Matthew R. Perry

Archive for the ‘Darwin’ Category

A Global Flood Resounds a Gospel Message, Part I: The Epitome of Sin

In biblical creationism, Darwin, Evolution, global flood, Humanism, Noah on February 17, 2009 at 9:40 am

Once again, look at Genesis 6:5 as well as Genesis 6:11-12:

The Lord saw that the wickedness of man was great in the earth, and that every intention of the thoughts of his heart was only evil continually. . . . Now the earth was corrupt in God’s sight, and the earth was filled with violence. And God saw the earth, and behold, it was corrupt, for all flesh had corrupted their way on the earth.

Clearly this is a bleak picture—we see the greatness of man’s wickedness not just in action, but also “the intention of the thoughts of his heart was only evil continually.” Wickedness. Evil. This passage captures the imagination, doesn’t it? What does this look like? Yes, the earth was “filled with violence” and “corrupt.” But the violence was simply a symptom of a greater cause, being “the intentions of the thoughts of his heart” being evil.

What is the essence of evil? I believe that Jesus helps inform us of the essence of the evil found here. In Luke 17:26-27.

Just as it was in the days of Noah, so will it be in the days of the Son of Man. They were eating and drinking and marrying and being given in marriage, until the day when Noah entered the ark, and the flood came and destroyed them all.

So what are we seeing here? Is the “evil” and “wickedness” simply heinous violent acts? No, but that is ultimately the result if left unchecked. Where did it stem? “They were eating and drinking and marrying and being given in marriage, until the day when Noah entered the ark.” In other words, they were continuing on as if nothing would change. They lived life, even the mundane things of life, without God in the equation. Just as 1 Corinthians 10:31 says, “Whatever you eat, whatever you drink, whatever you do, do to the glory of God.”

Darwin fell into this mindset when he listened to his mentor, Dr. Charles Lyell, who claimed like Sagan that everything would continue on as it always had with no change and, ultimately, no judgment or accountability for what you said, did, or thought. The essence of sin is living your life without God in the equation.

Many Christians are like this, but they add God onto it. They have their preferences about how their Christian life should be, how their church should be done, and elevate their preferences up to essentials and then believe God blesses those perceived “essentials.” Many believe that if they are Christians and they have certain convictions, they should be seen as necessities for everyone else–even what they are not expressly outlined in Scripture.

We must be careful not to live as Christian atheists — having Christ in name only, but living as if He did not exist.

Advertisements

In Praise of Darwin by Secularists and the Vatican?

In biblical creationism, Creator, Darwin, Darwinism, Evolution on February 11, 2009 at 1:21 pm

A secularist group called the “Freedom From Religion Foundation” is starting an ad campaign in praise of Charles Darwin during the time of his 200th birthday (February 12, 2009).  The group urged people to “evolve beyond belief.”  We should not be surprised by this media blitz of this group and others like it.  It just reminds me of what the Apostle Paul said centuries ago:

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.  [21] 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.  [22] Claiming to be wise, they became fools,  [23] and exchanged the glory of the immortal God for images resembling mortal man and birds and animals and reptiles (Romans 1:20-23, ESV).

Given how there is no conclusive evidence to Darwin’s theory of macro-evolution (one species evolving into another), this is another example of how science and academia have exchange the religion of Christianity for the religion of Darwinism.  We look at the same evidence with different presuppositions. 

Also, the Vatican just released a statement that Darwin’s theories are not in opposition to the Genesis 1 account.  Richard Owen writes:

The Vatican has admitted that Charles Darwin was on the right track when he claimed that Man descended from apes.

A leading official declared yesterday that Darwin’s theory of evolution was compatible with Christian faith, and could even be traced to St Augustine and St Thomas Aquinas. “In fact, what we mean by evolution is the world as created by God,” said Archbishop Gianfranco Ravasi, head of the Pontifical Council for Culture. The Vatican also dealt the final blow to speculation that Pope Benedict XVI might be prepared to endorse the theory of Intelligent Design, whose advocates credit a “higher power” for the complexities of life.

Organisers of a papal-backed conference next month marking the 150th anniversary of Darwin’s On the Origin of Species said that at first it had even been proposed to ban Intelligent Design from the event, as “poor theology and poor science”. Intelligent Design would be discussed at the fringes of the conference at the Pontifical Gregorian University, but merely as a “cultural phenomenon”, rather than a scientific or theological issue, organisers said.

Intelligent design a mere “cultural phenomenon”?  The Vatican said this? 

We must beware of taking man-made theories and cultural baggage to the text of God’s holy Word and re-interpret it.  Given that God created the heavens and the earth and all things in it, we must realize that science must submit to the Scriptures, not vice versa. 

Psalm 33:6
    By the word of the Lord the heavens were made,
        and by the breath of his mouth all their host.

Rev. 4:11
    “Worthy are you, our Lord and God,
        to receive glory and honor and power,
    for you created all things,
        and by your will they existed and were created.”

Technorati Tags: , , ,

Is Denying a Six-Day Creation Equivalent to Compromising the Gospel?

In biblical creationism, Darwin, Darwinism, Evolution, Gospel on January 29, 2009 at 10:15 pm


I am currently preparing for a four-part sermon series on “Creationism v. Darwinism: Can The Bible Be Trusted?” in light of Charles Darwin’s (1809-1883) 200th birthday and the 150th anniversary of Darwin’s magnum opus, On the Origin of Species.

What has amazed me most in the research on this is not the inconsistencies of Darwinism (nothing on a macro-evolution level has yet to be proven or substantiated), but on how many Christians want to wed Darwin’s theory with the biblical account and impose Darwinian science on the clear text of Scripture.

The most popular way to do this is to take the six days of creation and turn them into “millions of years.” What many want to say is that the word ‘day’ doesn’t mean ‘day’ in the 24-hour sense, but that ‘day’ really means an era or an extended amount of time. Ken Ham on his Answers in Genesis podcast has a whole list of ministers who fail to hold to a literal six days (James Dobson, James Montgomery Boice, to name some), and I would regretfully add Tim Keller to the list as you examine his otherwise fine work The Reason for God (pp. 89-92).

A.E. Wilder-Smith in his wonderful work Man’s Origin, Man’s Destiny says, “An effort has been made to overcome some of the difficulties of harmonization by reckoning the seven creative days of Genesis as seven geological ages. It is in our own view, however, that the attempt to overcome some difficulties by this method often introduces even greater problems” (43). Wilder-Smith notes the absurdity of having plant life (Day 3) exist for millions of years prior to the sunlight being created (Day Four)–especially with the necessity of coal mixtures needing a good dose of sunlight. Plus, did God really rest millions of years? It just doesn’t fit.

But the question is: does this really compromise the Gospel? I believe it can because we risk being inconsistent in taking the gospel found in the Scriptures literally, yet taking the Genesis 1 account which is laid out like history (not poetry) non-literally. It compromises our witness. Just look at the transcripts of the Scopes “Monkey” Trial where Clarence Darrow called prosecuter William Jennings Bryan to the stand. Bryan compromised on the literal nature of the Bible, and Darrow took advantage.

Scientists who embrace Darwinism out of hatred for the possibility of biblical creationism go for this aspect. If they can get us denying the literal nature of the very first chapter of the Bible, then they will not worry about going after other items such as the resurrection. We have already shown the inconsistency–and they have won the day.

What say you?