Tony Breeden: I Call It Fascism: A Critique of the British Humanist Association’s “Teach Evolution, Not Creationism” Position Statement

Secular humanists, atheists and evolution enforcement groups [posing as "science advocacy groups"] have given up scientific debate. Instead they’ve resorted to a more fascist approach: mockery and legal suppression of alternative theories or dissent from Darwin in any form. Now they want even more, and what they want would make Galileo turn over in his grave.

A few days ago, I wrote an article called Evolution Is the Only Scientific Theory That Needs Laws To Protect It, in which I drew attention to efforts by the British Humanist Association and a handful of evolutionist, including misotheist Richard Dawkins, regarding science education in UK schools. In essence they want microbes-to-man evolution taught exclusively and uncritically in all UK schools, and, since they do in fact believe the Biblical axiom of Proverbs 22:6 (“Train up a child in the way he should go: and when he is old, he will not depart from it”), they want our children indoctrinated in evolutionary dogma at an earlier age.

Now, as promised, I will dissect the position statement being promoted by the BHA to demonstrate the fallacies of logic contained therein.

It’s ironic, but I cannot even get past the title of their effort, “Teach Evolution, Not Creationism,” without having to caution my readers against a trick of rhetoric. By contrasting the term “evolution” with “creation-ISM,” the authors of this position statement have given us a question-begging epitaph. A fair presentation of the issue would have read, “Teach Evolution, Not Creation,” or even, “Teach Evolutionism, not Creationism,” but the BHA did not wish to put the creation origins framework on equal footing with evolution, so they added the “-ism” to their opponent’s position to make it seem less credible. It really doesn’t bode well when even the title begs the question.

Continue reading "Tony Breeden: I Call It Fascism: A Critique of the British Humanist Association’s “Teach Evolution, Not Creationism” Position Statement"

Dr. D. A. Carson – The Worldview Clash

In this article, Dr. D. A. Carson argues that in our evangelism we need to confront people with the ‘big story’ of the Bible. From an article originally published in Southern Cross Quarterly.

Don’t worry me with questions of culture, or the receptivity of hearers, fraormeworks, or worldviews, just let me get on and preach the gospel…

This is a complaint we often hear and part of me wants to sympathize with it. It is crucial that we learn the gospel and proclaim it. But it is also vitally important to understand that the people to whom we speak bring with them their own particular prejudices, backgrounds and biases. The way we go about communicating the gospel will need to vary depending on the audience.

Of course the gospel is the power of God for salvation, and evangelism is a spiritual activity. People are blinded by sin and it is the Holy Spirit who compels belief. However, if the example of Paul is anything to go by, we must address the cultural presuppositions of our hearers so that we do not unwittingly obscure the gospel.

Paul’s speech to the Athenians in Acts 17:22-31 is the longest sermon recorded in the New Testament where a Christian is evangelizing people who do not have any knowledge of the Bible. (Compare this with Paul’s sermon in Pisidian Antioch in Acts 13 where he is evangelizing people who are familiar with Judaism.) In Athens, he is dealing with people who have never heard of Moses, never read the Old Testament, and are clearly polytheists. They had a different worldview.

Today, in the West, we are in a similar situation. Increasingly, we are dealing with people who are biblically illiterate and hold a modernist or postmodern worldview (or perhaps a combination of both). Up until fairly recently we could presuppose that 80 to 95 per cent of our hearers had a Judeo-Christian worldview, or at least were informed by it. Accordingly, if we were dealing with an atheist we were dealing with a ‘Christian atheist’ in the sense that the type of God this atheist disbelieved in was the Christian God. Accordingly, in evangelism one could explain the significance of the death and resurrection of Jesus and the need for repentance and it would be fairly well understood. Continue reading “Dr. D. A. Carson – The Worldview Clash”

James Stambaugh – Creation’s Original Diet and the Changes at the Fall

Creation’s Original Diet and the Changes at the Fall

by James Stambaugh

August 1, 1991

The declaration of God in Genesis 1:31 was His signal to observe that everything in existence was there by His design. Those who believe God used evolution (or another naturalistic process) as the agent of creation must believe that death, cruelty, suffering, scarcity, and the food chain were a part of that design. If we accept this, then we must say that God was the creator of these evils.

However, one might ask, ‘Does the Bible teach that resource scarcity and the current food chain were an essential part of the finished creation?’

There are many who contend that these things were in operation then. They are even so bold to suggest that this is the correct interpretation of the biblical record.

I intend to show here the relationship that resource scarcity and the modern food chain have with the diet of the finished creation. Theistic evolutionists, and those who accept other naturalistic theories, usually assume that animals and man have always eaten meat. Yet the Bible presents to us a vastly different story. Therefore, the diet of the finished creation will be examined to see how it is different from the diet of today.

Finally, this study will venture off into an area of speculation. When God finished His work of creation there was an idyllic, harmonious existence between earth, animals, and man. The world that we observe today is not very idyllic, and it is certainly not very harmonious. The questions of why this came about, and what kind of change resulted will be raised and an answer proposed.

We have very little information concerning the original diet of mankind and animals in the Garden of Eden. If one were to accept a naturalistic theory for the origin of animals, then one must believe that mankind and their animal ancestors have always been carnivorous. Yet God clearly said, in Genesis 1:29–30, that both men and animals were to eat only vegetation. This was certainly part of the creation being [very good], and was God’s best for His creation. Continue reading “James Stambaugh – Creation’s Original Diet and the Changes at the Fall”

Death: Evolution vs. Creation

This week’s illustration, ‘Evolution – Creation’, includes five Bible verse illustrations: Romans 5:12; 1 Corinthians 15:21-22; 1 Corinthians 15:26; Genesis 1:29-30; Genesis 9:3.

This picture illustrates the fact that if someone believes in millions of years of Earth’s history and/or evolution, then death, bloodshed, disease, and suffering occurred before man’s existence. However, if someone believes in the Creation account as written in the book of Genesis, then death, bloodshed, disease, and suffering of man and animals is a consequence of sin.

If a person takes the Bible consistently from Genesis to Revelation, interpreting Scripture with Scripture, then he or she really can come to no other conclusion than death, bloodshed, disease, and suffering of the ‘nephesh’ animals and man is a consequence of sin.

Genesis 1:29-30 makes it obvious that originally, animals and man were vegetarian. Some would say therefore that plants died before sin. However, the Bible in Genesis 1 makes it clear that animals and man have a ‘nephesh’—that is, a ‘life spirit,’ or soul. Plants do not have this. Plants were given for food—they are not living in the same sense that animals are. Man was told he could eat animals after the Flood in Genesis 9:3. Romans 5:12 and 1 Corinthians 15:21-22 make it clear that death came into the world because of sin.

Some people try to say that this death only refers to man, and not to the animals. However, it is clear from taking the whole of Scripture that animals were vegetarian (like man) before the Fall, and understanding the Biblical doctrine of the atonement (as will be discussed in a future illustration) there could be no animal death or bloodshed before the Fall either.

1 Corinthians 15:26 calls death an enemy. Death is an intrusion. Some try to make out that this death is only ‘spiritual’ death and not ‘physical’ death. However, the Bible verses cited make it clear that Christ’s death on the Cross is related to the death that came into the world because of the first man’s sin. This was a physical death. When Adam sinned, man died spiritually in the sense that he was separated from God, and he also began to die physically.

Greg Koukl – Evolution: Philosophy, Not Science

Evolution – Philosophy, Not Science

Greg shows that Darwin’s General Theory of Evolution has nothing to do with science.

I’m mystified by the opening sentence of an article in Friday’s Union Tribune (October 25, 1996). It says, “In his most comprehensive statement yet on evolution, Pope John Paul II insisted that faith and science can co-exist.”

So far, so good. I agree with the Pope wholeheartedly on this first point. If you heard my opening address at our conference on Science and Faith, you’d know why I think they can co-exist if they are properly defined. (How science and faith are defined is an important part of answering the question.)

The real question is whether the evidence supports evolution or not, not whether we can baptize evolution with the word “God” so Christians feel comfortable.

I part ways with the Pope in his next statement. He said that “Charles Darwin’s theories are sound as long as they take into account that creation was the work of God.”

That’s an odd thing to say, it seems to me. I mean no disrespect here at all to Pope John Paul II. But doesn’t that strike you as odd? It seems to me that Charles Darwin’s theories–scientific theories, theories about the origins and development of things–are either sound or not sound. If they’re not sound, you can’t baptize them by bringing God into the picture and miraculously make them sound. And if they are sound in themselves, then you don’t need to add God to make them work, do you? It’s already doing fine on its own. Which is the point of evolution: mother nature without father God.

I don’t think evolution works at all. I don’t think Charles Darwin’s theories are sound, so I’m not in the least bit tempted to baptize them with some form of theistic evolution. Continue reading “Greg Koukl – Evolution: Philosophy, Not Science”

Anthony Buzzard – Christians and Heaven

CHRISTIANS AND HEAVEN
by Anthony Buzzard

“Heaven in the Bible is nowhere the destination of the dying.” — Cambridge biblical scholar, J.A.T. Robinson

“No Bible text authorizes the statement that the soul is separated from the body at death.” — the celebrated Interpreter’s Dictionary of the Bible (Vol. 1, p. 803)

Why do we Christians talk such nonsense about our Christian destiny? On every hand we hear talk of “going to heaven when you die,” “gaining kingdoms in the sky” and “passing away” or “passing on” at death. With all this familiar language we comfort ourselves with the belief that the dead have departed to be with God in His heavenly realm. We hope to survive death and join them there.

Shouldn’t we pause a moment and ask ourselves reflectively: Where does all this “heaven-going” language come from?

Certainly not from the Bible. What, for example, did the prophet Daniel, one of the heroic, faithful men of God, expect at death? The angel told him:

“Go your way to the end of your life; then you will enter into rest and rise again for your allotted portion at the end of the age” (Dan. 12:13).

Death for Daniel was to be a rest in the dust of the ground (see Dan. 12:2, where the same divine messenger described the condition of the dead as “sleeping in the earth”) followed by a rising, that is, resurrection “at the end of the age.”

There is no word here about Daniel’s soul going to heaven to be conscious in heavenly bliss. Instead Daniel was to repose in death and eventually, at the end of the age, to arise to new life. But for what purpose? Continue reading “Anthony Buzzard – Christians and Heaven”

Anthony Buzzard – What Happens When We Die? A Biblical View of Death and Resurrection

If contemporary secular society has retained a flicker of interest in any department of religion, it is surely in the question of life after death—if only to provide answers for inquiring youngsters. Faith in the reality of life beyond the grave seems to be faltering, since an article in the NOW magazine of
December, 1979 quoted the astonishing statistic that 50% of those who claim to be Christians and churchgoing members of the Church of England do not believe in an afterlife! And yet, in New Testament terms, Christianity without a belief in the afterlife represents an absurd contradiction. Indeed, the tendency to doubt the future resurrection of the faithful called forth some of Paul’s most forceful words. To the church at Corinth he wrote:

First and foremost, I handed on to you the facts which had been imparted to me: that Christ died for our sins, in accordance with the
Scriptures; that he was buried; that he was raised to life on the third day, according to the Scriptures; and that he appeared to Cephas [Peter] and afterwards to the Twelve. Then he appeared to James, and afterwards to all the apostles. In the end he appeared even to me…This is what we all proclaim,
and this is what you believed. Now if this is what we proclaim, that Christ was raised from the dead, how can some of you say that there is no resurrection of the dead? If there be no resurrection, then Christ was not raised; and if Christ was not raised, then our gospel is null and void, and so is your faith; and we turn out to be lying witnesses for God, because we bore witness that he raised Christ to life, whereas, if the dead are not
raised, he did not raise him. For if the dead are not raised, it follows that Christ was not raised; and if Christ was not raised, your faith has
nothing in it and you are still in your old state of sin. It follows also that those who have died within Christ’s fellowship are utterly lost. If it is for this life only that Christ has given us hope, we of all men are most to be pitied (1 Cor. 15:3-8, 11-19, NEB).

Continue Reading

Steve Moyise – The Old Testament in Paul

The Old Testament in Paul

Paul’s letters contain about 100 explicit quotations, concentrated in Romans (60), Corinthians (27) and Galatians (10). There are also five quotations in Ephesians and two in the Pastoral epistles but as many scholars think these were written in Paul’s name, they will be treated separately. It is of some interest that there are no explicit quotations in Philippians and Thessalonians, though they are not devoid of allusions (e.g. Phil 2.11). The most frequently quoted books are Isaiah, Psalms, Genesis and Deuteronomy. In the analysis below, I have attempted to group the quotations under the following headings:

God’s plan to include Gentiles
The faith of Abraham
Israel’s blindness
The mystery of election
The character of God
Jesus Christ
Adam
Atonement
The Christian life
New and old

This gives a good sense of the themes treated by Paul but it is also important to read through Romans, Galatians and Corinthians to see how they the quotations sequentially, as the argument unfolds. Because we are dealing with a large number of quotations, we will not have space in this chapter for a separate section on allusions. We will, however, comment on a number of allusions as they effect the argument of particular books (e.g. the references to Adam). Continue reading “Steve Moyise – The Old Testament in Paul”