I was born for battle
I really don't need to share my faith anymore by way of telling people that I'm a follower of Christ, because after you inform one person in your circle of influence that you believe the earth isn't much more than six thousand years old, word spreads like wildfire.The results have opened doors, and has been tremendous. My work lies much less in that initial sharing and more on earnestly contending for the faith (Jude 3:3) by always having an answer for someone who asks me about my beliefs (1 Peter 3:15).
A friend of mine, we'll call him Steve for the sake of anonymity, though his real name is Jack, loves to send me "scientific" information about evolution and millions of years, mainly to get my reaction. Jack won't tell me what his beliefs are per se, as I guess that is part of the fun. Such conversations make for some lively debate, most of which is worthy of sharing beyond those who are "cc'd" on the emails by which we correspond. Below, I am replying to Jack in response to his earlier comments about evolution being proven true, how many Christians embrace evolution (and so should I). My comments are in green; his in blue.
Jack,
Thank you for your email. My responses are in green below.
I also want to say to you, as one whom I respect and consider a friend that, my occasional “tweaking” aside, I certainly never have any intent to mock or belittle your religious beliefs,
"Religion" is one of those funny words, so let me clarify. I have a relationship with Jesus Christ as my Lord and Saviour, through whom one must be saved. “Religion” is a list of man-made rules and regulations, and it is a word that the Bible frowns upon in its every reference. Such religions can shut man off from the light of the gospel by which alone one can be saved (2 Cor 4:3-4).
…and fully understand your perspective and the impassioned sense of importance hold to it.
I think that the only way you could fully understand my “impassioned sense” of leading people to Christ is to share it. To those who do not have the Holy Spirit indwelt in them, and who are not led by the Holy Spirit, my preaching is foolishness. (1 Cor 1:21)
In most cases in the past, I have backed down merely because I sincerely do not wish to offend or upset.
You don't have to worry about offending me. (Eph 6:12)
I do however shake my head in perplexity at the ongoing assault upon science in our schools and nation especially in light of all that has been discovered – a feeling with which you would likely agree with me in principle, though arriving at very different conclusions.
If it’s any consolation, you should be encouraged by one of President Obama’s goals, which is to put science “back in its rightful place.” When combined with the his other thoughts on the matter, one could interpret his statements this way: "We will continue to fight against any questioning of evolution in the classroom in the name of 'science.'" This popular, yet unfair, defense tactic for evolutionists inhibits critical thinking. As Dr. Russell Humphreys points out, “once students begin considering scientific evidence, Darwinists have lost the war”. But why worry in the first place? While the U.S. schools consistently rank among the lowest (if not the lowest) in educational rankings among developed countries, we rank 1st in self esteem.
However, obtaining a PhD does not preclude one from being a quack or minister of pseudoscience.
I think you’ve just proved my point. Why are so many PhD’s also ministers of the pseudoscience of evolution – something that has no basis in real science? Is evolution a “fact” like gravity? Has anyone seen it happen? Can anyone reproduce it in a lab? Can life be reproduced in a lab? No. Sadly, even (and perhaps especially) for PhDs, the power of presupposition and peer pressure (as well as spiritual blindness) outweighs the power of logic, so much that “following the evidence wherever it may lead” is one road they won't go down. So much of their work relies upon peer review and approval, and they respect and thrive on the old adage that the squeaky wheel is the first to get replaced.
Evolutionism is a belief system based on an interpretation of the what happened in the past. Creationism is also a belief system based on an interpretation of the past. Only one can be right, but which one fits the evidence best? For example, evolutionists claim victory because “they have the fossils.” Yet all scientists have the same fossils, and what do they really tell us? One such fossil is of a T Rex femur with soft, pliable red blood cell tissue in it, clearly something that cannot be preserved if the bone is millions of years old, and yet an evolutionist must interpret it as millions of years old, because they adhere to the belief that dinosaurs died out millions of years ago. I, on the other hand, have no problem with this discovery, because it is likely this dinosaur died out during the catastrophic Flood that destroyed the earth 4500 years ago.
As another example, diamonds are supposed to be the product of millions of years. Yet diamonds have radiocarbon in them. How could this be? They shouldn’t have any radiocarbon whatsoever if the diamonds are indeed millions of years old. So evolutionists must come up with an unscientific “just-so” story for the existence of the radiocarbon, because they hold to the belief that the earth is millions of years old. Yet the discovery fits in quite well with my belief system.
And the list goes on and on. The bios of PhDs who have broken free for the religion of evolutionism are replete with a sense of liberation and thankfulness that they saw through the lies of evolutionism. Consider the facts, and you may sense this too.
I would put far more weight in the fact that such an individual [a PhD, in this case, Dr. Francis Collins, a Christian evangelist] is being honest in his conclusions of empirical evidence, rather than attempting to push any particular sort of agenda or belief.
As I am trying to demonstrate, there is no such thing as objectivity. Dr. Collins’ presupposition is that the earth is millions of years old. Therefore, he interprets facts based on that belief. If his presuppositions changed, and his paradigm shifted, he would have to reinterpret the facts, as I have.
Here is the rest of the quote from Dr. Francis Collins:
“But why couldn't this [millions of years of time and death] be God's plan for creation?..."
Well, I suppose it could be, if you dismissed the original language and the process by which the Bible is read and interpreted, and replaced it with, say, the “DFC Version.” However, any Hebrew scholar would tell you that Genesis 1-2 can only be interpreted one way – a literal 6 days.
"…True, this is incompatible with an ultra-literal interpretation of Genesis,"
Is Dr. Francis Collins a PhD in Hermeneutics and Biblical Interpretation as well? Maybe he isn’t qualified…
"…So attaching oneself to such literal interpretations in the face of compelling scientific evidence …"
Please, someone, show me this compelling scientific evidence. I have looked and I can’t find it. From my point of view, based on the evidence I’ve seen, evolution has only hindered scientific advancements and discoveries and restricted critical thinking.
"…pointing to the ancient age of Earth and the relatedness of living things by evolution seems neither wise nor necessary for the believer.”
It is both wise and necessary to believe in a young earth. Not necessary for salvation (John 3:16), of course, but necessary to understand and fully appreciate why Jesus came to die.
And one from St. Augustine just for fun. I know you don’t hold much esteem for Catholics, but St. Augustine is often quoted by both Protestant and Catholic, so I figure its fair game:
Actually, it’s not Catholics that I do not hold much esteem for, but rather for Catholocism, and I pray for many of her followers.
"...be on guard against giving interpretations of Scripture that are far fetched or opposed to science, and so exposing the Word of God to the ridicule of unbelievers."
You may as well quote the Pope, since he has said the same. We wouldn’t want to have another “Galileo Incident,” would we? Augustine is the doctor of many of the doctrines of Catholocism, and while there is some good stuff in his confessions, he was also the man who opened the door to many teachings that are contrary to the Bible.
Nevertheless, it is unwise and unscriptural to believe in evolution, according to the Bible, my ultimate authority. Why don’t you make it yours? “Whosoever will, come.”
Sincerely,
Andy
