This site is no longer actively maintained.

Please visit me at Cogito.

Also, be sure to check out Perk-O-Late.

After my recent post about Islam, there was extensive discussion in the comment section. I realized that I should state my position on Islam more clearly, and I’m currently working on an article that does that, as well as comparing Islam to Christianity. Unfortunately, this week has been insanely busy, and I haven’t yet had the time to finish it.

In the meantime, I’d like to say a couple of quick things about religion in general. Basically, people need to read the book. I don’t think we can say “I’m ok, you’re okay” and still assert that there is objective truth. But, I must say that if no one isn’t even holding to the fundamentals of their faith, what is the point? This applies to modern, “moderate” Muslims who continue to argue that Islam is a “religion of peace.” The fact of the matter is (as I will put forth in my upcoming article), Mohammed was interested in establishing and maintaining an earthly empire. Thus, violence was - and is - necessary to fulfill the commission of Mohammed: expanding and maintaining theological and political power. Those who claim to be Islamic pacifists are plainly contradicting the goals and purpose of their founder. Like Christians who do the same, Muslims who claim to be “OK with other world religions” are compromising their own faith. If other faiths are “just as good” as yours, then what can yours possibly be worth? I’ll deal with this concept more soon.

Shifting the focus to Christianity, there are many “progressive theologians” that are creating an entirely new religion but continuing to masquerade as Christians. True followers see this for what it is: apostasy, dishonesty and damnable heresy. But sadly, many are enticed by the concept of “open minded”, “non-judgmental” spirituality. It’s a free country, and people are entitled to believe what they want to believe. However, it must be said and understood that this is not Christianity. It is not what Jesus taught; it is not what his apostles taught, and it is not what primitive Christians believed and practiced. Sure, “times change”, but truth doesn’t.

Of course, this is nothing new. Spiritual “leaders” have been adulterating the truth for centuries in one way or another, often with dangerous subtlety. I suppose subtlety is passé, because many so-called “Christian leaders” are now blatantly forsaking articles of faith in order to pursue their own desires. Today on CNN.com I see this headline:

Booze lands gay bishop in rehab

Are you kidding me? That sounds like the start of a bad joke, does it not?

Like Muslims who are willfully ignorant of their own leader’s purpose and writings, so-called Christians knowingly forsake theirs. Groups like the Episcopalians, the Unitarians, and the United Church of Christ (to name a very select few) have completely abandoned the Bible and are promoting a product of their own imagination. It is simply not Christianity.

Without fail, I will be called narrow-minded, judgmental, etc.; yet, I am not making judgments according to my own ideas and desires. I am simply pointing to these groups’ departure from the book they claim as their guide. Jesus said, “…the word that I have spoken, the same shall judge him in the last day” (John 12:48).

These apostate groups would try to justify or explain their behavior. I am sure that they would argue that they are somehow still in accordance with God’s will. It just doesn’t fly. Here’s an example:

A “Homosexual Bishop”

Homosexuality is a hot-button issue in and out of the church, and there are several practical, secular cases against it. However, for the sake of time and space I’d like to deal with it according to the Scriptures solely.

One of the favorite comebacks from so-called Christians who want to justify homosexuality is this: “Jesus never said anything about homosexuality!” This is fallacious to the core, as there are many things Jesus did not directly condemn that we know to be wrong. For example, Jesus did not condemn bestiality or child molestation. Does that mean Christians should be free to pursue those desires? Obviously not. Ultimately, Jesus was not silent on the matter. His specificity concerning what is an acceptable human relationship logically excludes any alternative. Note his words in Matthew 19:4-6:

Have you not read that he who created them from the beginning made them male and female, therefore a man shall leave his father and his mother and hold fast to his wife, and they shall become one flesh? So they are no longer two but one flesh. What therefore God has joined together, let not man separate.

People are willing to use logic every day, but when it comes to honestly reading scripture it seems they abandon all rationality. Jesus details God’s design for a human sexual relationship. This description is specific, and logic tells us that Jesus did not need to spend the next hour detailing what “Male and Female” does NOT include. It’s common sense. He also didn’t need to call out homosexuality in particular because it had always been wrong and his audience was well aware of this (Leviticus 18:22; 20:13). The apostle Paul reiterated this idea in Romans 1:26-17 where he calls homosexuality “shameful” and “against nature.”

There is no rational case for Homosexuality. The Bible plainly teaches that it is sexual sin; that is that. Yet, CNN tells us that a Homosexual Episcopalian bishop is now in rehab. Is it clear how loony that is?

I originally intended to deal with the concept of “priests” and “laity” as well, but this has become quite long. Briefly, there is absolutely no New Testament authority for a “clergy” of any kind. This concept was an innovation of the Catholic church, who have traditionally held Peter in the highest esteem of all the apostles. It’s interesting to note that Peter wrote that all Christians make up the priesthood, with Jesus Christ as High Priest (Hebrews 2:17; 3:1; 4:14, etc.).

Much more can be said on these matters, but for the sake of space I’ll stop here. The point is, if you desire to be a Christian, you are subject to the tenets of Christianity, namely the New Testament of Christ. If you practice something else, you are something else. Makes sense, doesn’t it?

[Mirrored from my other blog.]

I’ve been intrigued by dynamic “popular” lists for a while now. First it was BlogDex, then came Del.icio.us, and lately I’ve even been glancing at Technorati’s ‘Today’s Most Popular.

That said, I’ve noticed that on their popular movies page, Brokeback Mountain has been topping the list by over double the blog mentions for the past few days. I haven’t taken the time to discern whether a majority of these blogs are in favor of the movie or if they are recognizing it as propaganda, but I thought I’d throw in my two cents, regardless.

Actually, just about everything I want to say about this movie has been said by David Kupelian in his article ‘Brokeback Mountain’: Rape of the Marlboro Man. Please read this article in its entirety. In the meantime, here are some important excerpts:

“Brokeback Mountain,” the controversial “gay cowboy” film that has garnered seven Golden Globe nominations and breathless media reviews – and has now emerged as a front-runner for the Oscars – is a brilliant propaganda film, reportedly causing viewers to change the way they feel about homosexual relationships and same-sex marriage.

And how do the movie-makers pull off such a dazzling feat? Simple. They do it by raping the “Marlboro Man,” that revered American symbol of rugged individualism and masculinity.

We all know the Marlboro Man. In “The Marketing of Evil,” I show how the Philip Morris Company made marketing history by taking one of the most positive American images of all time – the cowboy – and attaching it to a negative, death-oriented product – cigarettes.

Hit the pause button for a moment so this idea can completely sink in: Cigarette marketers cleverly attached, in the public’s mind, two utterly unrelated things: 1) the American cowboy, with all of the powerful feelings that image evokes in us, of independence, self-confidence, wide-open spaces and authentic Americanism, and 2) cigarettes, a stinky, health-destroying waste of money. This legendary advertising campaign targeting men succeeded in transforming market underdog Marlboro (up until then, sold as a women’s cigarette with the slogan “Mild as May”) into the world’s best-selling cigarette.

It was all part of the modern marketing revolution, which meant that, instead of touting a product’s actual benefits, marketers instead would psychologically manipulate the public by associating their product with the fulfillment of people’s deepest, unconscious needs and desires. (Want to sell liquor? Put a seductive woman in the ad.) Obviously, the marketers could never actually deliver on that promise – but emotional manipulation sure is an effective way to sell a lot of products.

. . .

Yes, the talents of Hollywood’s finest are brought together in a successful attempt at making us experience Ennis’s suffering, supposedly inflicted by a homophobic society. Heath Ledger’s performance is brilliant and devastating. We do indeed leave the theater feeling Ennis’s pain. Mission accomplished.

Lost in all of this, however, are towering, life-and-death realities concerning sex and morality and the sanctity of marriage and the preciousness of children and the direction of our civilization itself. So please, you moviemakers, how about easing off that tight camera shot of Ennis’s suffering and doing a slow pan over the massive wreckage all around him? What about the years of silent anguish and loneliness Alma stoically endures for the sake of keeping her family together, or the terrible betrayal, suffering and tears of the children, bereft of a father? None of this merits more than a brief acknowledgment in “Brokeback Mountain.”

What is important to the moviemakers, rather, is that the viewer be made to feel, and feel, and feel again as deeply as possible the exquisitely painful loneliness and heartache of the homosexual cowboys – denied their truest happiness because of an ignorant and homophobic society.

Thus are the Judeo-Christian moral values that formed the very foundation and substance of Western culture for the past three millennia all swept away on a delicious tide of manufactured emotion. And believe me, skilled directors and actors can manufacture emotion by the truckload. It’s what they do for a living.

Here’s something I think we need to truly think about. Masterfully produced propaganda could serve to tie us emotionally to just about any behavior, no matter how deviant or gruesome.

Do we understand that Hollywood could easily produce a similar movie to “Brokeback Mountain,” only this time glorifying an incest relationship, or even an adult-child sexual relationship? Like “Brokeback,” it too would serve to desensitize us to the immoral and destructive reality of what we’re seeing, while fervently coaxing us into embracing that which we once rightly shunned.

All the filmmakers would need to do is skillfully make viewers experience the actors’ powerful emotions of loneliness and emptiness – juxtaposed with feelings of joy and fulfillment when the two “lovers” are together – to bring us to a new level of “understanding” for any forbidden “love.” Alongside this, of course, they would necessarily portray those opposed to this unorthodox “love” as Nazis or thugs.

It’s interesting to consider that even Jake Gyllenhaal was uncomfortable as an actor simulating homosexual sex with Heath Ledger.

I was super uncomfortable … [but] what made me most courageous was that I realized I had to try to let go of that stereotype I had in my mind, that bit of homophobia, and try for a second to be vulnerable and sensitive. It was f—in’ hard, man. I succeeded only for milliseconds.

The terms “homophobia” and “stereotype” have been used and overused to mask what’s really going on in the majority of American minds. It’s the truth, most people are innately uncomfortable with homosexual relationships. Period. Kupelian rightly asks, “Could it be, rather, that his conflict resulted from putting himself in a position, having agreed to do the film, where he was required to violate his own conscience? As so often happens, he was tricked into pushing past invisible internal barriers – crossing a line he wasn’t meant to cross. It’s called seduction.”

It’s truly scary to step back and observe how this works. Human beings innately react negatively to an unnatural situation or corrupt behavior. Yet, when such a situation is desirable for some, people must be coaxed into ignoring that natural reacton. How is that accomplished? The definition of what is “natural” is slowly changed, and what is correct is subtley transformed into “evil.” Then, opposition is easily painted as ignorance or bigotry or weakness.

As I said at the outset, Hollywood has now raped the Marlboro Man. It has taken a revered symbol of America – the cowboy – with all the powerful emotions and associations that are rooted deep down in the pioneering American soul, and grafted onto it a self-destructive lifestyle it wants to force down Americans’ throats. The result is a brazen propaganda vehicle designed to replace the reservations most Americans still have toward homosexuality with powerful feelings of sympathy, guilt over past “homophobia” – and ultimately the complete and utter acceptance of homosexuality as equivalent in every way to heterosexuality.

If and when that day comes, America will have totally abandoned its core biblical principles – as well as the Author of those principles. The radical secularists will have gotten their wish, and this nation – like the traditional cowboy characters corrupted in “Brokeback Mountain” – will have stumbled down a sad, self-destructive and ultimately disastrous road.

Thanks David, you’re spot-on.

If you’re visiting from my other blog, Putting the Action in Distraction, welcome! It’s been a while since I updated this blog, so I thought I’d put together a little round-up of the most popular entries for your quick perusal.

• Truth & Hypocrisy: The first entry on this blog, and a sort of introduction to what it’s all about: truth.
• The Sharlet Letter: This was a response to an article by Jeff Sharlet (of The Revealer) in Rolling Stone about “modern” Christianity and sexual purity.
• Most Chastity vs. Sharletry: A follow-up article to The Sharlet Letter based on comments I received.
• The Big Bang & Blind Faith: With the increased attack on faith on the Internet, I thought it was time I wrote something illustrating the significant scientific and metaphysical problems with the “Big Bang.”
• A collection of quotes from scientists who indicate they recognize inexplicable design in nature.
• Theology vs. The Bible: Joshua Duncan wrote an article arguing against the idea of simply being a “Biblicist.” He claims that one must adopt a particular “Theology” (in his case, Calvinism) to make one’s stance clear. I disagree.

Enjoy, and as always, discussion is encouraged!

Jonathan Klick and Thomas Stratmann have written an interesting paper on abortion and risky sex among teenagers. (Download the PDF):

Incentives matter. They matter even in activities as primal as sex, and they matter even among teenagers, who are conventionally thought to be relatively myopic. If the expected costs of risky sex are raised, teens will substitute toward less risky activities such as protected sex or abstinence. In addition to modeling the decision making processes of teenagers, this insight is important in other contexts as well. Many public policies can be improved by recognizing the sensitivity of teenage sexual decisions to costs and benefits.

We study one set of policies in this paper. We show that increasing the cost of abortion for teens lowers the insurance value of abortion. This induces teenage girls to avoid risky sex, which will likely have the effect of lowering pregnancy rates, abortion rates, and birth rates among this group of individuals. While these positive effects alone might not justify parental involvement laws, they presumably should not be ignored in the debate. Behavior is not static, and claims based on the assumption of static behavior are flawed.

Wouldn’t criminalization of abortion accomplish the same thing to an even greater degree? Illegality is a deterrent for all types of behavior teens are apt experiment with. The deterrent then becomes two fold: (1) the price goes up simply because it is now a “black market” operation, and (2) lack of governmental and medical support increases the risk of a botched procedure. Why beat around the bush by raising the price? Outlaw the practice.

[via Marginal Revolution]

November 8, 2005 is your opportunity to vote on Propositon 2 which constitutionally defines marriage as “one man and one woman.

(a) Marriage in this state shall consist only of the union of one man and one woman.

(b) This state or a political subdivision of this state may not create or recognize any legal status identical or similar to marriage.

There is some interesting commentary on the proposition over at the Lonestar Times (Houston).

FEEL FREE TO DISTRIBUTE THE ABOVE IMAGE!
Here are some various formats for your printing/blogging pleasure.

For screen resolution:
* 544 X 800 GIF
* 340 X 500 GIF
* 163 X 240 GIF

For printing:
* Full-Page PDF
* 4-to-a-page PDF
* Now by popular demand: Black & White, 4-to-a-page

I noticed that Durango Bill’s Creationism = Willful Ignorance has surfaced on del.icio.us. This is an old page (2002), but I’m not surprised it’s popped up again with the explosion of the Evolution vs. Creation debate online.

I’m not going to address this page in full (yet), but there are a couple of brief points that I feel are worth making. Basically, I’m annoyed that evolutionists are constantly complaining that creationists misappropriate and misrepresent facts and figures. Then, in the same breath they argue against religion as a whole, misrepresenting creationist arguments and generalizing sectarian beliefs to the whole of “Theism.” This isn’t surprising, for while evolutionists are calling creationists “willfully ignorant”, they are upholding a theory that requires willful ignorance of a whole host of geological and biological dilemmas. I plan on dealing with these problems at length, so stay tuned.

Durango Bill seems to have amassed quite a following (if links are any indication); however, one must suspend rational thought in order to give credence to his claims. He begins by claiming that “Creationism is Ignorance of Geology”:

The greatest geologic fiction that the Creationists adhere to is Noah’s Flood. (Please see the bottom of this page for some insight regarding the Flood story.) Their Biblical interpretation says this flood covered “all the high mountains” (see notes at end), which by necessity would also have to include the ~29,035 ft. elevation of Mt. Everest. (They claim the marine limestone at the summit of Mt. Everest is proof that it was covered by water. Actually, Mt. Everest has been lifted out of the ocean (and is still rising) by the northward movement of the Indian subcontinent and its resultant subduction under the Asian continent during the past few tens of million of years.)

Even this introductory statement is extremely problematic. He says that one of the problems of the flood account is the claim that the waters covered “all the high mountains”, and this would have to include mountains as high as Everest. Yet, he argues against his own point in the following statement(s). First of all, he acknowledges the marine limestone atop Everest (which includes marine fossils), and then he concedes that “Mt. Everest has been lifted out of the ocean (and is still rising)…” Thank you, Bill, you affirm that (1) topography changes over time and (2) Mt. Everest would not have been 29,000+ feet at the time of the flood. People are linking to this guy in seriousness?

He goes on to ask two hard-hitting questions about the flood that should apparently baffle the flood account:

1. Where did the water come from? and Where did the water go?
He continues to argue his point using the flawed 29,000+ ft. concept that he refuted to begin with, so his conclusion carries no weight. From a naturalistic point-of-view, it is not unreasonable for all of earth’s land mass to be covered with water. Deep water. After all, there is more than twice as much water than land on this planet. Remember? That’s surface area, too, not the miles of depth in our oceans. There is also compelling evidence for the antediluvian super-continent, Pangea. In fact, many evolutionists subscribe to the idea of an ancient super-continent, as well. Is it logical to concede that there might have once been a single consolidated land mass and then argue against topographical change or worldwide flood?

There is actually evidence in the natural world that points to a cataclysmic event in earth’s history - even a flood. Pangea, marine fossils atop Mt. Everest, tropical foliage preserved in Arctic ice, etc.. The list goes on and on - and trust me - I’ll get to that.

But what is the point, really? Our account of the flood comes from the Bible, and those who believe it occurred believe that God initiated it. Thus, what is the point of asking “where did the water come from and where did it go”? One can speculate all day on rational possibilities, but what it really comes down to is that if a Deity had the power to initiate a world-wide flood at His whim, it’s silly to think he’d have trouble “coming up with the water” or “finding a place to put it” afterwards. Atheist run into the same problems when trying to argue against Creation, in general. If a superior being was capable of creating this universe, how does it follow that we can limit an omnipotent creative process by our understanding of that creation? There are deeper questions to be answered that many dishonest people are willing to gloss over with misuse of “science.” We cannot expect to gain knowledge without really thinking. Think. Think about things first and we can all make more progress.

Related Articles:
» In Defense of…the Genesis Flood [Part I] (Part II)
» An Examination of Noah’s Ark and the Global Flood
» Where Did all the Flood Waters Go?

I’m currently working on an article (or series of articles) on the Evolution vs. Intelligent Design debate. I agree with detractors which say “Intelligent Design claims to be science and is not.” That is true, Intelligent Design is not “science” any more than the Big Bang is; neither can be tested, recreated or falsified. But, I will deal with that soon enough.

In the meantime, I would like to address the claim by atheists and evolutionists that there are no serious scientists who are questioning the validity of evolutionary biology insofar as it claims that productive mutations occur by chance. That is simply not true. I am including below several quotes from reputable scientists (astrophysicists, mathematicians, biologists, etc.) that indicate a degree of doubt concerning atheistic origins. I am including the sources of these quotes so you can check the context.

RICHARD DAWKINS, EVOLUTIONARY BIOLOGIST

The more statistically improbable a thing is, the less we can believe that it just happened by blind chance. Super-ficially the obvious alternative to chance is an intelli-gent Designer. (Richard Dawkins, “The Necessity of Darwinism,” New Scientist, April 15,1982)

2. The complexity of living organisms is matched by the elegant efficiency of their apparent design. If anyone doesn’t agree that this amount of complex design cries out for an explanation, I give up! (Richard Dawkins, The Blind Watchmaker, W.W. Norton, New York, 1986, preface)

JOHN O’KEEFE, NASA ASTRONOMER

We are, by astronomical standards, a pampered, cosseted, cherished group of creatures… If the Universe had not been made with the most exacting precision we could never have come into existence. It is my view that these circumstances indicate the universe was created for man to live in. (John O’Keefe, from an interview with Fred Heeren, Show Me God, Searchlight Publications, Wheeling, Illinois, 1995, p. 200)

ROBERT JASTROW, ASTROPHYSICIST

1. That there are what I, or anyone would call supernatural forces at work is now, I think, a scientifically proven fact… (Robert Jastrow, “A Scientist Caught Between Two Faiths,” Interview with Bill Durbin, Christianity Today, August 6, 1982, p. 18)

2. For the scientist who has lived by his faith in the power of reason, the story ends like a bad dream. He has scaled the mountains of ignorance; he is about to conquer the highest peak; as he pulls himself over the final rock, he is greeted by a band of theologians who have been sitting there for centuries. (Robert Jastrow, God and the Astronomers, W.W. Norton, New York, 1978, p. 116)

MICHAEL DENTON, BIOCHEMIST

1. Whether one accepts or rejects the design hypothesis…there is no avoiding the conclusion that the world looks as if it has been tailored for life; it appears to have been designed. All reality appears to be a vast, coherent, teleological whole with life and mankind as its purpose and goal. (Michael Denton, Nature’s Destiny: How the Laws of Biology Reveal Purpose in the Universe, Simon & Schuster, New York, 1998, p 387, emp. in original)

2. Because this book presents a teleological interpretation of the cosmos which has obvious theological implications, it is important to emphasize at the outset that the argument presented here is entirely consistent with the basic naturalistic assumption of modern science — that the cosmos is a seamless unity which can be comprehended ultimately in its entirety by human reason and in which all phenomena, including life and evolution and the origin of man, are ultimately explicable in terms of natural processes…

The aim of this book is, first, to present scientific evidence for believing that the cosmos is uniquely fit for life as it exists on earth and for organisms of design and biology very similar to our own species, Homo sapiens, and, second, to argue that this ‘unique fitness’ of the laws of nature for life is entirely consistent with the older teleological religious concept of the cosmos as a specially designed whole, with life and mankind as its primary goal and purpose.

Although this is obviously a book with many theological implications, my initial intention was not specifically to develop an argument for design; however, as I researched more deeply into the topic and as the manuscript went through successive drafts, it became increasingly clear that the laws of nature were fine-tuned on earth to a remarkable degree and that the emerging picture provided powerful and self-evident support for the traditional anthropocentric teleological view of the cosmos. Thus, by the time the final draft was finished, the book had become in effect an essay in natural theology in the spirit and tradition of William Paley’s Natural Theology… (Nature’s Destiny: How the Laws of Biology Reveal Purpose in the Universe, Simon & Schuster, New York, 1998, pp. xvii-xviii,xi-xii)

SIR ARTHUR EDDINGTON, ASTROPHYSICIST

The idea of a universal mind or Logos would be, I think, a fairly plausible inference from the present state of scientific theory. (Sir Arthur Eddington, as quoted in Fred Heeren, Show Me God, Searchlight Publications, Searchlight Publications, 1995, p 233)

GEORGE GREENSTEIN, ASTRONOMER

As we survey all the evidence, the thought insistently arises that some supernatural agency - or, rather, Agency - must be involved. Is it possible that suddenly, without intending to, we have stumbled upon scientific proof of the existence of a Supreme Being? Was it God who stepped in and so providentially crafted the cosmos for our benefit? (George Greenstein, The Symbiotic Universe. New York: William Morrow, 1988, p 27)

FRANK TIPLER, MATHEMATICIAN & PHYSICIST

When I began my career as a cosmologist some twenty years ago, I was a convinced atheist. I never in my wildest dreams imagined that one day I would be writing a book purporting to show that the central claims of Judeo-Christian theology are in fact true, that these claims are straightforward deductions of the laws of physics as we now understand them. I have been forced into these conclusions by the inexorable logic of my own special branch of physics. (Frank Tipler, The Physics of Immortality, Doubleday, New York, 1994, Preface)

FRED HOYLE, ASTRONOMER

1. The chance that higher life forms have emerged in this way is comparable with the chance that a tornado sweeping through a junk-yard might assemble a Boeing 747 from the materials therein. (Fred Hoyle, “Hoyle on Evolution,” Nature, November 12, 1981, 294[5837]:105)

2. Once we see, however, that the probability of life originating at random is so utterly miniscule as to make the random concept absurd, it becomes sensible to think that the favourable properties of physics on which life depends, are in every respect deliberate… It is therefore almost inevitable that our own measure of intelligence must reflect in a valid way the higher intelligences…even to the extreme idealized limit of God. (Fred Hoyle and Chandra Wickramasinghe, Evolution from Space, J.M. Dent, London, 1981, pp. 141,144, emp. in orig.)

3. A common sense interpretation of the facts suggests that a superintellect has monkeyed with physics, as well as with chemistry and biology, and that there are no blind forces worth speaking about in nature. The numbers one calculates from the facts seem to me so overwhelming as to put this conclusion almost beyond question.
(”The Universe: Past and Present Reflections,” Annual Review of Astronomy and Astrophysics: 20:16, 1982)

PAUL DAVIES, PHYSICIST, ASTROBIOLOGIST

1. I cannot believe that our existence in this universe is a mere quirk of fate, an accident of history, an incidental blip in the great cosmic drama… Through conscious beings the universe has generated self-awareness. This can be no trivial detail, no minor by-product of mindless, purposeless forces. We are truly meant to be here. (Paul Davies, The Mind of God, Simon & Schuster, New York, 1992, p h3232)

RICHARD LEWONTIN, EVOLUTIONARY BIOLOGIST

1. Our willingness to accept scientific claims against common sense is the key to an understanding of the real struggle between science and the supernatural. We take the side of science in spite of the patent absurdity of some of its constructs, in spite of its failure to fulfill many of its extravagant promises of health and life, in spite of the tolerance of the scientific community for unsubstantiated just-so stories, because we have a prior commitment, a commitment to naturalism. It is not that the methods and institutions of science somehow com-pel us to accept a material explanation of the phenomenal world, but, on the contrary, that we are forced by our a priori adherence to material causes to create an apparatus of investigation and a set of concepts that produce material explanations, no matter how counter-intuitive, no matter how mystifying to the uninitiated. Moreover, that materialism is absolute, for we can not allow a Divine Foot in the door. (Richard Lewontin, “Billions and Billions of Demons,” The New York Review, January 9, 1997, p 31, emp. in orig.. Article is a review of Carl Sagan’s book, Billions and Billions, Random House, New York, 1997.)

2. Life forms are more than simply multiple and diverse, however. Organisms fit remarkably well into the external world in which they live. They have morphologies, physiologies and behaviors that appear to have been carefully and artfully designed to enable each organism to appropriate the world around it for its own life. It was the marvelous fit of organisms to the environment, much more than the great diversity of forms, that was the chief evidence of a Supreme Designer. (Richard Lewontin, Scientific American, September 1978, p. 213)

Related posts:
» The Big Bang & Blind Faith

I recently came across the blog of Joshua Duncan, and noticed a rant he posted about Calvinism vs. Arminianism. He expresses frustration with those who claim to be neither Calvinists nor Arminians, but “Biblicists.” In other words, those who claim they do not subscribe to a supra-scriptural “theology.” This piqued my interest because – though, I have never used the term “Biblicist” – that is essentially what I claim to be.

Duncan begins by saying that ”…you can either be monergistic of synergistic with no third option available”, and for the sake of proving a point, I contacted a Christian friend of mine:

Me: Hey, I’ve got a question.
Friend: shoot
Me: Would you classify your beliefs as monergistic or synergistic?
Friend: What does that mean?

Case in point. Now, you may be asking yourself, “What do these terms mean?” or “Where do my views fit into this?” Therein lies my concern with Duncan’s claim. The importance he places on theological systems implies that ignorance of such systems is in some sense wrong.

To say that ignorance (or avoidance) of such issues is unacceptable is to argue against the all-sufficiency of the Scriptures. For example, 2 Peter 1:3 says:

His divine power has granted to us all things that pertain to life and godliness, through the knowledge of him who called us to his own glory and excellence…

This is not to claim that the Bible accomplishes everything for us, but it certainly claims to be all-sufficient with regard to the information it provides. Given that God’s word is all-sufficient, supra-scriptural theologies are irrelevant to our salvation. Therefore, faulting someone for not subscribing to a man-made system is, itself, wrong.

That said, let’s examine the problems with Duncan’s claims more closely. He says:

In essence, the non-Calvinist is saying, “You’re following the teachings of some man.” Are we supposed to ignore the exegetical work that has been done? Do they think that we venerate Calvin so much that we do not question his teaching? We are Calvinists because we believe in the Bible. Third, it drips of pseudo-humble arrogance. “You can have your fancy theological systems. I’ll stick with the Bible.” Friend, this “fancy theological system” is derived from the Bible. Please tell me how you’ve transcended the debate such that neither label applies to you.

Once again, all of this stems from the assumption that one must be a part of the debate, and I am not convinced that this is so. Joshua, if you are willing to question Calvin’s teaching, then why call yourself a Calvinist? By his name you have either (1) studied any and all of John Calvin’s doctrines and found them to be inerrant, or (2) have not studied all of Calvin’s doctrines but have faith that they are inerrant. Those are the only two options, and both are dangerous. I call myself a Christian – and a Christian only – because I do not question Biblical teaching. Do you consider that claim “pseudo-humble arrogance”? I should hope not, because that is the view the Bible takes. The issue is not who has “transcended the debate” or who is “above labels.” The fact is, theological systems are an attempt to “transcend” the teaching of the Bible as it was inspired by the Holy Spirit. Simply, the term “Calvinism” would be unnecessary if it did not go beyond what the Scriptures teach. This concept is illuminated by the very existence of denominational Christianity; differing doctrines are denoted by various “brand names.”

Paul writes in 1 Corintians 1:10-14:

I appeal to you, brothers, by the name of our Lord Jesus Christ, that all of you agree and that there be no divisions among you, but that you be united in the same mind and the same judgment. For it has been reported to me by Chloe’s people that there is quarreling among you, my brothers. What I mean is that each one of you says, “I follow Paul,” or “I follow Apollos,” or “I follow Cephas,” or “I follow Christ.” Is Christ divided? Was Paul crucified for you? Or were you baptized in the name of Paul?

Could we say that this passage “drips of psuedo-humble arrogance”? I don’t believe that describes the apostle Paul or the Holy Spirit which inspired this epistle. It seems to me that he is exhorting Christians to be “above labels.”

Let’s look again at 1 Corinthians, restated in our terms:

I appeal to you, brothers, by the name of our Lord Jesus Christ, that all of you agree and that there be no divisions among you, but that you be united in the same mind and the same judgment. For it has been reported to me by people that there is quarreling among you, my brothers. What I mean is that each one of you says, “I follow Calvin,” or “I follow Arminius,” or “I follow Christ.” Is Christ divided? Was Calvin crucified for you? Or were you baptized in the name of Calvin?

It is impossible to read this passage with any honesty or humility and still be angered by those who claim to “stick with just the Bible.” After all, 2 Timothy 3:16-17 says that the Sciptures are inspired that “the man of God may be perfect, thoroughly furnished unto all good works.”

Is this passage true, since it doesn’t refer it’s readers to Calvin?

UPDATE: Joshua Duncan has responded to this article. I’ll most likely be responding to him, again. I guess this is a good time to ask: Joshua, would you like to have a formal, written debate on the topic? If you affirm that Calvinism is entirely Biblical in nature, I will deny. Send me or post a proposition if you are interested. Thanks for responding!

It’s now been over a month since I’ve written anything. Wow.

There are a lot of “pro” bloggers that say “Don’t apologize for not writing! No one cares!” However, I like to think that someone cares, even if it is just myself. The fact is, life has been incredibly busy since I got married and school started back up, and I am extremely frustrated that I haven’t had time to write.

For anyone that checks this with regularity or even if it’s your first time here, check back soon. There are at least three articles in the works:

• Are Theological Systems necessary in addition to God’s Word?
• A Strong Delusion: Believing the lie of Evolution
• Reproductive Rights or Equivocation 101: The use of jargon in desensitizing America

…with the possibility of a piece on Paul & Thomas Aquinas based on Acts 17:16ff…

Considering the breadth of these topics, it may be turn out to be series of articles - we’ll see. Either way, don’t give up. Via crucis is back in business.