Following the lead of Tozer and Boyle I am going to begin this post with a couple of illustrations:
Imagine that at this moment you have the power, with one declaration, to receive a home beyond your dreams. By simply calling out, “Let there be,” you would have a house any size you desire. This house would be of a construction quality as yet unseen. It would have technological advancements beyond our time. It would be strong, safe and beautiful. It would appear exactly to your specifications, a manifestation of your image.
Or you can remain in your shack. You can look around for a person who will tolerate you and agree to become your spouse. You can have a baby together with the hope that it will be healthy and capable of great intelligence. You can protect that baby as it matures into a young adult, nudging them back “on course” every time they wander onto a new negative path. You can teach them and guide them towards learning architectural design and construction. Your powers of persuasion over them being infallible, they do choose that path. You then get to spend tens of thousands of dollars paying for them to learn these skills, again nudging them back “on course” when the environment around them takes them down yet another negative path. Finally, they complete their education, but their development is not complete. You must patiently wait while they spend some years apprenticing, perfecting their skills, as you continue nudging them back “on course” to fulfilling your dream. Finally, their evolution from concept (non-existence) to qualified, skilled adult is over. You can now give them hundreds of thousands of dollars to design and build that home you had imagined decades ago.
Next illustration. This one is shorter. You’ve got a nice home with a large beautiful yard. You love to spend as much time as possible outside enjoying it. Unfortunately, there are days when you just can’t stand the heat. You would love to have a picnic on the lawn with your spouse or your kids or both, but the sun is just too hot. There is nothing you would enjoy more then a good nap, breathing in that fresh air, but your hammock has no shade.
Now, God has granted you the one time use of His power for a single purpose. You can call out, “Let there be” a one hundred-year-old oak in my back yard, and there it would stand. But, you say, “Thanks God, but no thanks.” I will go to the local greenhouse and buy a sapling. I will bring it home and plant it. I will monitor the weather and watch the sapling grow. When it seems to droop or wilt, I will nudge it back “on course” with a garden hose. If it seems like it is not growing fast enough I will take soil back to the greenhouse to be tested. The greenhouse will sell me nutrients that I will bring home and mix into the soil around my growing oak, nudging it back “on course.” I will continue to watch and nudge until one day, after many decades (if I’m still alive) I can spread a picnic blanket in its shade or string a hammock from its trunk.
Let’s be honest. No one would choose option two in either of these scenarios if they possessed the power of option one! Yet there are those who wear the name of God and believe, and even teach, that God would. They believe that God used evolution to create life, including man. The least offensive of the range of doctrines in this religion is that God created man through the process of evolution, a process of negative mutation. Because this process almost always produces negative results without intelligent interference, God steps in and gives it a nudge to get it back “on course.” Logically and truthfully evaluated the belief of this religion is this: a god who has the power to interfere at the “evolutionary” level and alter DNA, the very blueprints of life, didn’t have the power to call out, “Let there be” life and have it happen. Even worse, this god, who had to resort to growing man from less than a single cell, couldn’t even get that right. Their god’s evolution didn’t work. It only damaged life, it didn’t improve it. So, he had to spend a few million years correcting for his error. Their god chose that rather than simply calling out, “Let us make man in our image, after our likeness.” The most offensive doctrine of this religion is that god set evolution in motion and then had no ability to predict or control it.
An article titled “Do Computer Simulations Provide Evidence for Evolution?” by Sean McDowell on “The Good Book Blog” includes a quote that addresses and discards the latter:
“Cornell University geneticist John C. Sanford documents the chance of a beneficial mutation in a complicated organism is essentially zero and that mutation has a greater chance of extinguishing a species than of advancing it. If mutation is generally beneficial in an evolutionary program, there must be a resident source of information that guides mutation away from being a detriment.”
The article was written to address a new book by William Dembski, who McDowell calls “one of the leading thinkers behind the Intelligent Design movement (ID).” McDowell says Dembski’s book, Introduction to Evolutionary Informatics sets out to show through the use of informatics, “that evolutionary computer simulations only function if information is added along the way, which is the very thing not available in nature.” McDowell references Dembski et al, writing that “when challenged by ID critic David Thomas to find the information source in his program, which he claimed toppled ID, they did. In fact, at one point in the code Thomas specifically wrote, “over-ride!!!” which shows that the program requires a guiding hand and does not mirror the blind processes of evolution.”
To date, there is no evidence demonstrating positive evolution that does not require intelligent control. So, this new religion, whose faith goes no further than their scientific knowledge can take them, grabs onto this fact to shape their doctrine. They are no Boyle.
This false religion, this “other god,” is called Theistic Evolution. So let’s shine a little truth on that. Webster’s 1828 defines Theist: “noun, One who believes in the existence of a god.” Theism does not claim belief in the God of the Bible, rather the belief in a god. So, by definition, it is what the “theist” believes that determines whether they are a Christian or not. It is not inherent in the word. A Christian by definition is: “A real disciple of Christ; one who believes in the truth of the Christian religion, and studies to follow the example, and obey the precepts, of Christ.” Or, as Christ said: “Truly, truly, I tell you, whoever hears My word and believes Him who sent Me…” John 5:24.
Let’s look at another word: Agnostic. An agnostic believes we do not have the knowledge to determine whether or not there is a god or gods. Agnostic theists believe in the existence of at least one god or intelligent being, but that we don’t have the knowledge to define that god. In other words, an agnostic theist does not believe that the Bible supplies the determinative knowledge to know God. Now, Theistic Evolutionists also believe in an intelligent being and, as many claim Christianity, they identify that being as God. Here’s the rub. They also do not believe the Genesis Creation story as written. As they claim to be Christians, let’s see what Christ had to say about that. In John 5:45-47 Christ said this: “47 Do not think that I will accuse you before the Father. Your accuser is Moses, in whom you have put your hope. 46 If you had believed Moses, you would believe Me, because he wrote about Me. 47 But since you do not believe what he wrote, how will you believe what I say?” For those who may have forgotten, Moses wrote the first five books of the Old Testament. So, a more accurate title, one to which I’m sure they would take offense, would be Agnostic Theistic Evolutionist. Christ is quite clear. To reject Moses is to reject Him, and those who reject Him, by definition, cannot be “Christian.”
This religion rejects the Omnipotence of God and installs it on man. They don’t follow Robert Boyle, the scientist/theologian whose mind rivaled the greats and whose “scientific method” they all still ascribe to. They don’t study science to better understand their place in God’s world, but, rather, to fit God into their feeble understanding of it. They have made man and his knowledge the omnipotent being that possesses the ultimate knowledge and claim “God” for what I can only assume is fire insurance.
One more example from results published in the unscientific Journal of Molecular Biology and referenced in a new book:
“Axe looked at proteins of modest length (150 residues)… He found that the ratio of functional proteins to nonfunctional gibberish was 1 in 1074. He found that the odds of getting a protein with a particular function was 1 in 1077. That’s one protein capable of carrying out that function for every 100,000,000,000,000,000,000,000,000,000,000,000,000,000,000,000,000,000,000,000,000,000,000,000,000,000 dead-on-arrival proteins.” The book illustrates, “The number of atoms in all of planet Earth is estimated to be around 1050 – a huge number but one dwarfed by 1077! The latter number is a billion times a billion times a billion times bigger.”
The new book, HERETIC – One Scientist’s Journey from Darwin to Design by Matti Leisola & Jonathon Witt, continues:
“…And of course, a new life-form requires not one but many hundreds of new protein types along with lots of tricky epigenetic information,” concluding “Axe’s findings, in other words, corroborated what the mathematicians at Wistar had suspected and argued: neo-Darwinism had a major math problem.”
What Agnostic Theistic Evolutionists somehow manage to do is accept that neo-Darwinists have a “major math problem” but reject the fact that they have one of their own. As I said earlier, Intelligent Design, left unadulterated by Evolutionary Theory, makes the indisputable case for God. But this Agnostic Theistic Evolutionary Religion, just as easily as the neo-Darwinists, rejects the math and the reason that goes along with it. If an intelligence can beat the odds of the demonstrated “major math problem,” then would that same intelligence waste their time and their power with evolution or would that powerful intelligence simply say, “Let There Be!” Wouldn’t God, be God?
Another book (soon to be a series) that you should read is called FOSSIL FORENSICS – Separating Fact from Fiction in Paleontology by Dr. Jerry Bergman. Dr. Bergman has been published more than 950 times in “scholarly and popular scientific journals” and has published 32 books. Dr. Bergman points out that “Most all of the scientists quoted (in the book) were evolutionists.” From his research and analysis of the published record of these evolutionists and others he came to this conclusion: “I realized that the fossil record was actually one of evolution’s major problems.” In his book Dr. Bergman documents, “the fossils tell a very clear account of the history of life quite in contradiction to the story of Darwinism.”
To those who would consider this unenlightened Agnostic Theistic Evolutionary Religion that teaches Man’s Creation Story, for those who still accept the “mountain of evidence” they claim to justify their faith, I leave you with these words from Paul to the Galatians: 4:9 “But now that you know God, or rather are known by God, how is it that you are turning back to those weak and worthless principles? Do you wish to be enslaved by them all over again?” And these words of Thomas Huxley from an article in the “Reader,” December 1864, titled “Science and ‘Church Policy”: “the spirit of faith and reverence, and the will to die rather than to lie, had left the theological and entered the scientific camp.” Huxley had it close. The church had (and has) lost its faith, reverence and commitment to die with Christ rather than lie about God. What this Atheist scientist got wrong was the scientific camp. Yes, scientists and others had formed their own theology and were ready to die for their faith. But his new religion was (and is) not one of reverence to the truth, but the lie of The Omnipotence of Man.
A few things I wanted to say, but didn’t want to distract from the flow of the above points:
“Let there be”? We most often hear the Genesis account quoted just this way. God said, “Let there be” light. God said “Let there be” firmament. God said “Let there be” plants, animals, water, etc. But in fact the Bible says God did not use the same language all the way through creation.
Gen 1:1 says God created: H1254 bârâ’ baw-raw’ “A primitive root; (absolutely) to create.”
Gen 1:3 God said “Let there be:” H1961 hâyâh haw-yaw’ “A primitive root; to exist, that is, be or become.” Also used in Gen 1:6 Let (H1961) it divide the waters.
Gen 1:4 God divided: H914 bâdal baw-dal’ “A primitive root; to divide, separate, distinguish.”
Gen1:7 God made the firmament: H6223 ‛âśâh aw-saw’ “A primitive root; to do or make.”
Gen 1:9 Let the dry land appear: H7200 râ’âh raw-aw’ “A primitive root; to see, appear”
Gen 1:11 Let the earth bring forth grass: H1876 dâshâ’ daw-shaw’ “A primitive root; to sprout: – bring forth, spring.”
Gen 1:27 God created man (again, just to be clear) H1254
Notice that both “Let” and “be” are translated from the same Hebrew word H1961. So, “Let there be…” is accurate where used.
The question is, if God used one process to produce different results then why did He have Moses record each occurrence in different ways?
Gen 1:11 We have all seen something “spring” up, forward or out. Was it ever a slow, drawn out event? No. anyone with a lawn to mow knows exactly what God meant. We’ve all said, “the grass just sprung up.”
Gen 1:9 Who hasn’t used the term, “(something or someone) just appeared out of nowhere?” Did you mean there was nothing there and as you sat around for a long time the thing slowly arose from nothing and with barely discernible progression it was in front of you? No. It wasn’t there and then suddenly it was. It “appeared.”
Then, when it refers to creatures of the sea, beasts of the land and man, Moses uses H1254 “created.” Yes, creating something can be a process. But, why have the land “appear” and the grass “spring” up, but man, well I’ll take a long while on that one? No, God took great care to Create the living beings of the earth, and, as far as man is concerned, saw the completed manifest reality of His image.
Just a couple more observations drawn from Moses’ record. Did you ever notice that after each stage of creation God “saw” it completed and said it was good? It doesn’t say He pictured it in His mind and imagined it would be good. Also, did you notice that immediately after creating man and woman God began to talk to them? It doesn’t say He “said to” the amino acid, “Be fruitful,” or “Don’t touch that tree.” Obviously, He was having a conversation with someone He expected to understand. Did you ever notice that the plants came before the sun? Did you ever notice that man was made from dust not a puddle of water?
This is not to argue for a “six day” creation; this is to show that a “Christian,” who is required to believe the Word of God in its entirety, has to do some major Twister action to fit evolution as consistent with the record of events God gave Moses.
With that in mind, just a couple quick statements about “Intelligent Design (I.D.).” In concept it was good and bad. It is always good to try and effectively communicate God to the world. But, as you would have read elsewhere on P.O.C., it is always bad to let the world set the discussion parameters, the vocabulary and the definitions of that vocabulary and then believe you will move their position. So I.D. thought if they replaced “creation” with terminology the world would accept, the world would accept creation. They were wrong. Worse, as it always does, playing on their field backfired. Rather than the world adopting God, Christians adopted evolution and justified it under I.D. Now that compromise has evolved into Theistic Evolution or, as we have shown, Agnostic Theistic Evolution. Today that religion is welcomed into far too many “Christian” minds and churches.
Finally, a brief history for you “Christian” Evolutionists, and this is a sum-up. A few years back while researching and reading the “Communist Manifesto” it occurred to me that it had something in common with evolution and global warming. All seek to disregard and destroy God in the world. With that thought I did an Internet search with the keywords: Karl Marx and Evolution. Now the sum-up. Karl Marx supported Darwin’s development of the “Theory of Evolution.” This “theory” was widely discredited by the scientific community at the time and rejected from publication. Luckily, Karl and Darwin had some friends who had formed a group of scientists with the sole purpose of forcing any reference to God out of science. This group of people included the first person to run physical experiments on evolution and coincidentally “The Greenhouse Effect.” It also included the most aggressive proponent for evolution, the aforementioned Thomas Huxley. This group, also unable to get their more “far out” ideas published, made their way into positions of power, voted each other up the ladder and gained control over peer reviewed publishing and the society Robert Boyle had started. Obviously, from that point on, work that was inline with their “beliefs” was published and promoted and anything that wasn’t was rejected and the authors blacklisted. Then the icing on the cake. Another member of this “Club,” Herbert Spencer (a sociologist), personally took up Darwin’s cause and promoted Evolution across universities in Europe and the United States until he was not so politely asked to leave for spreading… communism. But it was too late. The virus was planted; the infection began. Today, this premeditated attack on God and on Boyle’s science is the norm and anything and anyone who even hints at any other idea is attacked and blacklisted. And, as I said above, even worse it is now taught within our “Christian” schools and universities as God’s plan.
Here is where you say “conspiracy theories.” In 1995 a paper was written at the University of Georgia suggesting to use the X-Club approach as the blueprint to change psychology:
The X Club and the Secret Ring: Lessons on How Behavior Analysis Can
Take Over Psychology
Bruce A. Thyer
University of Georgia
1995, 18, 23-31
The paper begins:
“In 1864 Thomas Huxley and eight fellow scientists formed a secret organization called the X Club, dedicated to the promotion of Darwinian theory and naturalistic science. Its members active for almost 40 years, the X Club acted as the ‘power behind the throne’ with respect to the governance of the Royal Society and other British scientific groups.”
Today the “god” of behavior is no longer personal responsibility and morality, but the doctrines laid out by… wait for it… psychologists’ behavioral analysis. Also note, the above mentioned article in the Reader seems to have been the formal battle call against God as it was written in December of the same year. Following Huxley’s article, Spencer and Darwin became majority shareholders in the Reader. Shortly after 1.“As the evolutionary debate progressed and became more vicious, Tyndall (X-Club member) became bolder. The need for the evolutionist to ensure publication, and other diverse reasons, led to the foundation of the journal Nature.” And; 2.“Many of the early editions of Nature consisted of articles written by members of a group that called itself the X Club.”
By the way, Marx was the P.R. guy for the manifesto. It was actually written for the most part by his friend, Friedrich Engels. Engels was a full on materialist and, yes, social scientist. If you want to see the truth of the manifesto, communism and Marxism, read Engel’s draft which he wrote in letters to Marx.
The Wrap-up. Tozer often said, “communism is the devil’s religion.” He also pointed out that the followers of this religion are more than willing to, and do, die for their faith. Today, just like “The Church,” this religion has many doctrines – fascism and socialism, to name a couple more. Tozer predicted that if The Church didn’t step up, this religion would cover half the world. Sadly, he was not only right but too conservative. The many forms of this religion are not only dominant in the world, but dominant in most churches.
Declared atheists worked with declared communists to remove the Truths of God from the world through the take over of science. In fact, when the X-Club was formed, The Royal Society Robert Boyle started had 750 members; by 1893, when the X-Club group had all died off, membership in the Society was down to 450. They had cleaned house. A secular view of the world had firmly replaced the “Divine” view that Boyle pointed to when he pointed out there are things that science could not discover, and we only know about because God’s Scripture informed us. As you have read on the “Lessons from the Past” page, Boyle was the one who actually defied the powers of doctrinal religion, science and government and did what had not been done before – put them to the test. The tests of “The Experimental Method” and “peer reviewed publishing” both were his invention.
Now, 400 years after Boyle and 100 years after the X-Club, the doctrines of scientific belief again define the truth while The Experimental Method is a plaque on the wall of every “lab,” pointed to but seldom truly practiced. A few decades ago “Intelligent Design” came along attempting to re-introduce God into the formula. They failed! However, I.D. scientists like Dembski who apply a little of the ultimate science – math – show that evolutionary models never work unless man adjusts them along the way to produce the desired results. Intelligent guidance. Unfortunately, many stop there. Rather than embracing the Truth, the Evolutionary Theist twists the evidence undermining evolutionary theory and plugs the god of their distorted religion into the formula in an attempt to balance the equation.
If we continue on the scientific path they began we find that, even if we plug a god into the formula to fix the simulations, the evidence we have from the real world presents more problems. To date, there are no observed mutations resulting in a positive gain of function without the destruction or loss of function, and these “evolutionary adaptations” come nowhere close to what would be necessary to generate an entirely new type of organism. Also, as mentioned above, the fossil record most widely purported to support evolution is full of “Gaps” that cannot be explained by the theory with or without the god fix. If evolution through mutation requires a large number of small transitional steps for one body form to evolve into another, why is there no evidence of this process occurring? Yet many, including a sizable portion of religion, accept evolution and twist the evidence that undermines it to actually support it just with a little help from an intelligence. Rather than follow the evidence that points to Biblical Truth and the existence of God, they, like the Neo-Darwinist, take the leap of faith to stand in this new religion. This new religion called Theistic Evolution ignores the plaque on the wall and proclaims their god, a guiding intelligence. This new religion claims God but sees His Book as “Fables” and “Myths,” favoring Darwin’s “On the Origin of Species” as their bible. Demonstrably, the members of this religion do not believe in the God but a god, making a more appropriate title for them Agnostic Theistic Evolutionists. Through their religion they take the Omnipotence of God and arrogantly place it on the shoulders of man’s knowledge. They put more faith in what man knows than what God teaches, even though they prove that faith misplaced on a daily basis, replacing what they knew yesterday with what they “know” today. They call themselves “Christian” but prove themselves “unbelievers.” They are “blind” to the fact that God is Truth and “The Omnipotence of Man” is the myth.
© 4/12/2018 Scott A Caughel
1. Science and Education Publications: Tyndall (1820?-1893) as Philosopher2. Nature (journal): Browne, Charles Darwin: The Power of Place, p. 248