Josiah Concept Ministries

Defending the Faith Against Its Detractors

Archive for the ‘Creationism’ Category

« Previous Entries

What America Needs to Know About Rick Warren

Posted by Cory Tucholski on January 15, 2009

Vjack from Atheist Revolution has published a list of things that everyone needs to know about Rick Warren. He treats these things as if they are bad things, as if it is scandalous to believe any of them. I thought I’d take a look at his list and see just how scandalous it is.

  1. Warren’s much praised work on AIDS in Africa has been revealed as undermining scientifically-sound efforts to prevent and treat HIV/AIDS in favor of thoroughly discredited religiously-based methods. He opposes contraception, even when it comes to halting the spread of HIV/AIDS. This takes anti-intellectualism and religious delusion to astounding levels.

  2. Warren opposes reproductive rights for women and stem cell research. He has criticized Obama’s position on these issues and vowed to pressure him into changing his mind. This should be worrisome for anyone who values separation of church and state.
  3. He was a strong supporter of Proposition 8, the measure which rolled back civil rights for many Californians by denying marriage to GLBT couples. This is bigotry.
  4. Warren has equated gay marriage to incest and pedophilia. This is bigotry.
  5. Warren has publicly stated that he would not vote for an atheist, regardless of qualifications. He thinks that no atheist could possibly be worthy of holding office. This is bigotry.
  6. He is a creationist. Lest we dismiss this as mere stupidity, please remember that many of us are still having to fight to keep this nonsense out of our schools. (source)

All right, let’s break this down:

  1. In other words, if people aren’t allowed to have sex wherever and whenever and with whomever they want–which is what “scientifically-sound” methods do–then the approach is no good. It is no good to teach people to keep their pants up, no, we must give them condoms and allow them to have sex all willy-nilly. The only 100% effective method of preventing the spread of HIV/AIDS is abstinence. The problem isn’t the method, as Vjack implies, the problem is the committment level of the people in question. I’ve covered this topic before.
  2. “Reproductive rights” is a very nice way to say “abortion.” Vjack is trying to use less emotionally-charged words in order to downplay a serious ideological argument. What Warren is opposing is the murder of the unborn children. Vjack himself admits to holding a similar position in this post.
  3. Proposition 8 was nothing less than an attempt to legislate morality, and therefore should not have been passed. My views on gay marriage are rather complex and best discussed in a separate post. For now, let’s say that I disagree with Proposition 8 but I think that it is harsh to call its supporters bigots. There are sound intellectual reasons to oppose gay marriage, but they are all grounded in the Bible and therefore have no place in the law books.
  4. Warren has never equated gay marriage with incest or pedophilia. What he has done is question where the state will draw the line as far as what immoral marriages it will allow. To that end, he cited incest and pedophilia as two examples of what may be allowed next. History offers no examples since gay marriage has been as universally forbidden as incest and pedophilia among the many cultures that have existed. Warren was speculating, not equating.
  5. I’m not going to disagree with this point. This is bigotry.
  6. There are many intellectual and philosophical reasons that lead someone to be  a creationist. Just as there are many philosophical and intellectual reasons that lead someone to be a naturalist. I don’t call naturalism “nonsense,” even if I think that a person who holds the position is being intellectually dishonest. Neither view is nonsense; but one must be incorrect. I’ve made my stance known. Now, what about teaching creationism in school? It toes the line, but I don’t think that it should be illegal.

Vjack reveals himself as very close-minded to other points of view. He is so certain that atheistic naturalism is correct, that he won’t even consider the position of the other side. Perhaps Vjack is guilty of the same bigotry that he accuses others of.

Posted in Atheism, Creationism, LGBT Issues, Morality, Pro-Life Issues | 6 Comments »

Evolution

Posted by Cory Tucholski on September 18, 2008

Evolution seems to have hit the newswires today, as I found two gems that, once again, make me glad that I am not Catholic.

It seems that Catholic teachings are “not incompatible” with evolutionary theory, according to Archbishop Gianfranco Ravasi, president of the Pontifical Council for Culture. The archbishop reasons that, since the Church has never infallibly defined evolutionary theory as an anathema, evolutionary theory can coexist with Catholicism. I agree with Matthew Bellisario, the Catholic Champion. The Church has taken a stand against evolutionary theory according to the relevant documents.

All churches that call themselves Christian must take a stand against evolution. Why? Because it ruins the foundation of all Christian doctrine found in Genesis. Unless Adam and Eve are the first parents by whom we all fell into sin, then the Atonement makes no sense.

Let me explain it this way. According to Genesis, Adam is our first father. He was shaped by the hand of God and placed in paradise. He was to father many offspring to tend this great garden and mankind was supposed to live at peace. But Adam sinned–he disobeyed God’s command to not eat from the Tree of Knowledge. On this point everyone can agree, but this is where many churches falter in their presentation of the Gospel.

This sin is imparted to all men. If Adam was only one of many first fathers, then only his descendants would have the sinful nature. The “other fathers” would impart no sins to their children, since it was Adam that sinned, not these other hypothetical people. For any of the following to make sense, Adam must be the only first father, and all of mankind must be descended from him.

“For as by the one man’s disobedience the many were made sinners, so by the one man’s obedience the many will be made righteous” (Rom 5:19). One man brought sin into this world (Adam), and one man takes it away (Christ). None of this makes any sense if there are people on this planet not descended from Adam. Where did those people get their sin?

This is why liberal theologians make me sad. The Anglican Church, well known for its liberal theology, especially in the Episcopal denominations here in the US, has now issued an apology to Charles Darwin for dismissing the theory of evolution. Christians “repeated the mistakes they made in doubting Galileo’s astronomy in the 17th century,” according to Dr. Malcom Brown, director of the Church’s mission and public affairs. Dr. Brown writes:

Charles Darwin: 200 years from your birth, the Church of England owes you an apology for misunderstanding you and, by getting our first reaction wrong, encouraging others to misunderstand you still. We try to practise the old virtues of ‘faith seeking understanding’ and hope that makes some amends.

It will be interesting to see where this leads. As we drift further away from our real roots, revealed in Genesis, Christian doctrine will make less and less sense to people, until orthodox Christianity becomes history.

Posted in Creationism, Heresy, Roman Catholicism | 2 Comments »

FSM used by God?

Posted by Cory Tucholski on November 20, 2007

Sometimes, I do work that doesn’t require a lot of mental engagement.  While I’m doing that, I come up with some weird thoughts and those can occasionally turn into blog entries.  This is one of those times.

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.

Posted in Apologetics, Creationism, Father, Jesus, Science | 2 Comments »

Housekeeping Sunday!

Posted by Cory Tucholski on October 29, 2007

Today was a day for housekeeping, or “blogkeeping.”  I tweaked a few things on my layout, most notable is dropping the image in support of Fred Dalton Thompson for President in 2008.  It’s not that I’m not going to vote for the former Law & Order star, it’s just that I don’t want this blog to become a political blog.  I want to keep this an apologetics blog.

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!

Posted in Atheism, Creationism, Jesus Family Tomb, Open Theism, Science, Site News | Leave a Comment »

God of the Gaps?

Posted by Cory Tucholski on October 3, 2007

We know that David Copperfield is an illusionist.  He isn’t magical.  The tricks he performs on stage are just that: tricks!  They are sleight of hand illusions, albeit very large and complicated.  As his website proclaims, he amazes audiences.

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.

Posted in Bible Thoughts, Creationism, Science, Theology | 4 Comments »

Counter-Creationism and Intellectual Superiority

Posted by Cory Tucholski on September 27, 2007

It seems as though our atheist friends possess a real tone of intellectual superiority.  They never try to talk to us creationists, they only ever talk down to us.  The latest example of snobbery is in the form of Mark Issak’s Counter-Creationism Handbook, which I picked up from the library this week.  I really haven’t read a detailed critique of creationism and intelligent design from the scientific viewpoint.  I’m definitely not reading one right now.

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. 

Posted in Atheism, Creationism, Science | 8 Comments »

Consistency in Positions

Posted by Cory Tucholski on September 5, 2007

I have noticed that the Christian position tends to be the most consistent position in any argument between theists and atheists. Here is yet another shining example of the inconsistency of the atheist position:

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!

Posted in Atheism, Creationism, Pro-Life Issues, Science | 3 Comments »

Romans 11 and Geocreationism with Conclusion

Posted by Cory Tucholski on August 23, 2007

I have consolidated, edited, and updated the preceding three parts of this series here. Since it has been a while in posting (mostly due to serious computer issues that have crippled my Internet access) it may help to familiarize yourself with what has come before this so that you will be up to date. As sometimes happens, in writing and researching this piece I have changed my mind about the necessity of no physical death prior to the Fall, I now believe that it is possible the Fall only brought on spiritual death. However, I am not at all convinced that God merely breathed a soul into Adam, who prior to that had evolved from the ground up (so to speak). I have made some changes in the articles to reflect this new conviction.

The seat of Mike’s argument is Romans 11, which he says is the model for God allowing changes to occur on their own without removing his meticulous sovereignty. Unfortunately, this is difficult to reconcile given its proximity to Romans 9, which is the premiere Bible passage teaching election/predestination and the Calvinist view of soteriology. The ultimate passage in meticulous sovereignty would never be placed right next to the ultimate passage for letting things go and coming back later to see how they worked out. Paul wrote the to the Romans his masterwork letter, and he plotted its structure far too carefully to let two such contradictory notions slide in side-by-side.

There is a way to reconcile these points with each other, and for that we need not go any further than our own logic. Read the rest of this entry »

Posted in Bible Thoughts, Calvinism, Creationism, Father, Jesus, Theology | 3 Comments »

Objecting to Objective Morality

Posted by Cory Tucholski on August 18, 2007

It seems as though my writing has come to the attention of Jeff Haws, webmaster of the Atheocracy.  Jeff has used a quote from this article to highlight the mindset of Christians in regard to origins.  While I’m flattered that my writing would be used at all, I’m certainly not flattered that Jeff has represented the “typical Christian fundamentalist” mindset and has failed to interact with either the writing itself or my specific view of atheists.

Jeff says:

But this is how they [Christians] think of atheists, as amoral, selfish people because they either can’t fathom how someone could behave in a moral fashion without some supernatural being holding them accountable, or they want people to think they can’t fathom this. (source)

Some Christians, perhaps, think that.  I, however, do not.  And I would like to see where I have ever represented atheists as amoral and selfish.  Indeed, some atheists are more moral and far less selfish than Christians–and one in particular, who goes by PariahJane at the RRS boards, has done at least one good deed that I would never even consider.  Many atheists are more knowledgeable about the Bible than Christians, which I’ve seen proven time and again on the RRS discussion boards.

We can compare and contrast, but without God and without Scriptural authority, we are still left in a lurch as to who decides what is good and what is evil.  Before he became emperor, Palpatine described moral goodness as a “point of view.”  Is that what it is?  Or is moral goodness something objective, something that we can point to and recognize?  If the latter, then we are still left with the question, “Who decides what is moral and what is immoral?”

Jeff actually proves this point himself.  One commenter, HarveyOne, said that atheists lead less sexually moral lives than Christians.  Jeff responds first with this question:

I’m not sure about that, harvey. First, I think you have to determine what amounts to “sexually immoral.” I honestly don’t know. Having sex outside of marriage? Infidelity? Unprotected sex? Massive orgies? Beastiality? I don’t think it’s fair to judge non-Christians by Christian definitions of “immoral,” i.e. sex before marriage. (emphasis added)

Make no mistake: I’m not saying that atheists are immoral.  I really can’t make that assessment; I’m not claiming omnipotence.  All I’m saying is that without God, the definition of morality is left open to the individual.  And the postmodern mindset becomes a serious barrier: what is moral for me is not moral for you.  Now we’re in a mess.

Jeff shows his misunderstanding of Christian teachings later in the combox:

It’s just, while Christians’ consequences come in a theoretical “afterlife,” our consequences come in this one. There are major problems involved in basing your moral compass on what might happen to you after your death, chief among them that no one really knows what is involved in the afterlife, and even many Christians say “Heaven is whatever you want it to be.”

Atheists seem to think that we place more emphasis on the afterlife than the present life.  While we look forward to the afterlife, we certainly have much work to do in this present life.  The Bible places all of its emphasis on the here and now, and very little mind is paid to Heaven.  Although Hell is described pretty clearly as a place that is best avoided.

Maybe to a certain extent, Christians do place much emphasis on the afterlife.  But what is it about this present life that many of us want to ignore?  There really are severe consequences in this life should we ignore the moral precepts given us by God.  I think that Jeff says this better than any Christian writings on the topic: “This moment is all we’re guaranteed. Nothing more. Live it to its fullest.”  Beautiful sentiment, but it lacks definition: How do we live life to the fullest?  Are we back to defining all of this for ourselves, or is there an objective definition?

Posted in Atheism, Creationism, Father, Sin | 3 Comments »

Why Talk About Origins At All?

Posted by Cory Tucholski on August 15, 2007

Most recently, I’ve been discussing the founding principles of Geocreationism. I have yet to tackle the main Scripture passage from where Mike models his idea, Romans 11. Rest assured that is coming very quickly. I just wanted to take some time to respond to comments from Brian on his blog about fighting creationism.

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. Read the rest of this entry »

Posted in Apologetics, Bible Thoughts, Creationism, Science, Theology | 4 Comments »

« Previous Entries