Readers may wonder why I am inclined to republish writings of the past. The intent is to look back and see the position from where evangelicalism has shifted. The way to see if a stick is straight is to hold it against a stick proven in the past to be straight.
There are many dangers for Christendom and the penalties for straying are severe.
In this spirit I provide an article written by Paul Helm in the January 1968 edition of the Banner of Truth Journal.
"IS EVANGELICALISM JUST A CULT?
What is a cult ? Most of us have a rough idea; a tightly-knit, rather rootless religious group claiming to have 'the truth', but in fact catering for the religious needs of a particular group - the mystical, the heavily eschatological, those who crave certainty above truth, those distrustful of 'modern thought' - the misfits of our society.
We do not include ourselves - the evangelicals - in our list of cults. Why not? There is not a shadow of a doubt that in the minds of many we are lumped together with the Witnesses, the Mormons and the rest. To them we are 'religious', having a language, friends, activities and values of our own; yet often aggressively confident that we have the truth; another, rather faded, 'special offer' in the religious bargain-basement.
Why are people wrong to think this way about the evangehcal faith? Why must they be wrong ? The crucial difference, the one we have for too long forgotten [to our peril] is that a true evangelicalism is only meaningful set in the midst of human life, with its endeavours and initiatives, its suffering and its folly, and its sin. The evangelical faith is credible when set in the context of creation, of life, and of human history. By 'credible' here is not meant 'is more easily accepted' but that the unique claims made by the biblical gospel will only be seen for what they are when set in such a context. The gospel gets its edge when this background is understood, and the 'christian life' becomes meaningful when Christians see that it consists in thinking-out and living-out the implications of such a gospel; implications that are understood not only in general spiritual terms but in the concrete demands of human life-work, the family, leisure, politics, the arts.
The cults do not think like this at all. They are self-contained sub-cultures catering for specific needs. They do not have any doctrine of creation, or of human life; or if they have they only pay lip-service to it; and they do not in general expect to have any non-religious consequences flowing from their beliefs. They are 'separatistic' in the worst sense of that word; not concerned only with their doctrinal purity but with cutting themselves off as much as possible from everyday life. It is in this crucial respect that the evangelical faith differs in character from the cults.
CULTURAL CONTRACTION
This is likely to provoke two comments. First, that contemporary evangelicalism is not recognisably like this; it is individualistic, lives on religious sensations, has little interest in doctrine or in human life. Indeed it would not be an exaggeration to say that many evangelicals are embarrassed by the very existence of the world. The answer to this is that to our shame all this [and a lot more like it] is true, but that evangelicals who behave in this way do not do justice to the logic of their faith. They are living below par; for a faith that has a doctrine of creation and of human nature will have implications for the quality of human life. If these implications are not seen, and no concern is expressed about them, this does not mean that the implications do not exist.
The second comment is likely to be this. You say that the faith has implications for the whole of life and that the gospel is best understood when this point is firmly grasped. But what are these implications ? What follows for us in 1968 ? This is a good question, and I do not want to dodge it. But the answer is painful. For a hundred years or so in this country few have paid the slightest attention to studying these questions. In a cultural situation that has changed out of all recognition the evangelical world-view of a century ago [with all its faults] has become fragmented. There are many causes of this - the inroads made into biblical authority by higher criticism, into the doctrine of creation by Darwin, into the biblical view of God and the world by philosophical idealism, and so on. The result is that while life has gone on around us the thinking of Christian people has stopped. Evangelicals - due no doubt to a praiseworthy concern to defend the essence of the gospel message - have in the meantime become culturally contracted. So the painful answer is that, having stopped thinking, we have little to say about the implications of the faith for today's or tomorrow's world. We are to think, and we are to expect answers to our probings, for we are God's creatures and this is God's world. But evangelicals have long since stopped thinking, and have paid
the price; we cannot appraise or influence affairs as we should, we cannot counsel our young people or channel their energies constructively. We have stagnated, and many of us have become proud of it.
THE REFORMED FAITH
In this difficult situation the Reformed faith has a unique contribution to make to a return to a living evangelicalism. Let me try and make good this claim by relating certain features of the Reformed faith - in a very sketchy way - to the needs of our situation outlined above.
British evangelicalism, as we have seen, values the quick return, the tangible, the personal, the sensational. The Reformed faith, following Scripture, places emphasis not on these things but on the divine decree and control and purpose. Fundamental to Scripture and to Reformed thinking is the fact that God has a plan. How does this help ? By giving to the people of God a calmness of spirit and serenity of mind; by enabling them to take a long-term view and encouraging them to put their minds to work in the fulfilling of God's purposes for His creation.
Consider, secondly, the link between creation and redemption. Redemption, the Reformers constantly show us, can only be understood if we grasp that it is man made in God's image [but fallen] who is redeemed and restored into fellowship with his Maker by the gospel. Redemption is not to be seen primarily as an experience [though it involves experiences] but a gracious restoration. This means that human life for the Christian is not a search for an endless succession of religious feelings, but the life of a restored human being.
Third, there is the Reformed teaching about the world. For the Reformers 'the world' was not taboo, a place to be shunned, but a battle field. It is God's created order, and it is the Christian's place under God to seek the full restoration of God's image in man by living creatively according to the Word of God by the power of the Holy Spirit. Thus the Christian man will strive for the replenishment and exercise of his gifts,becoming again, as the newly-created Adam was, a divine workman.
FULFILLING OUR CALLINGS
It is in these ways, and others not indicated, that the Reformers show us that the biblical faith cannot be divorced from thought or from life, but has implications for both which it is the Christian's divinely appointed task to work out. There is no recipe here for quick and easy solutions to life's many problems but a mandate for creative [or re-creative] Christian thinking.
Is evangelicalism a cult? Not when it is seen to be true to itself and to the logic of its belief. Unhappily this is not the case at present; evangelicals have become side-tracked. We must take up again the foundational principles of our faith and trace out then: implications for our lives. It is in this way that under God we fulfil our callings as Christian men and women and display the gospel in its many-sidedness."
Few would call the Roman Catholic Archbishop of Sydney, George Pell, an evangelical and he certainly demonstrated he wasn't by his performance in debate with Atheist, Richard Dawkins, on ABC Television's Q & A program last Monday night. The Archbishop has a pitiful doctrine on Creation - assigning Adam and Eve to mythology - and the rest of his doctrine, consequently, slides into nothingness.
Sydney Episcopalians should note the course they are directing hearers and readers to as they present a flaky doctrine of Creation today.
Sam Drucker
Showing posts with label Richard Dawkins. Show all posts
Showing posts with label Richard Dawkins. Show all posts
Sunday, April 15, 2012
Sunday, November 13, 2011
Richard Dawkins Triumphs Again!
It is embarrassing and discomforting when your opponent latches onto and exposes your "Achilles' Heel". Richard Dawkins did this recently when interviewed by Howard Condor on Revelation TV in the United Kingdom.
I recite parts of the interview here following:
Condor. "Was there a particular experience you had where you said, 'That's it, God doesn't exist'"
Dawkins. "Oh, well, by far the most important, I suppose, was understanding evolution. I think the evangelical Christians have really sort of got it right, in a way, in seeing evolution as the enemy. Whereas the more—what shall we say—sophisticated theologians who are quite happy to live with evolution, I think they're deluded. I think the evangelicals have got it right, in that there really is a deep incompatibility between evolution and Christianity, and I think I realized that at the age of about sixteen.
Dawkins went on to question the interviewer saying: Why on earth would ... you believe in Genesis, given that the Archbishop of Canterbury is against it, given that the Pope is against it, any respectable bishop is against it ...?" [as, also, is the Episcopalian Archbishop of Sydney]
We must make a distinction here between Evangelical and that which is not Evangelical but, instead, a sort of faux evangelical. Dawkins obviously uses the term Evangelical in the traditional and true sense as one who trusts and espouses the Word of God. There are many today who just do not trust and espouse the Word of God fully yet they claim to be Evangelical. Many in the Episcopalian Diocese of Sydney are of this kind and are faux evangelicals.
Dawkins rightly sees the incompatibility between Evolution and Christianity and he stands as a ready victor in any debate against a Theistic Evolution.
Should Richard Dawkins venture to Australia again, please, please Episcopalian Diocese of Sydney, don't put up any Theistic Evolutionist (eg the Archbishop of Sydney) in debate against him. For the sake of Christ's Church here in Sydney, let's keep our embarrassments hidden in a corner.
Sam Drucker
I recite parts of the interview here following:
Condor. "Was there a particular experience you had where you said, 'That's it, God doesn't exist'"
Dawkins. "Oh, well, by far the most important, I suppose, was understanding evolution. I think the evangelical Christians have really sort of got it right, in a way, in seeing evolution as the enemy. Whereas the more—what shall we say—sophisticated theologians who are quite happy to live with evolution, I think they're deluded. I think the evangelicals have got it right, in that there really is a deep incompatibility between evolution and Christianity, and I think I realized that at the age of about sixteen.
Dawkins went on to question the interviewer saying: Why on earth would ... you believe in Genesis, given that the Archbishop of Canterbury is against it, given that the Pope is against it, any respectable bishop is against it ...?" [as, also, is the Episcopalian Archbishop of Sydney]
We must make a distinction here between Evangelical and that which is not Evangelical but, instead, a sort of faux evangelical. Dawkins obviously uses the term Evangelical in the traditional and true sense as one who trusts and espouses the Word of God. There are many today who just do not trust and espouse the Word of God fully yet they claim to be Evangelical. Many in the Episcopalian Diocese of Sydney are of this kind and are faux evangelicals.
Dawkins rightly sees the incompatibility between Evolution and Christianity and he stands as a ready victor in any debate against a Theistic Evolution.
Should Richard Dawkins venture to Australia again, please, please Episcopalian Diocese of Sydney, don't put up any Theistic Evolutionist (eg the Archbishop of Sydney) in debate against him. For the sake of Christ's Church here in Sydney, let's keep our embarrassments hidden in a corner.
Sam Drucker
Sunday, April 25, 2010
Prominent Atheist Has Moment(s) of Goodness Without God
Recently I wrote of criticism directed at Atheists by journalist, Andrew Bolt, following the Atheist Convention in Melbourne, Australia. I noted that the comments made by the Atheists were not in keeping with "Being Good Without God."
I have thought a little more about it and, with particular consideration of Professor Richard Dawkins, I now declare there can be moments of goodness from Atheists. Experience now tells me this.
Since writing my blog I had occasion to read a super book "Genetic Entropy & The Mystery of the Human Genome" written by Dr. J. C. Sanders, Cornell University Professor for more than 25 years.
One section of the book took my thoughts immediately to an interview of Richard Dawkins in a DVD called "From a Frog to a Prince." During the interview Professor Dawkins was asked to give an established example of a mutation actually adding information to an organism. There followed an extended period of silence with the camera showing Professor Dawkins thinking hard for eleven or more seconds without providing an example. I understand the period of silence had to be edited down because it actually went much longer and this did not facilitate good production ends. His eventual answer was no answer at all.
What was Professor Dawkins to do in this situation? He did not have knowledge of a mutation which added information. He was on camera, expected to have an answer and exposed to potential embarrassment. Time was passing at an agonizing rate. To his great credit Professor Dawkins was not prepared to fudge an example. He would not lie his way out of this dilemma. Silence in this situation was commendable and all the more so because you can see from the DVD that he was really trying to think of an example.
I hope readers will agree with my view that the actions of Professor Dawkins in the situation were praiseworthy.
Returning now to the writing of Dr. Sanders I quote an excerpt which underlines the difficulty Professor Dawkins had in producing an example of a mutation adding information to an organism. On pages 26 & 27 of his book Dr. Sanders says the following:
"Bergman (2004)* reviewed the topic of beneficial mutations. Among other things, he did a simple literature search via Biological Abstracts and Medline. He found 453,732 "mutation" hits, but among these only 186 mentioned the word "beneficial" (about 4 in 10,000). When those 186 references were reviewed, the presumed beneficial mutations were only beneficial in a very narrow sense and consistently involved loss-of-function (loss of information)changes. He was unable to find a single example of a mutation which unambiguously created new information. While it is almost universally accepted that beneficial, information-creating mutations must occur, this belief seems to be based upon uncritical acceptance of the Primary Axiom [Evolution] rather than upon actual evidence. I do not doubt there are beneficial mutations, but it is clear they are exceedingly rare - much too rare for genome-building.
In conclusion, mutations appear to be overwhelmingly deleterious, and even when one may be classified as beneficial in some specific sense, it is still usually part of an over-all breakdown and erosion of information. As we will soon examine in greater detail, mutations, even when coupled with selection, cannot generally create new information. The types of variation created by mutation are more like the dings and scratches of life, and cannot be seen as life's spare parts (spare parts are designed). Mutations are the basis for the aging of individuals, and right now they are leading to our death, both yours and mine. Unless selection can somehow stop the erosion of information in the human genome, mutations will not only lead to our personal death, they will lead to the death of our species. We will soon see that natural selection must be able to simultaneously select against extremely large numbers of nearly-neutral nucleotide mutations in order to prevent genomic degeneration."
Sanders and Bergman have identified the problem facing those who promote the evolutionary paradigm. The very mechanism required by the paradigm is not observed in science. Mutations which add information are not evident. Little wonder advocates of evolution struggle when asked to give an example of a mutation adding information to the genome.
It is to be hoped that there will be an outbreak of honesty and the public informed of the genetic reality that humanity is not evolving to a higher state. Rather, it is deteriorating to extinction and, as explained by Dr. Sanders in his book, we are unable to prevent this.
Neil
(* Bergman, J. 2004. Research on the deterioration of the genome and Darwinism: why mutations result in degeneration of the genome. Intelligent design Conference, Biola University. April 22-23.)
I have thought a little more about it and, with particular consideration of Professor Richard Dawkins, I now declare there can be moments of goodness from Atheists. Experience now tells me this.
Since writing my blog I had occasion to read a super book "Genetic Entropy & The Mystery of the Human Genome" written by Dr. J. C. Sanders, Cornell University Professor for more than 25 years.
One section of the book took my thoughts immediately to an interview of Richard Dawkins in a DVD called "From a Frog to a Prince." During the interview Professor Dawkins was asked to give an established example of a mutation actually adding information to an organism. There followed an extended period of silence with the camera showing Professor Dawkins thinking hard for eleven or more seconds without providing an example. I understand the period of silence had to be edited down because it actually went much longer and this did not facilitate good production ends. His eventual answer was no answer at all.
What was Professor Dawkins to do in this situation? He did not have knowledge of a mutation which added information. He was on camera, expected to have an answer and exposed to potential embarrassment. Time was passing at an agonizing rate. To his great credit Professor Dawkins was not prepared to fudge an example. He would not lie his way out of this dilemma. Silence in this situation was commendable and all the more so because you can see from the DVD that he was really trying to think of an example.
I hope readers will agree with my view that the actions of Professor Dawkins in the situation were praiseworthy.
Returning now to the writing of Dr. Sanders I quote an excerpt which underlines the difficulty Professor Dawkins had in producing an example of a mutation adding information to an organism. On pages 26 & 27 of his book Dr. Sanders says the following:
"Bergman (2004)* reviewed the topic of beneficial mutations. Among other things, he did a simple literature search via Biological Abstracts and Medline. He found 453,732 "mutation" hits, but among these only 186 mentioned the word "beneficial" (about 4 in 10,000). When those 186 references were reviewed, the presumed beneficial mutations were only beneficial in a very narrow sense and consistently involved loss-of-function (loss of information)changes. He was unable to find a single example of a mutation which unambiguously created new information. While it is almost universally accepted that beneficial, information-creating mutations must occur, this belief seems to be based upon uncritical acceptance of the Primary Axiom [Evolution] rather than upon actual evidence. I do not doubt there are beneficial mutations, but it is clear they are exceedingly rare - much too rare for genome-building.
In conclusion, mutations appear to be overwhelmingly deleterious, and even when one may be classified as beneficial in some specific sense, it is still usually part of an over-all breakdown and erosion of information. As we will soon examine in greater detail, mutations, even when coupled with selection, cannot generally create new information. The types of variation created by mutation are more like the dings and scratches of life, and cannot be seen as life's spare parts (spare parts are designed). Mutations are the basis for the aging of individuals, and right now they are leading to our death, both yours and mine. Unless selection can somehow stop the erosion of information in the human genome, mutations will not only lead to our personal death, they will lead to the death of our species. We will soon see that natural selection must be able to simultaneously select against extremely large numbers of nearly-neutral nucleotide mutations in order to prevent genomic degeneration."
Sanders and Bergman have identified the problem facing those who promote the evolutionary paradigm. The very mechanism required by the paradigm is not observed in science. Mutations which add information are not evident. Little wonder advocates of evolution struggle when asked to give an example of a mutation adding information to the genome.
It is to be hoped that there will be an outbreak of honesty and the public informed of the genetic reality that humanity is not evolving to a higher state. Rather, it is deteriorating to extinction and, as explained by Dr. Sanders in his book, we are unable to prevent this.
Neil
(* Bergman, J. 2004. Research on the deterioration of the genome and Darwinism: why mutations result in degeneration of the genome. Intelligent design Conference, Biola University. April 22-23.)
Friday, April 2, 2010
"Lord Save Me!"
"During the fourth watch of the night Jesus went out to them, walking on the lake. When the disciples saw him walking on the lake, they were terrified. 'It's a ghost,' they said, and cried out in fear.
But Jesus immediately said to them: 'Take courage! It is I, Don't be afraid.'
'Lord if it's you,' Peter replied, 'tell me to come to you on the water.'
'Come,' he said
Then Peter got down out of the boat, walked on the water and came toward Jesus. But when he saw the wind, he was afraid and, beginning to sink, cried out, 'Lord, save me!'
Immediately Jesus reached out his hand and caught him. 'You of little faith,' he said, 'why did you doubt?'
And when they climbed into the boat, the wind died down. Then those who were in the boat worshiped him, saying, 'Truly you are the Son of God.'
Matthew 14:25-33 (NIV)
This is a favourite story for Sunday School children. Nevertheless, it is as much an historical event as the creation of the universe described in Genesis 1 and the crucifixion and resurrection of Jesus of Nazareth described later in Matthew's account of activities surrounding the Christ.
Truly, a miracle occurred on this otherwise normal night some 2,000 years ago in the Middle East. Laws of Physics repeatedly observed in our world tell us the event described by Matthew was out of order. The physics are just not right for men to walk on water. The choppy waters only added to the difficulty. Yet there it was, it happened and, in the mind of eye witnesses it was as much an unlikely event as we would expect today.
Laws of Physics were overridden and capacity for this rested in Jesus of Nazareth. For Simon Peter to walk on the water required faith that Jesus of Nazareth had capacity to order him to walk on the water. In declaring this, Simon Peter was declaring that it was not just a carpenter and religious teacher from Nazareth before him but one with capacity to order creation.
Simon Peter acts on his faith and is enabled to walk on the water. It is then that problems arise for him. Simon Peter begins to feel the force of the wind and its effect on the waves. His faith in the word of Jesus is eroded by the seeming strength of the natural world around him. He loses heart and begins to sink into the water. Thankfully, he knew who to call upon for help. He calls to his Lord, Jesus. It interests me that Jesus did not respond with a word of order such as "Come" as he did at the outset but instead extends his hand to pull Simon Peter up from the water. Why?
Simon Peter set out on his walk with his Lord trusting in the the word of his Lord but the influence of the world caused him to falter. His condition became a sorry example of faith to those around him. His example was a discouragement to others who may have wanted to step forward trusting in the word of the Lord. One can only imagine his colleagues becoming stilled in helplessness as they watched their colleague slowly sinking in the water.
As already indicated, Simon Peter had sufficient faith to know who to call to for rescue from drowning. He called to his Lord Jesus. Jesus responded in mercy but not with a word of enablement but a hand of help and a word of chastisement for Simon Peter's now exposed doubt.
I cannot help viewing this incident without seeing comparison with many Episcopalians in Sydney. They set out in their walk with the Lord Jesus Christ with a declared faith in his word but, unknown to them and to others, there exists a certain shallowness in their faith. Buffeting from the world soon exposes their weakness. They falter and prove themselves a poor example for others to trust implicitly in the word of the Lord. Many, I expect, trust sufficiently to call on the Lord to deliver them to the Father's 'safe shore' but what example have they been to others to trust in the word of the Lord? To what extent have they quenched the Spirit of the Lord? To what extent have they been a handicap to the growth of the church?
No clearer example of faltering faith in the word of our Lord is found in their treatment of Genesis 1, Exodus 20:11 and 31:17 for understanding Origins. We here seldom agree with Richard Dawkins but he got it right when he recently said words to the effect of "The writing is on the wall for those who try to make the Bible compatible with Evolution." The notion of Evolution is a dead hand for Christians. It is, as Richard Dawkins says, incompatible with the Bible. To embrace it exposes a distrust in the word of God.
The utterances of God in Exodus 20:11 and 31:17 are as much unmistakable and authoritive as our Lord Jesus Christ's utterance recorded in Matthew 14:29 wherein he says "Come."
Sam Drucker
But Jesus immediately said to them: 'Take courage! It is I, Don't be afraid.'
'Lord if it's you,' Peter replied, 'tell me to come to you on the water.'
'Come,' he said
Then Peter got down out of the boat, walked on the water and came toward Jesus. But when he saw the wind, he was afraid and, beginning to sink, cried out, 'Lord, save me!'
Immediately Jesus reached out his hand and caught him. 'You of little faith,' he said, 'why did you doubt?'
And when they climbed into the boat, the wind died down. Then those who were in the boat worshiped him, saying, 'Truly you are the Son of God.'
Matthew 14:25-33 (NIV)
This is a favourite story for Sunday School children. Nevertheless, it is as much an historical event as the creation of the universe described in Genesis 1 and the crucifixion and resurrection of Jesus of Nazareth described later in Matthew's account of activities surrounding the Christ.
Truly, a miracle occurred on this otherwise normal night some 2,000 years ago in the Middle East. Laws of Physics repeatedly observed in our world tell us the event described by Matthew was out of order. The physics are just not right for men to walk on water. The choppy waters only added to the difficulty. Yet there it was, it happened and, in the mind of eye witnesses it was as much an unlikely event as we would expect today.
Laws of Physics were overridden and capacity for this rested in Jesus of Nazareth. For Simon Peter to walk on the water required faith that Jesus of Nazareth had capacity to order him to walk on the water. In declaring this, Simon Peter was declaring that it was not just a carpenter and religious teacher from Nazareth before him but one with capacity to order creation.
Simon Peter acts on his faith and is enabled to walk on the water. It is then that problems arise for him. Simon Peter begins to feel the force of the wind and its effect on the waves. His faith in the word of Jesus is eroded by the seeming strength of the natural world around him. He loses heart and begins to sink into the water. Thankfully, he knew who to call upon for help. He calls to his Lord, Jesus. It interests me that Jesus did not respond with a word of order such as "Come" as he did at the outset but instead extends his hand to pull Simon Peter up from the water. Why?
Simon Peter set out on his walk with his Lord trusting in the the word of his Lord but the influence of the world caused him to falter. His condition became a sorry example of faith to those around him. His example was a discouragement to others who may have wanted to step forward trusting in the word of the Lord. One can only imagine his colleagues becoming stilled in helplessness as they watched their colleague slowly sinking in the water.
As already indicated, Simon Peter had sufficient faith to know who to call to for rescue from drowning. He called to his Lord Jesus. Jesus responded in mercy but not with a word of enablement but a hand of help and a word of chastisement for Simon Peter's now exposed doubt.
I cannot help viewing this incident without seeing comparison with many Episcopalians in Sydney. They set out in their walk with the Lord Jesus Christ with a declared faith in his word but, unknown to them and to others, there exists a certain shallowness in their faith. Buffeting from the world soon exposes their weakness. They falter and prove themselves a poor example for others to trust implicitly in the word of the Lord. Many, I expect, trust sufficiently to call on the Lord to deliver them to the Father's 'safe shore' but what example have they been to others to trust in the word of the Lord? To what extent have they quenched the Spirit of the Lord? To what extent have they been a handicap to the growth of the church?
No clearer example of faltering faith in the word of our Lord is found in their treatment of Genesis 1, Exodus 20:11 and 31:17 for understanding Origins. We here seldom agree with Richard Dawkins but he got it right when he recently said words to the effect of "The writing is on the wall for those who try to make the Bible compatible with Evolution." The notion of Evolution is a dead hand for Christians. It is, as Richard Dawkins says, incompatible with the Bible. To embrace it exposes a distrust in the word of God.
The utterances of God in Exodus 20:11 and 31:17 are as much unmistakable and authoritive as our Lord Jesus Christ's utterance recorded in Matthew 14:29 wherein he says "Come."
Sam Drucker
Sunday, February 7, 2010
Oops! There Goes Another 'Proof' For Evolution.
'Interesting to note the undoing of the case for the alleged missing link "Tiktaalik" through the finding of tetrapod footprints dated some '18 million years'* prior to the alleged existence of "Tiktaalik ." See http://biblicalgeology.net/blog/archives/193
This undoing has received nothing near the publicity of the orchestrated announcement of the discovery of the "Tiktaalik" fossil. Why?
May I suggest that it makes many proponents of the paradigm of evolution somewhat red-faced. One notable atheist, Richard Dawkins, went so far as to include "Tiktaalik" in his recent book "The Greatest Show on Earth" with the comment "the perfect missing link—perfect, because it almost exactly splits the difference between fish and amphibian, and perfect because it is missing no longer."
Once again, Richard Dawkins has been left exposed as lacking evidence for his views on the origin of life. No wonder the atheists conducting a conference in Melbourne, Australia in March, this year, are fearful of a debate between a Biblical Creationist and their 'great high priest.'
This sort of information is seldom known by Sydney Episcopalians who have adopted Theistic Evolution as their defence position. They only read the announcements promoting the original 'find' which they believe affirms their (false) doctrine. They thus know nothing of the later unravelling of the alleged 'find.' In doing this they show their preparedness to "run with the hounds" instead of the Word of God.
* We do not accept as reliable the assumptions which undergird the dating of rocks in much of science today. We would therefore dispute the dates assigned to the alleged "missing link" and the "earlier" tetrapod footprints. What we note here is the undoing of the original claims about "Tiktaalik" through the proponents own dating method.
Sam Drucker
This undoing has received nothing near the publicity of the orchestrated announcement of the discovery of the "Tiktaalik" fossil. Why?
May I suggest that it makes many proponents of the paradigm of evolution somewhat red-faced. One notable atheist, Richard Dawkins, went so far as to include "Tiktaalik" in his recent book "The Greatest Show on Earth" with the comment "the perfect missing link—perfect, because it almost exactly splits the difference between fish and amphibian, and perfect because it is missing no longer."
Once again, Richard Dawkins has been left exposed as lacking evidence for his views on the origin of life. No wonder the atheists conducting a conference in Melbourne, Australia in March, this year, are fearful of a debate between a Biblical Creationist and their 'great high priest.'
This sort of information is seldom known by Sydney Episcopalians who have adopted Theistic Evolution as their defence position. They only read the announcements promoting the original 'find' which they believe affirms their (false) doctrine. They thus know nothing of the later unravelling of the alleged 'find.' In doing this they show their preparedness to "run with the hounds" instead of the Word of God.
* We do not accept as reliable the assumptions which undergird the dating of rocks in much of science today. We would therefore dispute the dates assigned to the alleged "missing link" and the "earlier" tetrapod footprints. What we note here is the undoing of the original claims about "Tiktaalik" through the proponents own dating method.
Sam Drucker
Wednesday, August 5, 2009
Expelled
Warwick alerted readers here to the film "Expelled" produced by Ben Stein. I had the opportunity to see it tonight.
It runs for about 90 mins and because the group of friends I was with had a lot of things to do on the night we decided we would watch 45 mins tonight and the remainder another night. However, so riveting was it that we watched it all the way through in one sitting.
Ben Stein is such a disarming interviewer he got opponents of Intelligent Design to expose their motives and the paucity of their explanation of evolution by natural selection as the means of the origin of life. It is clear that the paradigm is sustained by rhetoric and not evidence.
Of particular interest is the last few minutes of the film when Richard Dawkins, the guru of world atheism, is interviewed. I won't spoil it for those who haven't seen it yet, suffice to say that Richard Dawkins was interviewed in "From a Frog to a Prince" and "Expelled" and unwittingly does a hatchet job on the paradigm of evolution. All one has to do with this guy is ask the logical questions rather than ask "Dorothy Dixers!"
I thoroughly recommend "Expelled" for viewing.
Neil
It runs for about 90 mins and because the group of friends I was with had a lot of things to do on the night we decided we would watch 45 mins tonight and the remainder another night. However, so riveting was it that we watched it all the way through in one sitting.
Ben Stein is such a disarming interviewer he got opponents of Intelligent Design to expose their motives and the paucity of their explanation of evolution by natural selection as the means of the origin of life. It is clear that the paradigm is sustained by rhetoric and not evidence.
Of particular interest is the last few minutes of the film when Richard Dawkins, the guru of world atheism, is interviewed. I won't spoil it for those who haven't seen it yet, suffice to say that Richard Dawkins was interviewed in "From a Frog to a Prince" and "Expelled" and unwittingly does a hatchet job on the paradigm of evolution. All one has to do with this guy is ask the logical questions rather than ask "Dorothy Dixers!"
I thoroughly recommend "Expelled" for viewing.
Neil
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)
Posts
