In yesterday’s post, I discussed several ways to expose the fallacies that God-deniers sometimes use to keep from being exposed when they claim:
“being an atheist simply means that there’s not sufficient evidence for your sky daddy“
It’s not uncommon for them to try to bluster their way to an online argument victory. So listen to their claims and hold them to account for their assertions. When they have to “show their cards”, it’s unsuited 3, 5, 6, 9 and an Uno card. Now sometimes, the God-denier will off an assertion something a little more outrageous like:
“There’s absolutely no evidence for your sky daddy” – AggregateOfInternetAtheists
Let’s look at the serious problems with this incomprehensively lazy assertion:
God-deniers have no slot in their epistemology for absolutes. For God-deniers, in a cosmos made only of matter, there are no absolutes – there’s only particles and aggregations of particles
Is this atheist aware of ALL evidence in the cosmos such that she could assert that “there’s no evidence for God”? The honest atheist would have to admit that they are not privy to all evidence in the cosmos. Conversely, God IS privy to all knowledge/evidence in the universe and He has revealed some of that evidence so that Christians can be certain of those things
Now here’s the really important point: What does evidence for God look like? For someone to say “There’s no evidence for a cobra” – they would have to know what a cobra is like. How would you describe a cobra so that you could definitively say “There’s no evidence for a cobra.” In the same way, for someone to declare “There’s no evidence for God” they would have to know what evidence for God looks like. Press the atheist on this because they are bluffing. As soon as they realize that they cannot sufficiently formulate what evidence for God is like, their bluff is blown.
Don’t be afraid to call the God-denier’s bluff. They are not holding any good cards, and by God’s amazing grace Christians most definitely are. Call their bluff, but do so with gentleness and respect
Be sure to check out the links (blue text) that are saturated throughout this post as most of the “leg-work” was completed by people much smarter than me…for whose work I am very grateful!
Those around the table exchange approving glances with the thought: “He must be holding the 2 diamonds needed to complete that flush.”
He sounds assured of himself to add 5 large to the pot, but I’m skeptical…first, because I’VE got two consecutive diamonds to complete the straight flush, and secondly he claims to be an atheist. I think he’s bluffing, and I’m going to call him on it
“Wait just a cotton-pickin’ minute! What does being an atheist have to do with poker?”
It’s an analogy. Bear with me.
This analogy sounds very much like dozens of conversations I’ve had with professing atheists:
ApoloJedi: “As an atheist, how do you know that there’s no God?”
ApoloJedi: (Hints at calling bluff) “What kind of evidence would you consider sufficient evidence?”
God-Denier: (Less certain) “Well…if your sky daddy were real, she would know what evidence would be enough to convince me“
Before we work on calling the bluff of this generic and common God-denier, let’s discuss a couple of things:
He makes a definitive knowledge claim for which he is responsible: “there’s not sufficient evidence”. This can also take the form “I don’t believe in your God because there is a lack of evidence”, but it is still a definitive knowledge claim for which he must provide justification. It’s likely that God-denier is only minimally familiar with the overwhelming case for God’s existence. And it is assured that the God-denier is completely unfamiliar with the Transcendental necessity of God’s existence for knowledge, morality, and induction. In our analogy, Christians hold the unbeatable royal flush
When the apologist pushes back a little and asks the very reasonable question “What is sufficient evidence?” the god-denying interlocutor will almost ALWAYS deflect the question fallaciously by moving the goal-post: “God knows what would convince me, and since I’m not convinced there’s a God, then He must not have shown me enough evidence.” The form of the question that the apologist asks can also be “By what standard do you determine something to be sufficient?”
Unfortunately, the God-denier has derailed the conversation with his fallacious answer, and the intrepid apologist can “call the God-denier’s bluff” by holding the interlocutor to their claims: “What is sufficient evidence?” AND “How do you know the evidence is insufficient? Do you have access to ALL evidence? How do you account for evidence at all in your worldview?“
Their bluff is multi-layered and we can call their bluff by pointing out the following (what follows is both the calling of the bluff and the answer to the question above about what does this have to do with the bluffer being an atheist):
They have not analyzed ALL evidence, nor do they plan to, nor can they view evidence as anything more than provisional/contingent (because of their worldview as shown in item 1 above)
Even if they could possibly have access to all evidence (which would make them the omniscience God), they have arbitrarily declared that the provisional evidence to which they do have access is “insufficient”. When the apologist presses them for the standard by which they determine sufficiency, the God-denier is exposed and must argue fallaciously since they cannot account for transcendent standards.
Lastly, God HAS provided sufficient evidence for the judgment of all humans. Romans 1:18-20 tells us “For the wrath of God is revealed from heaven against all ungodliness and unrighteousness of men, who by their unrighteousness suppress the truth. For what can be known about God is plain to them, because God has shown it to them. For his invisible attributes, namely, his eternal power and divine nature, have been clearly perceived, ever since the creation of the world, in the things that have been made. So they are without excuse.” ALL evidence (because it is upheld and sustained by God’s mighty power (see Col 1:16)) is evidence for God’s existence
Don’t be afraid to call the God-denier’s bluff. They are not holding any good cards, and by God’s amazing grace Christians most definitely are. Call their bluff, but do so with gentleness and respect
Be sure to check out the links (blue text) that are saturated throughout this post as most of the “leg-work” was completed by people much smarter than me…for whose work I am very grateful!
Let me start by saying that I REALLY like the Marvel Avengers story arc (from Iron Man to the Spider-Man: No Way Home). The production quality, the humor, the coherent story arc, the heroism, the casting, the writing, the defeat of the fictional evil that is manifest in reality as the radical environmentalists – ALL are of the highest order. The Marvel movies (if they are not already) will be the defining saga of this generation, in the same way that the original Star Wars movies (A New Hope, The Empire Strikes Back & Return of the Jedi) were the defining stories of the end of the 20th century.
Having said all of that, there are worldview assumptions buried in the midst of these movies. The worldviews are both naturalism and paganism. And with an unskeptical eye, viewers can adopt these worldviews as basic to the way one sees the universe rather than what God has revealed. My purpose in analyzing these movies for worldview implications is not to bash the stories. Instead, I want my readers to begin to watch movies with the recognition that media creators are NOT unbiased. They put out creative material, but there is always an underlying worldview through which they desire their consumers to see the world. It’s ok to enjoy modern fictional stories, but always be careful to recognize the “message” of the author. It’s not just the Marvel movies, the teaching of naturalism and paganism has become ubiquitous in modern media, but a short analysis of the stories with which most people are familiar should be a good start. As a bonus there are some extra movies/shows beyond the Marvel franchise from which I added a few thoughts.
NOTE to fathers: You are responsible for the content that enters your home. If you allow secular movies into your home, be sure to preview movies before your kids have access and make sure to point out the underlying motivations and worldviews expressed in these movies. There’s a great place for art and entertainment, but be sure that the message of the world is subjected to the revelation of God because of your influence on the messaging in your family.
Now on to the reviews. Any bold, underline or italics is not included in the original. These features are used to highlight what I recognize as the key elements in the worldview being promoted. The original quotes are in red with my thoughts in black immediately beneath the quote
The Amazing Spider-Man
Cross-species genetic integration. This is just a note that the authors simply assume that because humans and arachnids are related via a continuum along the “tree of life” that spider DNA can simply be added to humans to provide spider-like qualities. The assumption of a common ancestor drives the narrative
Tree of life – the assumption of common ancestry is now assumed by the media
“Many of these wonderful creatures are so brilliantly ADAPTED that they can regenerate entire limbs at will.” – Osborn
“This (scientific advancement) is no longer about curing ills, this is about finding perfection” – Osborn
This is both a pagan assumption and a naturalistic assumption. Humanity does rightly seek perfection. But because we are sinners, perfection can only be found by grace through faith in Christ alone. The modern academic paradigm (which some call science) cannot bring perfection to humanity.
“Names are sacred. They connect us not only to ourselves but to everyone who came before”
There is an element of ancestor worship (paganism) in this quote
“We have cities…rich with culture and history. Thousands of years ago, our people lived in peace and prosperity.”
The assumption is that mankind lived for generations in a Utopia and that mankind is basically good. While this may sound like the Biblical story of the garden of Eden, the distinction would be that in reality the original couple (Adam/Eve) disobeyed God almost immediately. People did not live in peace and prosperity for generations. Adam’s sin brought corruption/death/suffering into the universe that God originally created as God (Romans 8), and since that time, humans have been born into sin. But thanks be to God that because of what Jesus has done (fulfilled scripture, perfectly kept the law, died for the sins of the repentant, rose again) there is hope for abundant life in Him.
Iron Man
There is glorification of rampant sexual immorality in the opening scene (12 for 12 with cover models) – the consistent conclusion of naturalism is either hedonism or nihilism. Tony Stark embodies both of these unholy worldviews. The soldiers in the Humvee think that Stark’s hedonism is worthy of praise
Glorification of gambling
Glorification of sexual immorality
“Thank you for saving me” – Tony Stark to dying assistant. Only Jesus saves
“I know in my heart that it’s right” – Tony Stark
The only way to know whether something is TRULY right is not how it feels in someone’s heart. Only by revelation from God, who is perfect and has revealed his expectations for humanity, can someone know what is TRULY right. Isaiah 45:19
Iron Man 2
“Technology holds infinite possibilities for mankind, and will one day rid society of all its ills.” – Howard Stark
Transcendent power has been attributed to mankind through science/technology. As Romans 1 tells us, if we are not thankful to God, we will inevitably worship something lesser/created…in this case: technology
“I will serve this great nation at the pleasure of myself. And there’s one thing that I’ve proven – it’s that you can count on me to pleasure myself.” – Tony Stark (to loud applause)
More glorification of hedonism
“If people could make God bleed, people will cease to believe in Him” – Vanko
Because the Avengers story arc is at base naturalistic, there is no God and the superheroes stand in the place of the Almighty. So in this case, when the villain is able to make the little deities bleed, he feels he has displaced the “god” of the time
“Everything is achievable through technology” – Howard Stark
More false attribution of omnipotence to human ingenuity. If the skeptical viewer extrapolates this thinking outward, Stark is deifying humans. That’s idolatry
In the movie, Tony Stark creates a new element with powerful lasers and some “elbow grease”. Creating a new element is portrayed as simply a “matter” of some effort and advanced technology. This is a minor point, but many people believe in naturalistic chemical evolution, and this is a just a continuation of that idea that matter/energy is all that is. And the cosmos was able to create itself in a process of continued chemical evolution
Secondly, Tony Stark was able to save himself from his degenerative condition. This is a common theme in today’s movies: that with enough focused effort, denial of desires (Buddhism), & extremely hard work a person can save themselves. The gospel of Jesus is that we are completely unable to pay our sin debt. But by grace through faith in Christ alone, there is forgiveness for sins and abundant life. Praise God that He does not rely on human effort to save us. If I was responsible for my own salvation, it would be an utter failure.
Was it a coincidence that Elon Musk, the prime advocate of uniting humanity with technology, appeared in this film that advocates the uniting of humanity with technology? While I appreciate Musk’s innovations in batteries, cars, and space travel, his goal is to achieve human consciousness immortality with technology rather than by grace through faith in Christ alone.
Making of Bonus Feature: “That we can imbue it (making of IronMan 2) with a sense of humanity and naturalism” – Robert Downey Jr.
Robert Downey admits the aim of the films is exactly what I am warning against. Watch with a skeptical eye
Thor
“Magic’s just science that we don’t understand yet…If there is an Einstein Rosen Bridge then advanced beings could have crossed it. A primitive culture like the Vikings may have worshiped them as deities”
You’ll recognize this inherent push to naturalize everything. With enough time/discovery then everything will be seen to have a naturalistic explanation. The Bible identifies God as the Revealer of mysteries (Daniel 2:47), but the Marvel universe puts technology/discovery and ultimately humans in God’s rightful place.
Captain America
At the end end of the movie, Captain America is “flash frozen” in Artic waters. The assumption is that because humans are simply a collection of particles, life, mind, consciousness can simply be frozen and thawed in a continuum. Rather than recognizing that humans have spirits as we are told in the Bible, the writers would have us believe that like the monster of Frankenstein, technology can revive the aggregation of human particles from death
Avengers
Consciousness is simply a product of the correct aggregation of matter. When Loki is “transferred” through the portal from one end of the universe to earth, it is implied that he was reconstructed particle by particle (like Star Trek’s beaming process) to retain his consciousness/memories/behavior/powers after reconstruction. This is a very naturalistic idea: “humans are just a collection of particles”
“The Tesseract has shown me so much. It’s MORE than knowledge. It’s truth”
Whether accidentally or purposefully, Jesus has been dethroned from his rightful place in the Marvel movie franchises. Jesus said “I AM the way, the TRUTH, and the life”. Colossians 2:2-3 says “all the treasures of wisdom and knowledge are hidden in Christ.” Neither knowledge nor truth can be known without revelation from the One, who knows everything: God Himself.
“These guys are basically gods” -Agent R
There is only one God (Isaiah 45). On a positive note, Captain America responds: “There’s one 1 God maam, and I’m pretty sure He doesn’t dress like that”
“How much dark energy did the Allfather have to muster to conjure you here.” – Loki.
Is Loki referring to some dark energy from the Marvel Universe, or the mysterious dark energy floated around science communities as a significant component of the material cosmos? It is not clear, but it is humorous that they attempt to tie the concept of dark energy which is science fiction in the science world to science fiction in the science fiction world.
There are all kinds of alien life forms in the Avengers movie. The assumption is that life must have evolved all over the universe because of the assumption that life evolved on earth. As if evolution is ubiquitous even through there’s not 1 shred of evidence in favor of evolution.
“I thought humans were more evolved than this.” – Thor
Again the assumption that humans simply evolved from lower forms of life. Thor’s assumption was that humans should be more empathetic, but evolution cannot explain empathy. Evolution has never been observed, but the Marvel franchise assumes it as basic throughout
Iron Man 3
Without direct quotes of naturalism, there was the continuation of assumptions that evolution throughout the universe (through aliens) persists. Also the idea that humans are just a collection of particles that can be manipulated rather than body/spirit created in the image of God is a strong theme throughout
Thor: Dark World
“Long before the birth of light, there was darkness. And from that darkness came the dark elves. Millenia ago, the most ruthless of their kind sought to transform our universe into 1 of eternal night.”
There are origins stories in all sagas. This origins story further dilutes the true origins story that God revealed in the Bible: In the beginning God created the heavens and the Earth
Captain America: Winter Soldier
1:16:11 The consciousness of the German scientist from CA was uploaded to a primitive computer as if consciousness is simply a function of the correct assemblance of ones and zeros. This is a very naturalistic assumption. Remember Elon Musk (and his desire to upload human consciousness to the internet) appearing the Iron Man 2? Interesting
“I am not a recording, Fraulein. I may not be the man I once was. The captain took me prisoner in 1945. But I am alive. First correction, I am Swiss. Look around you. I have never been more alive. Science could not save my body. My mind, however, that was worth saving, on 200,000 feet of databanks. You are standing in my brain.”
Given naturalism, brains are just an highly organized aggregation of particles, and the Marvel writers push this assumption as if it is just a lack of technology holding humanity back from experiencing eternal life through unity with technology.
Guardians of the Galaxy
This is not an identification of paganism, just a terrible plot hole: After 26 years of traveling around the universe, where did Star Lord find AA batteries for his walkman? And how did magnetic tapes on which the music was stored fight off the forces of friction and entropy to provide such excellent sound quality?
“I’m going to be totally honest with you. I forgot you were here.” – StarLord
Pink-skinned female is dismissed as being just a sexual tool for StarLord. Hedonism
14:00 blood sacrifice (pagan). There is something about blood which pagans recognize. While the blood of Jesus cleanses us from all sin, pagans try to dilute the meaningfulness of Jesus’ sacrifice by showing it in the context of horror and ritual
From Wikipedia – “Taneleer Tivan (The Collector) is one of the Elders of the Universe and is close to his fellow Elder En Dwi Gast (the Grandmaster). He apparently came to self-awareness billions of years ago”
“Before creation itself there were 5 singularities. Then the universe exploded into existence. Then the remnants of these systems were forged into concentrated ingots. Infinity Stones.”
Even naturalists recognize the need for an infinite root cause for the universe. Rather than accepting God’s revelation that He is the source of the universe, life, morality, consciousness, truth, goodness, justice, minds, beauty, information…they would rather assume an infinite universe, or self-aware stones. It’s a ridiculous origins story, but if you reject God’s word, one is left only with ridiculous origins stories and absurdity.
This bullet point is not so much about naturalism, but paganism: In the western world, it is not just rare but unheard of that someone be named after a villain in the Bible: Judas, Cain, Herod, Pilate, Satan…but the heroine of this story is Gamora, which sounds exactly like Gomorrah. They are de-stigmatizing the wickedness of Gomorrah by naming the heroine after that wicked place.
Speaking of de-stigmatizing abnormalities, we are seeing more and more abnormalities being accepted as normal. The Guardians of the Galaxy is filled with abnormal humanoid skin colors, abnormal attire, abnormal behaviors, feminization of men (Collector)…all in an effort to dilute God’s created or
Avengers: Age of Ultron
In the movie, one of the infinity stones combines with a computer program (Jarvis) to bring technology to life. The idea that artificial intelligence can be enveloped and/or created by the correct arrangement of atoms is naturalistic. Naturalists do not realize the abiogenesis is like a perpetual motion machine – impossible
The idea that consciousness could escape through the internet as if electricity defines minds is extremely naturalistic
“The human race will have every opportunity to improve (evolve in the face of selection pressure)” – Ultron
Improve? By what transcendent standard does Ultron consider improvement? Towards what eternal goal defines said improvement? Ultron has made a claim for which his limited understanding cannot account
“There were a dozen extinction level events before even the dinosaurs got theirs.” – Ultron
Assumptions abound here, but this is the worldview of the naturalist. From God’s eternal word, we know that there has been only 1 extinction-level event: The Worldwide flood of Noah’s day.
“When the Earth starts to settle, God throws a stone at it” – Ultron
This is petty and sarcastic as though rather than God’s work being to restore his creation through Jesus, the naturalist views God as a mythical character of hate
“We have to evolve. There’s no room for the weak.” – Ultron
While I know that evolution is false, THIS is a consistent understanding of evolution. Those atheists and naturalists, who want to be consistent, must think like Ultron. The weak and unfit should be euthanized to protect the overall gene pool if the theory of evolution is true. This is contradictory to the Christian worldview, which holds that humans have dignity because we are created in God’s image.
“Who decides the weak?” – SpeedGuy
“Life. Life always decides” – Ultron
Again, naturalism is the idea that everything came about without God. And Ultron declares this fable that natural selection determines what’s right. It is a baseless claim and essentially a tautology: “the survivors survive. Whoever/whatever survives is right”
“I think a lot about meteors. The purity in them. Boom! The end! Start again. The world made clean for the new man to rebuild. I was meant to be new. I was meant to be beautiful. The world would have looked to the sky and seen hope. Seen mercy. Instead they’ll look up in horror because of you. You’ve wounded me and I give you full marks for that. But like the man said: What doesn’t kill you just makes me stronger (Neitzke)” – Ultron
Naturalists like to talk about asteroids a lot: “An asteroid collision with the earth created the moon…an asteroid collision with the earth killed the dinosaurs…” None of those things are valid, but believed on faith nonetheless.
“I am” – Vision
Taking the words of the Almighty for himself, Vision’s character is blasphemous
Antman
“The laws of nature transcend the laws of man. And I have transcended the laws of nature” – YellowJacket
It is unusual for naturalists to speak of transcendence as transcendence makes no sense in their worldview where “matter is that is or was or ever will be (Carl Sagan)”.
“Solenopsis mandibularis known for their bite, the fire ants have evolved into remarkable architects” – Pim
Again evolution is reified as if it is a creative force that can produce “remarkable architects”. In real life, evolution cannot even account for the software needed to produce anything, but the writers of the Marvel series embed their worldview into the franchise
Dr. Strange
“This universe is only one of an infinite number. Worlds without end. Some benevolent and life giving. Others filled with malice and hunger. Dark place where powers older than time lie ravenous and waiting. Who are you in this vast multiverse, Mr. Strange?”
The multiverse is an unscientific rescue device devised by those who have faith in naturalism. Because this universe exhibits obvious and irrefutable teleological fine-tuning, naturalists have postulated an infinite number of universes all with different laws and parameters. They think that we just happen to live in lucky universe where all of the laws/parameters are JUUUUUST right for life, mind, consciousness, justice, love, beauty, symbiosis, water cycles, sodium cycles, continental plate tectonics…It’s a completely unscientific proposal as it’s both unfalsifiable and unobservable. It’s a silly story
“The language of the mystic arts is as old as civilization. The sorcerors of antiquity called the use of this language spells. But if that word offends your modern sensibilities, you can call it a program. The source code that shapes reality. We harness energy drawn from other dimensions of the multiverse to cast spells. To conjure shields and weapons. To make magic.”
I realize that this is science fiction. But in an effort to push their naturalistic worldview, they pull from what they view as scientific and throw it into their story as basic. It can never be known if there were a multiverse. It is ridiculous to call it scientific
“But the dark dimension it’s a place beyond time. This world doesn’t have to die. This world can take it’s place along side so many others as part of the One. The great and beautiful One. We can all live forever.“
This is paganistic pantheism: Everything is just part of the unified deity of nature. Paganism
“Really? What do you have to gain out of this New Age dimensional utopia?”
“The same as you. The same as everyone. Life. Eternal Life. People think in terms of good and evil when really time is the true enemy of us all. Time kills everything.”
God defines good/evil. Naturalists do not want to recognize goodness or evil, so it’s not a surprise to see them vilify time. It’s also contradictory that although time is the hero for evolution, but here they recognize that time is an enemy for naturalists.
“What about the people YOU killed?”
“Tiny. Momentary specks in the within an indifferent universe. You see what we are doing. The world is not what it ought to be. Humanity longs for the eternal. For a world beyond time because time is what enslaves us. Time is an insult. Death is an insult. Doctor. We do not seek to rule this world. We seek to save it to hand it over to Dormammu, who is the intent of all evolution the why of all existence.”
To naturalists, humans are just “momentary speck” so there is no real injustice for humans to be unjustly killed. The speaker promptly switches from naturalism to paganism by honoring a false deity
Thor: Ragnarok
Thor praying to his ancestor: “Odin, I bid you take your palace in the halls of Valhalla. Where the brave shall live forever. Nor shall we mourn but rejoice for those who have died a glorious death.”
Ancestor worship is pagan.
Guardians of the Galaxy II
“I’m what you call a celestial, sweetheart. Like a God? Small ‘g’ god”
There is only 1 God.
“I don’t know where I came from exactly. The 1st thing I remember is flickering. Adrift in the cosmos…utterly and entirely alone. Over millions of years I learned to control the molecules around me. I grew smarter and stronger. And I continued building from there. Layer by layer the very planet you walk on now. But I wanted more. I desired meaning. There must be some life out there in the universe besides just me. I thought. And so I set myself to task to find it. I created what I imagined biological life to be like. Down to the most minute detail. I wanted to experience what it truly meant to be human. Until I found what I sought. I was not alone in the universe after all.”
While science fiction, this character describes what many believe happened in reality: “over millions of years, molecules organized themselves into more and more complex arrangements, until finally, some collections of particles came to life. And some of those particles began to create movies and demand justice. It is taught in schools and universities that like this “divine” character, and despite evidence & universal laws, life has evolved smarter and stronger over time.
“Over the millions and millions of years of my existence, I’ve made many mistakes Peter, but you’re not one of them.”
Like almost every nature documentary, this science fiction show shouts the mantra: “over the millions and millions of years”. It’s part of the dogma of naturalism and it is being taught as though it were fact in almost all media.
“Only we can remake the universe. Only we can take the bridle of the cosmos and lead it where it wants to go”
Both pagans and naturalists think that humans can control the cosmos and give the purposeless cosmos some sort of subjective purpose
Black Panther
“Millions of years ago a meteorite made of vibranium, the strongest substance in the universe struck the continent of Africa. When the time of man came, 5 tribes settled on it and called it Wakanda”
Most every nature documentary begins exactly the same way: “millions of years ago”. Just like above when we talked about how naturalists love asteroids…again, they propose an asteroid as the source of “meaning”. It’s more hilarious than anything
“Praise the ancestors” 21:50
Pagan ancestor worship
“TChaka (dead king) we call on you to come to your son”
More pagan ancestor worship
Not pagan but actual wisdom and an accidental recognition of reality: “If you let the refugees into Wakanda, they bring their problems with them, and then Wakanda is just like everywhere else.”
“Don’t scare me like that colonizer (to white man)”
Wokeness has infected everything. As if all white people are racist and colonizers, the writers added that bit of poison to the movie.
“Didn’t all life start right here on this continent (evolutionary Out of Africa theory), so aren’t all people your people?”
The evolutionary story teaches that all humans emerged from the continent of Africa after a small group of homonids evolved enough traits to make them human. That story is in direct contradiction with the Bible, which reveals that humans are all related through both Adam and Noah after being created in God’s image.
“Everybody dies. It’s just life around here“
A consistent naturalist/atheist will be a nihilist as they declare that there is no purpose or meaning in the cosmos
“We got spies embedded in every nation on earth. I know how colonizers think. So we’re gonna use their own strategy against them. We’re gonna send vibranium weapons out to our War Dogs. They’ll arm oppressed people all over the world, so they can finally rise up and kill those in power. And their children. And anyone else who takes their side. It’s time they know the truth about us. We’re warriors. The World’s gonna start over (Build Back Better), and this time, we’re on top. The sun will never set on the Wakandan empire (Marxism)”
Again, we see the same seeds that the World Economic Forum are planting: critical theory. Sadly, there is a strong movement in today’s world to kill and destroy society, so that it can be rebuilt in the image of those, who feel “repressed”.
“Soon it will be the conquerors or the conquered (Marxism)”
“I call upon the ancestors. I call upon the Bast. I am here with my son, TChalla. Heal him
Pagan ancestor worship
“Praise the ancestors! Praise the ancestors!”
More Paganism
Avengers: Infinity War
“Allfathers, let the dark magic flow through me one last time”
Paganism
“At the dawn of the universe, there was nothing. Then Boom the Big Bang sent 6 elemental crystals hurtling across the virgin universe. These infinity stones each control an essential aspect of existence. Space. Reality. Power. Soul. Mind. Time”
The story of naturalism is taught in this science fiction as being sparked by stones, but we recognize the same story (without the stones) being taught in universities, high schools, and media
“He (Vision) is more than that. He’s evolving.”
The assumption that matter and power can produce life and then evolve is simply religious in nature: the religion of naturalism
“You might have a choice. Your mind is made up of a complex construct of overlays. Jarvis. Ultron. Tony. Me, the stone. All of them mixed together. All of them learning from one another. You’re saying that Vision is not just the stone? I’m saying that if we take out the stone, there’s a whole lot of Vision left. Perhaps the best parts.”
These lines assume that mind/consciousness is simply an accidentally aggregated and complex arrangement of particles. It is a religious (naturalism) assumption that part of the blind, pitiless, indifferent cosmos came alive, but this is exactly what the writers of this epic saga believe
“I’m only alive because fate wants me alive. Fate wills it so”
Personification of fate as having purpose and foresight is the reification fallacy. It is an expression of both Paganism and naturalism
“We all think that at first. We are all wrong”
Essentially, they are saying that truth cannot be known. This is a post modern relativistic thinking. However Truth can be known in the person of Jesus
“To ensure that whoever possesses it understands its power. The stone demands a sacrifice. In order to take the stone, you must lose that which you love. A soul for a soul.”
Paganism
“The universe judged you and you failed”
Reification fallacy and deification of the cosmos. It’s both pagan and naturalistic
“I’d watch the sun rise on a grateful universe”
More reification of the particles of the cosmos
Antman 2
“Molecular disequilibrium”
As if mind & consciousness are determined by an arrangement of particles rather than God’s breathing of life into a person. It’s naturalistic
“This place it changes you. Adaptation is part of it, but some of it is evolution”
Captain Marvel
“No one can look upon the Supreme Intelligence in its true form. Our subconscious chooses the way they appear to us. So it’s sacred. It’s personal.”
Paganism
“Supreme Intelligence: A. I. Leader of the Kree Civilization”
This assumes that AI (or bits of matter) can become conscious
“We must all be ready to join the Collective if that is our fate”
The collective is implied to be a pantheist divineness, and fate (yet again in the Marvel universe) reified as purposeful.
Avengers: End Game
“I know what I must do. I will shred this universe down to the last atom. Then with the stones you’ve collected for me, I create a new one – teeming with life. That knows not what it has lost, but only what it has been given. A grateful universe.”
While this is not specifically naturalistic or pagan, it is an affront to the LORD of glory, who HAS given breath and life to this universe. Those, who suppress the knowledge of this Creator, are ungrateful. They love darkness rather than light.
One final note on the Marvel franchise: The real life version of Thanos is the World Economic Forum. They are the enemy, so whatever they promote should be rejected!
Fantastic 4
“My research suggests that exposure to high energy cosmic storm borne on solar winds might have triggered the evolution of early planetary life. In 6 weeks, another cloud with the same elemental profile will pass earth’s orbit. A study conducted in space could fundamentally advance our knowledge about the structure of the human genome, cure countless diseases, extend human life. Give kids a chance to live longer stronger healthier…”
The origin of life, the origin of the human genome, the origin of ALL genomes remain a complete mystery, but superhero movies like to preach that if there were just more funding, more vision that scientism could come up with the answer even though they fail to understand that the problem is like the perpetual motion machine. The only solution is the one that God already solved: His life-giving breath
The whole idea of the Fantastic 4 is that intense selective pressure (radiation) drives new traits of evolution…in their case super powers
Fantastic 4: Rise of the Silver Surfer
“When the universe began, it was no bigger than a marble and then bam – It exploded. And in a trillionth of a second, it expanded exponentially to what became the universe we know today.”
Naturalism. This quote is religious in nature as is cannot be known – only assumed
“I’ve been cross referencing the Surfer’s radiation through every astronomical database, Altair 7, Rigel 3, Vega 6. And now they’re lifeless. Barren. Some even shattered. Everywhere the Surfer goes, eight days later, the planet dies.”
The Silver Surfer appeared to have power over death to bring Storm back to life. – Paganism
Alive (History Channel show)
In show after show, participants feeling great emotions of gratitude, rather than thanking the Almighty Creator, thank:
The land
Dead animals
Rivers
Lakes
Rocks
Wood
Ancestors
They exhibit the exact actions one would expect since Romans 1 is true
“For although they knew God, they did not honor him as God or give thanks to him, but they became futile in their thinking, and their foolish hearts were darkened. Claiming to be wise, they became fools, and exchanged the glory of the immortal God for images resembling mortal man and birds and animals and creeping things.”
Halo
S1 E9
“We are born. We live and we die according to the rules of blind and unguided evolution. As a result our species are simply not equipped to survive what comes next. It is time for us to take control of our evolution, to push past our narrow ignorance and venture out into the wide unknown, where we will discover our true potential.” – Dr. Halsey
This is the definitive FAITH of naturalism: evolution is blind faith, but humans want to control an unguided blind process.
“Much has been lost and there will surely be more sacrifices to come. But I believe our species will soon spread its wings and soar to new heights, that we will rewrite what it means to be human. That we will achieve transcendence.” – Dr. Halsey
Do you now recognize the blending of paganism that is built upon naturalism which is being taught a fact?
The Sixth Day
“If you believe that God created man in his own image, then you also believe that God gave man the power to understand evolution. To exploit science. To manipulate the genetic code. To do exactly what I’m doing. I’m just taking over where God left off.”
The entire idea that memories and feelings can be saved to memory is materialistic. And then the assumption that memories can then be “written” to the brain of a cloned human as some sort of duplicate is materialistic as if memories and feelings are reproducible.
This movie promotes the idea that eternal life is achievable to the never-ending reproduction of clones
“We don’t have to die. I’m offering you the chance to live forever. Never aging. Perfect in every way.”
The faith of naturalistic paganism
John Wick
“There’s no rhyme or reason to this life. It’s days like today scattered among the rest”
The consistent naturalist is bound to see life like John Wick: through the eyes of the nihilist.
Edge of Tomorrow
“The thing you gotta understand is that perfectly evolved world-conquering organism. For all we know there are thousands or millions of those asteroids floating around in the cosmos like a virus. And they’re just waiting to crash land into a world with just the right conditions. All they need is for the dominant life form to attack.”
“eVoLutiOn!!!! eVoLutiOn EVERYWHERE! eVoLutiOn dUn iT!!!”
Robocop 2014
“Consciousness is nothing more than the processing of information”
“Human beings have no more right to safety or liberty than any other creature on this planet. We not only lack dominion over nature, we are subordinate to it. And now here we are with the opportunity to rewrite life at our fingertips. And just like nuclear power, nobody knew what to expect with genetic engineering, but they pressed the button and hoped for the best. Just like you are doing now. Yep. You. You control the future of our survival on planet earth. According to you, the solution is genetic power. But that same power could devastate the food supply, create new diseases, alter the climate even further…In order to instigate revolutionary change, we must transform human consciousness” -Ian Malcolm
If ever there was a perfect ending to the teachings of paganism resulting from an assumption of naturalism, this is it. Malcolm’s character assumes that humanity is no more than a collection of particles rather than image bearers of the Almighty. And the consistent result of this irrational thinking is that nature is worthy of praise. In direct opposition to what God tells mankind to accomplish (“Then God said, “Let us make man in our image, after our likeness. And let them have dominion over the fish of the sea and over the birds of the heavens and over the livestock and over all the earth and over every creeping thing that creeps on the earth.”” – Genesis 1:26) Malcolm’s character tells his class that humans are subordinate to nature. It is both blasphemous and irrational. The writers of the Jurassic Park franchise couldn’t help but add their mantra of “gLobaL wArmiNg” into the Malcolm’s little diatribe. They believe that the planet (Gaia) is in danger of destruction by the activities of mankind, so the best solution (for them) is reducing the global population
The Jurassic Park franchise is full of naturalist teachings regarding evolution and other fanciful origins stories
What are some examples of naturalism and paganism in modern media that you’ve seen?
Well, I got a new challenge from a God-denier, who made the claim that evolution can even explain the origin of morality. They provided a link to a “scientific” paper , which has been cited 6 times, thinking they could bluster their way through a conversation without being skeptical. But I don’t surrender to bluster so easily. Let’s analyze her claim to see if the professor, who wrote the article, is relying on evidence or assumptions
Here’s how this works: I will post the quotes from the article in red and then just below the quote, I’ll post my analysis in the default black font. I have bolded key words throughout, so the bold does not appear in the original work. Throughout, you’ll notice that instead of actual evidence, the author of the article relies on assumptions. Let’s get started:
The author of this article, Professor Douglas Allchin, begins at a good place, with definitions. First we must start with “What is Morality?” Merriam Webster defines morality as ‘Conformity to ideals of right human conduct’.
How did this peer-reviewed paper define morality?
The first challenge for biologists is characterizing morality in terms amenable to science. Abstract concepts of “right” and “wrong” or virtuous motives and good intentions must be expressed in terms of what can be observed or measured. First, then, biologists address morality concretely as a form of behavior. As such, it fits in a context of other behaviors: foraging, mating and nesting, securing territory, play, grooming, and other social interactions
Bold text is not in the original. Notice how they immediately change the definition from “ideals of right conduct” to a “form of behavior that fits a context”. What context? EVOLUTION. While the actual word is not used, the context of evolution (foraging, mating, nesting, grooming…) is exactly the concepts that evolution is supposed to have solved. Right from the start, they’ve smuggled evolution into the definition. So right from the start, rather than actually showing that evolution can explain the origins of “ideals of right conduct”, professor Allchin imbeds the solution right into the definition.
Conceptualizing morality as a form of behavior opens the possibility of observing it in other species. Indeed, if complex features evolve gradually, one might well expect to find stages of protomorality, incipient morality, or various precursors in organisms besides humans.
Two things with this paragraph:
Remember they defined morality as forging, mating, nesting, grooming & social interacting behaviors. So OF COURSE other species forage, mate, nest, groom and interact. When they define their terms in such a way as it’s just living, then they can claim victory that evolution can explain eating but say “tHat’s mOraLity”
Secondly, humans did not evolve from any modern species. So, you cannot test any modern species for “protomorality” or “incipient morality” at least in relation to human morality. If you want to test other species for human morality, why not celebrate the morality of male lions cleaning house: the new head of the pride, methodically killing the offspring of other males in the pride. Should the evolutionists want to involve other species as tests for morality, they have no objective reason not the start there. Why don’t the atheists want to uphold the thieving, raping, bullying, and exclusion of both intra and inter species interactions in their assertions of evolution’s great power to produce morality? Why would God-deniers NOT consider male lions killing the offspring of other lions as moral?
But which behaviors are “moral”? Here, biologists must proceed cautiously. One cannot even identify the relevant behaviors without a working concept of “right” and “wrong” or of “morality.” Invoking a value judgment threatens to prejudice the whole endeavor. The biologist’s proper approach is thereby indifferent and fluid, contingent on definitions of ethics identified by others. Biologists may encounter multiple conceptions of what is to be explained. Different benchmark definitions may yield separate complementary explanations. Of course, biologists are accustomed to addressing the “same” phenomenon on multiple levels of organization: molecular and cellular, physiological, populational, ecological, and evolutionary. Biologists have, thus, developed a suite of explanations which apply to different aspects of moral behavior.
Indeed. How can they identity behaviors as right or wrong? Notice in the closing sentence, professor Allchin talks about tools: “a suite of explanations” which they will apply preferentially and arbitrarily to different behaviors. We’ll watch this as more and more of the paper is analyzed.
For guidance, then, a biologist turns to moral philosophers. Yet, even after centuries of reflection and debate, philosophers themselves do not agree on core ethical principles for defining “good.” They generally recognize, however, three basic approaches. One approach, consequentialism, focuses on the outcomes themselves. For example, morality is assessed as the greatest good for the greatest number. Good may be defined variously as benefit, happiness, or pleasure.
Didn’t these “moral philosophers” also evolve from ancestral simians with supposedly less-evolved morality. Why trust what evolved apes have to say about morality? Charles Darwin recognized this philosophical problem in the 19th century when in his autobiography, he wrote “But then arises the doubt-can the mind of man, which has, as I fully believe, been developed from a mind as low as that possessed by the lowest animals, be trusted when it draws such grand conclusions?” Why should we trust the foundations of their philosophy?
Notice also how the consequentialists define good: Good is whatever is the greatest good for the greatest number. You’ll notice the clear obfuscation of their claim about “good”. How do they know what is truly good? Based on what metric? Over which time period? I wrote about the irrationality of claiming goodness without an objective standard in my article, Empathy is Arbitrary, Inconsistent, and Irrational for Atheists. It applies equally as well for these lab-coats, who want to talk about pragmatism.
Evolution itself does not express or yield values
Nature may seem to exhibit its own values. For example, natural selection may seem to “favor” adaptive traits. Survival and reproduction may seem inherent values because they lead to continuity of the lineage. However, historical facts are distinct from values. Effects do not indicate intentions
This is a good paragraph and I agree with it – because it definitively declares that evolution cannot explain the origins of morality – ideals of right conduct. The title of their article is misleading, but they rationalize their deception with remarkable openness about the inability of evolution to explain ideals/values like that paragraph above. After all, since morality is not objective to them, why should they be honest about their hopelessness from the beginning?
Biological analysis may enrich our understanding of morality, but it is also limited. Science is not able to discover ethical principles in nature, nor to justify them, nor to evaluate them, say, based on evolutionary history, nor even to develop them based on some presumed universal or “objective” principle of “human nature.” Many have tried. All have failed
EXACTLY! Case closed. I appreciate everyone for reading this article which exposes this admission by professor Allchin that evolution is unable to explain ethical principles, justifications, or objective ideals of morality. Should I even continue to evaluate the remaining 7000 words of their article when it is clear up to this point that they have admitted defeat? They do try as this next sentence declares:
Having introduced these caveats, then, let us consider what biologists have discovered about morality as an evolved form of behavior
Caveats indeed. Caveats of the corpse of their case
They continue anyway, although their case is beyond hope:
Behavior that benefits other organisms may sometimes also benefit the individual
Like symbiosis? Symbiosis is a definite falsification of evolution. It’s a strange tact indeed for professor Allchin to highlight one of the most damning observations to evolutionary theory. Perhaps though he meant that cooperation within your own species could help with the evolutionary fitness of the overall species. It stretches credulity that selflessness could be explained by natural selection acting on unguided mutations, but that is the claim they are making. They tried to suggest the kin selection could account for morality in the subsequent paragraphs, but I covered this failed hypothesis in my article, Can Evolution Explain Altruism? When evaluating the “scientific” articles for that post, they proposed a mysterious force called “strong reciprocity”, which had no origin or mechanism. Another failure for the theory of evolution. Professor Allchin tries later in his article to postulate strong reciprocity as a solution. Too bad.
But notice too that he’s done something sneaky here. He just assumed that cooperation (or mutually beneficial behavior) just appeared. He provided no mechanism or origin story for this behavior. Without explanation, he just assumed it was there. In an article that supposedly explains the origin, professor Allchin is short on actual explanations and long on assumptions
In describing the evolution of humans in Descent of Man, Darwin (1871) prominently addressed mental and moral abilities. Following cultural discourse at the time, he focused on what he called the moral sense, or conscience, notably reflected in the emotion of remorse. “Why do we feel moral duty?” Darwin wondered. First, Darwin observed that animals could evolve societies, structured (he assumed) by a social instinct. Second, with multiple instincts, behavior might not always accord with social benefit. But memory, Darwin thought, would help resolve such conflicts as the organism learned to regulate its instincts, making the social instinct primary. Third, the use of language would allow organisms to communicate their needs clearly to one another. Fourth, repetition would lead to habit and a spontaneous sense of what one “ought” to do.
Notice the saturated assumptions in the paragraph. Everything proposed by Darwin was an assumption. None of what he observed was an origin of the creatures, their behavior, or their “structured society”. All of those things were already in existence – so like the modern lab coats, Darwin simply assumed that they evolved. I’ve been told that “extraordinary claims (like evolution can explain morality) requires extraordinary evidence”. There’s no evidence – let alone extraordinary evidence in that paragraph. It (like the rest of the paper) can be summarily dismissed.
In the next 5 paragraphs professor Allchin describes stories of various mammals caring for others of their species as if that is an explanation of evolution’s great power to produce moral behavior. Two things he failed to realize:
Humans did not evolve from any creatures that are currently alive. The best he could assume is that humans and any other mammals share a common ancestor. Professor Allchin, rather than demonstrating common ancestry, simply assumed common ancestry. The very best that professor Allchin could speculate is that both apes and humans experienced an even more impossible assertion: convergent evolution since the hypothetical common ancestor cannot be evaluated for the presence of moral behavior.
The caring/moral behavior already exists in the creatures being described. There’s no step-by-step explanation of the caring/moral behavior being produced by some evolutionary mechanism. Saying that something (moral behavior) exists does NOT explain HOW evolution produced it. It is very common among internet pop apologists for evolution to assert: “x trait exists and evolution did it.” We see from this article where they get it. They are taught to think that way by their deluded lab-coat-wearing priests.
One way to assess foundational human motivation is to observe behavior before possible learning or training. Human infants (age 18 months), for example, frequently help adults in simple problematic tasks in a lab setting—without being asked and without reward…The question remains how such feelings evolved and whether the social environment was relevant historically
The question remains indeed. Everything that professor Allchin has speculated about already exists. Not one word has been dedicated to explaining how evolution was able to produce moral behavior where moral behavior did not exist before. Those reading Allchin’s article with a skeptical mind could just as easily be convinced that since this behavior already exists in “human infants” that these young humans were created in God’s image as moral agents from the beginning. The authors have done NOTHING to persuade a skeptical reader of their stated motive (evolution can explain morality). They just assume it
Neuroimaging studies show significantly that actual moral reasoning involves both emotion and logic
The naturalist author of this paper has complicated his task. Not only has he convinced me that that evolution cannot explain morality, evolution definitely cannot explain reasoning or logic. Rather than trying to just come up with an evolutionary mechanism that can produce moral behavior, now professor Allchin has inadvertently jumped into a philosophical canyon from which he could never hope to explain. Rather the unchanging, abstract, absolute laws of logic and its correct application (reasoning) is explained only in a Christian worldview.
The flexibility afforded by learned behavior allows organisms to respond to local environments, which may change during an organism’s lifetime or vary from organism to organism within the same species. Evolution may thus favor the brain’s potential for behavioral plasticity and for placing “values” on certain responses
Again – no explanation or evolutionary mechanism…but “evolution may…” as if evolution is a concrete entity that actually DOES something. That’s the reification fallacy by professor Allchin. No-no professor!
In addition, learning has the potential to modify, or regulate, innate behavior or dispositions. The psychological level thereby becomes emergent, exhibiting new interactions and properties relatively independent of lower level functions (genetic and physiological) and able in part to influence them
Emergent? This is a common assertion by naturalists when they are unable to actually explain origins. Following is a conglomeration of real/hypothetical conversations with God-deniers:
Christian: “From where did the laws of logic arise in a cosmos made only of particles?”
God-denier: “They are emergent properties“
Christian: “From where did the laws of gravity and physics and chemistry arise?”
God-denier: “They are emergent properties“
Christian: “Can you explain how evolution produced moral behavior?”
God-denier: “They are emergent properties“
Emergent properties offer no explanatory power. It’s just a sciency-sounding moniker for the naturalist, who recognizes that from within his framework, the topic is unexplainable.
Professor Allchin goes on to complain about “cheaters” as obstacles to “sharing behavior” and common good, but in all of the complaining, he never explains how evolution produced moral behavior. Why’s that Professor Allchin?
Organisms may cooperate selectively with reciprocators
I’ve already answered the proposal of reciprocity above and in my article on, Can Evolution Explain Altruism? Giving only to get back (reciprocity) is selfish – not moral or altruistic.
Getting to the end of his rope, Professor Allchin jumps from moral behavior to Might-Makes-Right:
Social organisms may enforce cooperation through rewards and punishment
And AGAIN, professor Allchin simply observes EXISTING behavior – not how evolutionary mechanisms produced it. This article was supposed to explain how evolution could explain morality rather than just pointing to it as he does throughout. It would be like asking: “How did Honda produce that Odyssey minivan?” and having a professor respond: “There’s one over there!!!” All the while, the professor thinks he’s answered the question. Lazy and smug.
Organisms may benefit from social information
May?!?! Isn’t this supposed to be a scientific article? Something that explains the origins of morality by means of evolution?? May indeed!!! And “benefit” – how does one determine what is truly beneficial? By what metric?
I’m not the only one or even the first one or even the best at analyzing the outlandish claims of the Darwinists that evolution can explain morality. Here are some articles from crev.info that show the impotent claims that “eVoLutioN cAn expLaiN moRaLity” to be nothing more than empty bluster:
This is a response to the online book, The Best Religion For the Task At Hand by Damien Harrison, whose online personality is The Tall Friendly Atheist Dad. Writing a book is a huge task and Harrison should be commended for making the effort to write and publish his book. The book can be purchased for $10.99 Australian here. Should anyone read this review, it should be noted that critiques are of ideas, application (or misapplication) of reason, and not of the author himself
This will be a strange book review as the book that Harrison wrote was in response to an article that Lita Cosner (Sanders) of Creation Ministries International wrote in response to a conglomeration of online videos by God-deniers. So, this is a response, to a response to a response.
You’ll see throughout this response that Harrison is not solely responding to Cosner. He is attacking Christianity at large. I’m not interested in defending any arguments by Cosner, but I will be pointing out throughout that Harrison has no grounds for judging others because of his assumptions on origins and his failed epistemology. There are many times Harrison purposefully mischaracterizes Christian teachings and displays no more than a surface-level understanding of the Bible. You can see his quotes from his book in red italics below with my responses in the default back text
In the Foreword Harrison begins with an uncharitable definition of creationism that only God-deniers hold. It’s not just uncharitable, before taking on her arguments, Harrison has poisoned-the-well. He’s taken Cosner and painted her with a brush of derision so his audience will see her as incompetent
“Creationism – the strand of Christianity that dismisses the findings of numerous fields of science simply because the conclusions reached by the evidence don’t line up with a literal reading of the Bible…Furthermore, creationism is wrong for the reasons it thinks it is correct.”
Those, who hold to creationism (The Bible should be interpreted contextually) do not dismiss findings as is asserted, but are skeptical of the assumptions with which naturalists interpret facts. Harrison is hypocritical and irrational in his thinking, because shortly thereafter, he falsely accuses Cosner of engaging in the poisoning-the-well fallacy
Harrison misquotes her and then falsely accuses her of a fallacy. Costner did NOT poison the well. She presented the case that atheists have no logical ground and linked to an article that explains step-by-step why. It’s not clear why Harrison would leave out that crucial bit of information in his response, but atheists have no logical ground for holding to standards of honesty. It’s not a good start (or a good look) from Harrison to lead off with poisoning-the-well fallacy and then falsely moan when he feels poisoned
This misrepresentation persists. The difference is in the presuppositions. The science is not disputed. To say that what can be known about the distant past (millions of years ago) has the same veracity as arithmetic and physics that can be measured in the present is a false equivocation. We find this conflation in many online discussions and Harrison builds his case upon this false assumption. To assert something to be “wrong”, one must have an epistemology that can justify knowledge, morality, logic…which atheism/naturalism does not. How can the accidental aggregation of stardust declare anything to be absolutely right/wrong?
“To make myself clear, the purpose of this book is not to defame, slander, belittle or impugn any particular person or organisation. Its purpose is to criticise BAD theology by demonstrating how MORALITY and governance based on socially-restrictive theology leads to DETRIMENTAL outcomes on both a personal and societal level.”
We’ll just have to stick around to see if he can indeed make sense of words BAD, MORALITY and DETRIMENTAL. If he maintains his atheistic naturalism, we can expect only an inconsistent sermon about things that he finds icky or personally distasteful since that’s all that atheism can conjure up
“However, I do hope that this book becomes one data point among many in a body of opinion that slowly turns the cultural tide away from beliefs in magic and superstition, and towards a more HUMANE approach to culture and politics.”
Magic? You mean like the naturalistic explanations of the cosmic evolution, dark matter (sciency-sounding moniker for superstition), 1st star, abiogenesis, the emergence of consciousness, the emergence of morality/altruism, the emergence of reasoning from non-reasoning source, purpose… ALL of those are magic for the naturalist since nature does not produce any of those.
Humane? I guess we’ll have to read ahead to see why one clump of cells (Harrison) thinks that other clumps of cells (Cosner) are worth protecting in a universe “that exhibits the properties one would expect if there is at bottom no design, no purpose, no evil, no good, just blind, pitiless, indifference”
It’s rich that Harrison would project his own Nazi propaganda onto Cosner as if Christianity were simply “propaganda”. When in reality Harrison who dislikes the Germans for claiming that “Jews weren’t persons” literally claims that developing humans in the womb are “not really persons”. The irony is completely lost on Harrison when out of 1 side of his mouth he denounces the Nazis then with a forked tongue he uses the Nazi dehumanization of millions and millions of tiny unborn victims
Doubling down on a bad argument, Harrison then poisons the well with a false attribution of “Hitler was a Christian”. His citation of this long refuted fiction is based solely on the top half of his link. Should one venture to the second half of the link, a rational person will see that Hitler loved manipulating the church for his own Darwinistic purposes, but hated the actual teachings of the Bible and Christianity. As long as the term Christian served his propaganda, he was willing to hold the moniker. Harrison would have shown himself to be a diligent scholar rather than something of a propagandist himself by showing the actual scholarly writings of the Nazi leader by Richard Weikart. But his research was as deep as a hair’s breadth and as wide a particle from which he thinks consciousness arose.
P38 “Humanists take an active stance against slavery, genocide and torture and specifically because Humanists understand the needless harm, suffering and risk to life that these things have been shown to cause. When your goal is human well-being, when you know that certain actions result in harm and suffering, and when you have the power to reduce harm and suffering by neither participating in nor endorsing those actions, it’s simple – your morality is already superior to that of the Bible”
Defining the goal would be the appropriate place to start. He stated that the goal of humanists is to reduce harm and suffering of humans. That’s not a bad goal. In fact, most people would agree, but we have to dig a little deeper to see if there are any internal contradictions within this religion and how they handle mutually exclusive situations.
P41 “Bible actively endorses and celebrates things like slavert, genocide, and torture”
What Harrison fails to address is the slavery has existed since sin entered the world. People have treated others cruelly so long as they can get away with it. Outside of God’s revelation there are no justifiable transcendent limitations placed on humanity for how to we should treat one another. Throughout the Pentateuch limits were placed on masters that ultimately ended up being “Love your neighbor”. Outside of Israel, there were no restrictions on indentured servitude or slavery. For a more detailed understanding of the “active endorsement if slavery” see
P45 Harrison takes the least charitable and least contextually-relevant reading of all texts to support his perpetual caricature of Christian theology
P47-48 “If a religious text happens to endorses (insert bad things) … that religious text deserves to be roundly criticised”
Using what transcendent standard should the criticism be based? If those doing the criticism hold the same view (atheism) that has caused more death, suffering, and hatred than any other view, why should that criticism be heeded?
Chapter 4 was the personal incredulity fallacy and essentially said “Since some Christians failed to keep the Sabbath, then Christianity is false.”
It’s a ridiculous chapter
Chapter 5 “Is God a Homicidal Maniac?”
With a title like that, (sarcasm font begin) there’s SURE to be no emotional or inflammatory arguments made by the author (sarcasm font end)
Cosner’s Actual argument: False Atheist Premise: That God routinely orders killing, and for arbitrary reasons”
Harrison criticizes Cosner for moving the goalposts but misquotes her argument leaving out the weightiest element of the argument
Harrison (partially) quoting Cosner “That’s a false premise. God does not routinely order killing”
Notice how Harrison (arbitrarily?) left out the word “arbitrary reasons”. God has never killed anyone for arbitrary reasons.
I have had the privilege of having my writings critiqued by Harrison. One of Harrison’s favorite weapons is to claim: “yOu didN’t QuoTe tHe wHoLe cOnTexT!!!!!!”
It’s a shame that Harrison didn’t bother to apply that critique to himself, but do atheists even have a moral standard by which to make sure they uphold consistency or honesty?
Strawman arguments and uncharitable literalism (ignoring genre/context) persist throughout the rest of the chapter.
In my online interactions with atheists, I hear all the time that the Bible or Scientists, who believe the Bible do not make any testable predictions. Notice how Harrison totally misrepresents Cosner’s arguments:
P73: “Parents will eat their children? Looks like God is endorsing familial cannibalism to me”
Not once did Harrison consider God’s foreknowledge of the future being revealed to Ezekiel even though that is what was clearly being communicated. God has knowledge of the future, and He’s telling Ezekiel that the impending punishment upon the rebellious Israelites will be so severe that they will eat their own family members. God’s knowledge not endorsement, but someone with only a surface-level reading of the Bible wouldn’t know the difference
On p75 Harrison tries to trap Christians on the horns of a trilemma but instead commits the trifurcation fallacy:
Either the Bible does not accurately represent God (fatal to the fundamentalist cause)
Christians believe genocide is morally OK (confirming you need to twist your morals to make Biblical morality acceptable)
God does not actually exist (Rendering the Bible as pure mythology)
Considering that point 2 is false (Since God is the ultimate authority, He cannot commit murder/genocide) and there is at least 1 more option, even though Harrison has taken a class on philosophy, he’s clearly not putting what he learned into practice. There are any number of possible additional options, but 1 of them is 4. God has a sufficient justification to render judgment on a people group. Knowing that the Bible teaches that humans have ALL sinned and no one deserves God’s mercy, it’s not just a people group that can get righteous judgment, but ALL people have rightly earned God’s holy judgment. That ANYONE has received grace is an amazing fact and makes God worthy of praise.
“I know two people does not a religious orthodoxy make, but if Cosner and my Methodist friend combined represent something approaching the norm of Modern Christian theology, then IT CAN ONLY BE SURMISED that not only does Christianity require you to shun more humane interpretations of morality in favour of being compelled to say nice things about God at every opportunity for the rest of your life, but Christianity also requires you to conclude that picking up sticks is treason and that babies need to be killed because they’re potentially dangerous.”
“Bottom line: If you’re not convinced that Christianity requires you to twist your morality to fit in re-read the above paragraph until you are.”
Essentially, Harrison says that if you don’t believe his atheistic caricature of Christianity, re-read his book until you’re convinced his caricature is actual Christianity.
Ch7
Harrison starts off this chapter criticizing Jesus for upholding the laws given to Moses. But again, Harrison does so without a consistent & transcendent standard…just his temporal personal preferences.
Harrison misunderstands Cosner’s assertion that the Christian worldview justifies charity. He then proceeds to say that charity & government programs existed long before the Christian worldview became widespread. This is another of his examples of uncharitable and purposeful misreading to push his agenda. Cosner never said Christianity is the source of all government welfare as Harrison implied. But the Christian worldview is the sole ideology that can justify all human value, so that any charity would be expected. Were naturalism true, why help the weak or unfit? The humanist religion must deny one of their core tenets (survival of the fittest) or redefine it to claim to love charity
P87-88 “If Jesus endorses the Old Testament and was even around when it all happened then Jesus the son is just as answerable as God the father in all human rights violations and war crimes”
Anyone else see the problem with Harrison’s logic? Human rights violations. From where do human rights come? If not from God, then there can be no such thing as human rights! As much as Harrison hates Frank Turek, Harrison is literally stealing from the Christian worldview to argue against it. He does the same thing with the concept of war crimes…as if there is a transcendent standard of morality by which criminals must be judged for crimes. How did a cosmos made only of particles produce transcendent moral standards such that Harrison can pronounce judgment on the Almighty? It’s ridiculous of him
Since God’s nature is the source of human rights (humans are created in his image), God has never violated them. Since the transcendent moral standard comes from God’s unchanging character, He cannot criminally break them. God’s judgment for rebellion is just and since Harrison has no rational standard by which to judge the Almighty, his objection is a dismal failure
P90 Back in his early chapters, Harrison shrieked (incorrectly) that Cosner employed the poisoning the well fallacy…and then promptly poisoned the well against her. In his chapter called “What About Him?” Harrison leads off with the assertion that Jesus is a racist and implies that creationists (and by association with Jesus all Christians) are racist with his line “And let us not forget that Creationist white supremacist groups are still active today in Christian America.”
You’ll notice how Harrison insinuated that white supremacists are creationists (and followers of Jesus) so being a creationist/Christian opens you up to being a racist. He’ll hem and haw with “plausible deniability” and say that’s not what he intended, but the well is poisoned.
Ch8 Here Harrison tries to project his personal temporal preference (which he calls his religion of humanism) onto God. So, Harrison feels justified in condemning God for judging the sin of mankind in the worldwide flood. Does God not have the right to do with his creation as He wills? Why not? I covered this in a separate blog post, Stay in Your Lane. Harrison does not know how to properly do an internal critique. Should he want to correctly show why the Bible is incorrect regarding God’s morality, he must take on the Christian position (for purposes of argumentation) and show how it leads to an inconsistency or an absurdity. But as it is, his objections are just screaming at the air and stomping his feet.
On pg97, Harrison opines loudly and ignorantly about Jesus cursing the fig tree. Lost to Harrison and sadly even most Christians is what Jesus was actually trying to say. For reference, see Isaiah 5. God describes planting a garden and doing everything necessary for it to bear much fruit…to be a delight to the vinedresser. But the vineyard (Israel) fails to be a light to the nations (Isaiah 49). Instead, the vineyard is impotent…worshipping false idols and prostituting itself among the nations. As Jesus enters the last week of his life, He is justly judging Israel (the fig tree) never to bear fruit again because of their wickedness and their upcoming unjust murder of the Messiah (Matt 27:25).
P101 “To sum it up, ending the life of a plant or animal for the reasonable sustainment of life isn’t a bad thing – animals eat plants and animals eat other animals all the time. But killing humans in a fit of rage is a bad thing”
Why? According to atheists, what transcendent standard proclaims this to be true? How do you know? Would it be wrong to kill Trump? Putin? Tucker Carlson? Alex Jones? Hitler?
If humans are simply animals, what’s wrong with animals killing other animals? How do you know? What is the distinction between 1 type of animal and another type of animal with regards to killing? Flush with internal contradictions, the humanist, who has a faith commitment to evolutionism, has no rational justification for calling 1 type of interaction between animals as immoral and any other type of interaction between animals as moral. Only in the Christian worldview can the murder of humans be justifiably shown as immoral.
CH9 Harrison starts ch9 with a plan to “fix” Christianity by taking out God, and simply replacing it with secular humanism. All Fixed! He proclaims that the group of people, who are responsible for building, staffing, and supporting more schools, orphanages, hospitals, charitable donations, mission organizations, and general welfare should become more like the secular religion that has done NONE of that. I did find it interesting that there is one atheist orphanage in the world. So, in all of history and throughout all civilizations, there is only 1 orphanage created in the name of atheism. I do understand that humanism and atheism are not completely synonymous, but there is near complete overlap in their Venn diagrams. The orphanage is on tenuous financial grounds. We’ll see if the humanists can rally with actual financial support rather than just keyboard virtual signaling. But it does make one wonder, if humanists are so bent on helping the suffering, why is the only measurable metric of their actual assistance almost completely missing?
Ch10 Not realizing that Christianity is the explanation for all of history, life, origins and the future, Harrison declares that Jesus or his teachings are unneeded because “It is fair to say that if numerous independent cultures came to the same principles without Jesus (in this case The Golden Rule), it indicates that that The Golden Rule didn’t need a Jesus to make it.” (duplicate “that” in original)
But as Christians, we would expect the Golden Rule to be a worldwide phenomenon since humans are all created in God’s image. All humans know what is right/wrong in general because it is written on our hearts (Rom 2:15). So, his objection stems from an ignorance of the Christian worldview or malevolence against Jesus.
CH11
Why didn’t Jesus teach people about antibiotics? That wasn’t his purpose. Throughout, the book, Harrison’s assumption has been that secular humanism’s goal, so he asks “Is your morality focused on maximising human well-being and reducing pain and suffering by having a rational understanding of the world around you or is your morality simply focused on making sure the feelings of an infinitely great and powerful God aren’t hurt because someone ate shellfish.”
But that is not the standard. The Bible is clear that God’s purposes are to be glorified by saving unworthy sinners. Jesus’ own words tell us why He came into the word. John 12:47. Paul affirms this revelation in his 1st letter to Timothy. Chapter 1 verse 15
Ch12 Harrison leads off with a howler:
“Because Cosner’s morality is based on the will of the supreme intelligence behind the creation of the universe as revealed in the Bible, there should be no possible way I could counter any of her arguments gained from that theology and methodology”
That’s like saying, “if the speeding laws in a country truly were from the state, there would be no way to argue your way out of a ticket with a police officer”
It’s just ridiculous
Next he does do a very good thing by defining terms. Unfortunately, his conclusions end up as temporal preferences rather than actual objective morality
“In my estimation, the essence of morality should be designed by what is universal to the shared human experience – health, wellbeing and personal and economic freedoms”
It’s fine to love your neighbor, and your enemies…in fact, this is the actual Christian position as opposed to what Harrison has been on about. In fact, my article about why Empathy is arbitrary, inconsistent, and irrational for the atheist exposes the utter lack of foundation from which atheists loudly prattle-on about their virtue. So, on which foundation do they stand to prattle-on? Knowing Harrison’s hatred for Frank Turek, atheists are literally stealing their worldview from God in an attempt to make sense of their assumptions.
Getting back to Harrison’s prattling: ”Jehovah’s Witness families have died because of their parent’s belief that…it is better for their child to die…This is an abject failure of theism.”
Did anybody catch what he did there? It’s called a hasty generalization. “Because 1 theistic group did something I don’t like, then ALL theism is an abject failure”
Garrison doubles down on p133 (this is a paraphrase of Harrison’s 7 paragraphs) Westboro Baptist church says mean things, so Christianity is false
On p134 Harrison mocks the Bible as not being God’s Word because “When someone reads the Bible, they are free to interpret the text in any way they see fit”. The inferred point from him then is that if the Bible can be interpreted in many ways, then NONE of them are correct. This is a sweeping generalization, which takes the form: if there are many counterfeits then all are counterfeit.
But Christians do not believe this and the Bible teaches against what Harrison says. The Bible is the revelation of God, and is justification for knowledge being possible at all (2 Tim 2:2, Act 17:11)
P134 Harrison doesn’t think his argument through when he opines about what he believes to be the total flexibility in biblical interpretation
“Case in point: In Isaiah 7:14, the word that is commonly translated as virgin in the verse “.,..the virgin will conceive and give birth to a son…” does not mean virgin – the original Hebrew word almah just meant a young woman of child-bearing age without ant reference to previous sexual activity”
Harrison displays ignorance to the word he has grown to loathe – context. In what context was this Word from the Almighty spoken to Isaiah? The king of Judah, King Ahaz was worried about the imminent invasion from the most powerful army in that area of the world. He was considering a bad alliance and the LORD gave Ahaz the prophecy that the nations he feared would becomes desolate. And the sign would be that an “almah” would give birth to a son. Harrison believes it is likely that the LORD said: “a girl of child-bearing age will bear a son” as if that’s some sort of unusual state of circumstances. As if a girl of child-bearing age had ever had a son before as a sign that the most powerful army in that part of the world would be destroyed. Neither myself nor Harrison are Hebrew scholars, but Harrison’s opinion that God would give a sign that a woman would have a son as a sign from God is a lazy and ill-conceived objection. Because the Hebrew word also means virgin, the context clearly shows the word to hold the meaning that all Bible translators, all Hebrew scholars, and all Christians have known for thousands of years.
The Criteria p135
The crux of Harrison’s argument can be distilled to this 1 thing:
He has a subjective opinion that morality is “In my estimation, the essence of morality should be designed by what is universal to the shared human experience – health, wellbeing and personal and economic freedoms”
Let’s call it morality H. We’ll call Christianity morality C
Harrison claims that H > C based on H as the standard. But this is not a valid comparison. To determine TRUTH, a comparison would need to be done against a transcendent standard (T). Since atheism cannot account for unchanging, abstract, absolutes, the best Harrison can say is “My feelings are better than yours”
The strength of Christianity is that it does make a claim to be a transcendental standard. The unchanging, transcendent, absolute Monarch, who created and upholds creation, has deemed certain behaviors as moral and others as immoral. So like it or not: God’s creation – God’s rules
C = T
Therefore C > H based on the standard of T
Jesus said the greatest commandment (Matthew 22) is this “Love the Lord your God with all your heart and with all your soul and with all your mind. This is the first and greatest commandment. And the second is like it: ‘Love your neighbor as yourself. All the Law and the Prophets hang on these two commandments.”
IN THAT ORDER. So, we as God’s creation and image bearers are to love God supremely and follow this with loving our neighbors (and even our enemies – Luke 6)
P146 “So it turns out that the best religion for the task at hand of helping inform a human-centric morality that increases well-being…is no religion at all”
While his whole book has been building a case against Christianity and for the religion of humanism, his last line of his book rejects his own premise. It’s a fitting end to a book filled with caricatures of Christianity, baseless assertions, and sloppy logic
This isn’t a typical full review of the new content by Amazon, but I’ll include my overall thoughts about the movie
It really is stunning to me to hear God-deniers say. “The worldwide flood recorded in Genesis is impossible.” or “there’s no way the entire globe could have been flooded as recorded in Genesis” or “Noah’s flood? That’s just a fairy tale”. What does that have to do with the movie, Oppy?
At near the 9 minute mark one of the lab coats says: “The two Viking orbiters as they looked down on Mars, they saw…that’s strange. There could be signs of past water flowing. Was Mars once a green world with living things and blue oceans?“
At about 39:45 “We picked the Spirit landing site, Gusev Crater, that looked like it had a huge dried-up riverbed flowing through into it, and we went there hoping to find evidence of past water and past habitability. I mean there has to have been a lake in Gusev Crater at one time. But all Spirit found was this prison of lava rocks.”
“And it turns out that the composition of these little blueberries, was a mineral called hematite, which is a mineral that often forms in the presence of water.”
“From the minerology, from the geochemistry, everything that we needed to come to a reasonable conclusion that there was once water on Mars. It was right there in the walls of Eagle Crater. But this is a very acidic environment. Not a place where life could have developed.”
“So, yes there had been liquid water, but this wasn’t water that you or I would want to drink. It was basically like battery acid.”
“What you really want is nice, flowing, neutral-pH groundwater. And so to go and find a story of habitability, you’ve got to go on a bit of a roadtrip”
“This is a clay that has been intensely altered by relatively neutral pH water, representing the most favorable conditions for biology that Opportunity has encountered”
“Water. Drinkable neutral water once existed on the surface of Mars. And not only was there water, but it could possible sustain ancient microbial life. So that is just revolutionary.”
“It showed us that the ancient Mars was much more suitable to the origin of life.“
“This was the Holy Grail. This is the reason we had gone to Mars. Oppy discovered Mars was a wet world very much like Earth. There were oceans. Water played a huge role in its early history. It completely altered the planet.”
“And Opportunity spent years exploring Endeavor Crater, making incredible discoveries that tell that story of water. So we could go back in time to a planet that might actually have had life.“
“Mars had water. What happened to that water? And can we take the information and understand how that could happen here on Earth? And can we understand our part in that. Are we doing something that can accelerate that here on Earth. Because that’s something that you don’t recover from.”
Are you kidding me? They were able to turn this documentary about a planet with no water, no life, no humans, no fossil fuels into a global warming fear-mongering documentary…like most of the rest of them.
Their motivation was religious in nature (“This was the Holy Grail”), and it’s clear that their research was interested only in finding naturalistic origins of life.
Don’t misinterpret my critiques as a dislike for discovery or research. But what did you notice about their motivation for exploration? Extra terrestrial life. This blind search for life in lifeless places reveals their faith in naturalism. In their search for life, they recognize the need for water. So, in this video, we see over and over these lab-coats share their desire to find water. There’s not a drop of water on Mars.
But a planet (Earth) that is more than 70% covered by water could NOT have had a worldwide flood according to naturalists, and a planet (Mars) with not a single drop of liquid water is assumed to have been flooded in the distant past. The inconsistency and hypocrisy is astounding
Another level of hypocrisy among the God-deniers, is their denouncement of God’s amazing designs in biology. It was clear that the design of the robots was mimicry of the design of the human body. Same height. Same use of binocular vision. Same use of limbs and joints found in human arms. Yet I hear from God-deniers all the time, “humans are designed badly”. It’s a ridiculous claim for God-deniers to say humans are designed poorly when scientists literally mimic the incredible designs by the Almighty to achieve discoveries on other planets.
Overall, the documentary was positive and encouraged people to be involved in engineering solutions and discovery. I support finding engineering solutions and discovery, but motivations and intentions matter. There’s much better motivations for discovery and engineering solutions than the most unsuccessful career path of all time: astrobiology!
Well, Christians, after 2000 years it’s time to pack it up. It was a good run for Christianity, but it’s over. A modern day Chuck confirmed the 19th century Chuck’s theory of evolution with a link to an article that holds the smoking gun for naturalism. “Evidence for evolution is uNdeNiabLe!!!!”.
Here’s the conversation on Twitter that led to the analysis of this peer-reviewed article. I challenged this particular God-denier to produce undeniable proof that creatures lacking a particular trait gained a new trait in an immediately subsequent generation via natural selection acting on random mutations. He posted this link to a peer-reviewed article on ScienceDaily from 2008.
Here are the 3 claims from that article that they assert is a demonstration of new traits that produced by natural selection acting on random mutations that previous generations did not possess:
“Striking differences in head size and shape”
“increased bite strength”
“development of new structures in the lizard’s digestive tracts”
Let’s take their claims one by one to see if it is indeed an undeniable example of natural selection acting on random mutations to produce novel traits
Head Shape and Size
Just from the initial reading of the text, we see that a different size head is not a new trait. Variable sizes in existing structures (head, arms, legs, noses…) is not an example of evolution. In that same way that we see different domestic dogs breeds with different size heads (poodle, St. Bernard) but they are the same species, there is variability in the genes. There are people that are tall and short, big heads and small heads, long arms and short arms…but to claim that this variability within the same species is “evoLuTioN” is ridiculous. They might have helped their case if they had given some measurements before/after, but this vital piece of evidence is missing. The claim that “changes in head size” is an example of evolution is inconsistent, impotent, and unconvincing.
Increased Bite Strength
Again, just reading the text, we see that there is no new trait. I would have liked to go deeper into this radical claim from the authors, but apparently they recognize that their claim of “increased bite strength” as evidence for evolution is extremely weak because they gave no further validation of their assertions. No measurements. No differences. Just a claim. As with the head size claim, there’s no need to speak of this anymore as if it’s part of the “mountain of evidence” in support of evolution, because it’s just empty
New Structures in the Digestive Tract
That leaves the crushing weight of their claim firmly on the shoulders of this last “example of evolution”. Can it support the weight? Let’s see.
Tail clips taken for DNA analysis confirmed that the Pod Mrcaru lizards were genetically identical to the source population on Pod Kopiste
Genetically identical?!??! This is the 1st reason why their claim of “evoLuTioN” holds no water. If the DNA is identical, then there were no random mutations to produce a new trait. This is the fundamental assumption of evolution: At one time, the DNA instructions for traits (arms, lungs, wings, cecal valves…) DID NOT EXIST, but over time, the accumulation of mutations produced functional code that improved a creature’s reproductive fitness in a particular environment. Since there are no genetic differences, there’s no evolution. It is the same species. There are no DNA changes. By itself, this is enough to dismiss this article as “an example of evolution”.
These structures actually occur in less than 1 percent of all known species of scaled reptiles
These structures ALREADY exist in this species of reptiles. The new environment did not PRODUCE these structures. The new environment of the lizards was selection pressure on the lizards such that the existing DNA information for the production of these structures (cecal valves) was made manifest. Since the lizards already carried the instructions in their DNA to produce these structures, then there was no evolution that created these structures. It was the environmental stresses that caused these existing structures to be expressed. See epigenetics for more information. This second nail in the coffin simply ensures that the corpse of their claim cannot be revived
Simple calculations then show that the waiting time to improve one of these six of eight matches to seven of eight has a mean of 60,000 years. This shows that new regulatory sequences can come from small modifications of existing sequence
We have already shown that there were no mutations, BASED ON THEIR OWN ADMISSIONS, but even if we grant the possibility of mutations, the mutation rate is far too slow to have produced that necessary changes that they have proposed. They claim that the new structures appeared in 36 years, but the minimum time for even the smallest beneficial mutation to occur is sixty thousand years. By their own metrics, their claim is refuted.
It looks like the wild claim from the evolutionists was (again) long on assertions and short on evidence. There’s no reason after all to close down Christianity in favor of evolutionism. The claims by these evolutionists is not new or rare. You can see here other claims that evolutionists have made about the amazing powers of evolution are shown to be impotent when analyzed.
The world is filled with magnificent biological designs and interrelated interdependent systems. I’ve been told that natural selection acting on random mutations has enough power to produce everything in biology. I’ve put these claims to the test several times
Well, I got a new challenge from a God-denier, who made the claim that evolution can even account for eyes. They provided a link to a “scientific” paper thinking they could bluster their way through a conversation without being skeptical. But I don’t fall to bluster so easily. Let’s analyze the claim to see if the scientists, who made the claim are asserting based on evidence or assumptions
Here’s how this works: I will post the quotes from the article in red and then just below the quote, I’ll post my analysis in the default black font preceded by a dash. I have bolded key words throughout, so the bold does not appear in the original work. Throughout, you’ll notice that instead of actual evidence, the authors of the article rely on assumptions. And those who are particularly intrepid and can work through this analysis to the end will be gifted with a unique surprise at the end
“Sight is an evolutionary gift”
– Odd choice of words from a scientific journal. Notice how evolution is reified as a magnificent gift-giver. Sounds more like paganism than science
“Life probably first appeared ~3.7 billion years ago”
– Probably?!?!? Indeed
“more likely”
– Aren’t we supposed to be talking about evidence rather than making assumptions?
“The opsin in rhodopsin probablyevolved”
– Probably?!?!? Notice the use of the magic word: “evolved”. Do you care to go into the details? It seems like they missed a step in the explanation and tried to sweep the actual explanation under the “it evolved” rug. Pathetic!
“The passage of such molecules from microbial opsins to metazoan opsins probably came from a common ancestor as these are related, albeit distantly”
– Probably?!?!? Probably is used TWELVE times in the article. It sounds like a collection of assumptions rather than the actual evidence that we were told to expect
“Once an opsin (or the predecessor of the opsins) covalently bonded with retinal, perhaps in a cell with a cilium or two, the slow crawl to an eye began”
– Perhaps?!?! It’s a fine yarn, but the science-sounding veneer is wearing thin
“Perhaps after 35 000 generations, an organism discovered that developing a concave cup instead of a spot produced a more successful and competitive organ for sight”
– I really thought this was going to be a peer-reviewed scientific paper, but it’s just probably after probably followed by reification fallacy. How exactly did the unguided, sightless process of evolution look ahead to discover anything? They don’t know
“As Nilsson and Pelger suggested, from an eyespot to an eyecup to a fully formed camera-style eye could take as few as 364 000 generations, and the production of such an eye in perhaps as short a period as half a million years”
– This is called hedging. Suggested. Could. Perhaps. It’s not even distantly evidence, just speculation
“If one assumes that the eye must provide spatial information to be defined as an eye, then the curvature of a cup would create the first eye, as primitive spatial information would be provided”
– Notice how they just assumed that a critical component of the eye just popped into existence. It was needed, so nature provided. No explanation, just that it would be magically provided
“A cornea, lens, extraocular muscles (EOMs), and ocular adnexa were added as necessary”
– In a cosmos with no design, no purpose, just blind pitiless indifference, what is necessary? How does the naturalist suddenly assume purpose and necessity? Even worse, the explanation is never given, just “it was necessary – so evolution provided” as if there’s design inevitabilities just waiting out in the ether to be added to biological organisms. It’s a ridiculous assumption by evolutionists
“Multiple such ommatidia would likely have been produced by gene duplication”
– That’s not science. It’s just an assumption wrapped in a façade of scientism
“The morphology of the compound eye would itself evolve”
– Why do they continue to use the magic word: evolve, rather than explaining what happened? Maybe they don’t know so they just say “it evolved”
“Although little is known about its genetics”
– That’s actually optimistic. What exactly do you know AT ALL about its genetics?
“How this organism interprets the image it receives remains a mystery”
– Indeed! Mysteries abound within this “scientific” paper
“These organelles are believed to have originated through ancient symbiosis with a red alga23 or perhaps other protists”
– Believed?!?!? Perhaps?!?!? Yawn. I was hoping to find some evidence in this scientific paper, but they keep giving me their beliefs. In addition to that, symbiosis is a paradox for evolutionists. Symbiosis is an unimaginable coincidence built on another unimaginable coincidence, but since symbiosis is observed, the evolutionist just says: “LooK wHaT nAtuRe diD!”
“convergent evolution”
– This is a term that simply means: “We Darwinists don’t know how/why the same structures emerged in disparate species, but here they are, so nature must have done it twice”. It has no explanatory power…just a sciency-sounding term
“This ancient arthropod probably lived between 600 and 550 mya before the Cambrian explosion”
– Again, we’ll note that we’re dealing with assumptions and not science. The giant pink elephant in the room with which these authors fail to deal, is how did the extremely complicated eyes of the trilobite emerge via natural processes. They have no explanations just the assumption that nature was able to produce these complex eyes. Do you doubt my analysis of this sentence? Check out the very next sentence in the peer-reviewed scientific paper
“This would suggest that eyes were forming well before the Cambrian period but no record of such pre-Cambrian trilobites, or other animals with eyes, exists, at least to date”
– THERE IS NO RECORD (NO EVIDENCE) OF THE EVOLUTION OF THE EYE…just more assumptions. The key to those who claim that there’s a mountain of evidence for evolution is the hope that no one will actually read their peer-reviewed papers. They didn’t count on ApoloJedi skeptically analyzing their claims of evidence…only to expose that this “mountain” is a bottomless crater covered by assumptions
“As discussed earlier, the compound eye began, possibly in a worm-like creature, preceding the trilobites or contemporary to them”
– This sentence is further proof that anonymous internet God-denying keyboard warriors have never read these peer-reviewed scientific papers. They Google search ‘the evolution of the eye’ and post the 1st link in the list. Little do they know that I’m not intimidated by their bluster. I’m literally taking these papers line by line and exposing the sheer blatant assumptions and complete lack of evidence. Because there is no evidence of the evolution of the compound eye of the trilobite, they have to say “the compound eye began”. It just began according to their assumption. No explanation. No evidence. It just began. When did the compound eye begin, evolutionists? “Possibly preceding trilobites or contemporary. We’re not sure” because THERE’S NO EVIDENCE
“There are at least six different models of compound eyes and it would appear that the most likely explanation is that the apposition-style eye came first and radiated into the other forms although this explanation is not completely satisfactory”
– No doubt. There’s at least 6 options, but none of them are satisfactory.
“The octopus evolved later and exhibits a more derived eye that includes a lens, a horizontally oval pupil, and a highly sophisticated system of EOMs”
– Hey evolutionists, how did the compound eye of the octopus come about…the steps…the processes? “It evolved”. Ohhhhhh, that’s not a very compelling explanation for us skeptics of evolution.
“The agnathans are the closest extant relative to the first cephalochordates alive today, so we must rely upon them to help us understand the development of eyes in the early vertebrate lineage”
– Notice the assumption of common decent and since there is no evidence of a step-by-step progression from agnathans to humans, the Darwinists “MUST RELY” on these assumptions in their artwork to show the fabled evolution of the vertebrate eye. Highly suspicious
“The Devonian was an important period”
– To the accidental aggregation of stardust in an amoral purposeless blind pitiless indifferent cosmos, how do you justify what is “important”?
“Some spiders developed excellent eyesight and clever adaptations to squeeze the optics and neurologic equipment into very small spaces”
– Sounds very much like purposeful design rather than natural selection throwing together random mutations into “clever equipment” with efficiency and effectiveness.
“Shubin and his team discovered the fossil of Tiktaalik, which probably represents the transitional form from an aquatic animal to a terrestrial one”
– Probably?!?!? The contrary analysis of Tiktaalik exposes the evolutionary assumptions as impotent
“external eyelids appeared”
– They just appeared! The explanation missed a step or 10,000
“Although our knowledge of dinosaurian vision is limited, we can make some assumptions based on the last common ancestor, indirectly related creatures and extant progeny including direct descendants”
– At least they admitted to making assumptions in this part, but they do fail to admit their assumptions about the ancestors and descendants of dinosaurs. There are no fossils of dinosaur ancestors. The evidence for dinosaur ancestors is completely missing
“We can conclude much of this from the avian lineage as birds are living dinosaurs”
– Not recognizing their own assumptions that birds are the direct descendent of dinosaurs, they try to make their assumptions count as direct evidence. It’s just an assumption, and their conclusions is based on the assumption – not evidence
“It is not known for certain”
– Clearly, but that doesn’t stop the authors from crafting a story filled with assumptions
“The Old World monkeys were separated from the New World monkeys and evolved a third visual pigment”
– There’s that magic “evolved” word again. No details. Just “nature-dun-it” I’ve been told that evolution simply means ‘change’. If indeed evolution just means change, can we substitute ‘changed’ in for ‘evolved’? Here’s what it would look like: “The Old World monkeys were separated from the New World monkeys and CHANGED a third visual pigment”. Maybe not. ‘Evolved’ doesn’t just mean changed. There’s way more magic built into the usage of the term
“This third visual pigment is not the same one as found in fish, reptiles, or birds, and likely represents an error in duplication of the LWL visual pigment”
– Likely. More assumptions. Evolutionists assume that an accumulation of errors (mutations) produced all of life. It’s all they have to work with. But it strains the very limited of common sense to assert that you can gain function from an accumulation of brokenness
“they illustrate visual photopigment evolution in progress”
– Isn’t evolution ALWAYS supposed to be in progress? I guess they have to assert this because observations of fossils show that “abrupt appearance” and “stasis” are the norm. No progress
In their conclusion (for those intrepid readers, here’s your gift from the scientists who authored their paper!):
“We know from computer models, and deductive reasoning, that eyes can evolve quickly”
– No evidence? Just assumptions and intelligently designed (biased) algorithms that assert an evolution of the eye. This can’t be repeated enough: if there were evidence, they would have produced it in this article. But they didn’t. In their concluding paragraph they admit that the evolution of the eye is speculated based on a computer model. And it’s not just that they claimed eyes evolved – but that they evolved QUICKLY. The Grand Theory of Evolution has been taught that it takes lots of time to change creatures from one to another. It’s likely these authors are not familiar with the waiting time problem…although they should be.
As Christians we know that evolution cannot explain the emergence of the eye because it is contrary to what God has revealed in the Bible. But the analysis of the claims of the evolutionists has a purpose beyond just saying (from the Christian worldview) that evolution is in conflict with God’s Word, so evolution isn’t true. This purpose is to see if their claims (from their perspective) is legitimate. Do they indeed have evidence to support their claims? After reading through this article, you can see that their claims are impotent and the definitive answer is NO. There’s no need to be bullied when an evolutionist claims: “There’s a mountain of overwhelming evidence for evolution.” As I’ve done in this series of articles, I say “SHOW ME!” And when we peek behind the curtain, it’s one assumption built on another.
We can trust What God has revealed in his Word about the past, so we can trust Him about the future too
It’s a fairly common online assertion that the Bible is “fuLL oF cOnTraDicTioNs!” by those who are unfamiliar with the common mistakes that skeptics make when they make such claims. In a recent online discussion, a God-denier claimed that that Bible was full of contradictions. The principle assertion of contradiction was that Elijah ascended into Heaven (2 Kings 2:11) but Jesus claimed in John 3:13 that no one but the Son has ever ascended into Heaven
Before I begin the rebuttal, let the reader understand that God-deniers have no grounds for declaring anything to be contradictory. Unless one starts with the God, who has revealed Himself in creation, in the Bible, and in the incarnation, there is no possible justification for logic, knowledge, morality, or truth. So, when a God-denier (like AmputeeAtheist) claims that the Bible contains contradictions, he has no logical or knowledgeable grounding from which to determine anything to be contradictory. From the perspective of the God-denier, there is only chaotic matter. As the imminent naturalist Carl Sagan religiously stated: “The cosmos is all there is, or was or ever will be.” There is no room in the worldview of the naturalist for unchanging abstract absolutes like laws of logic or induction. Lastly, before I refute this critic, AmputeeAtheist has NOT demonstrated conclusively that this is even a contradiction. He has taken only a paper-thin glance at the words (likely from an atheist meme online) and declared lazily that it ‘jUsT hAs tO bE a cOntraDictiOn”. For it to actually be a contradiction, no possible explanation can exist (which I will show below), and AmputeeAtheist has failed to demonstrate that there is no possible resolution. The unjustified assertion that “there is a contradiction” is echo chamber material suitable only for the “atheist choir”.
Let’s see what Jesus said in John 3:13
And no man hath ascended up to heaven, but he that came down from heaven, even the Son of man which is in heaven
Is Jesus saying that no one has ever gone to Heaven? Would Jesus have been familiar with the 2 Kings passage that describes how Elijah was whisked off to Heaven in a chariot? Of course! So, why would Jesus make the claim that none have ascended into heaven?
To answer this, we must 1st look at the scriptures (the Old Testament) to see what Jesus was actually saying. Since the New testament is essentially the inspired commentary & fulfillment of what was revealed in the old testament, we should exegete (study the scripture) to see what Jesus might have meant when He said “ascend”.
Throughout the old testament, there is a theme that those, who met with God or interacted with God, did so on the mountaintops. This is important because man was incapable of getting to the “heavens” where God was. The understanding is that God must, in his grace, come down to meet mankind because man is unable to get to Him
Gen 8:18-22 When the ark landed on the mountains of Ararat, Noah built an altar to the LORD. Noah could worship the Lord, but despite the fact that Noah was at the highest point, he could not ascend to heaven
Gen 11 Shortly after the flood, the people intended to build a tower to the Heavens so that instead of proclaiming the Name of God as image bearers, they wanted to make a name for themselves as gods. The people at the tower of Babel failed to ascend to the presence of God.
Gen 22 God told Abraham to ascend Mount Moriah to sacrifice Isaac there. At the top of that mountain, God intervened and provided a substitute atonement for Abraham and his son. Abraham ascended as high as he could, but God had to descend from Heaven to meet with Abraham
There are 149 places in the ESV of the use of the phrase “high places”. Even the pagan worshippers, who setup their idols put them on the mountains or high places as a failed attempt to ascend to the Heavens or ascend to their false deity
Exodus 3 – Moses was tending his sheep on Mount Horeb and this is where God descended to meet with Moses. Moses could not ascend to Heaven. God had to come down to meet with Moses
Exodus 19 – Moses ascends Mount Sinai to meet with God, but since Moses cannot ascend into Heaven into the presence of God, God says in verse 9 “I am going to come to you” at the highest point you can possibly reach, which is far short of ascending to Heaven.
Exodus 34 – This theme is repeated but stated more clearly.in verse 2 God tells Moses to “come up on Mount Sinai” and in verse 5 it says “the LORD came down”. No one (including Moses) can ascend to Heaven in their own power.
Secondly and more importantly, let’s look to see in what context Jesus was speaking these words to Nicodemus. In the interaction Jesus has just scolded Nicodemus that as Israel’s presumed teacher, Nicodemus (while knowledgeable of the scriptures) does not understand them
Jesus answered him, “Are you the teacher of Israel and yet you do not understand these things? Truly, truly, I say to you, we speak of what we know, and bear witness to what we have seen, but you do not receive our testimony. If I have told you earthly things and you do not believe, how can you believe if I tell you heavenly things? No one has ascended into heaven except he who descended from heaven, the Son of Man.
John 3:10-13
Jesus is taking from Proverbs 30, which is a lament by the author in his realization that rejecting the understanding/knowledge/wisdom of God is stupid. Jesus is equating the author of Proverbs 30 with Israel’s teachers of the law in general and Nicodemus specifically.
Surely I am too stupid to be a man. I have not the understanding of a man. I have not learned wisdom, nor have I knowledge of the Holy One. Who has ascended to heaven and come down? Who has gathered the wind in his fists? Who has wrapped up the waters in a garment? Who has established all the ends of the earth? What is his name, and what is his son’s name? Surely you know!
Proverbs 30:2-4
The author continues saying that there is no who who can ascend into heaven to learn from God and return to teach the people about God. But in John 3, Jesus claims to ACTUALLY be the One, who has done this. Jesus has been in the presence of the Father, and He has both descended and ascended to the Father to bring both knowledge and forgiveness to mankind. Unlike what the skeptic has learned from atheist memes, Jesus is not claiming that no one has ever gone to Heaven. Jesus is displaying his rightful divinity and exposing, that despite their rote memorization of the law/prophets, the supposed teachers of Israel are unlearned (stupid) about God.
Nicodemus would also have recognized from Jesus’s words the passage in Deuteronomy 30 where Moses writes
“For this commandment that I command you today is not too hard for you, neither is it far off. It is not in heaven, that you should say, ‘Who will ascend to heaven for us and bring it to us, that we may hear it and do it?‘ Neither is it beyond the sea, that you should say, ‘Who will go over the sea for us and bring it to us, that we may hear it and do it?’ But the word is very near you. It is in your mouth and in your heart, so that you can do it.
Deuteronomy 30:11-14
For those, whom the LORD has called and empowered, the commands of God are expectations. To follow those commands, one need not perform the impossible tasks of “ascend to heaven” or swim “beyond the sea” to obey. And yet, when Israel (and ultimately all of mankind) do fail to keep God’s commands, Jesus is faithful to perform the impossible Himself: bring the knowledge of God from Heaven down to mankind and atone for man’s disobedience.
Jesus does not stray from his consistent train of thought in John 6 verses 38, 42-44 and 62-63
For I have come down from heaven, not to do my own will but the will of him who sent me…So the Jews grumbled about him, because he said, “I am the bread that came down from heaven.” They said, “Is not this Jesus, the son of Joseph, whose father and mother we know? How does he now say, ‘I have come down from heaven’?” Jesus answered them, “Do not grumble among yourselves. No one can come to me unless the Father who sent me draws him. And I will raise him up on the last day…Then what if you were to see the Son of Man ascending to where he was before? It is the Spirit who gives life; the flesh is no help at all. The words that I have spoken to you are spirit and life.
John 6
Jesus did not claim that no one has ever died and gone to Heaven. Considering Jesus knowledge of the scriptures, the context of his teaching, and the audience, it is clear that Jesus was identifying Himself as God, who has been in the presence of the Father, but has descended to mankind to bring knowledge and redemption.
We also see from Jesus’s disciples that they understood Jesus to be talking about Himself as descending from Heaven. John the Baptist says in John 3:31
He (Jesus) who comes from above is above all. He who is of the earth belongs to the earth and speaks an earthly way. He (Jesus) who comes from heaven is above all. He bears witness to what He has seen and heard, yet no one receives his testimony. Whoever receives his testimony sets his seal to this, that God is true.
John 3:31-33
And Paul in Rom 10 and I Cor 15
But the righteousness based on faith says, “Do not say in your heart, ‘who will ascend into heaven?'” (that is, to bring Christ down) “or ‘who will descend into the abyss?'” (that is, to bring Christ up from the dead).
The first man (Adam) was from the earth, a man of dust; the second man (Jesus) is from heaven.
And while Paul did not specifically use the words ascend or descend in Philippians 2, it is clear that Jesus came from the presence of the Father in Heaven to descend to earth
Have this mind among yourselves, which is yours in Christ Jesus, who, though he was in the form of God, did not count equality with God a thing to be grasped, but emptied himself, by taking the form of a servant, being born in the likeness of men. And being found in human form, he humbled himself by becoming obedient to the point of death, even death on a cross
Philippians 2:5-8
There are no contradictions in the Bible. Although the God-denier was lazy and ignorant of the scriptures in making the claim that Jesus contradicted the scriptures with his words in John 3, with an understanding of the context, we see that it is silly to make such a claim. If you’re interested in more articles like this, check out the ever-growing list of refuted claims-of-contradiction by the author of Domain for Truth!
Because God, who knows everything and is eternally faithful, can be trusted in his revelation about the past, we can trust His revelation about our future
ApoloJedi 