and that fact is obvious by the arguments that are used against evolution.

So that makes me curious: What are we missing out on?  Is there something to evolution, or is it so much babble and double talk?   As in the Bill Nye example, stating the God created the two lights, the greater (the sun) and the lesser (the moon) in no way contradicts that the moon refracts light from the sun.  The text only says that God put them there.  The science merely shows us the mechanics of the light itself–on which the Bible is silent.

So, if God formed mankind special out of the soil–then that is true.  Perhaps, then, there are intermediate steps (shown by evolution) that are not discussed by the Bible since the Bible isn’t pretending to be a science textbook.  There is truth in it, certainly, and we can’t ignore the truth it contains.  But understanding the mechanics of the nature that God created isn’t sinful, and certainly brings Him glory.

This isn’t an endorsement of evolution.  This is a sincere believer wondering what the natural world can teach him about his Creator. 

Christian extremists have long sought to replace science education with religious indoctrination. If science contradicts biblical teaching (and it most certainly does), then science must go. When it became clear that this was not going to happen, they tried to insure that creationism would at least be included in the educational curriculum, going so far as to claim that it should be taught as an alternative to evolution. (source)

He expresses joy over this news but then adds:

Sadly, we can’t celebrate the defeat of creationism just yet. Even though it is nice to see Texas board members understanding that creationism (in its various forms) is not science, this is merely one battle in a much larger war. . . . Before we praise these school board members for making the right decision, we must realize that they may also be determined to amplify controversy where little exists.

He refers to the fact that the article states that the school board wants textbooks that more throughly examine the weaknesses in the theory of evolution. He laments, “Clearly, more work is needed to make sure our nation’s children receive the science education they need.”

So, what’s the matter? Chicken? If your theory is so solid, then surely it will stand up to close scrutiny, right? Why the objection to looking at the theory more closely? Because the goal of the atheist is the same as what he accuses the Christian of: indoctrination. He wants no controversy to appear to exist with the theory of evolution, so that children don’t even think that holes exist, that they simply believe, de fide, that evolution is the explanation for everything. That is indoctrination, pure and simple.

It reminds me of this:

For the wrath of God is revealed from heaven against all ungodliness and unrighteousness of men, who by their unrighteousness suppress the truth. For what can be known about God is plain to them, because God has shown it to them. For his invisible attributes, namely, his eternal power and divine nature, have been clearly perceived, ever since the creation of the world, in the things that have been made. So they are without excuse. For although they knew God, they did not honor him as God or give thanks to him, but they became futile in their thinking, and their foolish hearts were darkened. (Rom 1:18-21, emphasis added)

And:

The coming of the lawless one is by the activity of Satan with all power and false signs and wonders, and with all wicked deception for those who are perishing, because they refused to love the truth and so be saved. Therefore God sends them a strong delusion, so that they may believe what is false, in order that all may be condemned who did not believe the truth but had pleasure in unrighteousness. (2 The 2:9-12, emphasis added)

Next, we have a clear case of an atheist proving the wrong point, but not realizing it.  John Ray, a professed atheist, makes the following point:

One small point that I would make about the article I have referenced concerns the idea that atheists characteristically subscribe to moral relativism. I think that is broadly true and it does make nonsense of the condemnations uttered by such atheists. How can they say religion is wrong while at the same time saying that there is no such thing as right and wrong? (source, emphasis added)

Which pretty much sums up what the majority of Christians believe about the mindset that atheism leads to.  Note that we don’t say that atheists themselves are amoral, only that they way that they think leads to this type of inconsistency.  Jeff Haws from The Atheocracy, answers thus:

Is this guy really an Atheist? First of all, I’ve very rarely (OK, never, actually) heard an Atheist say religion is “wrong” from a moral perspective. They’ve said religion is wrong, as in “incorrect,” and they might say it’s mostly harmful to society, but I don’t think they’d say you’re morally wrong for being religious. (source)

Christopher Hitchens, in his book God is not Great, has a chapter entitled “Religion as Original Sin” and another called “Is Religion Child Abuse?”  Therefore, I would have to disagree with Jeff’s analysis that atheists never proclaim that religion is wrong from a moral perspective.

Jeff concludes:

Secondly, no Atheist that I know of says “there’s no such thing as right and wrong.” What they say is there’s no central authority to determine what’s morally right and wrong for everyone. . . .  Each individual has to be responsible to him or herself. If you choose to do stupid, morally bankrupt things, there will be consequences for that in this life. Once you die, you’re off the hook, but that’s a bold loophole to take advantage of. There is “right and wrong;” there’s just not a book to scare you into behaving in order to avoid a fiery future.  (emphasis added)

Done.  Jeff has proven that moral relativism rules in atheism, and that there is no objective right and wrong.  Yet atheists continue to appeal to objective right and wrong, even looking for a source for it in evolution. It looks like John Ray is more astute than Jeff Haws thinks he is!

Why would sexuality seemingly be the one preference in human existence where there’s just one right choice, and it’s black or white? Humans are complex creatures. Our preferences for foods, drinks, friends, TV shows, movies and even, yes, blogs are pretty fluid. They change over time; they aren’t usually extreme (”That new Ben Affleck movie sucked, but it didn’t suck quite as much as his previous movie”). Our minds don’t tend to think of preferences in black/white terms. It’s all shades of constant grays.

So why would we think sexuality is different? It’s one of a very few acts that connects us with our most distant ancestors. Every human who has ever lived past the age of about 8 has experienced some sort of sexual desire (And some earlier than that … shout out to my Kindergarten girlfriend, Melissa. Rawr!). I believe these desires are just as fluid and gray as any others. The ideas of heterosexuality and homosexuality are created by humans in a society that would prefer to label people in this manner. In the human mind, those labels don’t exist. It’s all situational. It’s all genetics. Even Christians can’t seriously claim humans should have sex only for procreation. (source)

I actually agree with Jeff right up to this point.  However, he concludes that “. . . if there are other reasons for sex, there is no reason to restrict which consenting adults can have sex with each other.”  Huh?  Now that sounds like Jeff has just concluded what a person with an evolutionary mindset would conclude.

Let me explain.  Starting from the premise that we are nothing more than animals–highly evolved ones, but animals nonetheless–we look at how the other animals handle sex and monogamy.  Well, except for certain birds, monogamy is all but unheard of.  Sex is had wherever, whenever, and with whomever it is desired.  Now, since we evolved from animals and are really animals ourselves, then there is no reason to obey any sort of etiquette about sex–especially when it’s derived from a 4000 year old book.  We’re so much smarter now.

So much smarter, in fact, that we are removing restrictions placed on which consenting adults can have sex, and thus stepping backwards to behavior found in lower forms of life?

Interesting.

But first, I think it is important to establish the importance of talking about origins at all. If one side wins this monstrous debate, will it make a difference? It will make a difference, and more is at stake than many people realize. How we see our origins fundamentally affects our worldview.

If we have, indeed, evolved from early hominids, and were not the special creations of a loving God, then a few things follow from that. Most evolutionists don’t see that, but here I am talking to the Christians and to the seekers. First, if we are nothing more than higly evolved animals, then there is truly no reason to be better than them. If I am not called for a purpose by a higher power, then why bother with morality or living right? I’m only responsible to myself, so I may as well horde all the wealth I can and have threesomes every night with beautiful models. Death means annihilation, so I may as well have all the fun I can while I’m alive since it won’t matter once I die. Nice guys finish last, right?

Of course, if I am the special creation of God and called according to His purpose, it now follows that I have a responsibility to Him. It is improper to say that I am moral and live right because I fear punishment from God. If a Creator exists, then it stands to reason that He would know what “living right” means, and that I would do well to follow His precepts.

In fact, following His precepts have made my life complete. Defending His truth, which I feel called to do through this blog and other forms of Internet evangelism, have given my life a much needed purpose and direction. Reading the Bible and seeing the truths it contains does, as Jesus contends, make me free.

So, why talk about origins at all? Well, simply put, the evolutionary viewpoint makes you responsible to no one. You might as well live for you. The Christian viewpoint makes you a steward of God’s creation, so you should do all you can to seek His will for what He has blessed you with. You should be a responsible steward of these blessings.

When talking about Christianity, Brian is a master of “getting it” without actually “getting it.” I refer specifically to the following statement:

I am not focusing on the Bible as a whole, saying that there is nothing accurate in the collection of works at all, but rather on Genesis, a book that has been shown to be false for many, many years. It surprises me a bit that Christians feel that they must defend Genesis by twisting theology this way and that, trying to pick bits of truth out so that an allegorical reading might become the standard view.

I doubt that Brian realizes that the reason that Christians must defend the literal Genesis view is simply because if one part of the Bible is shown to be in error, then the entire thing is in error. Why? Well, Psalm 119:160 puts it very succinctly:

The sum of your word is truth, and every one of your righteous rules endures forever.

The Bible, as the Word of God, is truth. If one point is shown false, then that raises serious questions about the rest of it. This means that the Biblical creation story must be true, since it is contained in the Word of God. That is why Christians must defend it.

Now, there are right ways and there are wrong ways to defend it. Brian is answering a critic who is going about it the wrong way. His critic asks:

What I find interesting in these “scientific” viewpoints is the tacit assumption that our modern creation “myth” was culled together from various ancient sources and “tuned” to fit modern theology by some nameless group (perhaps the Council of Nicea?). And yet, there seems little credence paid to the idea that the Babylonians or Chaldean or whomever could have instead been influenced by a creation tradition found among many of the tribal people they conquered and/or enslaved. The Babylonians were well-known as a pollyglot of various cultural traditions incorporated from assimilated people. Why is it so far-fetched to assume that their creation mythology could have been influenced by the long-standing oral traditions of captured ancient Hebrews whose culture predated their’s by thousands of years? I’m just asking.

Brian isn’t as well versed on the subject to offer an answer, and admits so. I, however, am well versed on that subject. Brian’s critic is trying to ask a rhetorical question and then move on without having to provide any evidence. Uncritical people may think that he knows what he’s talking about and thus believe that the Babylonians were influenced by the Hebrews. This simply isn’t true. Brian’s critic, however well meaning, is wrong. The Hebrew mythology could not have influenced the Babylonian.

The Babylonian exile occurred in 586 b.c. It is during this time frame when the two cultures lived and intermixed with one another, and is therefore the time when the two stories would have influenced one another. The creation mythology of the Babylonians, which is found in the 11 tablets comprising the Epic of Gilgamesh, underwent many revisions but the final version was crafted between 1300 and 1000 b.c. This means that they could not have influenced each other, since the Epic was written well before the Exile.

However, even the critic assumes that the story was oral, not written, prior to 586 b.c. That isn’t true, either. Josiah, the king for whom this ministry is named, instituted reforms based a physical Book of the Law (Moses’ Torah) mentioned in 2 Kings 22:8. It would be a huge digression to weigh the evidence that the Torah we have today is the same Torah that Josiah’s servants found in the temple, so let us assume that is so (I can answer why I believe that is so at a later date, if anyone wants to argue).

Moses died at the end of the Exodus (Deut 34). This is prior to occupying Canaan, and thus prior to the kingdoms that were in place there. In fact, Scriptural and archaeological evidence place the Exodus around 1450 b.c., which means that the Torah must have been written before 1410 b.c. (forty years after the Exodus began). That is 814 years before the Babylonian exile, and 100 years before the final version of the Epic.

My conclusion is that the two stories rose independently, and are based on a real history. The Hebrews, in covenant with the Creator, sought to preserve the real history and left Genesis alone. The Babylonians, not in covenant, had no such ambitions and therefore created a legend with the truth still embedded in it.

Brian digresses a moment to highlight the so-called absurdity of the Bible’s histories, and uses a familiar example, Joshua 10:13. He comments:

For the account in Joshua to be true at all, the earth would have to stop in its orbit, stop rotating, and the moon would have to stop rotating and stop orbiting as well. I can only imagine the cataclysm that would befall our planet if it just stopped on a dime, but then again the writers of this passage had no knowledge of this; to them the world was small, flat, and the sun moved in the sky (even possibly entering and exiting through the “doors of heaven”). This is but one example of how the Bible is long outdated and incorrect; why should we still cling to such passages as true, other than out of comfort or preference?

Well, I agree that the passage in question is relating real history, but I disagree that for the account to be true, “the earth would have to stop in its orbit, stop rotating, and the moon would have to stop rotating and stop orbiting as well.” Astronomically speaking, the orbital velocity would have to adjust so that the length of a day would be equal to the length of a year. That would be slightly less catastrophic than the whole system simply stopping, but would still present some problems.

Here is a brief excerpt from a related article:

This is admittedly one of the stranger sounding stories in the bible. But our problem here first is to understand exactly what happened. The exegesis of this passage is VERY complex, because even ‘traditional’ commentators have trouble with the ambiguity in the account. The main choices (among those “conservatives” who accept miraculous elements by God) are:

1. Extension of daylight hours (allowing the battle to continue) [Woudstra in NICOT]
2. Subjective ‘extension’ of daylight hours (more an miracle of ‘efficiency’ than ‘nature’) [possible conclusion of Keil and Delitzsch]
3. Semi-Darkness during the day due to miraculous hailstorms and cloud covering (maximizing confusion, reducing heat, and divine deliverance) [Madvig in EBC, Walt Kaiser]
4. Providential battle play-out (the sun always being in the opponents’ eyes due to the slope of the enemy’s descent) [Gordon]
5. An eclipse (as an omen, based on ANE usage of the verbs) [R.D. Wilson, Holliday]

The exegetical problems stem from four main factors:

1. The mixture of poetic and narrative elements
2. The mixture of summary statements and detailed event descriptions
3. The ambiguity in the word choices describing the astronomical/meteorological events
4. The historical setting and the general inability of anyone present to measure time or observe the sun. (source)

The article I quote is not addressing the likelihood of this event being real history. It actually assumes that. It is addressing the question of why other historical sources don’t mention this event, which would have undoubtedly made some waves in the world. It would be so much easier if NASA would just find the missing day, but that is unlikely.

The article that I quoted actually presents the idea that the sun was obscured in the sky suddenly and providentially at a crucial moment in the battle. It provides a lengthy exegetical defense of that premise, and I recommend it to anyone who has a real problem with this passage relaying literal history.

Brian’s article now diverts to a long discussion of tetrapod evolution. I’m more concerned with the theology and defense of a creation origin. I have no answers for this section since I don’t know enough about evolutionary biology to take the topic on.

But I have more theology to comment on in Brian’s article:

Regardless of where it came from, Genesis cannot be regarded as scientifically accurate. Certain verses can be picked here and there that may correlate to our current understanding, but the interpretation that was intended for its original readers certainly does not hold today, and it seems that in most passages the Bible reflects an antiquated notion of science and nature more than infinite wisdom.

Well, first and foremost, Genesis is not a science textbook and is never meant to be read that way. The Bible is a revelation of God, not of nature. Galileo said it best: “The Bible shows the way to go to heaven, not the way the heavens go.” It is completely irrelevant weather the science is correct. In debate with James White, noted heretic John Shelby Spong stated, accurately, that the Bible reflects the knowledge and culture in which it was written; indeed, that is inevitable. The human limitations that it was placed under, however, in no way undermine the purpose of the Bible as the written revelation of God.

The final point I wish to argue is this:

Natural theology, the detection of the divine in nature, is a personal experience, but likewise those who engage in it might very well play the game of making God smaller and smaller; if we are to claim that God resides in the ultimate laws of physics, but we eventually are about to naturally explain those laws, this will cause another crisis of faith for some, leaving God nowhere to run to.

This only holds true to a person who is trying to argue pantheism–God is in everything. Those of us who maintain that the Creator is separate from His creation would never even try this. True, we can know something of the Creator through His creation, and science that helps us discern nature can only add to our store of knowledge of God.

The scientist who focuses on naturalism with the a priori removal of all supernatural causes risks losing not just the creation story, but the whole concept of the Fall. Without the Fall, there is no sin (indeed, there never was), no Law; but most importantly: no Atonement is required. If that’s the case, then we may as well side with the Christ-mythers, because there really is no need for Christ to ever have been a historical person now.

This line of reasoning can only leave man dead in his sin.