These are my comments relating to some of the articles found at www.forerunner.com.
Check back for my random thoughts on eschatology, world missions, God's Law and Society, theonomy, Christian Reconstruction, pro-life activism, evangelism testimonies, Neo-Puritan theology and social theory, revival and spiritual awakening, church history, and so on.
Five evolutionary "deal breakers" that would disprove Christianity
My faith in Jesus Christ is real, not because I believe, but because God sovereignly regenerated me and gave me the gift of faith.
Truth is transcendent and is not subject to the "proofs" of our rational thought processes.
At the same time I am a reasonable person. If someone could offer incontrovertible evidence that the message of the Gospel was false, I'd be obliged to believe it. Of course, as a finite being, I could be deceived into believing anything. But given the handicap of limited knowledge, I am forced to believe what is rational, reasonable and logical to me.
I believe that God is perfectly rational, logical and reasonable. In any case, I know for a fact that world I live in is a rational ordered universe that is subject to universal natural laws.
I can think of five "deal breakers" by which evolutionary theory would render orthodox Christianity meaningless. I might still believe in a "God" if these evolutionary deal breakers could be demonstrated to be factual. But it could not be the God of the Bible incarnate in Jesus Christ.
If evolution is true, there is no original sin. If there is no original sin, Jesus' death on the cross was an arbitrary event. It might serve as an example to us, but it could never be a source of redemption and salvation.
The Five Deal Breakers
1. Prove by the laws of physics that the material universe suddenly appeared out of nothing. Or prove that the universe always existed.
2. Prove that life can be synthesized out of non-life by creating a cell in a laboratory.
3. Bio-engineer a new life form that is a totally different genus from the original.
4. Prove hominid evolution. In other words, humans are genetically human. Apes are genetically apes. There is a huge gulf. Prove a third form existed that bridges the gap. It can be neither genetically human or ape.
5. Discover life on other planets that could not have come from earth -- especially highly developed or sentient life forms.
Any of these would disprove the Genesis account as being factual and would prove that evolution is not only possible but probable.
In fact, I plan to eventually propose 21 of these "deal breakers."
I'd like these to forever be known as "Jay Roger's 21 Deal Breakers."
I'll let them stand for 113 years.
By 2121 A.D. if none of "Jay Roger's 21 Deal Breakers" can be demonstrated soundly, I propose that the Darwinian theory of evolution be buried once and for all.
As an observer, I have never seen so many extremes in reviews. Virtually either an "A" or an "F". No middle ground. This makes me really want to see this movie. Especially the F reactions are so extreme and closed minded that Stein must really punch their button. I gotta see this baby !!!
It's amazing that so many reviews here run in one or two directions. The ability to make a certain segment either hate or love a film is a sign of a good film. It just reveals the worldview that you are coming from -- if you hate it, it is because it exposes your worldview in a negative light, not because it's a bad film.
Below is a clip from one of the most powerful and controversial parts of the film.
Now here is atheist Richard Dawkins responding to the one of the film's premises that social Darwinism was at the heart of Nazi eugenics and the Holocaust.
.. natural selection is a good object lesson in how NOT to organize a society. As I have often said before, as a scientist I am a passionate Darwinian. But as a citizen and a human being, I want to construct a society which is about as un-Darwinian as we can make it. I approve of looking after the poor (very un-Darwinian). I approve of universal medical care (very un-Darwinian). It is one of the classic philosophical fallacies to derive an 'ought' from an 'is.' -- Richard Dawkins
Note that Dawkins doesn't deny that Hitler's attempt to breed a "master race" isn't logically derived from Darwinism. He simply says that we must not be Darwinists in this one instance. He doesn't explain how his rejection of Darwinism based on ethics is any different from the criticism of Darwinism by Christians who reject the idea of evolution as a random process without a Designer. At least the Christians are logically consistent.
I saw a preview screening of it and it's excellent. It is opening on a limited release of 1000 screens around the country. For a documentary, that's a record. It even beats Algore's and Michael Moore's films for the largest weekend opening. Christians who believe in the inerrancy of scripture are duty bound to support it by buying up a lot of theater tickets to ensure it gets a wider screening and a longer run.
I suggest that you make an outing of it and invite your friends this weekend. You can go to http://www.expelledthemovie.com/ to see where it is playing at a theater near you.
For the past few months, I've been doing a Tuesday night Internet radio show with a few friends on http://christianhillbilly.com/. If you want to come on and discuss controversial issues, it is a fun and profitable way to spend an hour. You just need a Skype account, which takes about two minutes to set up at http://skype.com/. Last Tuesday, we discussed Ben Stein's EXPELLED, showed a few clips, and answered questions and objections. The chat room was packed and we had more listeners than since I started with this.
Or if you'd just like to listen in next Tuesday, the show What Do You Believe? is from 9 to 10 pm EDT.
- Jay Rogers
_________________________________________
RANDOM AFTER THOUGHT: I sent the above email out to a few dozen friends and a couple of them took exception because I wrote that "Christians are duty bound" to see this movie. I suppose I could be accused of hyperbole, but I have always believed Christians are duty bound to support the arts. Back before the separation of church and state, in Christian countries, the church got tithe money directly from taxes collected by the state to support the sicences, the arts, missions, education, hospitals, ophanages, and so on. Now the Catholic Church still supports these things in Catholic countries. The state doles out money to the church's heirarchy who then support the church run institutions.
I don't think the state should be involved in any type of Christian welfare because as they say, "He who pays the piper calls the tune." It's also sinful and tyrannical to force taxpayers to support socialized programs they disagree with -- which is exactly what leftists force us to do today through liberal programs even though "separation of church and state" is their mantra.
Rather this responsility rests solely with churches and Christian individuals. One of the reasons why we are losing our Christian culture in Protestant countries is that the church's view has become that the civil government needs to support these institutions directly. The church does nothing but build the church. Therefore, entertainment, education, the arts and virtually every institution that shapes the hearts and minds of men is given over to crass humanism. But don't let me get up on my soapbox about this. Yes, you are duty bound to support the arts when there is a lone film in a vast sea of filth and anti-Christian degradation that seeks to uphold the truth.
Richard Dawkins and PZ Meyers expelled from EXPELLED?
I've been following the atheist blogosphere reaction to the movie EXPELLED closely. Last night, PZ Myers and Richard Dawkins tried to enter an advance screening. Myers was asked to leave by security and rushed out gleefully to blog about it. As a pro-life activist, I have to admire his moxie, but I would have gone the whole way and gotten arrested if it were his event.
There is a rich, deep kind of irony that must be shared. I'm blogging this from the Apple store in the Mall of America, because I'm too amused to want to wait until I get back to my hotel room. I went to attend a screening of the creationist propaganda movie, Expelled, a few minutes ago. Well, I tried … but I was Expelled! It was kind of weird — I was standing in line, hadn't even gotten to the point where I had to sign in and show ID, and a policeman pulled me out of line and told me I could not go in. I asked why, of course, and he said that a producer of the film had specifically instructed him that I was not to be allowed to attend. The officer also told me that if I tried to go in, I would be arrested. I assured him that I wasn't going to cause any trouble.
Here is my open letter to PZ Myers.
As a big proponent of the film EXPELLED, I don't see any irony here at all.
If anyone wants to see the Myers and Dawkins clips that badly, you can just go to my blog.
I saw the movie on Tuesday and was given a DVD with over 30 minutes of raw clips. We were told as teachers to show it in class and use it as a debate opportunity for our students to discuss the issue of censorship, and so on. Of course, they want it to go to people who will promote it and get our friends to come out to see the movie. (Yes, it's a vast right wing conspiracy!)
The DVD has the infamous PZ Myers interview in which you say your goal is to destroy or marginalize religion. (If I was really smart, I would have bought 100 of these and sold them to on EBay to militant atheists for $20 a piece as "movie contraband.")
Movie producers often do promotional test screenings before the release. Certain types of people are invited and some are not.
It would be no different if you tried to crash an advance test screening of Indiana Jones or Star Trek except the security would have been tighter. And yes, you should have been arrested if you trespassed in any private function.
On the other hand, you are making a mountain out of a molehill, the clip you wanted to see is already on my website.
What is ironic is that you can see the parts you really want to see the most -- there are numerous clips out there already -- and you are making it sound as though it's a huge conspiracy to bar you from the debate.
What is happening with EXPELLED though is that some movie reviewers want to crash the gates early so they can pan the film and pronounce it DOA -- as did Roger Moore (no, not 007 -- he would have gotten in) the Orlando Sentinel reviewer.
It strikes me as odd because most reviewers who are allowed into advance screenings have the professional courtesy not to publish their reviews until the week the movie premieres. No such courtesy here. The political stakes are too high.
The MAIN reason the media is not invited to these screenings is because the film is in raw form and is not ready for the general public yet. We saw a high-res DVD version that was not quite cinema quality.
All the secrecy and the buzz is working toward a big box office. I know all you anti-ID-ers are warming your insides over this imagined "incident," but how does it really work in your favor?
Controversy sells. More people are going to see the movie as a result. That's what we all want, right?
If I didn't believe in a higher intelligent design, I'd see it as a great cosmic irony.
ADDED at 10:55 am: See Jeff Overstreet's account of Dawkin's protest during the movie.
Yesterday, I went to the movie theater in Orlando’s Downtown Disney, about seven miles from my home, to see an advance screening of Expelled: No Intelligence Allowed with Ben Stein. The film opens on 1000 screens in a limited release on April 18th. Stein’s documentary begins with a survey of university professors who were either fired, denied tenure or otherwise "expelled" for using their academic credentials as a platform for discussing Intelligent Design (I.D.) with their classes, publishing articles or just linking to I.D. websites.
This movie is a “must see” for anyone who cares about the first amendment right to free speech in the public market place of ideas. Hopefully, a successful opening will spur the documentary to run across thousands of more screens in North America and the world.
The thrust of Stein’s exposé is that academic debate on I.D. is being squelched by a scientific elite who nevertheless admit that they have no settled theory on how the original living cell could have arisen spontaneously. More dramatically, the film shows that the same evolutionary philosophy that denies intelligent design in the universe is at the heart of moral relativism, eugenics, genocide, euthanasia and abortion on demand.
One of the most powerful vignettes in the movie occurs when Stein, a conservative Jew, tours one of the Nazi prison camps where thousands of people were gassed and incinerated. The woman giving the tour refuses to make any moral judgments about Hitler or the Nazi officers in charge of the genocide campaign even when pressed by Stein to give her opinion.
Without a Creator or an Intelligent Designer there is no real basis for holding an objective opinion on morality. “Might makes right” becomes the moral force for the advancement of humanity even when “inferior” minorities and the handicapped are selected for extermination. The film proves that the Nazi eugenicists were fueled by a radical social Darwinism. Yes, Hitler really believed he was working for the good of mankind.
Another long needed yet neglected topic briefly explored in Expelled is the origin of birth control and abortion in our own country through eugenicist Margaret Sanger, the founder of Planned Parenthood. As a pro-life activist, I am encouraged to see this brought into public consciousness in a major film. Sanger, in fact, was a vocal advocate of eugenics. The film doesn’t delve deeply into the fact that when Sanger wanted to solve the “Negro problem” through a campaign of sterilization for black men prior to World War Two, she corresponded with Nazi eugenicists. Expelled at least cracks the cover on an ugly chapter in American history that continues today in the guise of “family planning,” a code word for the slaughter of millions of unborn babies funded in part through taxpayer support of Planned Parenthood.
Expelled also documents the fact that many well-known evolutionists see religion as a hindrance to the advance of science and openly admit they are actively working to suppress and eradicate religion in public life. The film’s point of view, of course, is that there is no incompatibility. On the contrary, the hypothesis that there might be an intelligence or an ordered design to the universe actually paves the way for better science. It inspires a passion for science in people who believe in a Creator God in some form, which happens to be over 90 percent of the American population.
The film is intellectually fascinating and moves along at a good pace. It makes hilarious use of juxtaposed "b-roll" clips from classic movies and antiquated educational documentaries to illustrate its frequent salient points. An unrelenting off-beat rhythm keeps the viewer entertained.
The most enjoyable part of the documentary for me was the interview with atheist scientist and bestselling author of The God Delusion, Richard Dawkins, who seemed nonplussed by Stein’s questions delivered with deadpan irony. The viewer of course knows that Stein is sympathetic to I.D. So it’s amusing to watch that curmudgeonly reptile Herr Dawkins squirm at Stein’s calm and deliberate interrogation. The interview results in unintentional humor that reminded me of This Is Spinal Tap or Monty Python’s “Dead Parrot Sketch.” Dawkins could not have played a better British humorist even if he had made an attempt.
“How did life begin?”
Dawkins says he doesn’t know. Of course, “no one knows” exactly how the complexity of cellular life could have arisen from non-life. But he believes it. He has to. There is no alternative.
Couldn’t it have been the Hebrew God?
Absurd!
What about the Holy Trinity? Allah? One of the Hindu gods?
Dawkins bristles with frustrated incredulity at the very idea.
Could a model that includes an intelligent designer be used at least hypothetically to explain the origin of life?
Finally, Dawkins admits a viable hypothesis of I.D. is possible. A race of higher intelligent life forms from outer space could have “seeded” the earth with life, but this higher intelligence must have evolved itself over billions of years. This, of course, is begging the question.
If this higher intelligence alien race evolved, then how did the original life form come into being in the first place?
Ironically, Dawkins refuses to consider that it could have been God who started it all because God himself could not have "sprung suddenly out of nothing."
So goes the tenor of several other evolutionary scientists who likewise refuse to admit an alternative to the Neo-Darwinist theory on the origin of life. No one really knows. One scientist hypothesizes that the first DNA molecules could have “ridden on the backs of crystals” as they were being formed.
Aliens? Crystals? An ancient mud puddle struck by lightning?
Yes ... Maybe ... Perhaps ...
God? Intelligent Design?
No!
Controversy over Dawkins’ interview was reported in a New York Times article in which he claimed he was set up by not knowing the thrust of the documentary. However, the producers gave the interviewees the list of questions beforehand and each was paid for his interview. One of the producers who attended the preview in Orlando quipped, “They all cashed their checks and no one returned the money they were paid for participating.”
Expelled spurred controversy a full year before its release. Yet no critic will be able to fault it on its quality, appeal and pure entertainment value. Aficionados of Michael Moore’s films – those diatribes that use twisted conspiracy theories and selective editing to achieve a leftwing political purpose – are already panning the film on its content alone as “propaganda.” This is, of course, hypocritical because all that Stein and his producers are asking is for a reasoned debate on I.D. and for new evidence to be considered without the risk of the questioners losing their jobs as teachers and professors.
The controversy and attacks are ironically what the producers need to stir up interest in the film. This will in turn make I.D. a viable option whose time has come. Expelled will weather a few attacks, which will give it a respectable box office return, always a better fate than to be quietly ignored. This is the same phenomenon that propelled The Passion of The Christ, The Da Vinci Code, and Fahrenheit 911 to be the highest grossing films of their genre. Apparently, the enemies of I.D. intend on making Expelled a huge success even though their de facto support is “not by intelligent design.”
Professor Benny Shanon, professor of cognitive psychology at the Hebrew University of Jerusalem, experienced a hallucinatory trip a few years ago when he participated in a tribal ceremony in the Amazon and drank a cocktail made from a plant called "ayahuasca."
This experience led him to believe that the miracles and visions Moses experienced in the Sinai desert, and presumably when Pharoah in Egypt witnessed miracles, were nothing more than delusions induced by acid trips.
"I have no direct proof of this interpretation," he says. "It seems logical that something was altered in people's consciousness. There are other stories in the Bible that mention the use of plants: for example, the tree of the knowledge of good and evil in the Garden of Eden."
Of his own drug use, Shanon says, "I experienced visions that had spiritual-religious connotations. Hypotheses have been around for 20 years connecting the beginning of religions with psychoactive materials."
The acacia tree also has psychedelic properties, according to Shanon. Acacia is mentioned frequently in the Bible. It was the type of wood from which the Ark of the Covenant was made.
Metaphysical Naturalism
Metaphysical naturalism is a worldview in which nature is all there is, and all things supernatural, such as spirits and souls, supernatural beings, miracles, and transcendent truth as taught by the Bible, do not exist.
This view is distinguished from methodological naturalism, which is a worldview that claims that the scientific method is limited to the study of the natural world, but unlike metaphysical naturalism does not deny the possibility of supernatural or paranormal phenomena.
In other words, a methodological naturalist who believes the Bible is God's inerrant Word may do so without violating the principles of science, because the scientific method cannot use natural means to study the supernatural. It is simply not the purpose of science to prove or disprove the supernatural. It's not a proper measuring tool any more than a yard stick can be used to measure barometric pressure. For instance, science can be used to tell us something about the world's geological history and it's possible origin, but it cannot ever negate the possibility of a Creation in six days.
Much of the western world has absorbed the philosophy of Enlightenment thinkers such as Hume, Kant and Hegel, who moved from a belief that the proper role of philosophy and science was to study only natural phenomena, to a presupposition that the supernatural simply does not exist.
The metaphysical naturalist rejects the supernatural from the outset and automatically discounts any belief system that includes God or a supernatural world as primitive superstition.
The common method of metaphysical naturalists when interpreting the Bible is to reject the miracles and doubt both the history and authenticity of the literature that would give any credence to eyewitness records of supernatural events. However, much of the Bible is supported by corroborating history and archaeology. It gives historical context and purports eyewitness testimony.
The metaphyscial naturalist, if he is to be consistent with a scientific trust in empirical records, has to accept that at least some of these phenomena have a basis in fact. He is left with the only option of reinterpreting the data in terms of a "scientific explanation." The Apostle John on Patmos saw visions because he ate wild mushrooms. The Ark of the Covenant shot bolts of lightning because it was a giant primitive battery. Visions and revelations are the result of psychological stress and trauma. And so on.
Hence Shanon's hypothesis. He guesses that Ten Commandments, with the voice of God heard in the "thunder," had its origin in a psychedelic experience.
Was Moses tripping when he heard the Law of God?
"But not everyone who uses a plant like this brings the Torah," Shanon concedes. "For that, you have to be Moses."
Shanon should know. He reports that since his Amazon trip, he has used the plant hundreds of times.
The consensus among most conservative Christians is that there are no aliens in outer space. This is an evolutionary idea that states that out of billions of stars there must be a few planets somewhere that could sustain the evolution of life. Much of what is currently driving NASA’s exploration of the solar system is a search for life. From a biblical creationist perspective, we will find no amoebas or bacteria on Jupiter’s moons. It is unlikely that we will even find water anywhere in our solar system other than on earth. God made the earth and he created a perfect biosphere that will indefinitely support the life he created.
But the question still remains. Is it possible that God could have created a planet that contains plants, animals and even sentient creatures similar to human beings? While the Bible is silent on this, I would negate the possibility of intelligent life on other planets.
Mark Twain wrote a science fiction story, “Captain Stormfield's Visit to Heaven,” about the idea of a heaven where thousands of aliens from every inhabited planet in the universe arrive at a heaven that was so populated that it is the size of many planets. In the story, Captain Stormfield is amazed to find out that Christ has appeared on every planet in the universe to life an exemplary life and die for that planet’s sins. He is told, “The worlds He has saved are like to the gates of heaven in number - none can count them." Twain was satirizing the Christian view of heaven in the face of the emerging evolutionary science. However, it is just as likely that a Christian view could be used to expose the impossibility of intelligent life besides ours in the univers.
This doesn’t negate, however, the possibility of worlds that have plant and animal life. It is possible that God could have created these planets on the fourth day of creation (Gen. 1:14-19). There may be worlds He created in the foreknowledge that a redeemed civilization would one day discover and colonize. Just as a millennial impulse drove the Age of Exploration in the 15th century, so a Golden Age of Christian knowledge may drive the exploration of new worlds and the settlement of new civilizations.
If the postmillennial view is correct, we can expect to one day colonize the solar system. It is likely that we will create self-sustaining biospheres – perhaps giant bubbles on the surface of the planet Mars – that will sustain life in a similar manner as on earth. It is even possible that one day we will discover a planet capable of sustaining an atmosphere and all the various species of life found on earth. Another idea is that scientists may someday be able to create a "biosphere" on another planet that would imitate the conditions on earth. Maybe a “Noah’s Ark” of future space colonists will bring the seeds of a new earth to a far distant star?
Of course this is speculation. But Christian Reconstructionists and other postmillennialists should be considering the possibilities.
If the moon and Mars were to be colonized some time in the next 100 years, how would this affect the viability of a pre-trib rapture view?
Or how about this question: How do eschatological views affect the discussion on the existence of extraterrestrial life?
This is a topic I’ve always been interested in. I am a big fan of science fiction novels and programs such as the X-Files and Star Trek. As a Christian, I see these stories as entertaining ideas, or as one science fiction writer called them, “thought experiments.” I don’t believe in UFO’s or extraterrestrials but I find the concept interesting. Even the great Christian apologist C.S. Lewis wrote a Space Trilogy, which like his Chronicles of Narnia series is an allegory relating to Christian theology.
As a high school junior, I wrote a science fiction novella about an atheist who invents a space ship capable of interstellar travel. After an argument with his wife, who is a Christian, he decides to travel to the nearest star and discovers a strange utopian civilization. When he returns to earth he discovers that the entire earth is deserted. He is left with no choice except to travel back to the utopian planet. To his surprise, he discovers that his wife and her friends are on the planet. Even though he has traveled many additional light years, they haven’t aged. The situational irony, of course, is that the rapture has occurred while he was en route to the Bernard Star solar system – which people thought at that time was the closest star capable of having a solar system. The novel ends with the realization that the distant planet was heaven. The fate of the protagonist was that he was thrown into a black hole, which according to my story, was the second death described in Revelation 21:8.
The biggest irony in all of this is that when I wrote this story, I was not converted to Christ. I had read the works of Hal Lindsey and seen TV programs on the topic of “The Terminal Generation.” I used to believe that the rapture had to be very close because the Bible spoke only of people being “caught up” in the air to meet the Lord. Once people began to explore other planets, I thought, that would throw a monkey wrench into the possibility of the rapture occurring while people were on other planets. At least I didn’t see any mention of it in the so-called “end-times” prophecies of the Bible.
Then ten years later as a new Christian, I read a book by John Jefferson Davis called, Christ’s Victorious Kingdom: Postmillennialism Reconsidered. Postmillennialism differs from the traditional premillennial view in that there is no “rapture” of the church sometime in a seven year tribulation of wars, diseases and natural calamities. Postmillennialism teaches essentially that the world will become gradually Christianized as time goes by. The Second Coming and the rapture will occur after a long Golden Age of peace and prosperity.
Today as a postmillennialist, I believe that we have enough time left in history to colonize space – and possibly one day travel to other solar systems. I don’t think we will find aliens on other worlds, but I often wonder whether or not God created some of these worlds in a way that would allow men from the planet earth to create biospheres on other planets. Is it possible that the Great Commission involves spreading the Gospel for beyond our own solar system?
I teach in a public school in Kissimmee, Florida, which is officially the most racially diverse student population in central Florida. This is a group of students many of whose parents have come to work in the tourist industry from all over the world with a huge representation from the three minority boroughs of New York: Queens, Brooklyn, the Bronx; and Roxbury and Dorchester which are the lower income minority neighborhoods of Boston.
As a suburban "metro area" Boston native, I understand the culture and the need for loving but very tough compassion with these kids. When I was in high school, I remember many students from these neighborhoods who were bussed into our predominantly white middle class Framingham North High School. Those who survived four years of high school there went on to succeed. I talked to one such success story at my 25th high school reunion, who explained that he is now the principal of an inner city Boston school that is based on a similar model. Young people who want to "get out" of their impoverished neighborhoods and succeed can do it when given the right opportunities.
In short, I see the problem of racism in our country as complex, but it can be reduced to a class problem. There is no problem with racism if we reduce it to a left-over Marxist obsession with class warfare. In fact, as a biblical literalist I do not agree with the concept of "race" at all.
Two articles I'd like to point readers to:
One is a thorough refutation of the so-called "Christian Identity" movement by my friend Andrew Sandlin. In this superb article, he argues that heavenly speaking, there only remain two races of people, the redeemed and the unredeemed.
The other is the fun and intriguing, "How Did We Get the Races?" which explains that we are all sons and daughters of Noah. Each one of us is descended from an (only!) five thousand year old ancestor who possessed every possible genetic variation of what now makes up the human race.
My faith in Jesus Christ is real, not because I believe, but because God sovereignly regenerated me and gave me the gift of faith.
