Ray Comfort interviews the man on the street, the trusting students and the revered “experts” on evolutionary dogma. Their own words again betray the profoundly faith based nature of evolutionary theory …
Ray Comfort interviews the man on the street, the trusting students and the revered “experts” on evolutionary dogma. Their own words again betray the profoundly faith based nature of evolutionary theory …
“For I am not ashamed of the gospel, because it is the power of God that brings salvation to everyone who believes” Romans 1:16
“But in your hearts revere Christ as Lord. Always be prepared to give an answer to everyone who asks you to give the reason for the hope that you have. But do this with gentleness and respect“ 1 Peter 3:15
Some things in life are really good. Like my wife’s lasagna. A hug from your child. Sunrises and sunsets. Fresh coffee. Good art. The finish line of a hard race.
A good book ranks as one of the better things in life. A good book opens the mind to new perspectives or ideas. It takes you away, lifts you to new places and/or brings you down to places you hadn’t experienced. Good books deliver pure mental pleasure. In Total Truth: Liberating Christianity from its Cultural Captivity, Nancy Pearcey has written such a book. A totally good book.
Well, a nearly totally good read. The book was a wonderful surprise, to include that I now have a favorite non-fiction book with which I have significant disagreement. Ms. Pearcey’s book is so well written, however, that its strength compensates for and overshadows the areas of weakness with which I disagree. More on that shortly.
Several months ago, I wrote a blog piece about truth - Truly, there is a God who will be known. In it I pondered how inconsequential and incompatible the concept of truth should be in the secular humanist worldview, yet how aggressive militant atheists argue regarding the truth of origins and destiny. In contrast, truth is a foundation concept for Biblical Christianity, and the belief in truth is hard-wired into who and what we are, itself an apologetic for the truth of Scripture. I didn’t think it was a controversial proposition, so I was a bit surprised when a few atheists became apoplectic at what I said. Interestingly, while they attacked ancillary points with fervor, they never confronted the central issue presented – in a world without God, what is truth and why should we care?
The topic brought me to a book that some colleagues mentioned in passing over the years: Nancy Pearcey’s Total Truth. Once I picked it up, I did not want to put it down again until I had finished. A real gem that in this reader’s experience starts well and gets better with every page turn.
God blessed Ms. Pearcey with a tremendous mind and wonderful writing skills. Her insights and logic are reminiscent of her mentor Francis Schaeffer, and her style reminds me of C.S. Lewis. Like Professor Lewis, it requires very little effort to read Ms. Pearcey and she has a wonderful efficiency with words. Her reasoning is clear, concise and to the point, which is essential given the scope and magnitude of thought in this volume. Total Truth is a remarkable intellectual accomplishment.
Ms. Pearcey divides her book into four parts. In Part One, which she titles “What’s In A Worldview?”, Ms. Pearcey explains the centrality of worldview to how we live. I’ve read and attended innumerable articles, books, lectures, and sermons on “worldview.” Frankly, after so many iterations, I rarely find something new or interesting. Accordingly, I tend to shy away from works presented as worldview lectures. But this book is different. Ms. Pearcey transitions effortlessly from contemporary and personal anecdotes and experiences to explaining the historical and philosophical origins of the secular-sacred divide in Western thought, what she calls the “Modern Schism.” One of the more prominent consequences of this schism in our beliefs is that most believers remain blissfully unaware and undisturbed that by and large we do not form and live a Christian philosophy of business, politics or culture. While expressing personal conversion to faith in Jesus Christ, we live largely the same as our secular humanist counterparts, having compartmentalized secular versus “sacred” value systems.
This Modern Schism did not start in the 1960s. Ms. Pearcey takes the reader from the ancient Greeks to today to explain the dichotomy of Western thinking and why “Christianity no longer functions as a lens to interpret the whole of reality[and why] it is no longer held has total truth.” Ms. Pearcey explains, “We have to insist on presenting Christianity as a comprehensive, unified worldview that addresses all of life and reality. It is not just religious truth but total truth.”
After diagnosing the symptoms of our age and how we arrived in this condition, Ms. Pearcey draws the battle line in Part Two of her book. She identifies the battle over origins as the key and foundational intellectual battle of our time; she titles this section of the book “Starting at the Beginning.” I could not agree more with her prescription, however, as noted below, she advocates that we should all join the battle over Intelligent Design, a tactical mandate with which I do not agree, per below. Over several chapters, Ms. Pearcey lucidly explains how philosophical materialism permeates our thinking and culture, as a “universal acid.” She marches straight through the meaning, purpose, frauds and faith of Darwinian dogma and sets out compelling rebuttal evidence and arguments from Intelligent Design. She concludes Part Two with the chapter “Today Biology, Tomorrow the World” in which she sets forth the universal ambitions of Darwinian philosophy — how it seeks and is largely succeeding in its efforts to present itself as the total solution for all areas of human thought and endeavor, albeit a false solution.
In Part 3, “How We Lost Our Minds,” Ms. Pearcey traces the origins and history of evangelicalism and points out consistent trends and patterns therein, particularly those that left evangelicals so vulnerable to philosophical naturalism. I found this section fascinating, having never studied it before. The patterns illuminated many issues I’ve seen and experienced in churches and within ministries. As part of her review, Ms. Pearcey takes issues with evangelical’s somewhat anti-historical and positivist view of biblical interpretation, with particular criticism for Lord Bacon’s Biblical hermeneutics. She explains how empirical theology stems from Enlightenment thinking. She also reiterates C.S. Lewis’ admonition to read the old books, creeds and confessions.
Ms. Pearcey then ties in the history of evangelicalism and the Modern Schism. She quotes Richard Hofstadter’s observation that to a large extent “the churches withdrew from intellectual encounters with the secular world, gave up the idea that religion is a part of the whole life of intellectual experiences, and often abandoned the field of rational studies on the assumption that they were the natural province of science alone.”
The last chapter in Part Two, “How Women Started the Culture War,” is a distinct, insightful and quite educating analysis of changing female roles during the Industrial Revolution, the Second Great Awakening, and on through to the early 20th Century and how these changes affected families.
In Part 4 “What Next? Living It Out”, the most spiritual portion of the book, Ms. Pearcey reviews the importance of making sure our actions comport with a Biblical as opposed to a secular worldview. She takes issue with Christians living their lives and conducting their affairs utilizing worldly methods through the flesh instead of relying upon the ways of God. I heard distant echoes of Watchman Nee’s The Normal Christian Life in this section. She concludes this section in a similar vein, taking issue with Christian ministries conducting themselves as secular enterprises.
In total, Total Truth ranks as one of the best non-fiction books I’ve read, and an excellent world view assessment. It could become a classic. There were however, three points with which I disagreed with Ms. Pearcey and which I believe are worth sharing.
In Part One, Ms. Pearcey buys into the modern evangelical presumption that secular universities are destroying the faiths of so many of our youth. If only that were the case. I believe that presumption is misplaced, as evidenced and thoroughly explained in Ken Ham’s book Already Gone. As explained there, a large percentage of young adults that were raised in conservative churches are leaving the faith; however, most make that decision while still living at home. For most of them, college simply confirms what they had already come to believe.
Ms. Pearcey recognizes, however, that the solution lies in redefining the mission of pastors and youth leaders to include training in apologetics and worldview. I would go a bit further, in this day, a primary responsibility of the church should be to equip and encourage believers to learn and understand apologetics and worldview and be passionate about equipping parents to equip their children in the same.
In Part Two, Ms. Pearcey advocates that we should stop the internecine wars regarding the age of creation and join in an all-out assault with the intelligent design movement against the lie of evolution. According to Ms. Pearcey, the age of the Earth is a secondary issue; the battle line to which all Christians should join is the Intelligent Design movement. Ms. Pearcey’s arguments rely heavily on ID and her thorough bibliography resembles the recommended reading list of the Discovery Institute. I appreciate the wonderful minds that comprise the DI and enjoy their scholarly works in furtherance of the ID arguments. Drawing the battle line at ID, however, as Ms. Pearcey recommends, is tactically wrong for several reasons.
First, ID does not get us where we need to go. ID advocates have argued for years in court that they are not promoting religion, and in a certain sense that is true, though our secularized courts have thus far largely rejected the argument. The ID movement makes no reference to the Bible and purposefully leaves out any specifics regarding who or what the “creator” or creators may be, though most ID leaders express a Judeo-Christian view of God. As Answers in Genesis often points out, however, believing in a generic “designer” does not bring someone to salvation. A belief in a generic designer(s) might bring someone to deism or pantheism, but it does not bring someone to a respect for the authority or relevance of Scripture. It certainly does not bring someone to salvation. If you win the ID argument – so what? You might conceivably have a better claim to a friendlier culture, but not much. India has remained theistic, and from a Christian perspective the culture is not much improved from the secular humanist version. The point must be Christ, not just culture. Christ must be and in fact is the beginning and the end. Christ not culture is our mandate and Intelligent Design makes insufficient effort to get us to total truth. Further, win others to Christ and they will improve the culture through their spheres of influence.
Secondly, ultimately, the issue is one of authority. If the Bible is the word of God, it must be given authority in all areas of our lives, which is an implicit tenet of Ms. Pearcey’s argument. This is particularly important regarding topics to which the Bible speaks directly, like chronologies, Noah’s flood and creation. You cannot get to millions or billions of years from any straightforward, intellectually honest linguistic analysis of the Genesis creation account. As already explained in detail by Dr. Terry Mortenson, in the late 18th Century, well before Darwin, followers of Lord Bacon’s empiricism fostered and then championed the idea of an old earth. In her diagnosis of how philosophical naturalism has come to dominate modern thought, Ms. Pearcey rightfully criticizes Baconian empiricism as it has been applied to Biblical hermeneutics. Yet, Ms. Pearcey apparently gives little importance to Specimen A in the Baconian mischief: the frontal assault on the Bible’s plain reading for Noah’s Flood and the age of the Earth. Old-earth geology and theology laid the foundation upon which Darwin made his case for materialist origins. Without passages of time realistically beyond our ability to comprehend, Darwin’s theory would never have made it out of the womb. Far from being a secondary issue, the age of the earth was the original, leading assault on the authority of God’s word in the modern philosophical naturalism campaign. Still, to this day, the age of the earth is the foundation upon which philosophical naturalism and its poster-child Darwinian philosophy rests. The Darwinism with which Ms. Pearcey aims her fire is not the foundational issue.
Dr. Mortenson summarizes:
[F]ighting naturalism only in biology will not work. Ignoring the Bible—especially Genesis—and its testimony to the cosmic impact of sin and God’s judgments at the fall, the flood, and the Tower of Babel, even though arguing for design in living things (and even God’s designing activity), will not lead people to the true and living God, but rather away from Him and His holy Word. Nor will fighting naturalism only in biology, while tolerating or even promoting naturalism in geology and astronomy, break the stranglehold of naturalism on science. So the ‘wedge’ of the ID movement is not a wedge (leading to more truth) at all. It is simply a nail, which will not split the log open. It will not lead the scientific establishment to embrace the biblical view of creation, nor will it lead most people to the true God, the Creator who has spoken in only one book, the Bible.
Intelligent design fails to attack the foundation of Darwinian evolution and the real lie that empiricism trumps Scripture. In the end, the battle is over the authority and relevance of Scripture. See, e.g. Ken Ham, A Young Earth – It’s Not The Issue!
Thirdly, drawing the battle line at Intelligent Design is not an effective strategy. Creationists, ID advocates and Darwinian evolutionists do not each have their own set of evidence. We have all been arguing from the same evidence, from the same present observations to draw inferences and deductions regarding the past. The difference is that we all start from different foundations and view the evidence from a different perspective. The evolutionist will not rest until he can interpret a piece of evidence to fit the materialist worldview. The Biblical creationist will not rest until that same piece of evidence fits the Biblical worldview. We have not been and are not likely to be highly effective arguing entirely and only over the interpretation of evidence. This is not guesswork; it’s history. We’ve been here before. In his above referenced research, Dr. Mortenson also details how in response to the original Baconian hermeneutics over the age of the earth and its corresponding rise of atheism, theologians of the early 19th century relied heavily on arguments from nature and designs in nature to prove the reasonableness of believing in God. As Dr. Mortenson points out, that tactic did not work. It did not stop the rising tide of skepticism and unbelief in the culture and in the church in West Europe and N. America.
Fourthly, drawing the battle line at intelligent design is a massive retreat of sorts. It’s a concession that the battle must be fought on secularist grounds — arguing from empirical observations only. That tactic automatically surrenders the “upper realm” of truth, which is a most surprising tactic coming from Ms. Pearcey, who eloquently explains the falsity of this dichotomy. Christianity is total truth. We should not compromise Christ in our tactics. Related, focusing on ID abandons the most powerful weapon for truth known to man — revelation from our Creator, the Word of truth. He is the way, the truth and the life. To ignore or leave aside Christ in any debate with the unbelieving world regarding truth is folly. Can you imagine secularists agreeing to argue about truth from a purely non-empirical perspective? Our arguments and witness should find their starting points, foundations, and reflect our confidence in the Bible.
The battle is over the authority of God’s word versus the word of man. It is a battle over the souls of men that has raged since man’s last day in Eden. We should frame the argument as such.
The last point of criticism on Ms. Pearcey’s otherwise wonderful book is her conclusion. There’s nothing wrong with it, but after spending thousands of words on the intellectual nature of this dispute and the importance of human origins to the battle for the modern mind, Ms. Pearcey’s ending on a more spiritual note felt surprising, if not a non sequitor. What felt like the obvious recommendation, which Ms. Pearcey alludes to throughout her book, is that churches and Christian families must commit to learning why we believe what we do, with particular emphasis on creation. Per above, I believe families should train their children in Scriptural apologetics — both why Scripture is true and presenting the truths in all areas of life from Scripture primarily, with empirical evidence being used secondarily only. Of course, this is the heart and mission of Answers in Genesis and the Creation Museum. Unfortunately, Ms. Pearcey gives no reference to AiG (or any other creationist literature from what I could tell) in her proffered diagnosis nor even in her well stocked annotated notes or recommended reading list.
Not to lose sight, Ms. Pearcey’s Total Truth is a wonderful work of Christian thought. Contrary to what may be inferred from this review, her book is not focused on promoting ID. The book focuses on the Modern Schism and how we arrived at this point. While I disagree with her tactical assessment of the battle we’re in, I strongly recommend her book to all Christians concerned with culture, worldview and/or Christian education.
I look forward to reading Ms. Pearcey’s second book, Saving Leonardo. Before I do, however, I will first heed Ms. Pearcey’s advise about reading a classic, likely Jonathan Edwards’ The Religious Affections.
“College” may be transforming now as quickly as Apple transformed how we buy and listen to music last decade …
While Ivy League “students” learn how to perfect their perversions with porn stars, UNC Tar Hell students spend NC tax dollars on orgasm clinics, and Big 10 Professors feature after-class/in-class live sex shows, the “fix” may already be in the works. Dazzled by big collegiate names, sterling sports reputations and a host of beneficial science and engineering research, too many are oblivious to or apathetic about the morally decrepit and intellectually flaccid state of most humanities departments within our universities.
We may not need to reform those departments, they may simply go away for being obsolete. Why pay tens of thousands of dollars in (often tax subsidized) tuition and room and board for what can be obtained for free. Or so we can hope. Like so many problems that plagued humanity for ages, technological innovation may pave for real change — near universal accessibility for little to no cost, international exposure to content, and the power of social media/leveraging to filter and elevate quality content. The following video explains not just how this might happen, but how it is presently turning into reality:
The fool says in his heart, “There is no God.” They are corrupt, their deeds are vile; there is no one who does good. Psalm 14:1
In those days there was no king in Israel, but every man did that which was right in his own eyes. Judges 17:6
Since sometime in the 1970s, it’s been too much to expect most liberal art departments at public (and most private) universities to teach let alone endorse the classic questions of the western tradition. Apparently, it appears too much to ask public universities to focus on teaching useful and productive information with our tax dollars. Is it too much to ask them to stop teaching our kids to be perverts? Must our tax dollars fund Porn University?
“Frankly if you want to take gender studies that’s fine, go to a private school and take it. But I don’t want to subsidize that if that’s not going to get someone a job.” Governor Pat McCrory
Newly elected NC Governor McCrory recently wondered aloud whether courses in subjects such as gender studies and philosophy prepared students adequately for the job market, and thus whether public universities should offer such instruction. Reportedly, the academics in question were taken aback and found such sentiment frightening. Eighty-five percent of UNC system faculty disagreed with Governor McCrory’s sentiment. Notwithstanding the self-serving demurrer of our tenured academics, the Governor was correct and perhaps too charitable in his critique. For decades, our public universities have harbored and fostered professors devoted to intellectual nihilism and communism. As disturbing as I find that, many in academia are dragging the worthy intellectual history of the western academy further into the depths of depravity.
Instead of continuing what had been the long-standing western dialogue regarding humanity’s relationship to God and purpose for existence, “liberal arts” studies are too rapidly devolving into intellectualizing the depraved and debauched. Recent examples of such “studies” and of their student bodies (no pun intended):
COLLEGE HOSTS SEX, MASTURBATION TUTORIAL – INSIDE A CHURCH (Allegheny College)
CAMPUS SEX GROUP EARNS STUDENTS COLLEGE CREDIT (University of Michigan)
Yale hosts workshop teaching sensitivity to bestiality (added March 5, 2014 — you can’t make this stuff up!)
But what do you expect from a collegiate universe that denies God. As for those deistic universities that didn’t get the message:
WOMAN SUES CHRISTIAN COLLEGE: ‘I WAS FIRED FOR PRE-MARITAL SEX’ (VIDEO) (added bonus – Ms. Allred!)
Several of the above links are courtesy of The College Fix which itself is courtesy of Nathan Harden, the enterprising young man who recently published Sex and God at Yale: Porn, Political Correctness, and a Good Education Gone Bad, which is a follow-up of sorts a half-century later to WFB’s premier work God and Man at Yale.
Mr. Harden explains:
there are things happening at Yale today that Buckley could scarcely have even imagined in 1951. While the Yale of Buckley’s book marginalized or undermined religious faith in the classroom, my book tells of a classmate who was given approval to create an art object out of what she claimed was blood and tissue from self-induced abortions. And while the Yale of Buckley’s book was promoting socialist ideas in its economics department, my book chronicles Yale’s recent employment of a professor who publicly praised terrorist organizations such as Hamas and Hezbollah.
My, how times have changed!
There is clearly a radical sexual agenda at work at Yale today. Professors and administrators who came of age during the sexual revolution are busily indoctrinating students into a culture of promiscuity. In fact, Yale pioneered the hosting of a campus “Sex Week”—a festival of sleaze, porn, and debauchery, dressed up as sex education. I encountered this tawdry tradition as an undergrad, and my book documents the events of Sex Week, including the screening in classrooms of hard-core pornography and the giving of permission to sex toy manufacturers and porn production companies to market their products to students.
Many Christians are concerned about the character and ideas of our political leaders. We need to be particularly concerned about how our universities are forming and feeding the minds of tomorrow’s leaders. As America doubles down on raising our next generations apart from God’s word, focusing instead on man’s opinions, and our culture rapidly declines, we must pray hard and re-commit ourselves to being witnesses to the Gospel of Jesus Christ. The sun appears to be getting low on the horizon in the West. The light of the world shines the brightest in the dark. Shine Jesus shine!
Jesus said to him, “I am the way, and the truth, and the life; no one comes to the Father but through Me.” John 14:6
Stand firm therefore, having girded your loins with truth, and having put on the breastplate of righteousness Ephesians 6:14
We believe in truth. Truth is important. Arguably, truth is popular. Bad guys lie. Good guys tell the truth. In a just court of law, truth is supposed to win. We want to know the truth and often pay top dollar to get “the truth,” particularly if we get it before others.
I’ve long found it ironic how militant atheists claim to be so passionate about what they claim to be true. Why should they care? If they’re correct and someone believes a falsehood, there’s no ultimate consequence because there are no ultimate consequences, aside from annihilation. In contrast, if Christians are correct, there are eternal consequences for being wrong about the truth.
We know the truth in our hearts. Perhaps it’s part of being made in the image of God. Our fallen natures affects our relationship with the truth, yet the truth remains.
Nearly all people will speak in terms of what is true or otherwise presume that “truth” exists. Yet, the fact that we’re certain truth exists proves something.
“Truth” presupposes God and consistent with that, Scripture makes it clear that truth is not just a “what.” Truth is personal; truth is a “who.” The existence of “truth” proves there is God. Further, the Bible explains that Christ is the source and foundation of all truth, and is in fact truth incarnate.
Think about it. If there is no God, i.e. a transcendent and eternal intelligence beyond our dimensions of space and time, then the materialists are most likely correct — everything we see happened by blind chance. Mechanical processes led to what and to whom we are and what we believe. But that cannot be. Truth presupposes a transcendent standard.
If I smashed ten bottles, I would have ten smash patterns and a mess. No more. No less. That’s it. If I smashed ten million bottles, I’d have a bigger mess and larger smash pattern. If I continued that smashing for billions and billions of years I can expect lots of patterns. But that’s it. It would neither be true or false. It would just be.
If our reality is simply the result of random, unguided physical processes, we would be nothing more but an extremely complex and unlikely “smash pattern” of sorts. No more. No less. The pattern is neither true, nor false. It simply is. If we were simply an evolved mechanical pattern, there would be no apparent reason for our consciousness to create standards, let alone deeply felt standards, that transcend our smash pattern. That would be pointless. But indeed, we hunger for more than accurate observations, we hunger for truth.
Notwithstanding the best efforts of Zen Buddhists, we’re hard-wired to believe in “truth.” We pursue truth and we presuppose its existence. It’s such a natural part of what we are and how we’re made that we hardly question its existence. Whether you believe in objective or subjective truth, it’s still “truth.”
The universe provides compelling reasons to encourage and corroborate our belief in truth. Instead of finding random smash patterns, we find order and precision. Everywhere. There are ordered laws that govern and control how matter and time relate. From where did such ordering come if not the mind of God? Why would thoughtless, random time and matter promulgate any laws, let alone intricate and amazing laws and order from the uniform weighting of sub-atomic particles to the movement of universes.
There is a temporal aspect to truth. Truth was, is and will be. There is also an empirical form of truth. From the tiniest particles to the largest galaxies, we do not find randomness. We find order. We can know where Jupiter will be tomorrow based on those laws. We can know that the snow forming in the clouds overhead will fall to earth.
The transcendent nature of truth becomes more apparent when we leave temporal observation in favor of non-observational truths. Put in other words, we can “see” truth more when it “shows” itself in those things we cannot see. Truth exists beyond what we can see and measure. For example, it’s self-evident that the statement “all knowledge is empirical” immediately collapses under its own self-contradiction. Moral truths provide a “clean” example of transcendent truth, e.g. it is wrong to kill an innocent person. We “know” that is true. We do not need to observe murders to ascertain whether it is “wrong” or to derive a definition of “wrong.”
Transcendent truth runs even deeper than morality though, to the very forces that animate our existence. In my experience, the most important truths at work in the lives of individuals are faith, hope and love. Yet, faith, hope and love are not really “forces.” They are not empirical. They transcend space and time, yet the reality or truth of faith, hope and love (or lack thereof) provide the greatest forces (or devastation) in our lives. With neither faith, hope or love, a person perishes.
Finally, truth manifests most clearly in the person of Jesus Christ, whom scripture reveals as the truth. Scripture teaches that through Him all things were made. As explained above, time and space corroborate truth by the way Christ ordered and structured creation. This certainty of ordering and being able to observe and know the ordering is the foundation of science. It is also the fingerprints of Christ. Scripture also teaches that when Christ is in us, then we will be true. Finally, the Word teaches that if we teach the truth, we teach the Gospel of Christ. Christ was, is and forever will be the fount and foundation of truth. Outside Him, there is no truth.
We live, move and have our being in His creation. His truth surrounds us and testifies to Him. The soul’s hunger for the truth is no more and no less than its hunger for our eternal Lord, creator and savior Jesus Christ, the ultimate truth. Amen!
Does teaching Creationism hurt science? Of course not! I think the “Science Guy’s” reflexive response brings into question his true credentials as a scientist. Since when does science seek a monopoly on a particular idea? The whole scientific enterprise, when done properly, seeks to disprove idea’s not hide behind rhetoric. That’s what peer review is all about. Someone presents a hypothesis, and everyone tries to disprove it. When they have failed, the hypothesis becomes a theory. The scientists who promote evolution seem to have a problem. They do not want any competing alternative to their hypothesis. The fact is that there are scientists who engage in scientific research who can show evidence for a young earth. So, why not hear them out? Could it be that there is in fact scant evidence behind the hypothesis of evolution? And could it be that they do not want the public to see that there is real evidence for an alternative point of view?
The reality is that evolution is more of a philosophy. Any scientific “research” is always done with some very important qualifications in place. For example, when evolutionary scientists approach something that might be deemed evidence for evolution, they always begin with the philosophical commitment that the earth is really, really old. But, what if the evidence says otherwise? Because of their prior commitment to their “belief” in an old earth, they will not consider anything that tells them something different. The reality is that the hypothesis of evolution has almost no tangible evidence. Everything that is presented as such is usually clouded with a heavy dose of philosophical fussy language. When all the hypothetical meanderings are cleared away what is left is something that is far removed from true scientific evidence. Evolution rests on creative rhetoric, nothing more.
And as to the Science Guy’s ill-conceived rhetoric that studying the Bible will “Hurt” science, or those who study it, he forgets two important things. First, it was Bible believing Christians who began much of the scientific enterprise to begin with. For example, Sir Isaac Newton said that doing science was “thinking God’s thoughts after Him.” Because he believed in a rational God who can clearly communicate, Newton believed that the universe must be rational, and therefore subject to rational inquiry. Second, the philosophical theory of evolution has “hurt” more people than every other “ism” combined. The philosopher Friedrich Nietzsche considered the practical consequences of evolution and discovered that if life is an accident, then there is no foundation for ethics, truth, or morality. Instead he proposed the “Superman.” No not the guy in the blue cape who can leap tall buildings, but instead the guy in the military uniform who can subdue others to his will. The man who attempted to perfect Nietzsche’s idea was named Adolf Hitler. Hitler is a direct consequence of the very bad philosophical influence of Natural Evolution.
No, evolution is a bad idea with no real scientific support. And it is itself an idea that has proven to bring true pain and suffering into God’s beautiful creation.
If there’s one thing the atheist sophisticates know that they know, it’s there’s simply nothing worthwhile at the Creation Museum. Just a bunch of rednecks and rubes clinging to their Bibles, and of course, it’s the lair of their arch bogeyman – the Bible apologist par excellence Ken Ham. Of course, according to this same crowd, the Smithsonian is everything the Creation Museum is not — worldly, sophisticated, and relevant. While this atheistic dogma is unfounded – the Creation Museum is nothing if not sophisticated, world-class, and full of dogma-challenging formation – the atheist’s prejudice made for some humorous theater this weekend.
Apparently having missed the memo about there being nothing to see at the Creation Museum, the Smithsonian is featuring one of the Creation Museum’s dinosaurs as the centerpiece of a Smithsonian IMAX marketing campaign. This was recently discovered by a young girl visiting the Smithsonian who pointed out to her father that the Smithsonian’s prominent marketing display of a dinosaurs was none other than one of the raptors from the Creation Museum – museum sleuth and Creation Museum raptor (and Smithsonian specimen):
Ken Ham reported on his blog this weekend:
That phenomenally sculpted dinosaur was designed and built at the Creation Museum by AiG sculptors and designers. We can understand why the Smithsonian … chose this photo of the dinosaur—the dinosaur is so well done. … [W]e would be happy to give permission to the Smithsonian to use this photo if they request it, but I’m sure once the word is out that this photo is of a dinosaur at the Creation Museum—well, I wonder what they will do? … Now, we are prepared to offer the Smithsonian a license for free, though it would require our copyright notice near the dinosaurs. Regardless, we are not asking the Smithsonian to throw out all their brochures with our dinosaur on them.
I’m not sure what the Smithsonian thinks of this, but the militant atheists are already “sighing” and gnashing their teeth over the implicit recognition of the quality of Creation Museum displays from an institution they respect and hold dear. I think Ken ought to offer the Smithsonian a KEN HAM signatured copy of the raptor for them to use on all Smithsonian marketing, free of charge.
Given my involvement with and support for Answers in Genesis (“AiG”) and the Creation Museum, Christian friends occasionally ask me whether young-earth creationism is really so important. Does it really matter?
In the ultimate sense, the eternal sense, the answer is “no.” One’s belief on precisely how humanity came into existence is not going to open the doors of heaven or close the gates of hell for a person on the day of judgment. Of course, ultimately, only one thing matters for us. In the ultimate sense, the only question that really matters is whether one has accepted Jesus Christ as his or her Lord and personal savior.
Again, the creation-evolution-old earth-young earth debate is not even the most important issue directly facing the church today. Related to the first issue, the most important issue facing the church today is reaching the current generations with the gospel of Jesus Christ. Also of great importance is teaching the current and next generation about the truth and authority of scripture – to include its culturally unpopular teachings on the depravity of man, reality of an eternal hell and judgment, and the exclusivity of Christ. Also related directly to the authority of scripture is the importance of the church governing itself and its members according to the clear guidelines in the New Testament. In my opinion, these are all “more important” issues than the age of the Earth.
Yet, as the temporal church literally rests on the Earth, the above issues rest entirely on the authority of scripture. From where I sit, the church, at least in the West, is failing to reach the current generations with the truths of Jesus Christ because the church has lost confidence in the authority of scripture. The western church lacks the courage of its convictions that scripture is the inerrant word of God because the church is losing its convictions in that regard. And there is no more obvious and glaring example of this over the last fifty years than in what the church has been doing with the first eleven chapters of the book of Genesis, and in particular with the first two chapters of Genesis regarding creation and related creation passages.
Regarding creation, far too many in our churches and seminaries have invested countless hours and effort trying to figure out ever more clever ways to “fit” billions of years and evolutionary processes into the Bible’s revelation concerning God’s creation of the world and everything in it. As I’ve pointed out before, this is entirely unnecessary given the threadbare nature of evolutionary theory. See e.g. here and here. Regardless, the ongoing compromise is fact, in fact, it’s the dominant position within the western church. Sadly, as AiG discovered through its survey evidence published in Already Compromised, our theologians much more than our Christian scientists lead the charge with this unnecessary compromise. As Ken Ham repeats and repeats and repeats, this compromise of God’s word is not just a compromise, it also undermines fundamental doctrines of our faith. Most importantly, it undermines the foundations of the gospel. Not surprisingly and as a direct result, it undermines the faith of our children, again as researched and written about by AiG in Already Gone.
All of this is background for a recent and unplanned debate this past May 31 between Ken Ham, the face of AiG and the Creation Museum, and Dr. Hugh Ross, perhaps the most well-known old-earth creationist.
TBN invited these two men, as well as Ray Comfort, Dr. John A. Bloom, Sean McDowell, and Eric Hovind to be “interviewed” by host Matt Crouch. TBN said it was not a debate. Two minutes before the show started, Mr. Crouch announced to these guests that they’d all be interviewed “together” on the show. In making this decision, the disarming and charming Mr. Crouch set the groundwork for a great debate. In fact, that’s exactly what happened. With this background information, the first twenty minutes or so of the “interview” is amusing as these guests try to get their bearings and figure out what’s going on. Likely due to intelligent design and not blind chance, the guests were evenly divided between young earth (Ham, Comfort, Hovind) and old earth (Ross, Bloom, McDowell). After about a half-hour, the guests settled in for the exchange of conflicting ideas and the debate was thereafter fairly dominated by Ham and Ross, which is a good thing for the audience as each man is firmly in command of his beliefs and able to communicate them well. They’ve debated several times and it shows as they parry back and forth regarding what scripture reveals regarding how God created and its implications for believers.
This surprise debate has turned into a surprise hit. As of this posting, there have been over 35,000 views already on TBN’s website, and they haven’t yet released it to Youtube. Like the “surprise” debate itself, viewing it lures you in and doesn’t let you go. It’s the most engaging theological debate of recent memory.
Ken Ham states:
Many viewers have found that this debate has turned into a great teaching tool to help Christians understand how to defend the Christian faith, and to get them to realize that the age of the earth issue is not a side issue, but one that really is an authority issue about the Bible—a battle between the authority of the Word of God and the beliefs of fallible, sinful humans. I have heard of professors using this debate to teach students the real foundational issue over a lack of accepting biblical authority that is so destructive to the church and culture.
Pastor Don Landis, who serves as AiG’s chairman of the board and is the founder of Jackson Hole Bible College, recently explained that while the creation debate within the church is about the authority of scripture, it is also about the character and nature of Jesus Christ. The old-earth compromisers invariably have Christ as the author of death and disease, well before the fall of mankind. This has substantial theological implications.
If you are a Christian who takes the word of God seriously, please take the time to watch the debate, here. Please also listen to Pastor Landis’ important analysis here: 2012-06-08 Don Landis. You will be blessed by these messages.
Ann Coulter on the media’s handling of evolution and politics: THE FLASH MOB METHOD OF SCIENTIFIC INQUIRY
Dr. Albert Mohler reviews NPR’s recent developments concerning the dispute over human origins within the church: False Start? The Controversy Over Adam and Eve Heats Up
Dr. Georgia Purdom has started an interesting series: Does “Worldview-Neutral” Science Exist? Part One
Activists continue to use the worn-out phrase “separation of church and state” to eject religious expression from the public square. But the Establishment Clause cuts both ways, prohibiting government hostility toward religion as well as the open endorsement that ruffles unbelieving feathers.
Advocates for Faith and Freedom is a fine Christian organization in Southern California that has been litigating Farnan v. Capistrano Unified School District. (See http://www.faith-freedom.com.) The plaintiff is Chad Farnan, a courageous Christian high school student who brought a case against his Advanced Placement European History teacher. The teacher repeatedly ridiculed Chad’s faith: “When you put on your Jesus glasses, you can’t see the truth.” A federal district judge issued a favorable ruling, finding an Establishment Clause violation when the teacher expressed “an unequivocal belief that creationism is ’superstitious nonsense.’” Unfortunately, the Ninth Circuit decided to skirt the constitutional issue. The Court admitted that a teacher’s hostile comments about religion might cross the line, but granted immunity to the teacher because they could “not conclude that a reasonable teacher standing in [the teacher’s] shoes would have been on notice that his actions might be unconstitutional.”
Advocates for Faith and Freedom summed it up well: “Just as public school teachers are not allowed to promote one religion in the classroom, they should not be able to use their classrooms as a platform to attack religion because the pendulum swings both ways.” A.F.F. will seek further review in the Ninth Circuit, then petition the U.S. Supreme Court if that is unsuccessful. Let’s pray that one of these courts gets it right. The pendulum swings both ways—no endorsement, no hostility.
Recently the U.S. Supreme Court ruled that violent video games enjoy First Amendment protection—even when sold to our youth. Brown v. Entertainment Merchants Association, 113 S.Ct. 2729 (2011). The Court struck down a California law that prohibited the sale or rental of these games to children under 18. At first glance this might sound like a victory for those who want to poison our young people.
Not so fast! Decisions like this cut both ways. The First Amendment protects a lot of speech that we as Christians find highly offensive. But it also protects our right to
preach the gospel—to people of all ages. I used to live in California, where I participated in volunteer ministry to children. I volunteered for Child Evangelism Fellowship, an organization that directs its efforts to children at state fairs and other public places. On Sunday mornings, I accompanied other volunteers from Pacific Youth Correctional Ministries to a county facility for children removed from their homes for neglect and abuse. We held chapel and Sunday School for those children. I was also part of a large chaplaincy program at Olive Crest, a private nonprofit that operates group homes for abused children. If atheists in America had their way, there would be laws prohibiting this type of religious evangelism to minors. Look at what the Supreme Court just said in the Brown decision:
And what is good for First Amendment rights of speech must be good for First Amendment rights of religion as well: It could be made criminal to admit a person under 18 to church, or to give a person under 18 a religious tract, without his parents’ prior consent.
Modern atheism has taken on an “evangelistic” fervor. Atheists do not merely reject religion for themselves—they insist that religion is dangerous. Authors like
Christopher Hitchins, Richard Dawkins, and Samuel Harris are on a rampage to stamp out religion. In the legal arena, atheists have removed prayer and Bible reading from our public schools and filed a multitude of lawsuits to eject religious expression from the public square. Meanwhile, anti-Christian materials corrupt school curriculum—evolution, sex education, homosexuality. Parental complaints fall on deaf ears in the courts of “Christian America.”
Parents have the constitutional right to direct the upbringing of their children in their homes and schools. They should be able to opt out of objectionable programs and actively participate in decisions about what the schools are teaching their children. Government ought to support them—not cram corrupted teachings down the throats of our families. The recent Brown decision affirms this, observing that
…the state has the power to enforce parental prohibitions — to require, for example, that the promoters of a rock concert exclude those minors whose parents have advised the promoters that their children are forbidden to attend. But it does not follow that the state has the power to prevent children from hearing or saying anything without their parents’ prior consent.
If the government starts making it illegal to present certain material to minors on the basis of content or viewpoint – the results won’t necessarily be what Christians would want, especially in today’s secular climate. Christian parents must be vigilant. If they don’t want their children playing violent video games, they need to supervise them—bringing them up in the nurture and admonition of the Lord. It isn’t the government’s job to do that for them.
What’s in a name?
Sometimes controversy. A boy named Sue, fundamentalist, fascist, liberal (or liberals renaming themselves (again) “progressive”), etc. … Names can evoke powerful responses. Some say controversial names generate interest. The label or mislabel of something or someone often introduces presumptions or starting points for how people, ideas, and things are initially perceived.
Answers in Genesis recently published an interesting article on whether the name “young earth creationist” is the most accurate name for those that read the first chapter of Genesis literally regarding origins.
“I’m a young-earth creationist.”
To evolutionists, a person claiming this title is akin to saying, “I’m an anti-science mystic.” To Christians who have compromised with naturalistic presuppositions, young-earth creation implies just one more opinion on the earth’s beginning.
Many Christians have conceded to uniformitarian dogma by imposing theories on Genesis like the day-age view, gap theory, and the framework hypothesis. Christians taking on names—progressive creationist, theistic evolutionist, or even young-earth creationist—implies Genesis 1–11 does not have one clear interpretation.
By making our primary title “young-earth creationists,” we seem to agree that the debate is merely over the scientific evidence of the age of the earth. We get caught up in arguments over whether the fossil record, radiometric dating, and celestial bodies are evidence for a young or old earth. While examining the evidence is valuable, the issue is not the evidence itself. The main issue is our starting point for interpreting the evidence—either fallible human opinions or infallible Scripture (Psalm 119:160; 2 Timothy 3:16). Therefore, the title of those who hold to biblical authority should identify their starting point.
“I’m a biblical creationist.”
This title accurately conveys the biblical Christian’s starting point. Two starting points exist: man’s opinion or God’s Word. Creation compromise positions come about when Christians start with man’s opinion of long ages and then reinterpret Scripture to fit the uniformitarian beliefs of God-rejecting naturalists.
See the rest of this excellent article at: Don’t Call Us Young-Earth Creationists
See Dr. Georgia Purdom’s Bacteria Keep “Outsmarting” Antibiotics
Popular sentiment treats “evolution” as fact and teaches that evolution provides a compelling belief system for the origin of life on this planet. (When I use the term “evolution,” unless otherwise specified, I mean “molecules to man evolution”). There are at least two aspects to evolution: (1) presently observable phenomena, and (2) historical inferences based on a naturalistic worldview to explain the present evidence, what I’ve referred to as “evolution as origins” or “molecules to man” belief. These two aspects of “evolution” should be distinguished from each other when evolution is discussed. Further, I believe there is a tension between these two facets of what we call evolution. Regardless, as explained below, the evolution as origins aspect of evolution is a threadbare belief. Not only is it undeserving of its dogmatic following, it utterly fails to present a basis for Christians to compromise fundamentals of the faith in general and the teachings of the Genesis account in particular.
Some critics of biblical creation create straw men arguments that creationists reject science or that creationists reject evolution. The first charge is generally utterly false—when one is dealing with “observational science” (knowledge gained through direct observation and based on the repeatable test—knowledge that builds our technology). The second allegation is only partially true – we reject “evolution” when it means “molecules to man” belief systems.
The “problem” with Darwinism, like any “good” lie, is that there’s some undeniable truth to it. Specifically, what is called natural selection is not disputed. Darwin’s observation and “discovery” of changes he observed and called natural selection are accurate. Such changes are observable, and entirely consistent with what the Bible teaches concerning kinds.There are observable changes within a kind (or “Family” as kind in most instances probably equates to the “Family” level of classification). The second aspect of Darwinian evolution, i.e. Darwin’s extrapolation of evolution (the observable changes) as the engine for life and the myriad kinds or families over time is, however, highly incompatible with the teachings of Christianity in general and with the Genesis account in particular. Darwin’s ideas based on naturalism (regardless of how a secularist explains it), would mean that in nature there is no design, no purpose, just blind, pitiless indifference, which is exactly how Darwin described it. That assertion and that component of evolution is false and I reject it.
Because Jesus Christ is God, we should give Scripture a strong presumption of validity, from Genesis to Revelation.
Biblical creationists do not reject “observational science.” The conflict is between two different accounts of “historical science.” We therefore come to different conclusions because of our different starting points. It’s not really an argument about evidence. We all observe the same thing. The debate properly presented is about interpretations based on presuppositions.
Is the evidence compelling in favor of materialistic evolution? No. In fact, it’s threadbare, and evolutionists have to come up with secondary and tertiary assumptions to explain why it doesn’t really fit with their evolutionary beliefs. Here’s my “top 10″ evidentiary list concerning evolution and illustrating that observing such in the present does not confirm the belief in evolution, but in fact confirms that the correct starting point to interpret such evidence is God’s Word.
1. You just don’t get there from a plain reading of scripture. What the prophets and Apostles taught under inspiration from the Holy Spirit does not in any way support the evolutionary belief of origins.
2. What is called “Natural Selection” is a demonstrable component of evolutionary belief, but does not add information or complexity to the world. To the contrary, selecting logically necessitates a corresponding elimination.
3. The engine of change, genetic mutation, does not provide compelling evidence of increasing information and the sustainability or complexity of life. A genetic mutation for humans nearly universally means no change (neutral mutations) or detrimental change (death and disease). Many mutations in the natural world result in a loss or impairment of important genetic information. Even the few and far in between ‘beneficial’ mutations, such as antibiotic resistant bacteria, demonstrate offsetting losses. Antibiotic resistant bacteria survive under constraints of the medication but are weaker in a natural, un-medicated environment.
4. There is no mechanism that allows for an organism to change from one kind of an organism to another. Natural selection “selects” from the available genetic information. Genetic mutations generally degrade information or are net-neutral. There simply has been no observed mechanism for “evolving” incredible complexities of information necessary to construct the remarkable features and complexities of life in and around us.
5. Endangered species list: the list exists. The present evidence does not demonstrate the formation of new ‘kinds’ or families over time—even though we have observed a few new ‘species’ within certain kinds. What we see occurring now and in the fossil record is a steady and ongoing rate of extinction. “Natural selection” eliminates life forms; specifically, this process involves the weeding out within species of variations that are not well suited to the present environment. It’s ironic that dinosaurs are held up as iconic for evolution. They are instead irrefutable evidence of an entire kind being wiped out through natural processes – the exact opposite of evolution. The process of natural selection is not creating new kinds or families; it only “fine tunes” kinds and families to their environment by weeding out the unfit. There is no such thing as a new families list. There is a growing endangered species list—which results eventually in entire families becoming extinct.
6. The missing link between man and ape is still missing.
7. Any credible idea how life first started by naturalistic processes of matter is also still missing. Despite well over a century of concentrated intelligent effort, the method for chance or accidental creation of a code system and information system as found in DNA , under conditions purportedly prevalent millions of years ago, have not been discovered.
9. The fossil record does not show eons of steady, incremental evolution. Instead, we find billions of dead things, buried in fairly proximate layers, scattered over all portions of the earth. Evolutionists, based on their specific beliefs, interpret this evidence as an explosion of biodiversity over time. Or, it could be (and in fact is) the record of a worldwide cataclysmic event that killed billions of living creatures in close temporal proximity—a different interpretation based on the revelation in God’s Word concerning the Flood of Noah’s Day, and its various consequences. The slight variations in where the creatures are found in those layers are likely attributable to when they died, and if it was a worldwide flood, also if and when they sank—how they were buried in specific locales.
10. Myths and ancient records. Our ancient “legends” and “myths” are filled with tales of men killing giant lizards. There are stories and pictures of dragons across continents and going back thousands of years:
We do not see nature creating increasing complexities of life and biodiversity. Instead, we observe “nature’s blind indifference” destroying life forms and slowly reducing the total amount of genetic information. The fossil record and present observation suggests there was more biodiversity and total genetic information in the past. That is consistent with the truth: there was a magnificent creation, followed by a fall away from the Creator and a long period of death, decline, suffering and extinction, to include a devastating Global Flood, just as Genesis teaches.
Suppose you were born this morning with the ability to read, think, and understand and found yourself wondering how and why you existed. Suppose further that someone gave you a Bible, told you it was the word of God, and encouraged you to read it, which you did, from the beginning. After reading the first few chapters of Genesis, and having not yet “benefited” from modern
indoctrination enlightenment, you would not conclude that your existence was attributable to millions and millions of years of micro-evolution, and an amoeba to man metamorphosis. Frankly, there is simply no way you could infer that from Genesis for from any other book of the Bible.
So, if I told you that although we believe the Bible is a remarkable book and the inspired word of God, most of us also believe that we evolved from some primordial micro-ooze a very long time ago, you just might conclude that there exists compelling evidence that compelled us to shoe-horn such an idea into Genesis. Of course it would have to be overwhelming evidence before we compromised what we’ve acknowledged as God’s word, or, to put it more delicately, to “accommodate” the narrative to the evidence.
Of course we might think that way, if we were born yesterday. If, however, we’ve spent decades being told that the Bible governs spiritual issues and science governs reality and that “science” teaches us that our origins and the various forms of life are attributable to the process of evolution, we might more or less simply accept the continual declarations as true, especially if we’d been instructed with the millions and millions and billions of years and evolution theories continually since we wore diapers.
But really, is the evidence of evolution so compelling that it requires us to treat it on par with the plain, ordinary meaning of God’s word? That we contort God’s explanation of origins to squeeze in millions of years and evolution? That we treat God’s plain teaching of origins as a metaphor, or worse, as simply untrue?
But maybe evolution for the story of our origins isn’t incompatible with Genesis? I mean, evolution is science and Genesis is religion.
In the book, The Lie, Ken Ham explains how evolution as origins theory undermines fundamental elements of our faith.
Why do we believe in marriage?
Homosexual marriage is now a heated political topic. On what do we base our definition of marriage? Genesis teaches that God created two genders, male and female, and joined one man to one women in marriage. There was and is nothing arbitrary about our gender or about how we mate. In Chapter 19 of his Gospel account, Matthew recounts Jesus teaching about marriage: “He who created them in the beginning, made them male and female. The man shall cling to his wife and they shall become one flesh.” Jesus himself used Genesis as the foundation teaching about marriage. Evolution as origins theory has no such foundation for marriage. To the contrary, if we evolved from some yet-to-be-discovered theoretical ape like creature, marriage is no more and no less than whatever we want it to be.
Why do we promote the wearing of clothes?
We were created and born naked. Why not strip nude in public when it’s warm out or when we simply feel like being naked? The entire animal kingdom parades naked with their genitals exposed. We don’t. Even the most primitive and pagan cultures cover their genitals. Humans feel ashamed when naked. Since the fall and original sin, we realize our nakedness and want to hide ourselves. The first act after falling away from God was to feel shame and exposed. Further, after the fall, our hearts burn with lust and we cloth ourselves in modesty and for safety. Our moral hang-up with clothing makes little sense in the “moral” framework of evolution. It’s our first reported manifestation of the fall.
Why are there rules of right and wrong?
God created everything, to include us. We owe him everything and he has all the power. Quite simply, he has every right and authority to set the rules – the Ten Commandments, etc. In an evolutionary system, what are rules and why would anyone or anything have more say or legitimacy than any other sentient being? Why should you, me, a king, or anyone enjoy more “justification” or authority than a rock for asserting what’s right or wrong in an evolutionary framework?
Why are we sinners and what does this mean?
This question really makes no sense in the evolutionary paradigm. It’s a fundamental question for Christians that has eternal ramifications.
Why is there death and suffering in the world?
For the Christian, these are the direct result of man’s fall from God. In the evolutionary context, these are the forces the propel evolution and new species. In the Genesis account, death and suffering are a curse. That’s not at all the case in the evolutionary context.
Why is there to be a new heaven and a new earth?
Our hope for the future is utter nonsense from the evolutionary worldview.
The very Gospel Message –
If there was no literal fall of mankind, why would you need a savior of mankind?
If there was no first Adam, why would you need the second and final Adam (1 Cor 15).
Were we created by a loving God or evolved from bugs through a long process of random mutations and pitiless death and struggle?
Does creation testify to the eternal Glory of God or is it the thoughtless product of massive natural processes over billions and billions of years?
Are we eternal souls created by God in the image of God, or are we simply hairless apes?
As believers and followers of Jesus Christ we should come down squarely on one side on all these issues. But too often, within the church, we want to compromise with evolution. We want to fit in. We don’t want to argue with the white-coated scientists or the editors of National Geographic and/or Vanity Fair. We sit silent as our children are taught that evolution explains the origins of our species and the reason for the life around us.
Is there overwhelming evidence that compels us to disregard these fundamental incompatibilities between Scripture and evolution as origins theories? Not at all. In fact, when you look, you can clearly see that this emperor wears no clothes. Evolution does not deserve the worldly crowns it’s been given, let alone the title of God slayer. More on this in my next post – Deo volente.