The Motives of the Evolutionist (part 2)

The last post ended up being on the motives of some creationists and most of the ID crowd. Sonder spends surprisingly little time pondering the motives of evolutionists, but there are some juicy quotes (page 12-13):

"In fact, Darwin himself stated that his main goal in writing On the Origin of the Species was 'to overthrow the dogma of separate creations.'"

And the top of page 12:

"It would take a few generations before scientists could offer any proof for some aspects of Darwin's theories."

Darwin certainly accomplished his goal. The question is, did his goal affect his process? What happened to collecting data and fitting theories to it? This topic is actually covered some in the book The Creationists heavily cited by Sonder.

The Motives of the Evolutionist

Continuing my review of the book "Evolutionism and Creationism":

Sonder spends a lot of print on the Intelligent Design movement (starting around page 78 through the top of page 95). I haven't followed the ID movement much, except from what shows up on the He Lives blog (David Heddle). From what I've seen there, it seems they haven't done a lot to benefit the spreading of the Gospel...

I agree with Heddle, that ID proponents should just come out and admit they are in favor of teaching creationism by God. It would be most honest. If the politics cannot be made to happen, so be it. The Gospel is more powerful than any evolution curriculum, and there are Christians able to reconcile evolutionary theory with an inerrant Bible (Heddle being an excellent example).

It is because of this, I am hesitant to join in with those who pin all the world's problems on evolution.

As I mentioned earlier, the problem is sin.

That said, evolution does serve to sear the conscience of atheists (who need to have this theory in order to reconcile facts from the world).

Sonder examines the motive of the creationist, through one Judge William Overton (pages 88-90), in the case McLean v. Arkansas Board of Education (1982):

"creationist organizations that supported the bill 'consider the introduction of creation science into the public schools part of their ministry'."

I feel the judge's stance on this subject is biased. I wish I could say it is clearly wrong. But there is some sense that some people feel teaching creation will spread Christianity. But that is simply not Biblical (and thus not true).

It is the parents' responsibility to teach the Law of God to children (Deuteronomy 32:46, among others). Do you want a teacher who is not a Christian (are we going to require all teachers be Christian?) to teach your children creation by God?

It is not creationism that spreads Christianity. It is "Law to the proud, grace to the humble." And most people today are proud. The Law of God is a mirror which reveals to us our true imperfect state before a perfect God.

Every lie we tell defames God as a liar. Every sexual thought and action defames God as an adulterer. Our devotion to ourselves as gods, and to imaginings of our mind as god attempts to remove God from His rightful throne.

Atheism Demands Evolution

Thinking about young earth and old earth, creationism and evolutionism.

              Young Earth           Old Earth
Evolution        Nobody        Atheists and Theists
Creation         Theists              Theists

Modern atheism demands evolution, and evolution demands an old earth. Most forms of ancient atheism relied on the notion of creation always existing. Physicists have tried pretty hard to make that work, but have (mostly) abandoned it, because there is just no way to make it work (please don't start me up on string theory).

Ben Sonder's book ("Evolutionism and Creationism") mentions on page 40:
"If he [George McCready Price - author of Outlines of Modern Christianity and Modern Science] could prove that [sic] modern assumptions about geology wrong, then evolutionary theory would collapse."

This sentence is flagged as "Ronald L. Numbers, The Creationists, New York 1992, page 76". [This book is in the central library near me, so I will check it out.]

Is this not true? Sonder does not offer his opinion. He mentions that mainstream scientists ignore the work of creationists (when not deriding it in public statements...). If the assumptions of uniformitarians are incorrect, if the world is not billions of years old, can evolution be possible?

Are there young earth evolutionists?

The Problem is Sin

Theology is important. If you believe this world is all there is, then the logical thing is to party like there is no tomorrow (or just kill yourself). If you believe that your sins can only be forgiven by dying while killing unbelievers, you get [radical] Islam...

So what is the problem with the world?

• Low self-confidence - people act out because they feel oppressed, and just need to feel good about themselves?
• Economics/class warfare - conflict between the rich and poor; evils of consumerism?
  
• Technology - chemicals in the water and air, global monitoring, black helicopters, tinfoil hats?
• Government - evil dictators, too much Republican control, too little Democrat control, no Libertarians?
  

The problem is sin.

Pride being number one. All the little sins that make life seem better. I need this. I want that.

Creation screams at us that there is a Creator. Our consciences tell us good from bad. We fear death. We desire justice.

Our response can be:

1. To sear our conscience. Just like a piece of meat. Burned and charred on the outside. Giving us a tough exterior which allows us to continue to live in sin. Unfortunately, there is usually a hollow space left inside which cannot be filled. Not with alcohol, drugs, or casual sex, or world domination.
2. Look to the Law of God. Humble ourselves before our perfect Creator. Confess our sins, and turn from them. Turn to God, and trust in the sacrifice of Jesus Christ as payment for our sins. Past, present, and future.

Why I am a Christian Now...

even though I was raised Catholic. And Why I don't Identify Myself as a Catholic now.

iMonk (Michael Spencer) was upset about a post by Catholic apologist Carl Olson. Spencer is very clear about his position on the [Roman] Catholic Church (RCC):

"I’ll never convert to the RCC for any reason I can currently anticipate, and I’ll always consider believers in Jesus who are part of the RCC to be my brothers and sisters in Christ."

I think that sums up my own position pretty well. I think a lot of people get confused between "the church" a.k.a. the "bride of Christ", buildings, and organizations. Jesus established His church, and "the gates of hell shall not prevail against it" (Matthew 16:18).

Did Jesus found an organization (He certainly didn't build any buildings)? Or does He gather a group people who belong to Him?


This is a common problem for people who think "our denomination is the only true church". Olson himself, in the comments says:
"If Jesus established a single Church—assuming that He has a monogamous relationship with His Bride (cf., Eph. 5), what was that Church?"


That church is the elect of God. Written in the Book of Life before the foundation of the earth. The wheat among the tares. Scattered around the world in many denominations and many buildings. Baptized by the Holy Spirit into His Body.


Olson's points are worth coming back to and reviewing in detail.

Book Review

"Evolutionism and Creationism" (Ben Sonder) - I picked this book as a quick read in the topic I have been looking into recently. It's just 100 pages, but it packs in a fair amount of stuff to talk about. It does a reasonable job of trying to be impartial. I believe the author favors evolutionism, but I can only be sure from a few quotes:

On theistic evolutionists (pg 25):
"Someone may not believe in a literal interpretation of the Bible, but can still believe in divine influence on the Earth's history."

The "literal interpretation of the Bible" is a common complaint. Except, fundamentalists don't interpret the Bible literally...

John 6:53 "Except ye eat the flesh of the Son of man, and drink his blood, ye have no life in you."

We do not literally eat the flesh of Jesus and drink His blood (in contradiction to Catholic dogma). There is a long, involved Biblical basis for that, which I will likely cover later.

Reading the Bible is like reading any other book. I didn't read this book and think, "Hmm, this is actually a metaphor for how Sonder is admitting to killing Jimmy Hoffa and burying the body in his back yard." I guess, from his point of view, I read his book literally. I interpreted it within the context of itself and the culture it was written in and targeted at. When I read science-fiction, I often find myself flipping back to the copyright page to check when it was written. Science-fiction has gone through many different phases and attitudes, and I am also interesting in tracking developments. I guess I read that literally too :)

Of course, old earthers (like the He Lives blog) insist that their interpretation is truest to a proper ("literal") interpretation of the Bible. So it is not a question of "relying" on the Bible or not, but which interpretation is correct.


The other quote is between pages 4 and 5:
"By 'creation', the minister meant the belief that life on Earth was created just as it appears today by God, in only six days and just a few thousand years ago, as recounted in the Book of Genesis in the Bible."

This gets said often enough that I don't know where it comes from. The world as it is today is different than the world as God created it. The main difference being the presence of sin, and the curse of the Fall. Also, the Flood has clearly had significant impact on the topology of the Earth, and some people believe there was another catastrophe around the time Peleg ("Peleg; for in his days was the earth divided" Genesis 10:25 - the name "Peleg" is similar to the Hebrew word for earthquake).

Sacrfice in Iraq

Way of the Master radio for Monday mentions an article in USA Today ("In Iraq, coping after a hero dies saving you"). Powerful stuff.


Think about someone you love -- a spouse, child, parent, or friend. Would you die to save that person? What about people you hardly know? What about an enemy?


John 15:13 "Greater love hath no man than this, that a man lay down his life for his friends".

But in our original, unsaved lives, we are the enemies of God. We oppose God and hate Him; loving ourselves or gods created in our minds.

Jesus laid down His life for His enemies.

Romans 5:10a "For if, when we were enemies, we were reconciled to God by the death of his Son".

What will our response be? Will we be caught up trying to be "good enough" to pay back what He did? Will we disregard His sacrifice by denying it ever happened or continuing on with life as usual?

Or will we die to sin. Turn our back on our old lives, and trust in God.