The Baltimore Catechism On Origins

One of the many false canards used by Theistic Evolutionists to dismiss Young Earth Creationism and is the idea that belief in a literal Adam is something of a novelty.  We are told, over and over, that Ancient Near Eastern thought doesn't really care about science or history the way we moderns think about those things.  All that really matters is the narrative and the theological ideas behind the stories.

We are told Augustine's "Literal Meaning of Genesis" cautions against pitting the Bible against science, for if we are wrong about the science it will discredit faith.   We are told many of the church fathers allegorized the early chapters of Genesis.

Ultimately, the whole science/faith divide boils down to a few misguided fundamentalists creating a false dichotomy between science and faith.  (more)

A Step Beyond Orthodoxy at Jesus Creed

At Jesus Creed, the continued Evangelizing in the name of Christian Darwinism continues with a post by the prolific guest blogger RJS.  The post is titled “Evolution, Belief, and the Virgin Birth” and features a discussion of a book by Robert Asher, “ Evolution and Belief: Confessions of a Religious Paleontologist.”

While I think I should be fair and say that I believe both RJS and Scott McKnight would profess to affirm tenets of the faith called into question by the author of the book, the rather uncritical discussion of the views and the ho-hum tone of the comments indicate a great deal of comfort with one who questions central doctrines of the historical Christian faith.

RJS has been a steadfast champion of Evolutionary Creationism, what used to be called Theistic Evolution.  In the views presented in her posts, the primary constant is that science requires a commitment to seeking understanding of nature through natural processes alone.  Though she is a theist and an adherent to Christianity, she sees natural law as vital to the scientific enterprise.   Adding the possibility of interference from somewhere “outside of nature” is anathema to the science academy, which means no miracles are permitted, particularly in the discussion of origins.  That raises a bit of a contradiction when EC’s deal with New Testament miracles such as the resurrection and virgin birth of Christ, as we shall see.  (Read More)

What Color is Your Heresy?

In postmodern approaches to theology, context determines everything.  Since interpretations of reality are social constructs, and the subjective context from which one does theology determines the meaning of just about everything, postmodern theologies can be exceedingly relativistic, destructively creative, and aggressively subversive.

This Jesus Creed post from November 5, 2015 is titled "White Heresy, Black Heresy" was written by Austin Fischer, author of "Young Restless and no Longer Reformed" who blogs at Purple Theology.  The question Fischer frames is one of orthodoxy vs. orthopraxy as relates to race and justice, but the “context” of American race struggles takes the whole premise in a dangerous direction.   In short, it implicitly celebrates “contextualization” with a vengeance while hiding a great deal from unsuspecting readers about the source material.  More

The Information Enigma

The Discovery Institute has put out this video:  The Information Enigma.

It does explain the basic idea that the Darwinian model doesn't work and a brief description of the design inference.

The video focuses on a combination lock as an illustration of the problem.   A bike lock with four
10-character possibilities would have 10,000 possible combinations, making it unlikely that a thief would have or take the time to randomly try to guess the combination.   Proteins are vastly more complex and the possibility of randomness producing new functions is essentially nil.

But what isn't discussed is that someone had to first design the lock and set it to open with a correct combination.   What lies behind the physical representation of the "design" or "information" is even more beyond the realm of random mechanistic processes.

I support ID even though it avoids the theological questions.

I just want to push a little further.  

Things I Don't Believe

Creeds, declarations, manifestos have been written about many, many things and are usually a positive affirmation of what someone believes.   I think about beliefs when politicians are asked gotcha questions about hot button topics and no question gets more ridicule than suggesting one rejects Darwinism.  

I think it would be wise, when asked about origins, if politicians turned the question around and stated things in a negative way.  

So, if you will, the anti-creed - a statement of things I DO NOT believe.

The SUPREME Court - The Bigger Picture - Welcome to Totalitarianism

It has been an eventful week. First the Supreme Court upheld Obamacare. The same justice Roberts who earlier defied the argument of the measures supporters that the mandate did not amount to a tax and essentially rewrote the statute to make it a tax in order to uphold it (yes, it was that bad), was at it again.

This time, in spite of almost irrefutable evidence and plain logic based on the words of the law indicating that the Obamacare subsidies were to be provided by individual states, not the Federal Government, Justice Roberts found a way to stretch the meaning of "State" to include a nebulous "intent" that went beyond the wording, thus making the law valid. This massive usurpation of legislative authority relied on feeling over law and a basic denial that words have meaning at all, as Justice Scalia pointed out in a scathing dissent.

Then the Supremes ruled on same-sex marriage. Again the linguistic gymnastics required to manufacture a desired outcome was something the Court found a way to justify. Justice Scalia excoriated the line " "The Constitution promises liberty to all within its reach, a liberty that includes certain specific rights that allow persons, within a lawful realm, to define and express their identity."

What exactly does it mean, as a legal matter, to "define and express (one's) identity?" What are the limits on this right now that gender in society is defined entirely by one's "feelings"?

Rules for Radicals - The Progressive Playbook - Part 1

Subversion. From the World English Dictionary:

1. the act or an instance of subverting or overthrowing a legally constituted government, institution, etc
2. the state of being subverted; destruction or ruin
3. something that brings about an overthrow

A couple of years ago I became acutely aware of a character from the history of the political left named Saul Alinsky. He was a mentor to Hillary Clinton years ago. She wrote her thesis on him. Barack Obama has been praised by Alinsky's son as an exemplary practitioner of his father's methods and strategies. Alinsky's seminal tract "Rules for Radicals" is a stock training manual for leaders and activists in many labor unions. His name is becoming more well known, but not, I fear, well known enough. Alinsky was, if nothing else, subversive. I think it is necessary to unpack a bit of his ideology. Why? Because the political climate in our country has become utterly poisonous and increasingly dangerous. I believe the single most significant reason for the degeneration of our political system is Alinsky.

Naturalism - A Case in Missing the Point

My last post took issue with the apparent commitment to naturalism among theistic evolutionists. Shortly thereafter I ran across a vivid example of what naturalistic bias looks like.

Cornelius Hunter blogs at Darwin's God.    He quoted from a blurb at PBS regarding the Common Genetic Code.  The blurb, still on the PBS website, is from 2001 and shows evidence of being outdated.   The gist of Hunter's post is that how the evidence is presented shows a commitment to a viewpoint that completely colors the interpretation of the evidence.  He quotes from the PBS article, but I'll add a longer part of the article for context.

In essence, the PBS article is about a strain of yeast with a defective gene.  A human version of the gene was inserted into the yeast and the result was the repair of the defect.  This is touted as clear evidence of common ancestry.

Biologos and the Invisible Hand of God

Credit where credit is due, since coming under the direction of Deborah Haarsma, the Biologos.org website has managed tone down the rhetoric against its opponents, even if little has changed in the views presented there. Steven Meyer was recently given space to respond to his critics, and all in all I think the exchange was healthy.

Meyer’s main point in his response was that the folks at Biologos are committed to methodological naturalism and that is the primary thing that separates them from other theistic viewpoints. Evidence of both Biologos more conciliatory tone and commitment to naturalism are apparent in the statement quoted below. (More)

First, there is a general statement of belief in God as Creator, but coupled with a statement of belief in evolutionary science.

Steven Meyer Gets in a Word at Biologos

I've not been a fan of the website Biologos. Since Deborah Haarsma took over the site it has been a bit less strident in relegating all creationists and ID advocates as anti-science rubes.

Steven Meyer's second major ID book Darwin's Doubt got a fair amount of attention at the site, Several different contributors provided reviews of the book, starting here. Meyer was given opportunity to respond here.

It was a reasonably civil exchange and Meyer thanked the contributors for that. His take on the whole of the discussion is telling. " I—and many others—have long assumed that the debate between our two groups was mainly a scientific debate about the adequacy of contemporary evolutionary theory. Surprisingly, the reviews collectively have shown that the main disagreement between ID proponents and BioLogos is not scientific, but rather philosophical and methodological."