Sunday 17 November 2013

Responding to professed Christians who accept evolution


A new breed of theistic evolutionist (TE) seems to be emerging, and they are very active on Facebook and blogs. They are not content to merely say that biblical creation is an eccentric alternative view to the widely accepted belief that ‘God created through evolution’. They want to go much further, and they are very active about it, viewing biblical creationism as a plague. Like the ‘New Atheists’, they are not content to believe what they believe and get on with their lives, but are determined that everyone, and I mean EVERYONE should come to share their view. Examples are Dennis Alexander’s book ‘Creation or Evolution: Do we have to choose?’, CG Science on Facebook and the godofevolutionblog. These professed Christian believers (*) do not merely disagree with young earth creationists (YEC) but regard them as a serious problem. They either fail to notice or are quite relaxed about the obvious comfort their attacks on biblical creationists give to the atheists who post approving messages on their web sites.

How should biblical creationists respond to these professed believers who apparently side with Richard Dawkins and Brian Cox etc? We can’t ignore them as they won’t ignore us. They call us liars, ignorant, deluded, poisoners of the Gospel, even idolaters. See Tyler Francke’s  godofevolutionblog  for details (caution, this site contains material that biblical creationists will likely find highly offensive). I assume that their target is not so much the open biblical creationists like myself, but the undecided brother and sister Christians who are uncertain and confused about what to believe and are trying to make their minds up. The TE message is clear: don’t go anywhere near biblical creationists or their stupid, wicked arguments, it will damage your faith. They say that we are ignorant, confused, illogical, bad people whose message that the Genesis creation account and related Scriptures are true is turning potentially penitents away from the Gospel.

I have posed here ten mainly theological questions (**) that may be fairly addressed to theistic evolutionists, particularly if they style themselves as Evangelical Christians as some do. Since godofevolution particularly stresses (as cited also by GC Science) that YECs insist that only YECs will be saved (which is not true) I begin with a disclaimer concerning this misinformation.

GROUND RULES

A) Salvation is the free gift of God (Romans 6:23) and does not depend on perfect doctrinal correctness on origins or any other issue. Salvation depends on responding in faith and obedience to the grace of God in Christ. If you are a genuine believer, justified by grace (Ephesians 2:8-9) and adopted into Gods family (Romans 8), holding an erroneous position on the creation/evolution divide will not stop you entering heaven. Likewise, if you refuse the grace of God and remain an impenitent sinner, holding a technically correct view on this subject will not save you from the coming Judgment.

B) Impugning the motives of opponents in a debate is unhelpful. We are called to bless, not curse. I ask for forgiveness for the times when I have failed to live up to this standard.

C) The Bible is the rule and final arbiter of faith for Christians. Although our understanding is imperfect (1 Corinthians 13:9-13, 2 Peter 3:16) we hold that the Scriptures are inspired by the Holy Spirit and are both necessary and sufficient (2 Timothy 3:16) to guide us in this sin cursed world where dangerous false teachers have infiltrated the church (2 Peter 2: 1-3).

1)      If God created by means of the Darwinian evolutionary process as it is generally accepted and taught, i.e. by natural selection acting on random mutations over many millions of years, why did He give us a creation account that in a plain reading says He did it in six normal length days? Please note, Moses was clear that the days of creation were regular 24 hour days, see Exodus 20: 11.

2)      Since the miracles of Jesus and other miracles documented in both Old and New Testaments happened near-instantaneously in response to a divine word of command, why would God have used an unrecognisably different process to create the heavens and the earth?

3)      If evolution is of God, why did it take an unbeliever to enlighten believers?

4)      If God created though a process involving billions of animals starving, fighting, suffering birth defects and other diseases and killing each other, then why did God call this ‘good’ and ‘very good’ (a phrase that occurs multiple times in the creation account)?

5)      Where are the popular hymns and worship songs praising God for random mutation and natural selection? Many songs praise God for creation, none that I have ever come across praise Him for evolution.

6)      If creation reveals the glory of God, why have so many people abandoned Christianity as a result of accepting Evolution and millions of years? As an example of this logical progression from Darwinism to atheism, read the poem ‘The Respectable Burgher on the Higher Criticism’ by the writer Thomas Hardy, who abandoned Christianity after reading Darwin.

7)      What is the worst thing that could happen to us if, in good faith based on a plain reading of Scripture and a healthy scepticism of Darwinian evolution which after all is central to the world view of some of the most outspoken opponents of the Gospel, we mistakenly believe in biblical creation if it is wrong?

8)      What is the worst thing that could happen to us if, based on 'trusting the scientists' we mistakenly accept molecules to man evolution and millions of years if, for argument’s sake, that is wrong?

9)      If there was no worldwide Noah flood, why is it in the Bible and why did Jesus (Matthew 24:37) and Peter (2 Peter 3:5) both refer to it as a real and exemplary fact of history which was linked to the coming universal Judgment? And while we’re on the subject, how did there get to be so many billions of tons of compressed former biomass and mud-entombed remains of fossilised animal beneath the earth?

10)   What is the difference between theistic evolution and atheistic evolution? Specifically, if TEs believe ‘God created through evolution’ then what features (if any) of the standard molecules to man evolutionary progress look different to a purely materialistic process because ‘God did it’?

Where two sides take an opposite view, both cannot be right. The essence of the Christian religion is that we sinners who need to get right with God through repentance and faith in the Christ whom God has sent. We cannot do this unless we dare to acknowledge that we might be wrong. TEs assert that biblical creationists are wrong and should examine both ourselves and the evidence, admit fault and change. We therefore ask them to do the same.

It is a pity that professed Christians disagree publicly about these matters, but as St wrote to the Corinthian church, if some of our number have gone wrong, those who insist on clinging to truth instead of joining them in their error will be divisive but not blameworthy. Better division that unity around error.

<><><><><><><><><><><><><><><><><><><><><><><><><><><><><><><><><><><><> 

(*) I use the term 'professed Christian' without intending to cause offence, and am happy to see the term used of myself. It is intended to mean, someone who SAYS they are a Christian, whether they are or not. The New Testament repeatedly warns us to look out for false prophets, false teachers, false believers. I am merely drawing attention to the fact that not everyone who says they are a true follower of Jesus is so.

(**) The science issues around evolution as science are addressed elsewhere, this discussion is mainly about theology. Suffice it to say for now that the God and Father of our Lord Jesus Christ dwells outside of time and possesses and disposes of unlimited power and wisdom, therefore the most stupendous miracles, for example raising the dead, are a normal part of His divine nature. What is impossible with men is possible with God (Luke 18:27). God is not limited by the laws of physics or any precondition that we may set upon Him, and was an eye witness to the Creation, however it occurred. It therefore follows that if a trustworthy God has revealed the truth about His creation, any asserted scientific fact, argument or interpretation that makes God out to be a liar must be either wrong or misunderstood. and that's before we get started on the utterly failed science of molecules to man evolution.

 

15 comments:

  1. Hello, Mr. Daniels. Thanks for your thoughts. This is Tyler Francke, of the blog God of Evolution, and if I may, I'd like to respond to a couple points at which I believe you have misstated my views.

    First of all, as I've explained more than once on my site, I actually don't care all that much about what other Christians think about evolution and creation. I.e., I don't think it's that big of a deal, and I certainly don't think "everyone, and I mean EVERYONE should come to share" my view.

    I'll admit that it does bother me to see Christians, who are specifically called to walk in grace and truth and worship in spirit and in truth, lying about nature in misguided attempts to share the gospel message. Most young-earth individuals, I believe, are merely misinformed. However, there have been plenty of documented instances of young-earth proponents repeating erroneous claims at later debates, despite being corrected on the points.

    It also bothers me when young-earthers describe their perspective as "biblical creation," as though -- among the many, many different Christian views of Gen 1 and creation -- theirs is the only one that can be considered "biblical."

    But by themselves, neither of those things would motivate me enough to start a website like godofevolution.com. My motivation in that is simply to rebut, in as strong a way as I possibly can, the idea that saving faith in Christ is fundamentally incompatible with accepting the enormously well established scientific fact of evolution.

    I appreciate that you take a more biblical and orthodox view of salvation. And for the record, I have NEVER "stressed that YECs insist that only YECs will be saved." However, young-earth proponents like Answers in Genesis and Creation Today absolutely have and do teach and lend support to this idea, both in direct statements and -- even more so -- indirectly, by focusing on the age of the earth and "disproving" evolution above all else.

    Such a false dichotomy IS profoundly harmful to the Christian message in our modern world. It is an unbiblical and thoroughly unnecessary obstacle to the gospel, and I will fight it every way I know how. If you really want to believe the universe was created more recently than the ancient Mesopotamians began brewing beer, then feel free; I won't try to stop you. Just don't insist that anyone else has to agree with you in order to be a "true Christian."

    I'd be happy to respond to any or all of your 10 questions here, if you're interested, but I wanted to correct the above statements first. Thank you for your time and consideration.

    ReplyDelete
    Replies
    1. Hello again Tyler, time now permits me to address some more of the points you make. Please note, I budget only a certain amount of time to this blog and most of thatkeep coming back to address every criticism in detail, readers may make of that what they wish.

      You mention lying. As a professed Christian (I uses the term generically and am happy for it to be used of me) you will be aware that this is an EXTREMELY offensive term, not least in view of Revelation 21:8 and the naming of Lucifer as ‘Father of Lies’.

      You wrote >However, there have been plenty of documented instances of young-earth proponents repeating erroneous claims at later debates, despite being corrected on the points.<

      Depends what you mean by ‘corrected’. This seems to suggest that you are so confident of the correctness of your corrections that anyone daring to decline to accept them becomes a denier and/or liar. I could say the same about evolutionists who have been ‘corrected’ for example on the mathematical impossibility of unguided abiogenesis, protein synthesis or the origin of information.
      If you want to see some real lies check out the atheist troll blog creationsciencestudy.

      You don’t like people like me describing ourselves as ‘biblical’ creationists. I stand uncorrected. The bible plainly teaches a six day creation and gives us genealogies which allow a date of around 6,000 years. One may bring in all sorts of ‘interpretation’ and ‘context’ issues of the same kind that the ‘Gay Christian Movement’ uses to deny that the Bible condemns same sex genital activity, but the plain meaning remains stubbornly what it is, including the many NT references to Genesis as history. You cannot read evolution and millions of years into the text while retaining the original clear meaning.

      >>>And for the record, I have NEVER "stressed that YECs insist that only YECs will be saved."<<<

      I am glad to hear you distance yourself from that vile slander which I read increasingly often. I will have to go back to your recent comments on Ken Ham to see what it was about them that made me think you had it and will post an apology if appropriate.

      You say that you believe that teaching that Scripture is reliable on creation and attempting to use the scientific method to falsify molecules to man evolution is an impediment to the Gospel. I disagree, and remain convinced that it is rather the acceptance of evolution that supports atheism. And that is why I blog, not because I enjoy it. I don’t.

      Kind regards


      Delete
    2. "I could say the same about evolutionists who have been ‘corrected’ for example on the mathematical impossibility of unguided abiogenesis, protein synthesis or the origin of information."

      Evolution and abiogenesis are two separate things. The alleged "impossibility" of one is no detriment to the other, any more than scientists' inability to classify light as a wave or a particle invalidates the study of anthropology. As to the origin of information and protein synthesis, you can do all kinds of fun things with numbers when your goal is to deceive. For example, if you took the population present at any small office Christmas party or family get-together that will be hosted in the coming weeks, and looked at the probability that that exact group of people would be there at that exact moment -- taking all the variables of the people's life histories into account -- the probability of it occurring would be astronomical. But, of course, a Christmas party is not a particularly remarkable event, and thousands of them will be occurring over the next few weeks, despite the extremely long odds against them.

      I understand it is tempting to use odds and probabilities as evidence of a creator, but it ultimately fails. However unlikely any given event that has happened (whether it be last night's Christmas party or the rise of man), the bottom line is that they happened. In the latter case, if the numerous mutations, genetic imperfections, ERVs and noncoding sequences present in our genome is any indication, it was by no means a streamlined or particularly well-guided process.

      "You don’t like people like me describing ourselves as ‘biblical’ creationists. I stand uncorrected. The bible plainly teaches a six day creation and gives us genealogies which allow a date of around 6,000 years."

      The Bible also plainly teaches that the earth is flat (see the dozens of passages that reference the “ends” or “corners” of the earth, like Rev. 7:1, or verses like Dan. 4:11 and Matt. 4:8, which describe tall objects visible anywhere on earth — only possible if the planet is flat) and orbited by the sun (see, e.g., 1 Chron. 16:30, Psalm 96:10, Josh. 10:12-13 and Ecc. 1:5). Perhaps we should call those faithful souls who accept the Holy Spirit's clear witness on these issues "biblical cosmologists" and call people like you and I, who read unbiblical ideas like the heliocentric model and a spherical earth into the text, "compromisers."

      And for the record, I don't read "evolution and millions of years into the text." I don't read the Bible for scientific information at all; as explained in 2 Timothy 3:16, I believe the Holy Spirit's goal in scripture is to teach us the moral and theological truths we need to understand God and our relationship to him, such that we may be made capable of living the righteous lives to which he has called us.

      I read the first few chapters of Genesis as primarily metaphorical and symbolic accounts of real events and theological truths, much like Proverbs, Psalms, the parables of Christ and most of the prophetic books including Revelation. If Genesis 1 is a type of parable, meant to teach theology -- not history, then there simply is no conflict with what has been revealed to us in the other great record of God's work: creation itself.

      Also, as to my first point, please refrain from quoting Isaiah 40:22 to me. The verse uses the Hebrew word for a flat circle (far more suitable for sitting) -- not a sphere.

      "I am glad to hear you distance yourself from that vile slander which I read increasingly often. I will have to go back to your recent comments on Ken Ham to see what it was about them that made me think you had it and will post an apology if appropriate."

      Wonderful. I look forward to seeing that apology when you have time.

      Delete
    3. Tyler. I have been back and re-read the relevant post where you attack Ken Ham and I do not believe I owe you an apology. In that polemic you do not QUITE go as far as saying in as many words that Ham promotes the idea that only YECs are saved, but as I read the article you do your best to smear him from head to toe with actually believing and promoting the idea.

      Since you resort to the flat earth slander, I really don't want to communicate with you any more. Carry on spewing your venom at people who dare to question Darwin and read Scripture plainly and I will carry on doing my inadequate best to point out that both the science and religious implications of molecules to man evolutionism are wrong.

      I hate being accused of the kind of things that people like you accuse me of, and would love to give this up and spend more time doing things I enjoy. I would love to believe in stuff that didn't make people loathe me. You probably worked out that Elwin Daniels is a pseudonym, that's because its easier to cope with the hate that way.

      I note with interest your repeated charge that people who challenge evolution don't understand it. I have studied Origin of Species, read plenty of Dawkins and endured decades of David Attenborough's indoctrination on TV and I understand the principles of science particularly biology. I understand evolution 'theory' perfectly well and regard it as an insult to be accused of failing to understand, let alone to deliberately refuse enlightenment. Its just that when I try to apply natural selection acting on random mutations to, say, breast feeding (see above) I find that it lacks any rigour at all and merely appeals to 'might have beens' and 'this must have happened because we can't have divine creation'

      Darwinian gradualism cannot produce a process like photosynthesis or Krebs cycle since it doesn't work at all until its all there. Mutations are seen to degrade, not build. There is no need for any further argument since the above simply kills Darwinism stone dead.

      May our gracious Lord enlighten whichever of us is mistaken.

      Delete
    4. For goodness sake, how frustratingly typical. You insist on your exclusive right to the title "biblical creationist," but when someone brings up the perfectly valid and relevant point of the Bible's painfully obvious flat-earth sensibilities, you cry "slander" (as we are currently engaged in a printed medium, this would actually be "libel") and beat a swift retreat.

      Regarding Ken Ham, you are moving the goalposts. I never said I DIDN'T believe Ham and his organization promote their views as being essential to Christianity; I most certainly do. However, what you accused me of was "was stressing that YECs (presumably, in general) insist that only YECs will be saved" -- which I have never said, and it's for that that you do owe me an apology.

      Believe whatever you must, my friend, but studying apologetic techniques to support your presuppositions is not the same thing as studying science with the goal of understanding.

      As to your other points, you clearly see yourself as some wondrous martyr, but I'm afraid you won't find me very sympathetic. I'm sorry for defending my position and demanding that you defend yours. What a terrible wretch I am! And I certainly don't envy your weary task, but none of that changes the fact that you have chosen this for yourself. God does not need your defending nearly as much as you seem to think he does.

      Delete
  2. A few brief answers, not because I expect to persuade you, but just to make the point that your questions are not as "unanswerable" as you may believe, given your rhetoric.

    1) It seems a little disingenuous to set the bar so high that we must explain why God chose to inspire Moses to write the way he did. Can you explain why Paul quoted pagan poets, or what Peter meant by Jesus preaching to the souls in prison? We can't say exactly why God chose the metaphor of 6 regular days, but there are lots of good ideas based on sound scholarship that you're completely dismissing by posing this question.

    2) Why would Jesus have healed a blind man by spitting in the dirt and rubbing the mud on his eyes? Why would one man be healed immediately, but another had to try twice? Why did the Israelites have to march around Jericho 7 days in a row -- couldn't God have dropped the walls instantly? Why did Joshua have to hold Moses' arms up holding his staff so the Israelites could win a battle? God almost always uses processes to accomplish his will; in my view, the few miracles described in the Bible were necessary disruptions that emphasized certain messages at certain times. Maybe a better question is: why would God use a miracle to create when no one was around to see it?

    3) Charles Darwin briefly trained to be a priest, and was a firm believer in 6-day literal creation when he left for his voyage on the HMS Beagle. His contemporary and co-discoverer of natural selection, Alfred Russel Wallace, remained a firm believer. Lyell (father of modern geology) was a theist; Mendel (first to describe genetic inheritance) was a monk. In fact, most scientists from the Enlightenment through the 20th century were believers of some sort.

    Taken another way, your question could be "why did it take a scientist to elucidate the methods and processes of science?", which is even more nonsensical.

    4) I don't know why God would call this decaying, atrophying, dying world "good" or "very good" -- note that He doesn't call it "perfect" -- but that's the world He created. I do know that if there was no entropy, decay, or corruption before the Fall (as YECs unbiblically assert) then fruits and vegetables would be indigestible, peels and feces would be everywhere, and people and animals who were permanently injured would simply lie around crippled for eternity. (Unless you're proposing that there were no accidental injuries either, or that all living things could regenerate any body part at will, including their brains, eyes, etc?)

    While we're on the topic of immortality, how often was one required to eat from the Tree of Life to live forever? If it was fairly frequently, e.g. every day, how did the snails make it back in time?

    5) I don't know -- why don't you write one? Better yet, maybe you could consider that evolutionary creationists praise God for creation too -- we just don't insist on telling Him how He did it. The more I learn about biology, the more amazed I am at all the wondrous things God has created (whatever process He used to do so).

    ReplyDelete
    Replies
    1. Thanks David. I only have a few minutes right now but will try to address all your points as I am able. You have packed a great many issues together which require a long time to respond to. This is a tactic I often come across, perhaps it is legitimate but does require a lot of effort to respond to

      1) >>>It seems a little disingenuous to set the bar so high that we must explain why God chose to inspire Moses to write the way he did.<<< sorry perhaps I'm thick but I don't really understand what you mean by this. I'm assuming that God meant Moses to write in such a way that ordinary people would understand. it is theistic evolutionists who want to make it that God told Moses to write something that was intended to carry a meaning, metaphor or otherwise, that was not what it appeared to be.

      >>Can you explain why Paul quoted pagan poets<< I quote pagan poets all the time, in fact I was quoting D H Lawrence to my wife less than an hour ago. In my opinion t is legitimate to quote anything at all in pursuit of trying to explain something or make a point. Of course not all quotes are equally valid or useful, that's why we have debates. I'm not sure what the issue of Paul quoting pagan poets (I assume you mean in Acts 17, where he develops the discussion by preaching creation) has to do with the case I am trying to make here.

      >>>or what Peter meant by Jesus preaching to the souls in prison? <<<

      you have me there. I have no idea what this means. If you do, please let me know, really I don't understand this verse. However, again, I don't know what it has to do with the creation versus evolution debate.

      >>We can't say exactly why God chose the metaphor of 6 regular days, but there are lots of good ideas based on sound scholarship that you're completely dismissing by posing this question.<<

      We have not established that God intended it as a metaphor. I deny that He did do intend. If He did, then it is interesting to note that, as far as I am aware, theologians only started thinking along such lines once the deist/agnostic Darwin and his atheist associates came along with an alternative origins scenario that if accepted made it necessary to de-literalise Genesis 1-11. Sounds like damage limitation to me.

      I am expecting guests and need to prepare. I will do my best to address your other points later. Thanks for commenting.


      Delete
    2. 2) >>>>Why would Jesus have healed a blind man by spitting in the dirt and rubbing the mud on his eyes? Why would one man be healed immediately, but another had to try twice? Why did the Israelites have to march around Jericho 7 days in a row -- couldn't God have dropped the walls instantly? Why did Joshua have to hold Moses' arms up holding his staff so the Israelites could win a battle? <<<

      In each of these cases the miracle when it came was accomplished near instantaneously. I speculate that in the cases of the OT miracles that God intended to impress the Israelites that obedience to Him bore results. To compare the miracles you mention with the imagined million year naturalistic processes of evolution is to my mind quite unreal.


      >>>God almost always uses processes to accomplish his will; in my view, the few miracles described in the Bible were necessary disruptions that emphasized certain messages at certain times. Maybe a better question is: why would God use a miracle to create when no one was around to see it?<<<

      These objections do not affect my argument at all. Jesus said 'He who has seen Me has seen the Father'. his miracles were accomplished near instantaneously. What evolutionists propose is not merely of a different order of magnitude of time but a different kind of process altogether. 'Creation' by the processes which evolutionists propose is not miraculous.

      >>>>3) Charles Darwin briefly trained to be a priest, <<<<

      well he did a degree in theology. He briefly trained to be a doctor.

      >>>and was a firm believer in 6-day literal creation when he left for his voyage on the HMS Beagle. <<<


      so I read

      >>>His contemporary and co-discoverer of natural selection, Alfred Russel Wallace, remained a firm believer. <<<

      I heard he was a spiritualist, but without further research I wouldn't argue about it.

      >>>Lyell (father of modern geology) was a theist;<<<

      I heard he was a deist, not exactly the same thing.

      >>>> Mendel (first to describe genetic inheritance) was a monk. <<,

      agreed. I have no quarrel with Mendel, his work (unlike Darwin's) was based on repeatable observation.

      >>>>In fact, most scientists from the Enlightenment through the 20th century were believers of some sort.<<<

      Yes, no disagreement there

      >>>Taken another way, your question could be "why did it take a scientist to elucidate the methods and processes of science?", which is even more nonsensical.<<<

      No. You totally misrepresent my position. I'm not sure that there is anything here coherent enough to be capable of bearing a response. The point I think I was trying to make is that if God had created through evolution, and that therefore all those believers over all those centuries had got God wrong, why did it take the agnostic Darwin to put the theologians right? As you may have gathered (and if not, scroll down) I utterly reject the idea that Darwinism is science. Galileo corrected the mediaeval Catholic church with repeatable observations, Darwin led both science and church astray with speculations.







      Delete
    3. continued......

      >>>>4) I don't know why God would call this decaying, atrophying, dying world "good" or "very good" -- note that He doesn't call it "perfect" -- but that's the world He created. I do know that if there was no entropy, decay, or corruption before the Fall (as YECs unbiblically assert) then fruits and vegetables would be indigestible, peels and feces would be everywhere, and people and animals who were permanently injured would simply lie around crippled for eternity. (Unless you're proposing that there were no accidental injuries either, or that all living things could regenerate any body part at will, including their brains, eyes, etc?)<<<

      I note your tactic of rolling up large numbers of questionable assertions, generalisations and frankly bizzare and childish questions in such a way that one either has to spend an hour answering them or be called a loser for not bothering to. I can only return to my point that Darwinian evolution as proposed involved millions of years of fighting, suffering, war, rape, theft and disease BEFORE the first sin. I cannot conceive of God CHOOSING this and calling it 'very good'

      I have no difficulty believing that God was capable of creating a world in which there was no death, food could be digested and bodily wastes would be inoffensive and break down harmlessly through beneficent soil organisms. C S Lewis explored this in his Cosmic Trilogy

      >>>While we're on the topic of immortality, how often was one required to eat from the Tree of Life to live forever? If it was fairly frequently, e.g. every day, how did the snails make it back in time?<<<

      My I refer you to the last verse of the poem by Edward LEar 'Father William

      'Thrice I have answered, and that is enough. Young fellow, don't give yourself airs!
      Do you think I can listen all night to such stuff? Be off, or I'll kick you downstairs.'

      Delete
    4. David, you respond to my question

      >>>Where are the popular hymns and worship songs praising God for random mutation and natural selection? Many songs praise God for creation, none that I have ever come across praise Him for evolution.<<<

      by suggesting I write one. This remark has to my view all the hallmarks of a sarcastic attempt to swat the argument away rather than address it.

      The point I was trying to make, and I don't think its cryptic, is that such a hymn would be absurd and unsingable. It would be impossible to write a half decent hymn praising God for a process which is indistinguishable from the random, slow, clumsy process of evolution. An imagined process that lead Richard Dawkins to boast 'Charles Darwin made it possible to be an intellectually satisfied atheist' and Leon Trotsky to praise Marx and Darwin for getting rid of God from biology. I don't have the full quote to hand but will post it later.

      The only hymns touching evolution of which I am aware is the sarcastic take on 'All Things Bright and Beautiful' y Monty Python, and C S Lewis' 'Evolutioniary Hymn' which is also sarcastic, mocking evolution rather than mocking God as the Pythons do.

      We can and do join the Psalmist to praise God for the marvels in the natural world, but these marvels are meant to turn us to Him, not to a supposed materialistic process which is generally understood by men who accept it to dispose of the need for a Creator.

      kind regards

      Delete
  3. 6) This is currently a major area of disagreement between YECs and TEs, with both blaming the other for driving people away. I don't have links and surveys that prove either point, so I'll just speak to my experience: I know of exactly 2 people who were raised atheists and adopted the YEC viewpoint upon their conversion. Conversely, I know dozens of people personally, including my own brother, who were told by YECs that you can't accept both science and faith, and so they ditched their faith instead of denying the mountain of evidence against the YEC viewpoint. Sort of like my mother said: if I tell you Santa is real and you find out I was misleading you, what will you think of Jesus?

    7) The worst that could happen if we mistakenly believe in creation? We'd spend a lifetime driving honest seekers away from the faith because they refused to give up rationality to embrace anti-intellectual extremism. We'd still end up in heaven, but with quite a bit of 'splaining to do.

    8) What's the worst that could happen if we're wrong about evolution? We're mistaken about the minor, secondary issue of origins and we end up in heaven, hopefully with more scientists and rationlists around us than there would have been if we'd made origins issues into gospel issues, as prominent YECs (e.g. Henry Morris, Ken Ham, Ray Comfort) often do.

    9) Excellent question. Here's another one: how many different flood accounts are redacted into Genesis 6-8? I count at least 2. Where does the Bible say that tectonic plates shifted, earthquakes and volcanoes erupted, massive canyons were formed by gigantic tidal waves, etc?

    To your second question: the billions of tons of compressed biomass fossilized in the earth got there by being buried by sediments or local floods, or mudslides or avalanches or volcanic eruptions, etc. etc. Here's a related question: if everything was buried in one massive flood that lasted 100 days, why are there footprints in sandstone?

    10) Mainly the "a". You're so hung up on concordist and hyper-literalist interpretations that you fail to acknowledge that sovereign God is Lord over all the heavens and the earth, all the time. It's ironic that we evolutionary creationists actually have a higher view of God than you "biblical creationists", since you think God created once long ago over the course of 6 days. I saw God micraculously create a boy 8 years ago when my son was born; He created a sunrise for me this morning; in fact, He sustains and governs the entire universe with His might right hand (which I suppose you have to take literally?). God didn't stop creating 6,000 years ago or yesterday, but He does so through observable, regular processes that we can study through science. Phrases like "purely materialistic" aren't in our vocabulary, and certainly not present in any laboratory or scientific paper. Atheists may use evolution to promote their philosophy, but Hitler claimed Christianity; guilt by association is a fallacy, not an argument.

    ReplyDelete
    Replies
    1. Excellent question. Here's another one: how many different flood accounts are redacted into Genesis 6-8? I count at least 2. Where does the Bible say that tectonic plates shifted, earthquakes and volcanoes erupted, massive canyons were formed by gigantic tidal waves, etc?<<

      Genesis 7:11 'then the fountains of the great deep were broken up'. This seems to be a clear reference to supernaturally caused massively increased tectonic activity which would account for earthquakes, tsunamis and volcanic activity. It would also be capable of dealing with the issue of the height of mountains. Speeded up tectonic activity is the term I hear used.

      I confess my ignorance of geology, I don't know much more than the average person who says that geology proves an old earth. But I am so certain that I have been lied to about the biology that I am slow to trust those who tell me I must trust them on the geology.

      Finally (for today) you write >>>Atheists may use evolution to promote their philosophy, but Hitler claimed Christianity; guilt by association is a fallacy, not an argument.<<

      Ah, but there is a mighty difference. It is argued I think undeniably that men like Marx, Engels, Trotsky, Lenin etc who I hope you will agree were atheists and did very bad things, were convinced Darwinists? Hitler was not an atheist (I have studied Mein Kampf and he certainly used religious rhetoric when it suited him but was more of a deist/pagan IMO) but certainly no Christian.

      I hold it to be self evident that men act on their beliefs. Marx certainly believed that there was no God, ergo no divine law and no coming Judgment. Darwinism contributed to this belief. There is also an argument, I think a reasonable one, that the idea of 'progress' in evolution contributes to the idea of revolutionary 'progress' in politics. I don't think this is merely incidental but contributory.

      The connection between evolutionism and Nazi thought has been documented by Richard Weikart, professor of European history at the University of California You might want to look him up on line, I wouldn't bother trying to find a copy of 'From Darwin to Hitler'.

      I don't think the contribution of evolutionary thinking to wicked human philosophies can just be brushed aside.

      kind regards

      Delete
  4. Thank you Tyler. Rather a lot to respond to, I'll try to do a little at a time. You wrote

    >>>My motivation in that is simply to rebut, in as strong a way as I possibly can, the idea that saving faith in Christ is fundamentally incompatible with accepting the enormously well established scientific fact of evolution. <<<

    I deny utterly that evolution is an established fact. However, as I have said, neither Ken Ham, nor any creationist with whom I am familiar is saying that saving faith in Christ is incompatible with accepting evolution. You have asserted that Ham states this, so which of us is a liar? I have seen him in public put this point beyond doubt and it couldn't be clearer on the Answers in Genesis web site.

    On the issue of creation being 'a salvation issue', although accepting evolution will not cause anyone who has truly repented and come to faith in Christ to lose their salvation, there are a great many people who have rejected God and Christ because of evolution. For them, evolution IS a 'Salvation issue' because acceptance of evolution has enabled them, in Dawkins' words, to become 'intellectually satisfied atheists'. Karl Marx and Leon Trotsky were quite clear on this point-evolution gets rid of God.

    What do you say to that particular point, that while there may be a small number who assert that linking Christianity with creation puts them off Christianity (what, they couldn't find a non-YEC church? Where I live, I can't find a YEC church!) that for a far larger number of people it is acceptance of evolution that encourages them to reject Christianity.

    I'll be back, its tea time and I am hosting a bible study at 19.00 (letter of James if you're interested)

    ReplyDelete
    Replies
    1. Hello, Mr. Daniels. Thanks for your response. Yes, I have seen Ken Ham's attempts to assure readers that he believes in the biblical model of salvation (through grace by faith in Christ alone), even as he talks out of the other side of his mouth and devotes all of his company's enormous resources toward promoting the literal view of the first 10 chapters of Genesis.

      He directly contradicts himself when he says, as he did in a trailer for the unreleased Creation Today film "Genesis in 3D," his goal is to show "that the history is true, and that's how people know that the gospel based on that history is true." This creates exactly the false dichotomy that you claim Ham doesn't promote, since he is clearly saying all an atheist must do to disprove the gospel is demonstrate scientifically that the earth is more than 6,000 years old. (You can hear Ham for yourself at this page: http://genesismovie.com/. Scroll down to the second trailer and the quote is about 1:45 in.)

      I maintain that it is exactly this false choice that forces people away from Christianity, not evolution itself. Young earthers tirlelessly promote the idea that evolution is incompatible with the Bible and Christianity, and reasonable people -- seeing the vast evidence that exists for common descent -- take them at their word. They see that evolution is true, and since the literalists have assured them it's a one-or-the-other deal, they presume Christianity is false. It's an utter tragedy, and an entirely preventable one, if only groups like Answers in Genesis and Creation Today really cared more about the gospel rather than propagating their personal message and lining their pockets.

      Delete
  5. Excellent last paragraph Tyler. The situation is analagous to that described in Acts 15, where some early Christians insisted on circumcision, while others pointed out that that would be a stumbling block to the gentiles. The YEC worldview is a 'stumbling block to the gentiles' in the 21st century, preventing many many people from coming to faith. It is indeed a tragedy. Let's pray for someone with the wisdom of James in Acts 15 to stand up and say 'we should not make it difficult for the gentiles (i.e., in the modern context, people who accept evolutionary theory) who are turning to God'. The YECs have become so obsessed with trashing science that they have lost sight of the purpose of the church.

    ReplyDelete

feel free to comment, good manners and lucidity are appreciated.