Theistic Evolution: A Sinful Compromise

John Otis, pastor of an RPCUS church in Burlington, North Carolina, has written a book on theistic evolution, Theistic Evolution: A Sinful Compromise, based on a series of lectures. His purpose in writing the book was to alert believers, and especially elders, to the danger that theistic evolution (TE) poses to the church:

A word of exhortation is needed to my fellow ruling and teaching elders: 

What is one of our foremost duties as elders? It is to protect God’s precious sheep from the wolves in sheep’s clothing that will devour the flock if they could. … Do I lump all those together as wolves who are not advocating a view of creation as presented in our Confessional Standards? Not exactly, some are far worse than others. … Those that I am really addressing are those who do advocate an evolutionary view, who do believe that man did evolve from lower forms of life, who do teach that God used this means to “create.” These men are the ones who must be silenced; they are disturbing families. In obeying Jude 3, we elders must earnestly contend for the Faith once for all delivered to the saints. This is my purpose (5-6).

Pastor Otis begins his book by considering what Scripture teaches regarding creation, creation days, and the chronologies. From there he moves on to a history of Darwin and evolutionary thought. Lastly, he spends several chapters on what he calls “Compromisers.” He takes time throughout those chapters to address specific concerns about the teachings of specific organizations and individuals.   Continue at Rachel Miller

ACLU Needs Legislation to Protect Its Anti-God Religion

Wake up Christians! When the American Civil Liberties Union (ACLU) is  successful in getting the Ten Commandments out of public places and the teaching of creation, the Bible, and prayer out of public schools, they did not get religion out.

They just replaced the Christian religion with their religion of atheism. They are involved in this effort again, this time in Ohio, as a Fox News report explains:

A proposal by an Ohio school district to add creationism to a list of controversial topics deemed appropriate for classroom discussion has ignited a debate over the separation of church and state among parents and a civil rights group.

The Springboro Board of Education took comments on the proposal at a meeting Thursday night attended by parents, students and teachers. Some parents urged the board to abandon the plan, and the American Civil Liberties Union of Ohio sent a letter to the board, saying the policy would violate the separation of church and state. [Read more at this link.]

I get so tired of reading the same old misrepresentations and false information from the ACLU and secular media (even from Fox News, which is less hostile towards Christianity) when it comes to the creation-evolution issue in public schools.    Continue at Ken Ham

Adam and Eve and Pinch Me

The schedule for the Gospel Coalition's biennial conference this spring is now available.  The line-up makes for interesting reading and it is definitely good to see that the question of Adam and Eve's historicity will be addressed.  It is one of the big questions in the evangelical world at this time. 

It is encouraging to see that Dr. Albert Mohler is one of the two leaders of the TGC seminar on Adam (the other being Dr. Bryan Chapell). Kudos to TGC for a very good choice.  Dr. Mohler has made it clear that evolution is not simply wrong but has gone so far as to describe it as a myth which is 'not only incompatible with any historical affirmation of Genesis, but ... also with the claim that all humanity is descended from Adam and the claim that in Adam all humanity fell into sin and guilt.'  He has also stated that '[t]he Bible's account of the Fall and its consequences is utterly incompatible with evolutionary theory.  The third chapter of Genesis is as problematic for evolutionary theory as the first two.'  In other words, he thinks that evolution excludes the biblical view of an historical Adam and therefore of original sin.  In short, consistent affirmation of evolution ultimately requires denial of the gospel. You can read the whole statement here.  As always, I appreciate Dr. Mohler's forthright candour on this issue, as on so many others.  And I find his argument on the significance of evolution for orthodox conceptions of the gospel to be persuasive, compelling and timely.   Continue at Carl Trueman

We Now Know That Lucy Said: “Duh … duh … duh”

The evolutionists are at it again! Over the years, we’ve heard a lot about “Lucy” (Australopithecus afarensis), which evolutionists believe is a relative of humans as part of the supposed evolutionary history of man. Although much of the study of Lucy’s bones has been dedicated to reconstructing her physical body, complete with exhibits and artists’ renditions that depict a human-like Lucy, a recent article in Discover magazine is taking a different approach—evolutionists are trying to reconstruct Lucy’s vocal cords to show how she would have communicated as the supposed ancestor of humans. 

At the Creation Museum, we recently unveiled a new exhibit on Lucy, which emphasizes that our “starting points” make a difference in how we interpret evidence. In our exhibit, we show that Lucy was simply an ape, probably resembling a small gorilla. We also have on display a cast of all the bones found from her body: only 47 out of 207.  Continue at Ken Ham

What’s Wrong with Theistic Evolution?

Theistic evolution, generally defined, is the belief that natural processes sustained by God’s ordinary providence were the means by which he brought about life and humanity. It often entails a common ancestry for all living things, macro-evolution, and some version of polygenesis.

William Dembski explains:

For young-earth and old-earth creationists, humans bearing the divine image were created from scratch. In other words, God did something radically new when he created us–we didn’t emerge from pre-existing organisms. On this view, fully functioning hominids having fully human bodies but lacking the divine image never existed. For most theistic evolutions, by contrast, primate ancestors evolved over several million years into hominids with fully human bodies. (God and Evolution, 91)

According to some proponents of theistic evolution Genesis 2:7 is a reference to God’s work in history whereby he made Adam into a spiritual being in the image of God, instead of the lesser sort of being he was before. This approach still insists on the historicity of Adam and Eve and their real fall in the Garden. But, on this view, Adam may not have been the first human:

According to [Denis] Alexander’s preferred model, anatomically modern humans emerged some 200,000 years ago, with language in place by 50,000 years ago. Then, around 6,000-8,000 years ago, God chose a couple of Neolithic farmers, and then he revealed himself for the first time, so constituting them as Homo divinus, the first humans to know God and be spiritually alive. (Should Christians Embrace Evolution?, 47)  Continue at Kevin DeYoung

IMAGE

Standing for Scripture Against Theistic Evolution

In 1997, Dr. Ross Anderson, who is now a professor in the Biological and Physical Sciences Department at The Master’s College, did the unthinkable in realm of secular higher education. He took a stand for the Genesis account of creation.

That stand cost him his job.

At the time, Anderson was a faculty member at Lamar University near Houston, Texas. He didn’t begin his time at Lamar as a young Earth creationist, but with God’s help, that’s where he ended.

“I was a theistic evolutionist,” Anderson says. “That’s the only way I could combine my formal education with my church education. Obviously, my church education wasn’t much, particularly in that area.”

When students asked how he fit evolution into his Christian beliefs, he gave the answer he had been trained to give—that evolution is what God used in creation. The answer was good enough for his students, but it never really sat well with Anderson.

“I was unsatisfied with my answer,” he says. “I started thinking, ‘I am the teacher now.’ All those verses about being more accountable applied to me. I didn’t want to be a stumbling block. So I asked God to reveal the truth to me on this issue.”

Anderson sought that truth on the pages of Scripture. He also began to scrutinize the “science” behind evolution. That study revealed what Anderson calls his “lack of solid knowledge of the Bible” and his “lack of knowledge about what evolution was.”   Continue at Ross Anderson

IMAGE

Perspectives on Theistic Evolution

I was interested to read Christianity Today‘s coverage of a recent Biologos conference. The attendees included forty-one scholars and pastors who hold to (or are at least sympathetic to) theistic evolution.  

Knowing that they are in a minority among Protestants did not limit the gathering’s enthusiasm. About 60 participants came by special invitation, with the proviso that their names would not be publicized without permission. This was intended to encourage open conversation on sensitive topics. Attending were such luminaries as N. T. Wright, Alister McGrath, John Ortberg, Tim Keller, Scot McKnight, Os Guinness, Joel Hunter, and Andy Crouch…This year’s program centered on concerns for the church—especially for young people who feel torn between science and the Bible…   Continue at Denny Burk

Atheists Cower in Fear of Creation Museum

The Budget Travel website recently started a contest asking people to vote on the top 15 places that kids should see before they turn 15. The Creation Museum started well. When I first saw the site, it was ranked first with about 640 votes and about 80 positive comments. Well, word got out to popular atheist PZ Myers and on Wednesday morning (2/15/12), he encouraged his blog readers to visit the site and start voting on this “awful poll” for any tourist attraction that had a chance of beating the Creation Museum (which had slipped to #2 by the time he posted). His readers (one person called them the PZombies) immediately followed his advice and started voting.

I don’t have a problem with anyone voting in the poll. They have every right to do it, and there are some fabulous places that a person can vote for in addition to the Creation Museum. However, it’s the behavior of many of these atheists that is so enlightening. As I am typing this, there are eleven fake names that have been added to mock the Creation Museum, such as the Creation Tower of Jesus, Creationism & Fairy Tales Museum, and the Creation Museum of Child Indoctrination Anti-Intellectualism.

Those fake names are the least of my concerns, although they show the immaturity of some of these atheists (for the record, I don’t believe PZ Myers encouraged his readers to add these to the list). What is far worse are the numerous comments that have been added to the Creation Museum’s link for voting. Over 500 comments have been made about the Creation Museum, but by my count, no more than 13 comments exist for any other place. The first 50 or so comments were overwhelmingly positive for the museum. That was until the atheists arrived. It’s certainly okay for people to express their opinions, so I’m not calling on anyone to ban these folks from the site. I want to use this as an example to point out their utter hypocrisy and their irrational fear of biblical creationists.   Continue at Tim Chaffey

Peter Enns on Paul, Adam, and Evolution

For Peter Enns, evolution denies the historical Adam and Eve, and that gives rise to the questions he’s trying to answer. The fact that Paul viewed Adam as the first human being has, for Enns, been shown to be wrong scientifically. Enns asserts that Paul is theologically right on the point that Jesus defeated sin and death, but that he “may be wrong” on what caused the problem–Adam’s sin. Though he “may be wrong” on that, Enns asserts, Paul is right about sin and death and the solution. Enns says that even if Adam and Eve didn’t bit an apple, sin and death are real.

Enns seems to want to keep the theology while discarding the history as he explains: “I don’t need a historical Adam to make all that happen… I understand why Paul says what he says, cause he’s an ancient man, cause he’s a Jew.”

For Enns, the theory of evolution carries as much authority as Scripture, and it shows that Paul was wrong about Adam being the first human. Moreover, the interpretations that Paul and the other biblical authors provide of earlier Scripture are just possibilities, not necessarily correct readings that function as controls on how those earlier texts should be read.

Peter Enns is trying to combine two different religions, evolution and Christianity...  Read the rest HERE

Who’s Afraid of Noah’s Ark?

A proposal to build a theme park that would feature a life-size replica of Noah’s Ark has set off a controversy in Kentucky that is worth watching. Within days, the controversy had spread to the pages of The New York Times and USA Today.

So, who’s afraid of Noah’s Ark? Lots of folks, it seems, but the editors of the state’s two largest newspapers in particular.

The “Ark Encounter” is a major project to be undertaken by a partnership led by Answers in Genesis, the group that built the Creation Museum in northern Kentucky — an attraction that has now recorded over a million visitors by some reports. The attraction, also to be built in Kentucky, is to include live animals and a 100-ft tower of Bable. Continue Reading>>>

No Pass from Theological Responsibility — The BioLogos Conundrum

Public debate is unpredictable by nature, but I have to admit that the approach undertaken by the folks at BioLogos continues to amaze me. The BioLogos movement is a straight-forward attempt to persuade evangelical Christians to embrace some form of evolutionary theory. Organized by a group that includes Dr. Francis Collins, now the Director of the National Institutes of Health, the movement seeks to marginalize objections to evolution among conservative Christians. It offers a very sophisticated Web site and an energetic communications strategy. The BioLogos approach to the issue is now clear. They want to discredit evangelical objections to evolution and to convince the evangelical public that an acceptance of evolution is a means of furthering the Gospel. They have leveled their guns at the Intelligent Design movement, at young earth creationism, and against virtually all resistance to the embrace of evolution. They claim that the embrace of evolution is necessary if evangelicalism is not to be intellectually marginalized in the larger culture. They have warned that a refusal to embrace evolution will doom evangelicalism to the status of an intellectual cult. Continue Reading HERE