Two Great Posts from TurretinFan

18 08 2010

Image via Wikipedia

When I read blogs, I have the tendency to skim my RSS readers rather quickly and read things based on titles. You’d think that that would mean I spend time and effort on each of my post titles, but the sad truth is that I don’t. That is really a topic for a different time. Two titles on TurretinFan’s excellent blog did catch my eye, and they were very much worth the time to read and consider, as they show some interesting holes in evolutionary theory.

I don’t believe I classify as either an evolutionist or a creationist, though I suspect that many would consider me a creationist. I think that evolution is certainly possible given that it is supported well as a scientific conclusion, but the necessity of God makes evolution a moot point. It is not necessary given God, but that doesn’t mean that it didn’t happen. Neither does evolution, if true, falsify God.

Even though I must admit strong scientific evidence in favor of evolution, there are certain philosophical problems with it. TurretinFan calls attention to one such problem in this post. TF cites three scientific studies that create a problem for modern evolutionists. In the first, sea sponges are found to be 70% genetically similar to humans. This, combined with the other two studies that argue against familial ties (however distant) from chimpanzees, creates some reasonable doubt among the prevailing theory of evolution.

TF says that this information will be waved away by evolutionists. I think it is more likely that evolutionists will try to discredit either the research or the researchers, in that way they can safely ignore the conclusions altogether or at least minimize the impact of the study on their beloved theory.

In the follow up to the first post, TF recounts a comment from Peter Pike that creates serious philosophical problems with the theory of evolution. Genetics are used to trace the evolution of living species, but morphology is used for extinct species. The problem? Genetics is a poor way to predict morphology. What this means for evolutionists is that they are using one method on living species, and an incompatible method on extinct ones.

One method is going to be accurate, the other method is going to be inaccurate. As there is no way to reproduce evolution in the lab (there is a way to monitor it from this point forward), we don’t know which method is more accurate. Therefore, whole evolutionary trees are going to be dead wrong and we don’t know how.

Evolutionists, please don’t argue that my last point doesn’t matter one way or the other. With a little bit of Googling, I can find quotes from other evolutionists who argue that evolution is literally the pinnacle of modern science, and all other scientific advancements, theories, and discoveries rely on the truth of evolution. The point is that it does matter. If science literally depends on how accurately we are able to trace ancestry, then science itself is falsified on this philosophical point alone.


Comments : 3 Comments »
Tags: , , , , , , , ,
Categories : Creationism, Evolution, Science

Luke (of CSA) on Kent Hovind

14 07 2010

While I disagree ideologically with Luke of Common Sense Atheism on the problem of evil, he does raise some good points on that post that I probably should address at some point. Specifically, he points out an interesting double standard that Christians have for God’s plan:

In a world so obviously indifferent to our pain or pleasure, Christians must embrace an incredible double standard to believe a God of the universe is perfectly good. They must say that many good things happen because they understand God’s ways and he wanted those things to happen, but they must also say that all bad things happen for reasons we can’t know because we don’t understand God’s ways.

It’s pretty late here, so I’m not going to try to think through Luke’s proposed quandary tonight. Instead, I wanted to agree with Luke on this post about Kent Hovind. Hovind represents the worst of creationist arguments. Even other creationists agree with that. And any academic institution that accepts a Ph.D dissertation with the opening sentence of “Hello, my name is Kent Hovind” should not only be shut down, but burned to the ground.


Comments : Leave a Comment »

Categories : Creationism, Humor

I Love Irony

14 07 2010

I recently began following a new blog, Atheist Camel. I generally find it pretty inflammatory and I was going to unsubscribe, until I stumbled on this post. That made me decide to keep following, at least for the time being. The reason why is the irony that said post brings to the forefront. Read the rest of this entry »


Comments : Leave a Comment »

Categories : Atheism, Creationism, Evolution, God, Intelligent Design, Science

Didn’t I Just Talk About This?

4 07 2010

This video from Joel Hunter, senior pastor of Northland Church (FL), highlights the exact point I was trying to make in my previous post regarding Rabbi Barry Block’s comments on Exodus. Dr. Hunter says that it is very dangerous to attach a literal meaning to Genesis 1 since it might drive away potential converts (especially if they might be scientists).

Dr. Hunter calls us to contemplate the fuller mystery of God.

However, he does rightly recognize that if we mythologize parts of the Bible, then how are we to understand other parts of the Bible? Are they also allegory? If the creation story found in Genesis 1 is only a myth constructed by Bronze Age herdsmen who don’t have a lick of scientific sense in their bodies, then can’t the same argument also be applied to the Resurrection?

We’re pandering to culture here. And as Christians, we should be better than that! How can we be salt and light to the world if, by our beliefs and actions, we are just like the world?


Comments : 5 Comments »

Categories : Bible Thoughts, Creationism, God, Heresy, Religion, Science, Theology

Who Designed the Designer?

3 07 2010

This video, from YouTube user AntitheistAtheist, has the critical praise of numerous atheists in the comments found below the video. Examples:

  • I like your style kid, keep on thinking. Think bigger and further.
  • we [sic] dont [sic] surely know how the universe gets here, nobody does and it has to be accepted. the [sic] mistake that theists do is to explain everything that cant be explained with god of somesort [sic]
  • Maybe that’s it God created us who was created by a larger God and so on and so on in an ever expanding universe.
  • [S]cience has answered all of the greatest questions up to date, coming up with the only reasonable answers. Religion has answered nor prooved [sic] anything. It is absolutely reliant on “faith”, that is an integral part of the deal “Just believe!”. It may never be answered, but if it ever is, zou [sic] can bet science will find the answer and not faith.

The last commenter, in typical atheist style, presents an alternate definition of faith that is not what faith really means. I’ve advocated the death penalty for this before, and I think the law is on my side.

Anyway, why is Who designed the designer? still so popular among atheists? There’s an easy answer to the question. Here it is, from philosopher William Lane Craig:

Notice that Craig laughs about the objection. Like me, he finds it absurd.


Comments : 3 Comments »

Categories : Apologetics, Creationism, God, Science

Bruce Waltke’s Dismissal from RTS

12 04 2010

Professor of Old Testament Studies Bruce Waltke’s dismissal from Reformed Theological Seminary is making its rounds on the Internet these days. For those that haven’t heard, Waltke posted a video on the BioLogos website where he argues that evolution is compatible with Christian orthodoxy. In part, USA Today reports that he said:

If the data is overwhelmingly in favor of evolution, to deny that reality will make us a cult … some odd group that is not really interacting with the world. And rightly so, because we are not using our gifts and trusting God’s Providence that brought us to this point of our awareness. (source)

I want to seize on what I think is the key phrase in that, that not believing evolution “make[s] us a cult. . . some odd group that is not really interacting with the world.”

There is no doubt that we should interact with the world. However, there is a huge danger in adopting a worldly belief system, just so we don’t seem like a cult. The apostle Paul exhorts:

Do not be conformed to this world, but be transformed by the renewal of your mind, that by testing you may discern what is the will of God, what is good and acceptable and perfect. (Rom 12:2)

James writes:

Religion that is pure and undefiled before God, the Father, is this: to visit orphans and widows in their affliction, and to keep oneself unstained from the world. (Jms 1:27)

And later states:

Do you not know that friendship with the world is enmity with God? Therefore whoever wishes to be a friend of the world makes himself an enemy of God. (Jms 4:4)

The apostle John weighs in as well:

Do not love the world or the things in the world. If anyone loves the world, the love of the Father is not in him. For all that is in the world— the desires of the flesh and the desires of the eyes and pride in possessions—is not from the Father but is from the world. And the world is passing away along with its desires, but whoever does the will of God abides forever. (1 Jn 2:15-17)

The conclusion is best stated by saying that we should be in the world, but not of the world. It seems as though Warnke is saying that we should accept the scientific conclusion that man evolved from other organisms, in a branching tree of life that eventually whittles down to a single common ancestor for every life form. And we should accept that scientific conclusion so that we don’t seem so different, so set apart from the rest of the world.

Well, the Bible states that we should be separate from the world. The apostle Peter says:

But you are a chosen race, a royal priesthood, a holy nation, a people for his own possession, that you may proclaim the excellencies of him who called you out of darkness into his marvelous light. (1 Pet 2:9)

If we become like the world, how then are we supposed to witness to it? We are supposed to live a holy life, dedicated to God. If there is no difference between us and the average pagan, how will anyone see a clear difference in being Christian?

I will close with one of my favorite quotes from St. Francis of Assisi: “It is no use walking anywhere to preach unless our walking is our preaching.”


Comments : 4 Comments »

Categories : Creationism, Evolution

What America Needs to Know About Rick Warren

15 01 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.


Comments : 6 Comments »

Categories : Atheism, Creationism, LGBT Issues, Morality, Pro-Life Issues

Evolution

18 09 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.


Comments : 2 Comments »

Categories : Creationism, Heresy, Roman Catholicism

FSM used by God?

20 11 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.


Comments : 2 Comments »

Categories : Apologetics, Creationism, Father, Jesus, Science

Housekeeping Sunday!

29 10 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!


Comments : Leave a Comment »

Categories : Atheism, Creationism, Jesus Family Tomb, Open Theism, Science, Site News

« Previous Entries