Theistic evolution: believed by clowns

Theistic evolutionists argue that evangelicals must accept the theory of evolution in order to be taken seriously by the scientific community, but R. Albert Mohler Jr. says that even perhaps the most prominent theistic evolutionist finds it hard to gain acceptance among his scientific peers.

Since last summer Mohler, president of Southern Baptist Theological Seminary, has been engaged in a debate over the origin of the universe and mankind, and those who oppose him say Christians risk being intellectually marginalized in the larger culture if they hold to a young earth and creationist view…

“Even with all of Francis Collins’ achievements, qualifications, and experience, the bare fact that he is a ‘believing Christian’ is enough to draw the active opposition of many in the scientific establishment,” Mohler wrote…

When President Obama appointed Collins to lead the National Institutes of Health, evolutionary scientist P.Z. Myers said, “I don’t want American science to be represented by a clown.”

“This is the predicament of those who argue that evangelicals must accept some form of theistic evolution—the guardians of evolution still consider them clowns,” Mohler wrote.

Quote source

Roach, E. (2011). Theistic evolutionists, too, face ‘suspicion, condescension,’ Mohler observes. Baptist Press. Available http://www.bpnews.net/34515/theistic-evolutionists-too-face-suspicion-condescension-mohler-observes. Last accessed 28th Feb 2015.

Evolutionists as scientific Pharisees: here’s how

According to ‘Crommunist':

That is the difference between creation “science” and actual evolutionary science – real science derives its conclusions from the observed evidence. Creationism sets its conclusion first and then cherry-picks, back-fills and tortures the evidence to support that conclusion.

Oh really? I mean evolutionists wouldn’t do that, would they?

The same seems to be true for a fascinating protein called lysozyme. Lysozyme is the enzyme in tears that “bites holes” in the cell walls of bacteria so that they explode. (Listen for the “pop” on a quiet evening!) Egg whites are rich in the same enzyme, and that’s what keeps eyes and egg whites from easily getting infected.

By comparing lysozyme and lactalbumin, [Richard E.] Dickerson was hoping to “pin down with great precision” where human beings branched off the mammal line. The results are surprising. In this test, it turned out that humans are more closely related to the chicken than to any living mammal tested! Every evolutionist knows that can’t be true, but how can he get around the objective evidence? In his concluding diagram, Dickerson slips in a wiggly line for rapid evolution, and that brings the whole thing back in line again with his evolutionary assumptions. But notice that his protein data, the facts that he observed, did not help him at all with his evolutionary idea.

Quote sources

  1. Crommunist. (2010). CFI Skeptics ‘Welcome’ Jonathan Sarfati, PhD. Available http://crommunist.com/2010/10/30/cfi-skeptics-welcome-creationist-jonathan-sarfati-phd/. Last accessed 21st Feb 2015.
  2. Parker, G. D. (1994). ‘Comparative Similarities: Homology’ in Creation: Facts of Life. Answers in Genesis. Available https://answersingenesis.org/biology/comparative-similarities-homology/#n18. Last accessed 21st Feb 2015.

David Attenborough’s naiveté trumped by J.S. Bach

The atheist David Attenborough considered that:

Great minds can express themselves in music. Bach can communicate not only to his own people but across the centuries. Bach is about mercy and about love of humanity and a vision of the infinite—what that means I have no idea—but I can’t think of any other words to use to explain many a Bach cantata.

This was followed by an astute observation from Russell Grigg:

Very interesting, especially in view of the fact that Bach once said, ‘Music’s only purpose should be the glory of God and the recreation of the human spirit.’

Quote source

Grigg, R. (2008). Sir David Attenborough: so much to live for; nothing to die for! Creation Ministries International. Available http://creation.com/sir-david-attenborough-so-much-to-live-for-nothing-to-die-for. Last accessed 21st Feb 2015.

Scientific American is derived from Christianity

The current Scientific American editor [John Rennie] argues that creation has no place in science and has done nothing for the advancement of science. Yet he completely misses the irony that Scientific American was founded by a staunch believer in creation—the artist and inventor Rufus Porter (1792–1884), who thought that science glorified the Creator God. In the very first issue, his editorial stated:

“We shall advocate the pure Christian religion, without favouring any particular sect…”

Quote source

Matthews, M. & Sarfati, J. (n.d) Refuting Evolution 2. Creation Ministries International. Available http://creation.com/refuting-evolution-2-introduction. Last accessed 21st Feb 2015

The selective use of “women’s health”

And yet, we see nothing amiss in promoting—nay, pushing—“women’s health” in the form of encouraging girls at younger and younger ages to start dosing themselves with extra hormones, and by requiring insurance companies to provide such “medical” necessities free of charge. America’s female elite sees nothing amiss in popping their morning mini-pill before heading out to their gardens to cultivate their own vegetables or picking up the most recent edition of Backyard Poultry.

Something is wrong with this picture. Because, conversely, much research suggests that pregnancy and children are actually good for women. Breastfeeding, for example, is associated with a reduced risk in breast cancer, as is having children before the age of 30. Having children, some studies show, seems to bring about longevity and better health. And the more children a woman has, the more likely she is to have a long life. We hear none of this in government pronouncements on “women’s health.”

Quote source

King, N.M. (2014). Why Hobby Lobby is not About Women’s Health. MercatorNet. Available http://www.mercatornet.com/articles/view/why_hobby_lobby_is_not_about_womens_health. Last accessed 21st Feb 2015.

Obama’s constriction of religious freedom

The Vatican’s chief justice has asserted what Christians in America have long understood: President Obama’s policies, domestic and foreign, are hostile toward Christianity and Christian civilization…

Indeed, the former archbishop of St. Louis asserted that Obama is clearly trying to “restrict” religion. “Now he wants to restrict the exercise of the freedom of religion to freedom of worship, that is, he holds that one is free to act according to his conscience within the confines of his place of worship but that, once the person leaves the place of worship, the government can constrain him to act against his rightly-formed conscience, even in the most serious of moral questions,” [Cardinal Raymond] Burke said.

Quote source

Grant, G. (2014). Vatican: Obama’s Policies Hostile Toward Christianity. The Quick and the Dead. Available http://ppgi.blogspot.com.au/2014/03/vatican-obamas-policies-hostile-toward.html. Last accessed 21st Feb 2015.

The importance of hard preaching

Preaching has an important place in God’s purpose, and it is basic to the life and health of the church. If the church is faltering or straying, the preaching is clearly at fault. If the church is lukewarm, sterile, or dead, the preaching again is at fault. True preaching cannot leave men unconcerned: it will either arouse them to repentance and godly action, or it will arouse them to ungodly hostility as they see themselves in the light of God’s word.

Quote source

Rushdoony, R.J. (1975). “Contemporary Preaching: Biblical Preaching vs. Obfuscation” in Faith for All of Life, September/October 2009, p. 2