Don’t believe me? Listen to the words of the UCONN Biology teacher when he decides to stop berating the preachers and begins indoctrinating the students. (WARNING!!! Profanity from evolutionist)
Not only do the atheist elite want to indoctrinate the masses with their message of naturalism, they cannot believe that anyone would disagree with them. To them, you can have any opinion on origins as long as it’s the same as them. Unfortunately (for them), their own worldview cannot account for good/evil, science, reason/logic, beauty, or truth.
If anyone tries to speak out that naturalism/evolution has some shortcomings in explaining everything, they are excommunicated. Those who do not worship at the alter of naturalism lose their job (David Coppedge) or career (Guillermo Gonzalez.)
What Could Persuade You that evolution were not true?
If archaeologists found a rabbit in the Cambrian layers of soil then evolution would be disproven…right?
Well, as it turns out, proverbial rabbits are found all of the time in layers much “too old” for them. The problem is that people do not change their view based on conflicting evidence…they change their interpretation of the evidence to fit their view.
In an article entitled Radiometric Backflip, Volume 37, Issue 1, Creation Magazine describes just such an example. Here’s an example where the “science” (based on absolute radio metric dating) proved suggested that the rock layers of the Santo Domingo rock formation were 200 million years old (Nature 417 (6892):936-938, 27 June 2002). But when footprints of sandpipers were found in layers of soil underneath the 200 million year old layers, scientists were able to scrub away 175 million years to make the data fit with the idea that sandpipers evolved about 37 million years ago. It must have taken quite a bit of soap to scrub away 175 million years that fast.
And this is not an isolated case. A hominid fossil, KNM-ER 1470 was found beneath soil that had originally been absolutely dated at over 200 million years old. Once the fossil was found, Richard Leakey requested a re-test. Not surprisingly, the new absolute dates of between 2-5 million years fit perfectly in the range that was needed to perpetuate the evolutionary myth. What happened to the original 200 million years? They were donated to a local charity for all we know.
So no amount of evidence will change someone’s mind regarding origins. This is why it is so important for Christians to be familiar with presuppositional apologetics. Everyone has presuppositions that help us to define how we interpret evidence.
Christians presuppose that there is a Creator God and that he revealed himself through the Bible. Those who presuppose that there is no God are reliant on billions of years and a creative mechanism (evolution by natural selection and random mutation) to explain the origin and development of life.
We can trust God’s Word about history, an since it is a reliable history book (and the revealed Word of God), we know that we can trust God at his word regarding salvation and our future hope (Romans 8.)
Today’s mantra of global warming has grown tedious since the “evidence” turns out to show exactly the opposite of what those who would have us give up our rights are advocating.
But there are all kinds of interesting websites showing the new coastlines if the polar ice caps melted. Gone would be New Orleans, Florida, the East coast, and most of England. It would be sad to see Disney World submerged, and I so enjoy watching the English Premier League (it just wouldn’t be the same if it were the English Premier Water Polo League.) And I didn’t even mention the lost habitat of the lovable polar bears. This terrible scenario would all be as a result of the waters rising a little over 200 feet.
It’s been said by the old earth movement that the flood of Noah’s day was a localized flood. They have put up reasons like, there’s not enough water, the writer of Genesis would not have known about the whole globe, and there’s no evidence of a global flood. All of these objections have been answered and shown to be false multiple times. A serious objection to the old earth theory of a local flood is God’s promise never to flood the earth again. Genesis 9:8-17 records God’s repeated covenant that he would never again flood the earth like he did when he destroyed all life and the earth. If we are to accept the old earth proposal that this was a local flood, then God would have broken his word because there have been many catastrophic local floods.
One argument that I have never heard used to counter the old earth local flood heresy is the water level above Mt. Ararat argument. Today, Mt Ararat stands almost 17,000 feet above sea level. Many volcanic eruptions have been recorded from this mountain, so it’s safe to say that this mountain has been much taller in the past. Mt. St. Helens lost over 1000 feet to its overall height when it erupted in 1980, so it’s not beyond reason to believe that Mt. Ararat would have been much taller the further back in time we go towards the catastrophic flood of Genesis 7-9. But for the sake, of argument, let’s say it was at its current height of 17,000 feet.
We know from Genesis 7:20 that “the waters rose and covered the mountains to a depth of more than fifteen cubits.” Some translations have cubits calculated at about 20 feet. We also know from Genesis 8:4, that the ark came to rest on the mountains of Ararat. The waters would have had to cover Mt Ararat to be in accordance with scripture, so what would happen to the coastlines if the seas were to rise about 17,000 feet? Our four memorialized Republican presidents on Mount Rushmore would be over 2 miles below the surface of the water. The Eiffel Tower would be three miles below the surface. And remember this is if we assume the waters to ONLY be as high as the old earth people tell us. If we take the Bible at its word, we know that it covered all of the mountains however high they were at the time. At the very least, we know that the flood covered the high mountains of Ararat, so if we take the old earth view of a local flood seriously, we have to assume that God put up some kind of imaginary boundaries at the edge of his flood area…but why would we want to do that. Why not take the words of scripture to mean what they actually say rather than trying to inject one’s pet theory into the text?
An ardent old earth advocate might say, “Well what if the ark landed at the base of Mt Ararat? The local flood waters could have just carried the ark to the base of this mountain.” Nice try, but the text says that the waters covered the mountains to a depth of fifteen cubits. So, it doesn’t matter at which point on Mt. Ararat that the ark landed; the only mountain mentioned in the text is surely covered by more than 15 cubits of water. That’s a minimum of 17,000 feet.
We can trust God’s Word to be the authoritative source for interpreting evidence. We can trust what God’s Word has said about history, so we can trust what God’s word tells us about salvation and our future hope! You are valuable because you are created in God’s image, and he purchased your future with the death of his precious Son.
Hypocrisy is difficult to deal with. When I observe it, it tends to make me mad. When my wife observes it, she can hardly contain herself with righteous indignation. When I think of hypocrisy, I most often think of it as being applied to Christians, who have claimed to have a moral stand against something “wicked” but have then proceeded to be involved in exactly that. As a Christian, I’ve been a hypocrite…not intentionally, but usually with my kids, I’ll find that I’ve failed on a moral level. It usually comes in the form of me yelling at my son, “You should not react with anger when you don’t like something!!!!” Um…unless you’re a parent…no that’s not right either. Ok. So Christians are hypocrites…forgiven and (hopefully) letting God’s Spirit guide our actions in accordance with His will.
What about Jesus? Jesus was not a hypocrite. Going way back in time, before Twitter, before Y2K, before Walmart, before Prohibition, before the Battle of the Alamo, before Columbus’ famous voyage, before Guttenburg…well, you get the idea…back at the very beginning, there was freedom in the Garden of Eden. The only guideline was to avoid eating from a single tree. There were no other boundaries. Adam and Eve had a chance to show the Creator that they trusted him completely by obeying this single guideline and enjoying fellowship with Him. But when they thought they knew better than Almighty God…with a little deceit and doubt thrown in there by the serpent (“Did God REALLY say…?”), the repercussions were catastrophic. To quote from Genesis 3 when God had to enter his newly tarnished creation after the prideful sin of Adam and Eve,
Because you listened to your wife and ate from the tree about which I commanded you, ‘You must not eat of it’, Cursed is the ground because of you; through painful toil you will eat of it all the days of your life. It will produce thorns and thistles for you, and you will eat the plants of the field. By the sweat of your brow you will eat your food until you return to the ground, since from it you were taken; for dust you are and to dust you will return.
So death, that terrible enemy, made itself prevalent within creation. Why are thorns and thistles mentioned in the curse? In the same sentence that describes Adam’s inevitable death, God declares that mankind will face the problem of thorns. Odd.
Looking ahead to the fulfillment of God’s promise to crush the head of the serpent through the offspring of the woman, Jesus lived a perfect life, but faced the final enemy (I Cor 15:26) with purpose and resolve. About the events just prior to Jesus’ death, Mark records this:
They put a purple robe on him, then twisted together a crown of thorns and set it on him.
The curse of sin was explicitly stated in the garden as thorns and death. Jesus took both of these upon himself and decisively defeated them both with his resurrection. Thankfully, the perfect Messiah, who did not come to restore Israel’s political dominance in worldly affairs, took the curse of sins upon himself so that we could be restored to life.
Phillip E. Johnson lays out a crystal-clear presentation for understanding the case against Darwinism. Not quite as comprehensive as Darwin on Trial or Reason in the Balance, this book was written as somewhat of a primer for those interested in learning about the scientific case against naturalism without being overwhelmed with scientific jargon.
The book was easy to get through and thoroughly compelling. Knowing that atheists would be resistant to arguments involving the Bible, he does not use it as an one of his arguments. The book’s main focus is on showing that naturalism as a foundation for Darwinism is the main problem. He quotes a letter that he received to show some very common mistakes from those that try to engage in this debate.
Wrong definition of evolution – In the letter, the student tried to say that it was possible that God could have used evolution to do his creating. As I have shown here, here and here, this is not possible. But Johnson continues to explain why evolution as understood in the classroom is not a part of God’s creative plan when he shares the definition of evolution from the American National Association of Biology Teachers (NABT), “The diversity of life on earth is the outcome of evolution: an unsupervised, impersonal, unpredictable and natural process of temporal descent with genetic modification that is affected by natural selection, chance, historical contingencies and changing environments.” <in 1997 the NABT removed the words unsupervised and impersonal>
God started everything and then retired – The student tries to redefine the God of the Bible for a first cause (remote god) of deism.
Faith vs. Reason – This is a very common intellectual error. Many people mistakenly think that naturalism is a result of reason, and anything that is not naturalism is faith. Firstly, naturalism cannot account for reason, and secondly, assuming naturalism is a faith position.
Johnson does a great job at correctly framing the debate. It is not a debate of science vs. faith, but it is one in which those in power of the “microphone” have overstated their case and suppressed any dissent. He has clear insight into the irony of the Darwinian position with regards to the media. Johnson correctly shows the hypocritical position of the Darwinists by describing the 1960 movie release, Inherit the Wind. The movie is based on the historical 1925 Scopes Trial in which a Kentucky high school PE teacher is convicted of teaching evolution in the classroom, which at the time was against the law in Tennessee. The movie stereotypes the Christians as evil monsters bent on suppressing knowledge, and it stereotypes the evolutionists as heroes of reason and humanity. What Johnson is able to do is show that this movie is actually a representation of what is happening in today’s science classrooms…just the reverse of the heroes and villains. In the movie, Mr. Cates is the persecuted hero, who “righteously” stood for reason by teaching evolution. During the scene described below, the prosecuting attorney takes the stand as a witness for creation while the defense attorney grills him:
“Suppose Mr. Cates had enough influence and lung power to railroad through the State Legislature a law that only Darwin should be taught in the schools!”
That possibility may have seemed remote in Hillsboro, but of course it is exactly what happened later. The real story of the Scopes trial is that the stereotype it promoted helped the Darwinists capture the power of the law, and they have since used the law to prevent other people from thinking independently. By labeling any fundamental dissent from Darwinism as “religion,” they are able to ban criticism of the official evolution story from public education far more than the teaching of evolution was banned from Tennessee schools in the 1920s.
But how was this reversal accomplished in a voting democracy? Given that a majority of Americans still believe that God is our Creator, how have the Darwinists been able to obtain so much influence and lung power?
The play answers that question too. In the final scene of Inherit the Wind, when the jury returns to the courtroom to deliver its verdict, a character identified as “Radio Man” appears in the courtroom carrying a large microphone…
The microphone (that is, the news media) can nullify <Darwin Dissenters> power by (in effect) outshouting him..There is only one microphone in the courtroom, and whoever decides when to turn it on or off controls what the world will learn about the trial…When the creation-evolution conflict is replayed in our own media-dominated times, the microphone-owners of the media get tot decide who plays the heroes and who plays the villains. What this has meant for decades is that Darwinists – who are now the legal and political power holders-nonetheless appear before the microphone as <heroes>.
The rest of the book builds the real scientific case for intelligent design and the wedge strategy. Johnson refers to the wedge strategy as the idea of not accepting the presupposition of naturalism. People should be allowed to question this unprovable axiom without having to face Darwinist persecution.
I highly recommend the book for those who would like a start in understanding the creation-evolution conflict at an introductory level. It is a quick read at only 119 pages.