"Islam is quite simply, a religion of war. While there are lax Islamics, there is no such thing as peaceful or tolerant Islam. Islam divides the world into two portions: the Dar al Islam, the world of Islam, and the Dar al Harb, the world of war. In Islamic thought, peace is only possible within the world of Islam. The non-Islamic world is a battlefield, where Islamics are required by their faithto war against the unbelievers."
Sura 9:1-6: ... fight and slay the pagans wherever ye find them, and seize them, beleaguer them, and lie in wait for them in every stratagem (of war).
Sura 9:29-31: Fight those who believe not in God nor the last day.. no acknowledge the religion of truth (Islam), (even if they are) of the the people of the Book (Christians and Jews), until they pay the jizya (poll tax on non-Islamics) with willing submission, and fell themselves subdued.
Paul M. Weyrich, William S. Lind, Why Islam is a Threat to America and The West, p. 1-3
quoted from The Journal, Summit Ministries, June 2004
Friday, August 21, 2009
Thursday, August 20, 2009
Evolution as a Religion (part 5)
These are various quotes from The Journal, Summit Ministries, January 2003
"Here [in Secular Humanism] are all the elements for a religious faith that shall not be confined to sect, class, or race. Such a faith has always been implicitly the common faith of mankind. It remains to make it explicit and militant."
"As Colin Russell tells it in his book Cross-Currents: Interactions Between Science and Faith, the idea of a war between science and religion is a relatively recent invention - one carefully nurtured by those who hope the victor in the conflict will be science. ... Huxley ... Though secularists, they understood very well that they were replacing one religion by another, for they described their goal as the establishment of the 'church scientific.' Huxley even referred to his scientific lectures a 'lay sermons.'"
"one day while browsing through a library in Colorado Springs, [Julian] Huxley came across some essays by Lord Morley in which he found these words: 'The next great task of science will be to create a religion for humanity.' Huxley was challenged by this vision. He wrote, 'I was fired by sharing his conviction that science would of necessity play an essential part in framing any religion of the future worthy of the name.' Huxley took up Morley's challenge to develop a scientific religion. He called it 'Evolutionary Humanism.'"
"Here [in Secular Humanism] are all the elements for a religious faith that shall not be confined to sect, class, or race. Such a faith has always been implicitly the common faith of mankind. It remains to make it explicit and militant."
John Dewey, A Common Faith [1934], p.87
"As Colin Russell tells it in his book Cross-Currents: Interactions Between Science and Faith, the idea of a war between science and religion is a relatively recent invention - one carefully nurtured by those who hope the victor in the conflict will be science. ... Huxley ... Though secularists, they understood very well that they were replacing one religion by another, for they described their goal as the establishment of the 'church scientific.' Huxley even referred to his scientific lectures a 'lay sermons.'"
Nancy R. Pearcey and Charles B. Thaxton, The Soul of Science, p. 19
"one day while browsing through a library in Colorado Springs, [Julian] Huxley came across some essays by Lord Morley in which he found these words: 'The next great task of science will be to create a religion for humanity.' Huxley was challenged by this vision. He wrote, 'I was fired by sharing his conviction that science would of necessity play an essential part in framing any religion of the future worthy of the name.' Huxley took up Morley's challenge to develop a scientific religion. He called it 'Evolutionary Humanism.'"
Norman L. Geisler, Baker Encyclopdia of Christian Apologetics, p. 346
Wednesday, August 19, 2009
Animal Rights
In 1999, Summit Ministries reported that Harvard Law School was offering classes on Animal Rights.
I just went to the Harvard web site and found a class in animal law.
http://www.law.harvard.edu/academics/courses/2009-10/?id=6803
This is part of the course description:
This is a basic course in animal law in which the student engages a broad range of cases, legislation, and concepts as they pertain to nonhuman animals. .... The second part of the course uses (a) the material from the first part of the course and (b) various constitutional and common law principles to assess current proposals that basic legal concepts, such as "rights" and "legal personhood," should be afforded some nonhuman animals.
------------------
Isn't "non human animals" precious!
If we're just plain, old, animals, there isn't much to differentiate us from the rest of the "animal kingdom" and "legal personhood" will have to be recognized.
I just went to the Harvard web site and found a class in animal law.
http://www.law.harvard.edu/academics/courses/2009-10/?id=6803
This is part of the course description:
This is a basic course in animal law in which the student engages a broad range of cases, legislation, and concepts as they pertain to nonhuman animals. .... The second part of the course uses (a) the material from the first part of the course and (b) various constitutional and common law principles to assess current proposals that basic legal concepts, such as "rights" and "legal personhood," should be afforded some nonhuman animals.
------------------
Isn't "non human animals" precious!
If we're just plain, old, animals, there isn't much to differentiate us from the rest of the "animal kingdom" and "legal personhood" will have to be recognized.
Monday, August 17, 2009
The impossibility of Evolution
The very simplest life form ... would be comprised of 239 protein molecules, each of these containing an average of 445 amino acids of a least 20 different types and all 445 precisely slotted into position. The probability that such a simple creature would come together by chance (and none so simple has been found yet to exist) would be: 1 x 10 to the 137,915 power.
Furthermore ... each amino acid must first be activated by a specific enzyme, multiple special enzymes are required to bind messenger RNA to ribosomes before synthesis can begin or end, and with the exception of glycerin, only amino acids with left handed configurations can be used in protein synthesis. When you take all of these factors into account, the chance that a simple form of life could arise spontaneously by chance is: 1 x 10 to the 15,000,000,000 power.
Furthermore ... each amino acid must first be activated by a specific enzyme, multiple special enzymes are required to bind messenger RNA to ribosomes before synthesis can begin or end, and with the exception of glycerin, only amino acids with left handed configurations can be used in protein synthesis. When you take all of these factors into account, the chance that a simple form of life could arise spontaneously by chance is: 1 x 10 to the 15,000,000,000 power.
Hugh Ross, Genesis One: A scientific Perspective
from The Journal by Summit Ministries, August 2006
Sunday, August 16, 2009
"With ALL Your Mind"
the following are excerpts of a review of
J.P. Moreland's "Love Your God With All Your Mind"
Moreland traces the roots of modern anti-intellectualism to the revivalism of the mid--19th century. ... the subjective experience of conversion was highlighted at the expense of doctrinal precision. Preaching was marked by emotionalism and shallow theological content, resulting in a poor intellectual grasp of the Christan faith.
When faced with philosophies that attacked the authority and credibility of the Bible, the church was ill-prepared to counter and instead withdrew from public intellectual discourse.
...
Among the consequences of anti-intellectualism in the church, Moreland cites a faulty understanding of the relationship between faith and reason, a timidity in witnessing for fear we will not be capable of defending our faith, and a gospel message that calls people to believe it because it will meet their felt needs rather than because it is "true and reasonable" (Acts 26:25).
J.P. Moreland's "Love Your God With All Your Mind"
Moreland traces the roots of modern anti-intellectualism to the revivalism of the mid--19th century. ... the subjective experience of conversion was highlighted at the expense of doctrinal precision. Preaching was marked by emotionalism and shallow theological content, resulting in a poor intellectual grasp of the Christan faith.
When faced with philosophies that attacked the authority and credibility of the Bible, the church was ill-prepared to counter and instead withdrew from public intellectual discourse.
...
Among the consequences of anti-intellectualism in the church, Moreland cites a faulty understanding of the relationship between faith and reason, a timidity in witnessing for fear we will not be capable of defending our faith, and a gospel message that calls people to believe it because it will meet their felt needs rather than because it is "true and reasonable" (Acts 26:25).
review by Keith Plummer
Moody magazine
September/October 1997
the Orthodox Church
I know that I have a poor grasp of the theology of the Orthodox Church. Yet, I want to post one quote to show that we need to be cautious of blindly affirming the orthodoxy of the Orthodox.
As human beings we each have this one unique calling, to achieve Theosis. In other words, we are each destined to become a god. To be like God Himself, to be united with Him. The Apostle Peter describes with total clarity the purpose of life: we are to "become partakers of the divine nature" (2 Peter 1:4). This is the purpose of your life; that you be a participant, a sharer in the nature of God and in the life of Christ, a communicant of divine energy - to become just like God, a true God.
As human beings we each have this one unique calling, to achieve Theosis. In other words, we are each destined to become a god. To be like God Himself, to be united with Him. The Apostle Peter describes with total clarity the purpose of life: we are to "become partakers of the divine nature" (2 Peter 1:4). This is the purpose of your life; that you be a participant, a sharer in the nature of God and in the life of Christ, a communicant of divine energy - to become just like God, a true God.
from Christoforos Stravopoulos, Partakers of Divine Nature
Minneapolis; Light and Life, 1976, p. 18
quoted from "That Man Might Become God" by Todd Wilken of Issues Etc.
Saturday, August 15, 2009
Systems of Theology
[T]he center of Calvinist theology is the Sovereignty of God. This is what makes Calvinism tick. The concept of God’s sovereignty runs the theological show. Every doctrine of Calvinism is shaped by the concept that God does as He pleases. This is why Calvinists teach double predestination, irresistible grace and a limited atonement.
The center gravity for Roman Catholic theology is the Justice of God. This explains why the Roman church teaches the merits of the saints, purgatory, the sacrifice of the mass, etc.
The center of Evangelical theology is the moral teaching of Jesus. This explains their moralistic theology and practice.
The center of Lutheran theology is the Cross, the person and work of Jesus Christ to save sinners. This is why Luther said: “The Cross alone is our theology.”
The center of Orthodox theology is “the divine life of the Trinity.” In particular, Orthodoxy is all about how man participates in that “divine life” through the activity of the holy Spirit.
The center gravity for Roman Catholic theology is the Justice of God. This explains why the Roman church teaches the merits of the saints, purgatory, the sacrifice of the mass, etc.
The center of Evangelical theology is the moral teaching of Jesus. This explains their moralistic theology and practice.
The center of Lutheran theology is the Cross, the person and work of Jesus Christ to save sinners. This is why Luther said: “The Cross alone is our theology.”
The center of Orthodox theology is “the divine life of the Trinity.” In particular, Orthodoxy is all about how man participates in that “divine life” through the activity of the holy Spirit.
from That Man Might Become God
By Todd Wilken
Issues Etc.
Friday, August 14, 2009
Evolution as a Religion (part 4)
"We show deference to our leaders, pay respect to our elders and follow the dictates of our shamans; this being the Age of Science, it is scientism’s shamans who command our veneration … scientists [are] the premier mythmakers of our time. … [evolutionism is] courageously proffering naturalistic answers that supplant supernaturalistic ones and … is providing spiritual sustenance."
Michael Shermer, “The Shaman of Scientism,” Scientific American (June 2002), p. 35
Quoted from Evolutionary Arrogance
By Henry M. Morris
Back to Genesis, No. 170, February 2003
Institute for Creation Research
Michael Shermer, “The Shaman of Scientism,” Scientific American (June 2002), p. 35
Quoted from Evolutionary Arrogance
By Henry M. Morris
Back to Genesis, No. 170, February 2003
Institute for Creation Research
Thursday, August 13, 2009
"The humanist left knows the only way it can create substantial numbers of new ideological and social robots eager to follow in their failed footsteps is to imprison substantial numbers of children in government schools where they are force-fed liberal ideology and lied to about sex, about history and about a whole lot of other things at taxpayer's expense".
Cal Thomas, The Colorado Springs Gazette, August 31, 1999, p. N7
Evolution as a Religion (part 3)
"My area of expertise is the clash between evolutionists and creationists, and my analysis is that we hae no simple clash between science and religion but rather between two religions."
All of the above were quoted from The Struggles of Michael Ruse
By Henry M. Morris
Back to Genesis no. 206, Institute for Creation Research, February 2006
Michael Ruse
The Evolution-Creation Struggle, p. 287
All of the above were quoted from The Struggles of Michael Ruse
By Henry M. Morris
Back to Genesis no. 206, Institute for Creation Research, February 2006
Wednesday, August 12, 2009
Evolution as a Religion (part 2)
Evolution would appear to be the indispensable unifying idea and, at the same time, a highly superfluous one.
… my own research with antibiotics received no guidance from insights provided by Darwinian evolution. … I recently asked more than 70 eminent researchers if they would have done their work differently if they had thought Darwin’s theory was wrong. The responses were all the same: “No.”
O.S. Wilkins, “Evolutionary Processes,” BioEssays (vol. 22, 2000), p. 1052, Quoted by Skell (below)
… my own research with antibiotics received no guidance from insights provided by Darwinian evolution. … I recently asked more than 70 eminent researchers if they would have done their work differently if they had thought Darwin’s theory was wrong. The responses were all the same: “No.”
Philip S. Skell, “Why Do We Invoke Darwin?” The Scientist (vol. 19, august 29, 2005), p. 10.
Tuesday, August 11, 2009
Evolution as a Religion
Michael Ruse
From the prologue in his book The Evolution – Creation Struggle
"In particular, I argue that in both evolution and creation we have rival religious responses to a crisis of faith – rival stories of origins, rival judgments about the meaning of human life, rival sets of moral dictates, and above all what theologians call rival eschatologies – pictures of the future and of what lies ahead for humankind." (p 3)
From the prologue in his book The Evolution – Creation Struggle
"In particular, I argue that in both evolution and creation we have rival religious responses to a crisis of faith – rival stories of origins, rival judgments about the meaning of human life, rival sets of moral dictates, and above all what theologians call rival eschatologies – pictures of the future and of what lies ahead for humankind." (p 3)
What are their options?
"Let us begin by supposing that Nature is all that exists. ...
In this situation there are, I think, three things one might do:
(1) You might commit suicide ...
(2) You might decide simply to have as good a time as possible. The universe is a universe of nonsense, but since you are here, grab what you can. Unfortunately, however, there is, on these terms, so very little left to grab - only the coarsest sensual pleasures ...
(3) You may defy the universe. You may say, 'Let it be irrational, I am not. Let it be merciless, I will have mercy.'"
In this situation there are, I think, three things one might do:
(1) You might commit suicide ...
(2) You might decide simply to have as good a time as possible. The universe is a universe of nonsense, but since you are here, grab what you can. Unfortunately, however, there is, on these terms, so very little left to grab - only the coarsest sensual pleasures ...
(3) You may defy the universe. You may say, 'Let it be irrational, I am not. Let it be merciless, I will have mercy.'"
C.S. Lewis
Present Concerns (1948)
Monday, August 10, 2009
The Trinity
Here, in summary, is His [Jesus’] teaching. The Father is in the Son; the Son is in the Father (14:10). The Son is sent by the Father and returns to Him (15:21); 16:28). They have all things in common, except what distinguishes them in their relationship as Father and Son (16:15). They share in fellowship with the Spirit, for He goes out from the Father, and is sent to us by the Son (15:26). He glorifies the Son (16:14); He comes not only on His own but brings the presence of both the Father and the Son into the life of the believer (14:23), for He takes from what is the Son’s (which is also the Father’s) and makes it known to us (16:15)
Sinclair Ferguson
“The Mystery of Mysteries” in Tabletalk magazine (unknown date)
9/11
September 11, 1683, was the date when the tide of Turkish-Muslim advance into Eastern Europe was checked adn reversed. September 11, 2001, was the date of the terrorist attacks on New York City and Washington D.C. and the beginning of America's War on Terrorism.
Sunday, August 9, 2009
Hermeneutics - steps in the process
1)Literary Analysis – Begin any study with a literary analysis. The Bible contains seven distinct genres or types of literature: narrative, prophecy, wisdom, psalm, gospel, epistle and apocalyptic.
2) Grammatical Analysis – At this point, an interpreter will need to be very familiar with basic grammar. Relationships like purpose, result, time, concession, means, manner, condition, comparison, and contrast are indicated by adverbs and adjectives.
3) Historical Analysis – the time period and the impact of the events of the day in which they text was written. Take note of beliefs, social norms, and material traits of the biblical world that may have influenced the writers of the biblical text. Ask yourself: (1)Where is the author and his audience? (2) What political, economic and social situations are confronting them? (3) What cultural references(s) need to be defined? (4) What is the purpose of the writer for the whole book? The author didn’t write in a vacuum.
4) Contextual Analysis – context will usually limit the range of interpretive possibilities … Each word must be considered within the sentence. Each sentence must be considered within the paragraph. Each paragraph must be considered within the chapter. Each chapter must be considered within the book. Each book must be considered within the whole Bible.
5) Theological Analysis – left last because the whole of Scripture is the focus. Theological analysis concerns itself with God and the continual revelation of the will for the world.
2) Grammatical Analysis – At this point, an interpreter will need to be very familiar with basic grammar. Relationships like purpose, result, time, concession, means, manner, condition, comparison, and contrast are indicated by adverbs and adjectives.
3) Historical Analysis – the time period and the impact of the events of the day in which they text was written. Take note of beliefs, social norms, and material traits of the biblical world that may have influenced the writers of the biblical text. Ask yourself: (1)Where is the author and his audience? (2) What political, economic and social situations are confronting them? (3) What cultural references(s) need to be defined? (4) What is the purpose of the writer for the whole book? The author didn’t write in a vacuum.
4) Contextual Analysis – context will usually limit the range of interpretive possibilities … Each word must be considered within the sentence. Each sentence must be considered within the paragraph. Each paragraph must be considered within the chapter. Each chapter must be considered within the book. Each book must be considered within the whole Bible.
5) Theological Analysis – left last because the whole of Scripture is the focus. Theological analysis concerns itself with God and the continual revelation of the will for the world.
Quoted from “Hermeneutic: The Keys of a Wholistic Biblical Method of Interpretation”
By Rev. Charles Cooper
Scripture
“Since I am entirely convinced that no Scripture contradicts another, I will rather acknowledge that I do not understand what is written.”
Justin Martyr – 2nd Century AD
Friday, August 7, 2009
God's armor
In Isaiah 50:17 God is described as "put[ting] on righteousness as his breastplate, and the helmet of salvation on his head; he put on the garments of vengeance and wrapped himself in zeal as in a cloak."
Paul uses this same picture to describe the believer preparing for battle in Ephesians 6:
13 Therefore put on the full armor of God, so that when the day of evil comes, you may be able to stand your ground, and after you have done everything, to stand.
14 Stand firm then, with the belt of truth buckled around your waist, with the breastplate of righteousness in place,
15 and with your feet fitted with the readiness that comes from the gospel of peace.
16 In addition to all this, take up the shield of faith, with which you can extinguish all the flaming arrows of the evil one.
17 Take the helmet of salvation and the sword of the Spirit, which is the word of God.
This equipment will serve us well in battle.
How do we know?
God used it successfully!
These are not ill fitting garments.
God has fitted the armor for us "For he has clothed me with garments of salvation and arrayed me in a robe of righteousness, as a bridegroom adorns his head like a priest, and as a bride adorns herself with her jewels."
Paul uses this same picture to describe the believer preparing for battle in Ephesians 6:
13 Therefore put on the full armor of God, so that when the day of evil comes, you may be able to stand your ground, and after you have done everything, to stand.
14 Stand firm then, with the belt of truth buckled around your waist, with the breastplate of righteousness in place,
15 and with your feet fitted with the readiness that comes from the gospel of peace.
16 In addition to all this, take up the shield of faith, with which you can extinguish all the flaming arrows of the evil one.
17 Take the helmet of salvation and the sword of the Spirit, which is the word of God.
This equipment will serve us well in battle.
How do we know?
God used it successfully!
These are not ill fitting garments.
God has fitted the armor for us "For he has clothed me with garments of salvation and arrayed me in a robe of righteousness, as a bridegroom adorns his head like a priest, and as a bride adorns herself with her jewels."
Thursday, August 6, 2009
Dating Niagara Falls
Everyone interprets the data based on their worldview. The article "Dating Niagara Falls" in the May 2003 issue of Impact reveals one such case. Sir Charles Lyell, the popularizer of uniformity visited Niagara falls in 1841. The falls recedes at 4-5 feet per year. Yet, he discounted an eyewitness report of "3 feet per year" and stated that it was "1 foot per year."
If Niagara Falls has always receded at the rate of 1 foot per year, it would be 35,00 years old.
If Niagara Falls has always receeded at the current rate of 4-5 feet per year, it would be about 7,000 years old.
Why did Lyell chose the rate of 1 foot per year?
Even if he had a report of 1 foot per, why did he latch onto that one and not the report of Mr. Bakewell (3 ft. per year)?
If Niagara Falls has always receded at the rate of 1 foot per year, it would be 35,00 years old.
If Niagara Falls has always receeded at the current rate of 4-5 feet per year, it would be about 7,000 years old.
Why did Lyell chose the rate of 1 foot per year?
Even if he had a report of 1 foot per, why did he latch onto that one and not the report of Mr. Bakewell (3 ft. per year)?
Wednesday, August 5, 2009
Jesus' coronation
Read and compare two passages: Daniel 7:9,10,13,14 and Revelation chapters 4 & 5 (primarily 4:2-4 and 5:6-13)
Daniel
9 "As I looked, "thrones were set in place, and the Ancient of Days took his seat. His clothing was as white as snow; the hair of his head was white like wool. His throne was flaming with fire, and its wheels were all ablaze.
10 A river of fire was flowing, coming out from before him. Thousands upon thousands attended him; ten thousand times ten thousand stood before him. The court was seated, and the books were opened.
13 "In my vision at night I looked, and there before me was one like a son of man, coming with the clouds of heaven. He approached the Ancient of Days and was led into his presence.
14 He was given authority, glory and sovereign power; all peoples, nations and men of every language worshiped him. His dominion is an everlasting dominion that will not pass away, and his kingdom is one that will never be destroyed.
Revelation
4:2 At once I was in the Spirit, and there before me was a throne in heaven with someone sitting on it.
3 And the one who sat there had the appearance of jasper and carnelian. A rainbow, resembling an emerald, encircled the throne.
4 Surrounding the throne were twenty-four other thrones, and seated on them were twenty-four elders. They were dressed in white and had crowns of gold on their heads.
6 Then I saw a Lamb, looking as if it had been slain, standing in the center of the throne, encircled by the four living creatures and the elders. He had seven horns and seven eyes, which are the seven spirits of God sent out into all the earth.
7 He came and took the scroll from the right hand of him who sat on the throne.
8 And when he had taken it, the four living creatures and the twenty-four elders fell down before the Lamb. Each one had a harp and they were holding golden bowls full of incense, which are the prayers of the saints.
9 And they sang a new song: "You are worthy to take the scroll and to open its seals, because you were slain, and with your blood you purchased men for God from every tribe and language and people and nation.
10 You have made them to be a kingdom and priests to serve our God, and they will reign on the earth."
11 Then I looked and heard the voice of many angels, numbering thousands upon thousands, and ten thousand times ten thousand. They encircled the throne and the living creatures and the elders.
12 In a loud voice they sang: "Worthy is the Lamb, who was slain, to receive power and wealth and wisdom and strength and honor and glory and praise!"
13 Then I heard every creature in heaven and on earth and under the earth and on the sea, and all that is in them, singing: "To him who sits on the throne and to the Lamb be praise and honor and glory and power, for ever and ever!"
As discussed yesterday, Jesus is ruling as King in heaven now.
Both of these passages occured at Christ's ascension (at his resurrection).
In both passages:
* God is on the throne (Ancient of Days in Daniel)
* The heavenly court is set ("court" in Daniel, 24 elders in Revelation)
* Jesus is given authority, glory and sovereign power, worship and dominion
Daniel
9 "As I looked, "thrones were set in place, and the Ancient of Days took his seat. His clothing was as white as snow; the hair of his head was white like wool. His throne was flaming with fire, and its wheels were all ablaze.
10 A river of fire was flowing, coming out from before him. Thousands upon thousands attended him; ten thousand times ten thousand stood before him. The court was seated, and the books were opened.
13 "In my vision at night I looked, and there before me was one like a son of man, coming with the clouds of heaven. He approached the Ancient of Days and was led into his presence.
14 He was given authority, glory and sovereign power; all peoples, nations and men of every language worshiped him. His dominion is an everlasting dominion that will not pass away, and his kingdom is one that will never be destroyed.
Revelation
4:2 At once I was in the Spirit, and there before me was a throne in heaven with someone sitting on it.
3 And the one who sat there had the appearance of jasper and carnelian. A rainbow, resembling an emerald, encircled the throne.
4 Surrounding the throne were twenty-four other thrones, and seated on them were twenty-four elders. They were dressed in white and had crowns of gold on their heads.
6 Then I saw a Lamb, looking as if it had been slain, standing in the center of the throne, encircled by the four living creatures and the elders. He had seven horns and seven eyes, which are the seven spirits of God sent out into all the earth.
7 He came and took the scroll from the right hand of him who sat on the throne.
8 And when he had taken it, the four living creatures and the twenty-four elders fell down before the Lamb. Each one had a harp and they were holding golden bowls full of incense, which are the prayers of the saints.
9 And they sang a new song: "You are worthy to take the scroll and to open its seals, because you were slain, and with your blood you purchased men for God from every tribe and language and people and nation.
10 You have made them to be a kingdom and priests to serve our God, and they will reign on the earth."
11 Then I looked and heard the voice of many angels, numbering thousands upon thousands, and ten thousand times ten thousand. They encircled the throne and the living creatures and the elders.
12 In a loud voice they sang: "Worthy is the Lamb, who was slain, to receive power and wealth and wisdom and strength and honor and glory and praise!"
13 Then I heard every creature in heaven and on earth and under the earth and on the sea, and all that is in them, singing: "To him who sits on the throne and to the Lamb be praise and honor and glory and power, for ever and ever!"
As discussed yesterday, Jesus is ruling as King in heaven now.
Both of these passages occured at Christ's ascension (at his resurrection).
In both passages:
* God is on the throne (Ancient of Days in Daniel)
* The heavenly court is set ("court" in Daniel, 24 elders in Revelation)
* Jesus is given authority, glory and sovereign power, worship and dominion
Tuesday, August 4, 2009
Jesus is enthroned as King!
Peter, in his sermon in the 2nd chapter of Acts, declared:
32 God has raised this Jesus to life, and we are all witnesses of the fact.
33 Exalted to the right hand of God, he has received from the Father the promised Holy Spirit and has poured out what you now see and hear.
34 For David did not ascend to heaven, and yet he said, "'The Lord said to my Lord: "Sit at my right hand
35 until I make your enemies a footstool for your feet."'
36 "Therefore let all Israel be assured of this: God has made this Jesus, whom you crucified, both Lord and Christ."
In verse 36, we're told that God has made Jesus Lord and Christ.
Hasn't he always been Lord and Christ?
Yes, but now he has been enthroned in heaven and rules at the right hand of God
After his resurrections, Jesus declared that "All authority in heaven and on earth has been given to me." (Matthew 28:18)
In Ephesiand 1:20-23 Paul briefly describes the fact of Christ's coronation:
"God has seated him (Christ) at his right hand in the heavenly realms, far above all rule and authority, power and dominion, and every title that can be given, not only in the present age but also in the one to come. And God placed all things under his feet and appointed him to be head over everything for the church"
Here are a few OT passages about Christ's enthronement:
Psalms 2:8 "Ask of me, and I will make the nations your inheritance, the ends of the earth your possession."
Isaiah 52:13: "See, my servant will act wisely ; he will be raised and lifted up and highly exalted."
32 God has raised this Jesus to life, and we are all witnesses of the fact.
33 Exalted to the right hand of God, he has received from the Father the promised Holy Spirit and has poured out what you now see and hear.
34 For David did not ascend to heaven, and yet he said, "'The Lord said to my Lord: "Sit at my right hand
35 until I make your enemies a footstool for your feet."'
36 "Therefore let all Israel be assured of this: God has made this Jesus, whom you crucified, both Lord and Christ."
In verse 36, we're told that God has made Jesus Lord and Christ.
Hasn't he always been Lord and Christ?
Yes, but now he has been enthroned in heaven and rules at the right hand of God
After his resurrections, Jesus declared that "All authority in heaven and on earth has been given to me." (Matthew 28:18)
In Ephesiand 1:20-23 Paul briefly describes the fact of Christ's coronation:
"God has seated him (Christ) at his right hand in the heavenly realms, far above all rule and authority, power and dominion, and every title that can be given, not only in the present age but also in the one to come. And God placed all things under his feet and appointed him to be head over everything for the church"
Here are a few OT passages about Christ's enthronement:
Psalms 2:8 "Ask of me, and I will make the nations your inheritance, the ends of the earth your possession."
Isaiah 52:13: "See, my servant will act wisely ; he will be raised and lifted up and highly exalted."
Sunday, August 2, 2009
Evolution - some notes and thoughts
What are the minimum number of amino acids required to support life?
What is the probability of their forming?
I have read that the minimum number is "20."
How many amino acids are required for the simplest of proteins? (and simplest of life forms?)
What's the probability of that chain forming? (only left hand, not right hand)
I have read that, theoretically, the simplest organism that can self-replicate would have 124 proteins of 400 amino acids each. The simplest one KNOWN has 625 proteins.
WHAT IS THE PROBABILITY OF ONE PROTEIN OF 400 LEFT HAND AMINO ACIDS FORMING if there was a "pure" mixture of left and right hand amino acids of all types?
400 - 20 = 380
400 total amino acids needed, less 20 (glycine only comes in 1 form) = 380 acids
1/2 * 1/2 * 1/2 380 times is the probability of getting only left hand amino acids to combine
This equals 1/2^380 = 1/10^114
Remember, this does not take into account the information content (sequence), but only the validity of the amino acids.
To get 124 such proteins for self-replicating life, we would multiply the above result (1/10^114) 124 times.
1/10^114 * 1/10^114 * 1/10^114 (124 times) = 1/10 ^ 14,136
Folks, we've only begun to look at the improbability of proteins forming by chance and we've hit a wall. There is NO WAY that a chance of 1 in 10^14,136 could be realized.
There are 10^9 electrons in the universe. If I could pick one, color it red, release it somewhere in the universe - could you randomly pick an electron and have it be the correct one? You'd have to correctly pick the special electron 179 times in a row to equal the probability / improbability of just getting left hand amino acids to form a long chain!
What is the probability of their forming?
I have read that the minimum number is "20."
How many amino acids are required for the simplest of proteins? (and simplest of life forms?)
What's the probability of that chain forming? (only left hand, not right hand)
I have read that, theoretically, the simplest organism that can self-replicate would have 124 proteins of 400 amino acids each. The simplest one KNOWN has 625 proteins.
WHAT IS THE PROBABILITY OF ONE PROTEIN OF 400 LEFT HAND AMINO ACIDS FORMING if there was a "pure" mixture of left and right hand amino acids of all types?
400 - 20 = 380
400 total amino acids needed, less 20 (glycine only comes in 1 form) = 380 acids
1/2 * 1/2 * 1/2 380 times is the probability of getting only left hand amino acids to combine
This equals 1/2^380 = 1/10^114
Remember, this does not take into account the information content (sequence), but only the validity of the amino acids.
To get 124 such proteins for self-replicating life, we would multiply the above result (1/10^114) 124 times.
1/10^114 * 1/10^114 * 1/10^114 (124 times) = 1/10 ^ 14,136
Folks, we've only begun to look at the improbability of proteins forming by chance and we've hit a wall. There is NO WAY that a chance of 1 in 10^14,136 could be realized.
There are 10^9 electrons in the universe. If I could pick one, color it red, release it somewhere in the universe - could you randomly pick an electron and have it be the correct one? You'd have to correctly pick the special electron 179 times in a row to equal the probability / improbability of just getting left hand amino acids to form a long chain!
Saturday, August 1, 2009
Anti-intellectualism in the church
"One of the most striking contrasts between pre Civil War revivalists and those afte the war is that the former founded liberal arts colleges while the latter established Bible schools."
"Os Guinness writes that "dispensational premillennialism .. has had unfortunate consequences on the christian mind," including refinforcing an already developing "anti-intellectualism" and a "general indifference to serious engagement with custure.""
Quoted from "A Prophetic Shift on the Horizon"
by Gary DeMar
in American Vision's Biblical Worlview, March 2007
Os Guiness quoted from "Fit Bodies, Fat Minds"
"Os Guinness writes that "dispensational premillennialism .. has had unfortunate consequences on the christian mind," including refinforcing an already developing "anti-intellectualism" and a "general indifference to serious engagement with custure.""
Quoted from "A Prophetic Shift on the Horizon"
by Gary DeMar
in American Vision's Biblical Worlview, March 2007
Os Guiness quoted from "Fit Bodies, Fat Minds"
Friday, July 31, 2009
The limits of evolution
The Acts & Facts of September 2008 had some interesting quotes from Werner Arber
The following are quotes from the article without added comments. (The footnote numbers have been deleted from the body of the text but are cited at the end.)
The most recent replication is by Lenski et al, who evaluated the changes in over 30,000 generations of E. coli, concluding that millions of mutations and trillions of cells were needed to produce the estimated two to three mutations required to allow cells to bring citrate into the cell under oxic conditions. This corresponds with Michael Behe's deductions that if one mutation is required to confer some advantage to an organism, this event is likely; if two are required, the likelihood is far less; but if three or more are required, the probability rapidly grows exponentially worse, from very improbable to impossible. Evolution by mutations for this reason has very clear limits.
…
Regarding major evolutionary questions, such as the origin of the information required for natural selection, Arbor wrote in his Nobel Prize speech that the answers so far proposed are often trivial or avoid the major questions facing Darwinism. He gave the example of using meaningless phrases such as "evolutionary driving forces" to explain how life evolved. As Arbor wrote, the claim that "more intensive research is needed to understand the apparent complexity of nature" is actually an admission of ignorance about the origin of complexity in the living natural world.9
…
For his study of mutations, Arber selected bacteria because they have short generation times (20 minutes vs. 20 years for humans) and therefore reproduce enormous numbers of progeny in only a few days. They also do not have sophisticated genetic repair mechanisms as do eukaryotes, allowing far more mutations to be expressed in their offspring. One of Arber's studies evaluated 10,000 generations of E. coli under various conditions, finding that "tremendous diversity accumulated within each population." The phenotypic change was very rapid for the initial 2,000 generations, but far slower for the subsequent 8,000 generations, conforming to the research on viruses that found the rate of fitness gain "decelerated significantly over time," as did the rate of nucleotide substitution.11 Arber concluded that genetic variety has definite limits, a finding carefully documented by Behe.7
This evidence indicates that the changes he observed in bacteria resulted almost solely from transposition and other types of chromosomal rearrangement, not mutations as required by macroevolution. This study provides clear evidence that the putative evolution observed in microorganisms is primarily, if not totally, a result of built-in mechanisms designed to produce genetic, and thus phenotypic, variety.
References
7.Behe, Michael. 2007. The Edge of Evolution. New York: The Free Press.
8.Arber, W. 1996. Molecular Mechanisms Promoting and Limiting Genetic Variation. In Di Castri, F. and T. Younes (eds.), Biodiversity, Science and Development: Towards a New Partnership. Wallingford, Oxon (UK): CAB International.
9.Arber, W, D. Nathans, and H. O. Smith. 1992. 1978 Physiology or Medicine, Nobel Lectures: Physiology or Medicine 1971-1980, 469-492.
10.Arber, W. 1991. Elements in Microbial Evolution. Journal of Molecular Evolution. 33: 4-12.
11. 11.Papadopoulos, D. et al. 1999. Genomic Evolution During a 10,000-Generation Experiment with Bacteria. Proceedings of the National Academy of Science USA. 96: 3807-3812.
The following are quotes from the article without added comments. (The footnote numbers have been deleted from the body of the text but are cited at the end.)
The most recent replication is by Lenski et al, who evaluated the changes in over 30,000 generations of E. coli, concluding that millions of mutations and trillions of cells were needed to produce the estimated two to three mutations required to allow cells to bring citrate into the cell under oxic conditions. This corresponds with Michael Behe's deductions that if one mutation is required to confer some advantage to an organism, this event is likely; if two are required, the likelihood is far less; but if three or more are required, the probability rapidly grows exponentially worse, from very improbable to impossible. Evolution by mutations for this reason has very clear limits.
…
Regarding major evolutionary questions, such as the origin of the information required for natural selection, Arbor wrote in his Nobel Prize speech that the answers so far proposed are often trivial or avoid the major questions facing Darwinism. He gave the example of using meaningless phrases such as "evolutionary driving forces" to explain how life evolved. As Arbor wrote, the claim that "more intensive research is needed to understand the apparent complexity of nature" is actually an admission of ignorance about the origin of complexity in the living natural world.9
…
For his study of mutations, Arber selected bacteria because they have short generation times (20 minutes vs. 20 years for humans) and therefore reproduce enormous numbers of progeny in only a few days. They also do not have sophisticated genetic repair mechanisms as do eukaryotes, allowing far more mutations to be expressed in their offspring. One of Arber's studies evaluated 10,000 generations of E. coli under various conditions, finding that "tremendous diversity accumulated within each population." The phenotypic change was very rapid for the initial 2,000 generations, but far slower for the subsequent 8,000 generations, conforming to the research on viruses that found the rate of fitness gain "decelerated significantly over time," as did the rate of nucleotide substitution.11 Arber concluded that genetic variety has definite limits, a finding carefully documented by Behe.7
This evidence indicates that the changes he observed in bacteria resulted almost solely from transposition and other types of chromosomal rearrangement, not mutations as required by macroevolution. This study provides clear evidence that the putative evolution observed in microorganisms is primarily, if not totally, a result of built-in mechanisms designed to produce genetic, and thus phenotypic, variety.
References
7.Behe, Michael. 2007. The Edge of Evolution. New York: The Free Press.
8.Arber, W. 1996. Molecular Mechanisms Promoting and Limiting Genetic Variation. In Di Castri, F. and T. Younes (eds.), Biodiversity, Science and Development: Towards a New Partnership. Wallingford, Oxon (UK): CAB International.
9.Arber, W, D. Nathans, and H. O. Smith. 1992. 1978 Physiology or Medicine, Nobel Lectures: Physiology or Medicine 1971-1980, 469-492.
10.Arber, W. 1991. Elements in Microbial Evolution. Journal of Molecular Evolution. 33: 4-12.
11. 11.Papadopoulos, D. et al. 1999. Genomic Evolution During a 10,000-Generation Experiment with Bacteria. Proceedings of the National Academy of Science USA. 96: 3807-3812.
Thursday, July 30, 2009
Odd priorities in the EFCA
The EFCA (Evangelical Church of America) was debating about changing their statement of faith. Number 11 of their prior statement read:
"We believe in the personal, premillenial and imminent coming of our Lord Jesus Christ and that this "Blessed Hope" has a vital bearing on the personal life and service of the believer."
The proposed changes were:
"We believe in the personal, bodily and glorious return of our Lord Jesus Christ with His holy angels when He will bring His kingdom to fulfillment and exercise His role as Judge of all. This coming of Christ, at a time known only to God, requires constant expectancy and, as our blessed hope, motivates the believer to godly living, sacrificial service and energetic mission."
Many pastors didn't appreciate the removal of the word "premillenial" from the statement.
One local EFCA church's head pastor was against the change. Yet, he was (apparantly) comfortable with the openness the EFCA has to BOTH Calvinism and Arminianism. His off-handed comment was "we just differ on Soteriology". He gave me a photocopy of "This We Believe Creeds in Conflict", spelling out the history of how the EFCA could have divided over "just Soteriology" (my sarcasim).
How is it the the message of SALVATION IN CHRIST and how it is accomplished could be of less importance than the contentin that there is a future, literal 1,000 reign?
The Premillenialists won and the EFCA still has "premillenial" in their statement of faith.
"We believe in the personal, premillenial and imminent coming of our Lord Jesus Christ and that this "Blessed Hope" has a vital bearing on the personal life and service of the believer."
The proposed changes were:
"We believe in the personal, bodily and glorious return of our Lord Jesus Christ with His holy angels when He will bring His kingdom to fulfillment and exercise His role as Judge of all. This coming of Christ, at a time known only to God, requires constant expectancy and, as our blessed hope, motivates the believer to godly living, sacrificial service and energetic mission."
Many pastors didn't appreciate the removal of the word "premillenial" from the statement.
One local EFCA church's head pastor was against the change. Yet, he was (apparantly) comfortable with the openness the EFCA has to BOTH Calvinism and Arminianism. His off-handed comment was "we just differ on Soteriology". He gave me a photocopy of "This We Believe Creeds in Conflict", spelling out the history of how the EFCA could have divided over "just Soteriology" (my sarcasim).
How is it the the message of SALVATION IN CHRIST and how it is accomplished could be of less importance than the contentin that there is a future, literal 1,000 reign?
The Premillenialists won and the EFCA still has "premillenial" in their statement of faith.
Wednesday, July 29, 2009
Where is "heaven" mentioned in the OT?
"Where is heaven mentioned in the OT?"
I've asked that question many times and have had a lot of silence in response.
In Genesis, Abraham is promised "the land." In Romans 4:13, Paul says that Abraham was given "the promise that he would be heir of the world."
I'd like to offer the premise: "The fulfillment is always greater than the promise."
Abraham was promised a piece of land in the OT. In the NT we see that it is really the whole world that was promised!
Hebrews 11:10 tells us that Abraham "was looking forward to the city with foundations, whose architect and builder is God." This sounds like the heavenly Jerusalem seen at the end of Revelation.
Review all the OT "kingdom" passages. ALL of them are eternal kingdoms. They do not last 1,000 years; they last forever. I would contend that they refer to heaven.
No one can read all those Kingdom passages in a wooden literal way, but that discussion is for another day
I've asked that question many times and have had a lot of silence in response.
In Genesis, Abraham is promised "the land." In Romans 4:13, Paul says that Abraham was given "the promise that he would be heir of the world."
I'd like to offer the premise: "The fulfillment is always greater than the promise."
Abraham was promised a piece of land in the OT. In the NT we see that it is really the whole world that was promised!
Hebrews 11:10 tells us that Abraham "was looking forward to the city with foundations, whose architect and builder is God." This sounds like the heavenly Jerusalem seen at the end of Revelation.
Review all the OT "kingdom" passages. ALL of them are eternal kingdoms. They do not last 1,000 years; they last forever. I would contend that they refer to heaven.
No one can read all those Kingdom passages in a wooden literal way, but that discussion is for another day
Christ is the true Israel
In my last post I said that all believers are Israel.
It would be better and more accurate to say that Christ is the true Israel.
It would be better and more accurate to say that Christ is the true Israel.
- The servant songs of Isaiah (41:8-9; 44:1-2,21; 45:4; 49:3) have a double referent. On one hand, they refer to the people of Israel. On another level they refer to an individual. The New Testament authors interpret this as referring to Christ (Mt 8:17 and Acts 8:30-35)
- Matthew sees Jesus as Israel in many of his statements of fulfilled prophesies in Christ. Hosea 11:1, "Out of Egypt I called my son" is one such double referent.
- Paul calls Jesus Christ as Abraham's seed, not physical Israel. (Gal 3:16)
- Gal 3:7 and Romans 4:11,16 identify the church as Abraham's offspring. See also Gal 3:26-29, Rom 2:28-29, Phil 3:3.
- The Old Covenant is obsolete (Hebrews 8:8-12) and is not applicable and will not be reinstated in a future millennial period ("obsolete" means "obsolete"). Also, the reference in this passage to the new covenant being with "Israel" means that the author is identifying the church as Israel.
- The Old Testament authors didn't understand their prophecies. 1 Peter 1:12 says that they looked into these things. Until Christ came and fulfilled his mission, the prophecies of the OT were unclear. We must use the NT to interpret the OT.
Tuesday, July 28, 2009
How many "Israels" are there?
March 7, 2007, John MacArthur gave a speech at the Shepherd's Conference at Grace Community Church. It was entitled "Why Every Self-Respecting Calvinist is a Premillennialist"
As a thoughtful amillennialist, Kim Riddlebarger gave a response to the speech. I have a few general notes to throw into the fray.
MacArthur said "There are over 2,000 references to Israel in Scripture, not one of them means anything but Israel. Not one of them, including Romans 9:6 and Galatians 6:16 which is the only two passages that amillennialists go to trying to convince us that that cancels out the other 2,000. There is no difficulty in interpreting those as simply meaning Jews who were believers..."
----------------------------------------------------------
Several years ago I was listening to a Dispensational Premillennial radio program in which two pastors were stating the same thing: "there is only one Israel."
I called into the show and read Romans 9:6 to them. Note that this is the same passage MacArthur says "we" run to as a proof text.
It is not as though God's word had failed. For not all who are descended from Israel are Israel."
My question was "if the word Israel is used twice in a sentence, with a negation between them, there must be two Israels, right?"
I don't recall that the pastors ever addressed my challenge/question.
A few of the people that called into the show after me said that they'd pray for me :-)
------------------------------------------------------------
Back to MacArthur's claims:
If Romans 9:6 "simply means Jews who were believers" then the verse would read "not all Jews who are believers are Jews who are believers."
Of course this is silly. John must not be meaning that "Jews who are believers" is to be substituted on both sides of the equation.
Paul begins chapter 9 with a concern that many of his fellow Jews are not being saved. In verse 4 he sates that "There's is the adoption as sons ... the covenants" and YET they aren't saved. How can that be, if God keeps his promises? (verse 6a asks) It's because "not all of the physical descendants of Abraham/Isaac/Jacob (Israel) are of (spiritual) Israel."
In John 10:16 Jesus says "I have sheep that are not of this sheep pen. I must bring them also. ... and there shall be one flock and one shepherd."
We believing gentiles are being made part of the "one flock" with believing Jews that Jesus spoke of.
In Ephesians chapter 2:11-20, Paul states the same thing:
11 Therefore, remember that formerly you who are Gentiles
by birth and called "uncircumcised" by those who call themselves
"the circumcision" (that done in the body by the hands of men)--
12 remember that at that time you were separate from Christ, excluded
from citizenship in Israel and foreigners to the covenants of the
promise, without hope and without God in the world.
13 But now in Christ Jesus you who once were far away have been brought
near through the blood of Christ.
14 For he himself is our peace, who has made the two one and has
destroyed the barrier, the dividing wall of hostility,
15 by abolishing in his flesh the law with its commandments and
regulations. His purpose was to create in himself one new man out
of the two, thus making peace,
16 and in this one body to reconcile both of them to God through the
cross, by which he put to death their hostility.
17 He came and preached peace to you who were far away and peace to
those who were near.
18 For through him we both have access to the Father by one Spirit.
19 Consequently, you are no longer foreigners and aliens, but fellow
citizens with God's people and members of God's household,
20 built on the foundation of the apostles and prophets, with Christ
Jesus himself as the chief cornerstone.
"We amillennialists" don't have to run to just one or two texts. We don't have to read into the text the meaning we want. We see the text plainly stating that we have been brought near (elsewhere "grafted in") and are no longer foreigners and aliens.
ALL BELIEVERS ARE ISRAELITES
As a thoughtful amillennialist, Kim Riddlebarger gave a response to the speech. I have a few general notes to throw into the fray.
MacArthur said "There are over 2,000 references to Israel in Scripture, not one of them means anything but Israel. Not one of them, including Romans 9:6 and Galatians 6:16 which is the only two passages that amillennialists go to trying to convince us that that cancels out the other 2,000. There is no difficulty in interpreting those as simply meaning Jews who were believers..."
----------------------------------------------------------
Several years ago I was listening to a Dispensational Premillennial radio program in which two pastors were stating the same thing: "there is only one Israel."
I called into the show and read Romans 9:6 to them. Note that this is the same passage MacArthur says "we" run to as a proof text.
It is not as though God's word had failed. For not all who are descended from Israel are Israel."
My question was "if the word Israel is used twice in a sentence, with a negation between them, there must be two Israels, right?"
I don't recall that the pastors ever addressed my challenge/question.
A few of the people that called into the show after me said that they'd pray for me :-)
------------------------------------------------------------
Back to MacArthur's claims:
If Romans 9:6 "simply means Jews who were believers" then the verse would read "not all Jews who are believers are Jews who are believers."
Of course this is silly. John must not be meaning that "Jews who are believers" is to be substituted on both sides of the equation.
Paul begins chapter 9 with a concern that many of his fellow Jews are not being saved. In verse 4 he sates that "There's is the adoption as sons ... the covenants" and YET they aren't saved. How can that be, if God keeps his promises? (verse 6a asks) It's because "not all of the physical descendants of Abraham/Isaac/Jacob (Israel) are of (spiritual) Israel."
In John 10:16 Jesus says "I have sheep that are not of this sheep pen. I must bring them also. ... and there shall be one flock and one shepherd."
We believing gentiles are being made part of the "one flock" with believing Jews that Jesus spoke of.
In Ephesians chapter 2:11-20, Paul states the same thing:
11 Therefore, remember that formerly you who are Gentiles
by birth and called "uncircumcised" by those who call themselves
"the circumcision" (that done in the body by the hands of men)--
12 remember that at that time you were separate from Christ, excluded
from citizenship in Israel and foreigners to the covenants of the
promise, without hope and without God in the world.
13 But now in Christ Jesus you who once were far away have been brought
near through the blood of Christ.
14 For he himself is our peace, who has made the two one and has
destroyed the barrier, the dividing wall of hostility,
15 by abolishing in his flesh the law with its commandments and
regulations. His purpose was to create in himself one new man out
of the two, thus making peace,
16 and in this one body to reconcile both of them to God through the
cross, by which he put to death their hostility.
17 He came and preached peace to you who were far away and peace to
those who were near.
18 For through him we both have access to the Father by one Spirit.
19 Consequently, you are no longer foreigners and aliens, but fellow
citizens with God's people and members of God's household,
20 built on the foundation of the apostles and prophets, with Christ
Jesus himself as the chief cornerstone.
"We amillennialists" don't have to run to just one or two texts. We don't have to read into the text the meaning we want. We see the text plainly stating that we have been brought near (elsewhere "grafted in") and are no longer foreigners and aliens.
ALL BELIEVERS ARE ISRAELITES
Sunday, July 26, 2009
The logical conclusion of Darwinism is a-morality
The following quotations are directly from “Darwinism: Survival without Purpose” from found in the November 2007 issue of Acts & Facts, written by Jerry Bergman, Ph.D. (Bold added to highlight the a-moral nature of Evolution)
Humans have always wondered about the meaning of life...life has no higher purpose than to perpetuate the survival of DNA...life has no design, no purpose, no evil and no good, nothing but blind pitiless indifference. Richard Dawkins
Scheff, Liam. 2007. The Dawkins Delusion. Salvo, 2:94.
Darwin "was keenly aware that admitting any purposefulness whatsoever to the question of the origin of species would put his theory of natural selection on a very slippery slope."
Turner, J. Scott. 2007. The Tinkerer's Accomplice: How Design Emerges from Life Itself. Cambridge, MA: Harvard University Press, 206.
The ultimate purposelessness of evolution, and thus of the life that it produces, was eloquently expressed by Professor Lawrence Krauss as follows: "We're just a bit of pollution…. If you got rid of us…the universe would be largely the same. We're completely irrelevant."
Panek, Richard. 2007. Out There. New York Times Magazine, 56.
"undirected, purposeless variation to the blind, uncaring process of natural selection, Darwin made theological or spiritual explanations of the life processes superfluous."
Futuyma, Douglas J. 1998. Evolutionary Biology. Third Edition, Sunderland, MA: Sinauer Associates, 5.
John Alcock, an evolutionary biologist, therefore concluded that "we exist solely to propagate the genes within us."
Alcock, John. 1998. Animal Behavior: An Evolutionary Approach. Sunderland, MA: Sinauer Associates, 16, 609.
The pleasant outward face of nature was precisely that--only an outward face. Underneath was perpetual struggle, species against species, individual against individual. Life was ruled by death...destruction was the key to reproductive success. All the theological meaning was thus stripped out by Darwin and replaced by the concept of competition. All the telos, the purpose, on which natural theologians based their ideas of perfect adaptation was redirected into Malthusian--Darwinian--struggle.
Browne, Janet. 1995. Charles Darwin: Voyaging, A Biography. Princeton, New Jersey: Princeton University Press, 542.
Neo-Darwinist Richard Dawkins recognized the purposelessness of such a system:
In a universe of blind physical forces and genetic replication some people are going to get hurt, other people are going to get lucky, and you won't find any rhyme or reason in it, nor any justice. The universe we observe has precisely the properties we should expect if there is, at bottom, no design, no purpose, no evil and no good, nothing but blind, pitiless indifference.
Dawkins, Richard. 1995. River Out of Eden. New York: Basic Books, 133.
---------------------------------------
Some of the above quotes/Evolutionists say that we only exist to pass on our genes ("selfish genes"). Speaking from within their system, that is totally wrong!
Evoltuion has NO PURPOSE. Things, animals and people exist, but they have no purpose.
If they pass on their genes, they have offspring. That could be a measure of success. However, perhaps some humans would measure success as "having climed the most mountains."
The Evolutionary system has been built on a tautology of "Survival of the Fittest." And they deem "survival" as good. But they have no philosophical basis for this belief. It is presupposed.
Another conclusion of their "Survival of the Fittest" has lead some to conclude that rape is just another method of ensuring the passing on of genes. Refer to Randy Thornhill and Craig Palmer. A Natural History of Rape (Cambridge, Mass., MIT Press, 1999).
Humans have always wondered about the meaning of life...life has no higher purpose than to perpetuate the survival of DNA...life has no design, no purpose, no evil and no good, nothing but blind pitiless indifference. Richard Dawkins
Scheff, Liam. 2007. The Dawkins Delusion. Salvo, 2:94.
Darwin "was keenly aware that admitting any purposefulness whatsoever to the question of the origin of species would put his theory of natural selection on a very slippery slope."
Turner, J. Scott. 2007. The Tinkerer's Accomplice: How Design Emerges from Life Itself. Cambridge, MA: Harvard University Press, 206.
The ultimate purposelessness of evolution, and thus of the life that it produces, was eloquently expressed by Professor Lawrence Krauss as follows: "We're just a bit of pollution…. If you got rid of us…the universe would be largely the same. We're completely irrelevant."
Panek, Richard. 2007. Out There. New York Times Magazine, 56.
"undirected, purposeless variation to the blind, uncaring process of natural selection, Darwin made theological or spiritual explanations of the life processes superfluous."
Futuyma, Douglas J. 1998. Evolutionary Biology. Third Edition, Sunderland, MA: Sinauer Associates, 5.
John Alcock, an evolutionary biologist, therefore concluded that "we exist solely to propagate the genes within us."
Alcock, John. 1998. Animal Behavior: An Evolutionary Approach. Sunderland, MA: Sinauer Associates, 16, 609.
The pleasant outward face of nature was precisely that--only an outward face. Underneath was perpetual struggle, species against species, individual against individual. Life was ruled by death...destruction was the key to reproductive success. All the theological meaning was thus stripped out by Darwin and replaced by the concept of competition. All the telos, the purpose, on which natural theologians based their ideas of perfect adaptation was redirected into Malthusian--Darwinian--struggle.
Browne, Janet. 1995. Charles Darwin: Voyaging, A Biography. Princeton, New Jersey: Princeton University Press, 542.
Neo-Darwinist Richard Dawkins recognized the purposelessness of such a system:
In a universe of blind physical forces and genetic replication some people are going to get hurt, other people are going to get lucky, and you won't find any rhyme or reason in it, nor any justice. The universe we observe has precisely the properties we should expect if there is, at bottom, no design, no purpose, no evil and no good, nothing but blind, pitiless indifference.
Dawkins, Richard. 1995. River Out of Eden. New York: Basic Books, 133.
---------------------------------------
Some of the above quotes/Evolutionists say that we only exist to pass on our genes ("selfish genes"). Speaking from within their system, that is totally wrong!
Evoltuion has NO PURPOSE. Things, animals and people exist, but they have no purpose.
If they pass on their genes, they have offspring. That could be a measure of success. However, perhaps some humans would measure success as "having climed the most mountains."
The Evolutionary system has been built on a tautology of "Survival of the Fittest." And they deem "survival" as good. But they have no philosophical basis for this belief. It is presupposed.
Another conclusion of their "Survival of the Fittest" has lead some to conclude that rape is just another method of ensuring the passing on of genes. Refer to Randy Thornhill and Craig Palmer. A Natural History of Rape (Cambridge, Mass., MIT Press, 1999).
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)
