Sunday, August 5, 2007

Making a Monkey Out of You

I find it very disturbing that so many folks identify themselves as Bible-believing followers of Christ and yet embrace evolution. The Bible and evolution are mutually exclusive, as is betrayed by the labyrinthine exegesis of Genesis those who attempt to syncretize them invariably use to do so. Foundationally, I believe Jesus, in being the Christ, the Son of the living God, is without error in all he believed and all that he taught. He was, in fact, without error in every possible respect. If Jesus Christ was an evolutionist, he gave no hint of it--quite the opposite in fact, he believed in the biblical Creation Story and the Noahetic Flood.

The syncretic approach, theistic evolution, is a result of faithlessness, not evidence. There is not now, nor will there ever be a slam-dunk case for a scientific approach to origins that stands in opposition to the Word. Shaky believers, who mesh atheistic and biblical viewpoints, attempting to achieve some happy median are doomed to failure. When it comes to God, it is always put up or shut up. Stand on the Word or confess to being a heathen at heart. Nothing in the scripture should cause anyone to blink, if they also believe that God raised the dead, healed the sick, cast out demons, and spoke the worlds into being ex nihilo.

Every time the evolutionists have said, "Aha, there it is!" we have always found, after the fact, that they spoke too soon and overstated their case. Whether missing links in the fossil record, abiogenic experiments, ontogeny recapitulating phylogeny, "undesigned" nylonase, fused chimpanzee chromosomes, or interchangeable genes for nanomachine parts, it's always the same. To be fair, creationists have often done the same thing. So the arguments ratchet back and forth and back and forth, all the while, the realm of physical and theoretical science offers nothing at the end of the tunnel but doubt.

God chooses faith, not sight. Those who depend on sight seldom find faith, and those who depend on faith, usually do just fine with sight. Why throw your faith in the word under the bus for something that, at best, can only make a monkey out of you?

18 comments:

  1. I have not run into this problem myself. I find more people who call themselves Christians that are really deists. But I guess they are really one in the same. Either man was created to have a special relationship with our creator or we were not.

    ReplyDelete
  2. carl,
    I think you're right. A nominal Christian, in whose mind God is locked behind the veil of the heavens, without interjection or interference in creation would likely embrace evolution as well. If that term (deism) had not come of age prior to the advent of Darwin, we'd probably speaking of deistic evolution. Funny how little labels matter when we actually do have a special relationship with God, isn't it?

    ReplyDelete
  3. In my mind, the big verse in any evolutionist/creationist argument is Genesis 2:7 - is man a "living soul" or not?

    ReplyDelete
  4. Yes, Peter, I can see that. I have come across some theistic evolution theories that attempt to do justice to the text by positing God breathing that breath (spirit) into man when he had suitably evolved to the proper point. That's not, by any stretch of the imagination, the force of Genesis 2:7, however. For those leaning toward a more deistic, hands off, approach, this verse is the torpedo that sinks their battleship.

    ReplyDelete
  5. Even atheists need a creation story and this is pretty much the only game in town. No matter how many problems evolution may entail, their faith in atheism will sustain them through the evidence not seen.

    ReplyDelete
  6. Paul,
    So true, and from the discussions on yours and other sites, I think it safe to say, they will never admit to the underlying religious nature of what they are doing.

    ReplyDelete
  7. It is because they believe that religion = belief in god(s). But as you may have noticed by Psio's comments on my blog, they feel very free to define terms to suit their own ends.

    I tend to think of religion more in worldview terms. It is the sum total of your answers to all the important metaphysical questions, e.g., What am I? Where did everything come from? What is truth and how can I know it? What is the meaning of life? How ought I behave?

    ReplyDelete
  8. Paul,
    I agree with your assessment of religion; I think the Supreme Court would too, as seen in their determination that atheism is a religion. But how do we get the atheist to acknowledge he is wading in the waters of the metaphysical while he denies he is all wet? ;-)

    ReplyDelete
  9. some times i manage with a few words...but, my husband would not agree with this for sure.

    It is more fun to talk with someone who doesn't use long, difficult words but rather short, easy words like "What about lunch?"
    Winnie the Pooh

    ReplyDelete
  10. Nancy,

    Browsing your blog, I see these sample words that are as long and complex as many of the words you may find difficult, like "metaphysical":

    * Immediately
    * Forgiveness
    * Denominations
    * Opportunity

    The reason you wouldn't take them to be complex is because they are familiar to you. They are common words that you learned long ago to express ideas that are actually quite advanced if you think about it. Many words that we think of as complex or "jargon" are really just words that are used in a particular area of thought or study. So, if someone did a lot of thinking about the idea of "truth" — what it is and how we can know it — then he would be quite familiar with the word "epistemology," which is the study of it. In fact, for him not to use that word would be crippling because there is not a shorter word available that captures all the ideas contained within that word. The same is true with a word like "metaphysical."

    I have a friend who is in to plants who once complained about my jargon in the world of philosophy and theology. I pointed out to him that he was guilty of the same offense, since he even went so far as to use the Latin terms for many species of the plants that he collected. It was only "Greek to me" because I had no experience or interest in his hobby. Even some of the most elementary words used in his field of interest would be jargon to me simply because I had not stepped foot into it.

    Now, where I know that I am personally at fault is that I often use "big" words for concepts where there are smaller, more common words available to do the job (especially so on my blog). My only defense is this:

    1) My intended audience is somewhat academic. I am assuming that the reader has some exposure to most of the concepts I deal with, and I am attempting to press the discussion to the next level. Since many of my readers are skeptics, I think it is valuable to not only present deep and challenging ideas, but also to play by the rules of this game and use a level of dialog appropriate to the task, lest I not give them any grounds to write me off simply because they take me to be a novice.

    2) Since I like to be very precise about the ideas I am expressing it is helpful to use a larger vocabulary, which gives me more choices for carefully nuancing my meanings.

    3) As with you, I like to think of words as containers for ideas as well as a medium of art. I like prose. Having a larger vocabulary allows me more choices when crafting a piquant verbal bouquet. Unfortunately, I am no C.S. Lewis, who succeeded in such things in an artfully minimalistic way.

    ReplyDelete
  11. I was talking to the Young Adults Class last night about 1 Corinthians 1:18-25. It talks about the wisdom of the cross and how the Jews and Greeks were tripping all over it.

    The Jews didn't want a crucified savior. They wanted a savior who would come as their SUPERMAN, who would set them right and free them from the Romans. When they heard that their Messiah had come and was headed to the cross, the wisdom of the cross became their stumbling block.

    The Greeks didn't want Jesus who came to earth. They were looking for someone to stimulate them logically. The message of the cross was foolish to them. It was too easy.

    In verse 19 Paul referred to a passage from Isaiah. King David was facing a serious matter. He gathered all his wise men and counselors and asked them for their wisdom. What they gave him was totally different than what God told him and what God said was written in Isaiah 29:14 and referred to in 1 Corinthians 1:19.

    "19 For it is written: 'I will destroy the wisdom of the wise; the intelligence of the intelligent I will frustrate.'"

    The whole idea of evolution, I feel is a way that God has made the wisdom of the world foolishness.

    At the end of 1 Corinthians 1:20 it says, "hath not God made foolish the wisdom of this world?" It is not hard to see how the so-called wise men of this generation are confused and spit foolishness every time they open their mouths with the new wave of wisdom.

    Say you ask a wise man (scientist) that does not know God, "How did mankind come about?" He would most likely say, "A series of explosions."

    Imagine you are on one of those big airliners and you were to ask the stewardess, "Who is flying this plane?" And she were to say, "Well, nobody. It just kind of flies by itself." "Well, who made the plane?" you ask. "Oh, well nobody. It was just by chance. There was some steel and wires and it combined and then exploded and this is what came out."

    THE WHOLE EVOLUTIONARY PROCESS IS COMPLETE FOOLISHNESS!

    ReplyDelete
  12. @RIP
    "The whole idea of evolution, I feel is a way that God has made the wisdom of the world foolishness."

    That is a deep thought, worthy of some exploitation! You just keep getting wiser all the time! God bless, bro.

    ReplyDelete
  13. My simple way of seeing this: I suppose what this points to is one word ... believe. Can a person say he is a Christian AND believe in evolution? I don't think so.

    Satan would have us "believe" that a power other than God created the universe.

    ReplyDelete
  14. To be fair to all parties and what the various claims and ideas are, there is a difference between the "evolution" of biological life and the origin and formation of the universe itself. I often hear the topics of evolution, the age of the earth, and the big bang theory all lumped together as though the acceptance of one presumes a particular position on the others. The debate is far more nuanced than that.

    ReplyDelete
  15. Paul,
    That is true. Evolution, technically, needs to address no more than the development of biological life. Anyone who embraces evolution of biological life, almost invariably also embraces cosmological evolution (big bang, etc.) whether or not they claim belief in Christ. On the other hand, there are many who claim faith in Christ and embrace special creation of biological life (in kinds) but embrace expansive periods of time (i.e. gaps, ages, recreations, etc.) over which the the cosmos came to be what it is. It seems to me, the driver for any of those viewpoints is the need to account for apparent age in the cosmos, rather anything clearly stated in the scriptures. If one is a young earth creationist, he or she believes in neither biological nor cosmological evolution and can manage a closely literal interpretation of Genesis 1 and 2.

    ReplyDelete
  16. @Rita,
    You're absolutely right. Evidence alone will never suffice for either side of the debate to convince the other, I think God arranged it that way. Only by faith can we apprehend that God created everything out of nothing. If we believe, the evidence seems more than adequate, even certain. If we don't believe the evidence can't prove God exists or has created anything. It fits well with what Jesus said about speaking in parables. I suppose we could say, in conjunction with Romans 1, that the creation is a very long parable.

    ReplyDelete
  17. Yet the present scientific evidence also implies that the universe came out of nothing -- all space, time, matter, and energy had a point of origin. The trouble is that atheists simply inject imagination to get around what their only empirical evidence is suggesting. To ask them where it all came from is to invite them to a science fiction dialog.

    ReplyDelete
  18. Paul,
    Anything to avoid dealing the one who can not only take life away but then can cast one into hell.

    ReplyDelete

Any comment in ill taste or not germane to the post may be deleted without warning. I am under no obligation to give anyone an opportunity to call me names or impugn my motives or integrity. If you can't play nice, go somewhere else and play.