Old-Earthers and Theistic Evolutionists: Are You Prepared to Call God Incompetent or a Deceiver?

There’s lots of debate among Christians and theologians these days as to whether the Bible teaches a young or old Earth, and whether the early chapters of Genesis are literal history or symbolism/allegory. To me, the text of Genesis is clearly literal history that clearly teaches a young Earth. And it is a fact that most Christian scholars and thinkers through the centuries affirmed the Scriptural support for a young earth.

Something else, however, that people need to consider in this debate but usually don’t: What does it say about God if the opening chapters of Genesis are merely symbolic or allegorical but God nonetheless let his people carry on for thousands of years thinking that they were literal? And what does it say about God if He used long ages and evolutionary processes to create, yet let his people believe, for thousands of years, that the opposite was true?

It would mean one of two things: God is incompetent, or He’s a deceiver. If God created us using long ages and evolution, but couldn’t create us in such a way that we could understand those truths from the very beginning of our existence—straightforwardly and without symbolism—He’s not the all-powerful God the Bible says He is. And if God created us using long ages and evolution and WAS able to make us understand those truths from the beginning but simply didn’t—instead letting us go on blathering about 6 days and special creation and looking like fools—then He’s a deceiver and not very nice.

So long-agers and theistic evolutionists, etc., need to ask themselves: Do I believe that God is incompetent? Do I believe that God is a deceiver? To me, the answer is a clear and emphatic, “No, God is neither,” and the implications of that answer are also clear: God is powerful enough to not only create us, but to create us as intelligent beings capable of understanding truth in a straightforward manner, from the very beginning of our existence; and He loves us enough to not deceive us, and to not mislead us and make fools of us.

Alien Delusion: Evolutionists Place Hope in E.T.

Alien

I am your creator ... not! ... (Photo credit: Wikipedia)

I find it amusing when evolutionary scientists, such as Richard Dawkins, who view God as a fairy tale can bring themselves to believe (at least, they say they believe) that aliens seeded life on Earth. Really?? God is too unbelievable a concept for you, but you can convince yourself that something out of a 1950s B sci-fi movie is the answer to the origin of life? Wow.

To me, this just illustrates how much they loathe God, the very idea of God, and what lengths they’ll go to in order to try to avoid God, and to distract others from God. Aliens have been a popular topic in the U.S. for the last 60 years, so in light of these things, I want to share an interview with Gary Bates, author of Alien Intrusion: UFOs and the Evolution Connection. Part I first, followed by part II:

 

The Danger of Evolutionary Thinking

King James Version of the Bible

The Bible: Read it; you might be pleasantly surprised. ... Image via Wikipedia

There’s a great post today on Creation.com delving into the life of famous paleontologist Louis Leakey. Though some of his work was controversial, he became the patriarch of “the first family of paleontology,” and was an ardent Darwinist … even though he grew up as the son of Christian missionaries and once aspired to become a missionary, sometimes (as the story notes) even standing on a soapbox as a young man at Boscombe and preaching to passers-by. The crux of the story is that he gave up all that in favor of Darwinian evolution. The article puts it best:

Louis Leakey’s life played out on the world stage a tragedy which is, sadly, all too common. So often, godly parents fail to see that the ‘science’ teaching that their offspring are imbibing is all within a framework that rejects Bible history. It is based on a philosophical belief system that rejects direct divine action. But the Bible’s history is foundational to the Gospel. So it is not surprising that such students usually end up rejecting their childhood belief—especially those brighter ones who can spot the inconsistencies of putting ‘faith’ and ‘reality’ in two separate boxes.

If only such parents were to arm and equip their family with a biblical worldview, one which lets them connect the evidence of the real world to the Bible, what a difference such real science would make!

Louis Leakey died in London on 3 October 1972, aged 69. As with all of us, his choices were relevant to both his temporal and his eternal destiny. Honoured by the world which is ‘passing away’, he missed being ‘the man who does the will of God’ and who ‘lives for ever’ (1 John 2:17).

Contrary to what theistic evolutionists believe, there’s no Biblical evidence for God utilizing evolution, and contrary to what evolutionists believe, Christians are not against true science. People like myself believe that true science lines up with what the Bible teaches—not because we force it to, but because it really does. And evolution, uniformitarianism, millions of years, and the notion of “pre-Adamite apemen” are not true science. They come entirely from a worldview that hates God and seeks to exclude Him—even annihilate the idea of Him, if it were possible. Molecules-to-man, goo-to-you evolution has never been empirically demonstrated—and honestly, I think that if evolutionists were shown the skeleton of Yao Ming next to the skeleton of Verne Troyer, they’d think they were looking at two species instead of one, and that’s pretty much the story with all of evolutionary theory; uniformitarianism is based on a false, non-evidence-based assumption that things have always been as they are now; the idea of “millions of years” for the history of the universe was proposed largely to accommodate the notion that evolutionary change requires huge amounts of time, but again, evolutionary theory is simply a bunch of “just-so” stories for the convenience of evolutionists’ God-hate; and the idea of “pre-Adamites” or “apemen” is the result of Christians or other theists compromising their theistic beliefs in an attempt to gain acceptance from secular society.

Parents need to know this stuff, and they need to be teaching it to their kids. The truth is out there; we just need to make it known.

The Beauty of Genesis

The Creation of Adam

In the beginning, God created. ... Image via Wikipedia

The defense of the Bible’s Creation account is one of my passions, as some of you may already have noticed. I hope to post many more articles on Creation vs. Evolution, some original and some the work of others that I feel is particularly good, but right now I want to do something a bit different than the usual proof- or debate-style post. I want to simply talk about the beauty of Genesis.

The longer I’ve studied the Creation vs. Evolution issue, the more I’ve dug into Scripture’s account of Creation, and the more I’ve dug into Scripture, the more I’ve been amazed at its depth and its elegant simplicity. In the beginning, God created. Plain and simple, yet vibrant. How did He do it? Without revealing the details of what transpires when an omnipotent God exercises his power, the Bible does tell us He spoke everything into existence. God said, “Let there be … ,” and it was—the stars, the sun, the moon, all plant and sea life and land creatures, and then finally mankind. Out of literally nothing (focus on what that means), he made something. Lots of somethings, actually. Before He spoke, neither the material universe nor anything in it was.

He created us humans in perfection, in a physical paradise. He built into us a reminder of our frailty, of our utter dependence on him, by creating us out of dirt—the stuff we step on every day. Yet He also built into us a reminder of His wonderful love and of how much He cares for us by making us in His image: that is, more than just material, more than just animal instinct—as personal, relational, social, creative, highly intelligent beings capable of communion with Him, our perfect Creator God.

This is so much more glorious and transcendent than the evolutionary, Darwinian, atheistic theory, which imparts no intention, no purpose, no destiny, no vibrancy, no creativity (only destructivity), and no meaning. In Genesis we see a deliberate, intentional act of Love, a happening in which Love Himself brought us into existence for the sole purpose of knowing and enjoying Him.

Archbishop Infected With Dawkins Delusion

 

Noted atheist Richard Dawkins caused a bit of buzz yesterday by saying he’s less than 100% certain that there is no God. Technically this would make him an agnostic, not an atheist, and he even claimed yesterday to be an agnostic, not an atheist, but actions speak louder than words, and it’s pretty clear that even if he’s not fully sure of atheism, he most definitely hates the idea of God and doesn’t want Him to be true.

But that’s besides the point. And even Dawkins’ “admission” is besides the point (in fact, he’s previously said he wasn’t “100% certain” about atheism). What struck me wasn’t anything Dawkins said. He was having a one-on-one with Archbishop of Canterbury Rowan Williams in a “public dialogue” at Oxford University that culminated a week of intense national discussion in Britain about the role of religion in British public life. Unlike much of what transpired during the week, Dawkins and Williams kept things civil, even lighthearted at times, but Dr. Williams disappointed me greatly in some of his comments. In fact, at times it seemed to me that there wasn’t a great difference between the two men, other than that Williams espouses “belief in God.”

I’m not saying that Dr. Williams isn’t a Christian. It just seems that some Christians—perhaps in an effort to win acceptance from the secular world?—sound the same as atheistic evolutionists. For example, Dr. Williams said yesterday that he believes that humans evolved from nonhuman ancestors (though he did add that he believes we’re nevertheless made “in the image of God”). This is completely un-Biblical. He also said that the Genesis explanation for the creation of the world couldn’t be taken literally. Well, it can, and it is, by many people, including myself.

The wise one went on to say: “The writers of the Bible, inspired as I believe they were, they were nonetheless not inspired to do 21st-century physics.” Really? How do you know they weren’t inspired to do such things? Regardless of whether you believe in God, logic dictates that if people receive divine inspiration from the all-knowing, all-wise God of the Universe, they could be inspired to know anything He wants them to know—even things that would make 21st-century physics look like play time at the local kindergarten.

The idea that science, especially modern science, is sophisticated is hogwash. I respect science, and I recognize that it involves a lot of intelligence and ingenuity, but people need to realize that when you get down to brass tacks, science, at best, merely uncovers truths that are already there. Science itself doesn’t “do” anything. It certainly isn’t deserving of reverence. If someone discovers a cure for a disease, they didn’t create the cure (that is, make it out of nothing, of their own power, as God would create), they simply uncovered the pre-existing truth that certain properties of certain things have a beneficial (healing) effect on certain ailments. They then make the proper application of those healing properties (which were bestowed by God) to the ailment in question, and voila, good things happen. It’s awesome, but it doesn’t make science divine. And people shouldn’t bend over backwards to make their beliefs palatable to the secular world.

Perhaps, though, that’s not Williams’ motivation. Perhaps he truly believes what he stated. If that’s the case, though, he needs to change his approach to Scripture.

Does Our DNA Show That We Came From Apes?

A brief but intriguing look at one aspect of how DNA factors into the Creation/Evolution debate (with a bit of humor for good measure):

Potatoes Take Down Evolution

English: Potato field off Ballyloughlin Road (...

A potato field in Northern Ireland, where Darwin met his match. ... Image via Wikipedia

Who would ever have thought it possible? It’s true, though: the delicious, versatile, ever-present potato, the most humble and serviceable of all the vegetables, has cut off evolution at the knees and left it to die an inglorious, lonesome death. You can read all about it here, but try this sample on for size:

The Irish potato blight tragedy has long been a useful illustration for creationists of the fallacies of evolutionary thinking. It highlights how selection, even when it ‘improves’ crops, actually reduces the total amount of information (genetic variety).

Selective breeding to enhance certain characteristics has long been common farming practice. Darwin pointed to artificial breeding such as this in his book On the Origin of Species. He saw it (as many still do today) as showing that selection can give uphill improvement, which could eventually lead to totally new creatures. However, he was unaware that enhancing one characteristic through selection is likely to be at the expense of others. This is logical, since selection creates no new information, it only ‘chooses’ from what is there. As a variety becomes more specialized through such selection, it loses some of the genetic richness of its ancestors. This is now recognized by world agricultural authorities, who are scrambling to preserve these ancestral ‘wild types’ of our food crops.

Previous Older Entries

%d bloggers like this: