Evolving to God's Image?

Which is the correct interpretation of Gen 1:26 - "Let us make/create man in our image" or "Let us evolve this goo so that it will eventually come to our image"? If the later, does evolution make us "better" and more God-like? Have we arrived there yet? Do we finally just evolve into pure immaterial soul and out of time into eternity? I think the jury has already condemned us.

Blinders on! Blinders off!

A 250 word article I submitted to my local newspapers. There will be more on this subject.


You’ve seen pictures of New York city carriage horses wearing blinders. This is a good thing; otherwise, the horse may get distracted and frightened by cars whizzing past.

When students walk into a science classroom with “nature’s all there is” as the underlying truth assumption for all “facts”, they’re being asked to don blinders, too. This is not a good thing – unless the students understand they are being asked to put the blinders on, and they remember to take them off leaving the classroom and entering back into a real world that cannot be adequately explained or lived in by “nature’s all there is.”

Look for the blinders preeminent Harvard biologist, Richard Lewontin, acknowledges: “It’s not that the methods and institutions of science somehow compel us to accept a material explanation (nature’s all there is) of the phenomenal world, but … we are forced by our a priori (before any evidence is considered) adherence to material causes to … produce material explanations, no matter how counter-intuitive, no matter how mystifying to the uninitiated. Moreover, that materialism is absolute, for we cannot allow a Divine Foot in the door.”

Lewontin candidly admits science’s primo principle, “nature’s all there is”, is a philosophical assumption that will make up and believe anything to NOT see the Divine. Science has made its little box and pulled its head inside.

Are we teaching horses or students? “Nature’s all there is” (Blinders ON) or “follow ALL evidence wherever it leads” (Blinders OFF)?

Teaching evolution in the classroom can be dangerous

Below is an article I wrote that was published in a local newspaper. 

It was written in support of Louisiana passing a Science Education Act giving teachers the academic freedom to introduce other relevant materials when teaching controversial subjects such as evolution, global warming, stem cell research, etc. As you might expect there were a lot of the typical science vs religion, separation of church and state, sneaking Creationism into the classroom, and shell-game pro-evolution/pro-science articles mixing micro and macro evolution with no distinction articles published in addition to a very slanted Associated Press article that should have been put on the editorial page but was not. 

My article takes a different slant by simply saying that it is dangerous to our children's lives (and the world) if they are simply spoon fed one particular view and do not know how to think critically about all the evidence and be able to follow it wherever it leads. 

Predictably, teachers have already been warned of possible lawsuits if some student is offended by the presentation of alternate materials. So much for academic freedom! 

 In some way, Ben Stein's recent movie, No Intelligence Allowed, precipitated this legislation although the issue has been fermenting for quite a while. This is an excellent movie with a lot of gotcha's straight from the mouth of some of the high evolution priests - like Richard Dawkins admitting there might be something to Intelligent Design ... but the intelligent designer must have been aliens. 

 Here is the article: 

 Teaching evolution in the classroom can be dangerous. Why? Because some students may really get the message and apply it to their lives! 

Macro-evolution theory (bio diversity explained by undirected and purposeless natural causes) is an explanation of life and, if true, has very definite implications on how we should live our lives and view others. 

Paleontologist and evolutionary biologist, Stephen Jay Gould, explained the logical result of evolution: "We are here because one odd group of fishes had a peculiar fin anatomy that could transform into legs for terrestrial creatures; because comets struck the earth and wiped out dinosaurs, thereby giving mammals a chance not otherwise available (so thank your lucky stars in a literal sense); because the earth never froze entirely during an ice age; because a small and tenuous species, arising in Africa a quarter of a million years ago, has managed, so far, to survive by hook and by crook. We may yearn for a 'higher' answer—but none exists. This explanation, though superficially troubling, if not terrifying, is ultimately liberating and exhilarating." 

There’s no more desperate or universal human cry than for meaning and purpose, but, as Gould and many others have said, life has no ultimate meaning and purpose. You’re the accidental product of an undirected and totally natural evolutionary process. You get to invent your own purpose! 

When teachers, scientists, and other authority figures teach young, inquisitive, and idealistic students macro-evolution, don’t we expect them to trust what they’re being taught is true? Should we then be surprised when some learn the lesson all too well attempting to find their liberation in life’s ultimate meaninglessness?

 Sprinkle that onto today’s youth, already assaulted by an unremitting stream of fast food, “have it your way,” consumption-driven, escapist, selfish, pleasure-soaked culture of death, and surprise, surprise, we get school violence, disrespect, suicide (after all, your meaningless life is worthless), teen pregnancies, and absent fathers. 

If the evolutionists are right, “Survival of the fittest” translates into “Do unto others before they do unto you!” Rather than crazy, maybe Klebold and Harris really proved to be the brightest students of all for their 1999 Columbine massacre. 

 This should matter to you. Ideas have consequences. Some ideas produce cures for cancer; others, slaughter millions. 

Men will seize any justification for the evil they are determined to do, and evolution is a very convenient excuse for the trivialization of human worth. 

The 20th century was the bloodiest of all centuries. Three regimes alone – Lenin, Stalin, and Mao Tse-Tung – murdered over 100,000,000 people pursuing their naturalistic philosophy. Adolf Hitler was greatly influenced by evolution. He, and the doctors, scientists, and academics who followed him transformed “survival of the fittest” into justification for eugenics – the extermination of those deemed weak, inferior, and unfit to live. 

Unfortunately, we forget the mind numbing concentration camp images of heaps and heaps of human bodies piled high like so much fire wood. 

Naturalistic philosophy can only shrug at the ease with which flawed beliefs led vast numbers of seemingly normal and rational people to do such horrific evil. This is not to imply that all evolutionists will become Nazis or Communists, but, when science rejects open and honest debate and does not disavow and correct misinterpretation, then a loaded pistol is left out in the open. 

 Macro-evolution theory is not solely to blame for the ills of our culture, but it has become the religion of the secular/naturalistic philosophies driving our cultural institutions - and all this by shutting down serious discussion of counter evidence and the inherent limitations of science’s natural-only assumptions. 

Young people need to be trained to honestly evaluate ideas and the forces and assumptions behind them. This is particularly important as some of today’s greatest issues are ethical ones – embryonic stem cell research, human cloning, human-animal cloning, etc. 

These decisions need to be made by an informed public and not a closed scientific community that answers only to the highest bidder. 

Studying life theories - macro-evolution, Intelligent Design, and even Creationism - presents a wonderful opportunity for teaching our youth how to follow all the evidence wherever it may lead in the pursuit of truth. Their lives and futures are at stake.

The Greatest Wonder of Genesis Creation

Many want to debate whether the creation account of Genesis 1 has God creating everything in 6 literal 24 hour days. 

 To me, the most amazing question if God spoke [willed] everything into existence in 6 literal 24 hour days is, "What did He do with the other 23 hours and 59.9999999999999999999999999999 99999999999999999999999999999999999999999999999999999999999999999999999 99999999999999999999999999999999999999999999999999999999999999999999999 99999999999999999999999999999999999999999999999999999999999999999999999 99999999999999999999999999999999999999999999999999999999999999999999999 ... you get the idea ... 99999999999999999999999999999999999999999999999999999999999999999999999 99999999999999999999999999999999999999999999999999999999999999999999999 9999999999999999999 ... minutes of each day?"

the Evolutionist's Library

Did you hear about the evolutionist who, after much study and thought, threw away his entire library of books - Shakespeare, e.e.cummings, Robert Frost, Isaac Asimov science fiction, chemistry and biology books - and replaced them all with one book? 

He replaced them with a dictionary. 

After all, books are just collections of words, and a dictionary is the comprehensive collection of words. No need of the extraneous books.

In fact, the dictionary is a special Evolution dictionary as the words are in random order. 

When "nature" is all there is, reductionism is the inevitable result of the scientific search for explanations. As Richard Dawkins said, "We're just dancing to our DNA."

My DNA made me do it!   How's that as an answer for evil?  

bzzzzz zZAP! (2)

Here is the previous post after considerable rework, revision, and additional thought. This is as it was submitted to local newspapers for publication (working in a 250 word limit). Thought it might be interesting for you to see the beginning and the end product.

“bzzzzz” 

"Hey, Martha, come look at this," Fred Lizard called to his wife. 

Scampering to the opening of their high Grand Canyon crevice, Martha found Fred staring intently outside. 

“bzzzzz bzzzzzzz” 

"Look at that beautiful sunset. It just takes your breath away, doesn't it." 

“bzzzzz” 

They stood there enraptured as the hues blended and gradually darkened with the fall of night. 

“bzzzzt” 

Even the fly lit and stared with a thousand lenses at the unfolding beauty. 

 Do lizards, spiders, squirrels, deer, birds, etc watch the majestic display of sunrises and sunsets? 

Do they feel the same sense of timelessness, awe, and inspiration as we, or are they oblivious to the whole thing? I

t appears this propensity for wonder is a particularly human fascination. In fact, the beginning story is really, "bzzzzzz zZAP!" 

While the lizard would not ignore dinner, we'll postpone eating to get lost in the vastness and beauty of sunrises, sunsets, storms, mountain vistas, snowscapes, seashores, the fathomless blue of the deep ocean, canyons, grassy plains, and symphonies. We'll spend hours accomplishing nothing, but taking it all in with a sense that time has not been wasted at all. 

 Everyone sees the painting, but few acknowledge the artist. True beauty is a telescope gazing on the Glory of the Creator - an invitation to eternal joy and fulfillment. 

In the words of Elizabeth Barrett Browning, “Earth's crammed with heaven, and every common bush aflame with God. But only those who see take off their shoes. The rest sit around and pluck blackberries.”

bzzzzz zZAP!

bzzzzz 

"Hey, Martha, come look at this," says Fred Lizard to his wife. She scampers to the opening in their Grand Canyon cave to find Fred staring intently outside. 

bzzzzz bzzzzzzz 

"Look at that beautiful sunset. It just takes your breath away, doesn't it." 

bzzzzz

They stand there enraptured as the hues blend and finally darken with the fall of night. 

bzzzzz 

 Do lizards, spiders, squirrels, deer, birds, etc watch the majestic display of sunrises and sunsets? Do they feel the same sense of timelessness, awe, and inspiration as we, or are they oblivious to the whole thing? 

Actually the beginning story above can be written, "bzzzzzz zZAP!"

 

It appears the capacity for wonder is a particularly human trait. We'll stop eating to get lost in the experience of the vastness and beauty of sunrises, sunsets, storms, mountains, snowy scapes, the sea meeting the land, the fathomless blue of the deep ocean, canyons, and grassy plains. 

 We'll spend hours accomplishing nothing but taking it all in with a sense that time has not been wasted at all. In this beauty is a hint of fulfillment beyond sight. Every one sees the painting but few praise the artist. 

Earth's crammed with heaven, And every common bush aflame with God. But only those who see take off their shoes. The rest sit around and pluck blackberries. Elizabeth Barrett Browning

Three Significant Quotes

Here are three quotes that have opened my eyes to the impact of secularism/humanism in our culture. I guess you can say, these quotes helped me put the pieces of the puzzle together.

First, before you read the quotes, I want you to picture in your mind the culture as the soil into which the Gospel is sown (Luke 8:5-15).


"No one indeed believes anything unless he first thought that it is to be believed.” St. Augustine

"False ideas are the greatest obstacles to the reception of the gospel. We may preach with all the fervor of a reformer and yet succeed only in winning a straggler here and there, if we permit the whole collective thought of the nation or of the world to be controlled by ideas which by the resistless force of logic, prevent Christianity from being regarded as anything more than a harmless delusion." Gresham Machen

Now, if you are getting it, I think this one nails the lid on the coffin and should send chills up and down your spine ...

"When people are taught for years on end that good thinking is naturalistic thinking, and that bringing God into the picture only leads to confusion and error, they have to be pretty dense not to get the point that God must be an illusion. This doesn’t necessarily mean that they become atheists, but they are likely to think about God in a naturalistic way, as an idea in the human mind rather than as a reality that nobody can afford to ignore.” “Defeating Darwinism by Opening Minds” by Phillip E. Johnson, pp 89


All three synoptic Gospels tell the parable of the sower; however, I like Luke's account best because it tells us the most about the heart in the culture (soil) that holds the word (seed) fast and bears fruit with perseverance. That heart is described as "honest and good" (NASB and KJV), "noble and good" (NIV). Note that it is not the seed that makes the heart this way; this is a precondition of receiving, holding fast, and bearing fruit. This is the heart that will open up to and allow the working of the Holy Spirit.

Look at our culture today, and it's plain to see that our culture does everything in its power (whose power? Satan's!) to pervert hearts away from being "honest and good". Whereas 60 years ago, there was sufficient Chrisitian influence in the institutions of culture for this kind of preconditioning to still be pretty dominant, today we cast seed on thoroughly rocky and hard soil.

Are you concerned with why more are not being saved?

Among other things we do to reach the lost as individual Christians and as the Church, we need to be cultivating the culture with God's definition of nobility, honesty, and goodness just as the farmer prepares his soil to receive the seed. Unfortunately, I don't see an emphasis, or even an awareness, of this in most evangelistic communities. We keep on pretending the soil is as it was 60 years ago -- and with predictable results.

And, don't forget the effect on those inside the church of swimming in this polluted culture every day - but that's a topic for a later post.

Evolution - Dead Man Walking

This was submitted to local newspapers for publication:

The man thought he was dead. Trying to convince him otherwise, the doctor asked, "Do dead men bleed?" "No," the man thoughtfully responded. The doctor pricked the man’s finger drawing blood. Amazed, the man exclaimed, "Dead men do bleed!" A bad starting thesis, "I am dead", can corrupt evidence and conclusions.

Preeminent evolutionary biologist, Richard Lewontin explains science’ devotion to naturalism: "We take the side of science in spite of the patent absurdity of some of its constructs … not that the methods and institutions of science somehow compel us to accept a material explanation … we cannot allow a Divine foot in the door …"

Real power is in ideas, not weapons. In the twentieth century, ruthless Hitlers, Stalins, Maos and Pol Pots pushed evolution’s practical consequence, "life has no intrinsic value," and men died by the tens of millions. The naturalism of scientific method fed men’s naturalistic ambition, "might makes right." Evolution’s theory, "red in tooth and claw," ran red over the ground.

So, life is a cosmic accident; we are products of blind chance. If true, then Stalin is not responsible for his crimes. He was just dancing to his DNA explains the evolutionist. Should you be concerned about the scientific theory of evolution?

Lewontin let the cat out of the bag. Science’ obsession with materialistic answers is not scientifically required at all - it’s a philosophical commitment. The real controversy to be taught is not science vs. faith but science’ faith in naturalism. Remember the "dead man"?

Suicide by Atheist

"If you draw a giraffe, you must draw him with a long neck. If, in your bold creative way, you hold yourself free to draw a giraffe with a short neck, you will really find that you are not free to draw a giraffe. ... You can free things from alien or accidental laws, but not from the laws of their own nature." G.K.Chesterton in Orthodoxy.


That man has a soul is generally accepted by most common folk - even writers and artists - though we may quibble over exactly what this soulishness means. For this article I would like to set forth a definition that most would accept - a throbbing ache for fulfillment. We seem to be born with a longing for meaning and significance. Most of us eventually discover that meaning and significance are not found in the physical pleasures or acquisitions of life. In the words of Ravi Zacharias, "The loneliest moment in life is when you have just experienced what you thought would deliver the ultimate, and it has let you down." (from Can Man Live Without God)

But where do we look to satisfy this soulishness? That's the issue.

The Christian view is that the soul is a God implanted compass to draw us outside of ourselves pointing us to look to something higher and greater. That's all I will say about this view because I want to focus on several atheistic/humanistic approaches.

The first view I call the honest view. I will use famous 20th century atheist Bertrand Russell as it's proponent. His remark that life must be lived in a state of "unyielding despair" both states that there is no higher purpose or meaning to look to and correctly analyzes the life result of that belief - despair, with no hope and no way out. In short, Russell says there is a yearning but no ultimate fulfillment for life. There is no meaning.


"We are here because one odd group of fishes had a peculiar fin anatomy that could transform into legs for terrestrial creatures; because comets struck the earth and wiped out dinosaurs, thereby giving mammals a chance not otherwise available (so thank your lucky stars in a literal sense); because the earth never froze entirely during an ice age; because a small and tenuous species, arising in Africa a quarter of a million years ago, has managed, so far, to survive by hook and by crook."We may yearn for a 'higher' answer—but none exists. This explanation, though superficially troubling, if not terrifying, is ultimately liberating and exhilarating" Stephen Jay Gould

The second I call get over it. A proponent of this view was the late Stephen Jay Gould. As shown above, his view says man can be liberated and exhilarated (his notion of the soul's fulfillment) if we just face the facts squarely and get on with it. Interestingly enough, though, his language gives him away - "This explanation, though superficially troubling, if not terrifying, is ultimately liberating and exhilarating." If man is just a cosmic accident, why should there be anything to trouble or terrify? Man's soulishness becomes a cosmic joke played by blind chance.


"The feeling of awed wonder that science can give us is one of the highest experiences of which the human psyche is capable. It is a deep aesthetic passion to rank with the finest that music and poetry can deliver. It is truly one of the things that make life worth living and it does so, if anything, more effectively if it convinces us that the time we have for living is quite finite." Richard Dawkins, Unweaving the Rainbow: Science, Delusion and the Appetite for Wonder

Richard Dawkins is an example of the third view which I call counterfeit. Dawkins seems to agree that the things that give meaning to life are not the physical but the ethereal experiences of awe and wonder from science, music, poetry, etc. From his evolutionary/atheistic perspective, however, Dawkins is amazed at what the mind of man can conceive rather than that man's mind can conceive at all. It's like those who look at the amazing pictures from the Hubble space telescope and only marvel at man's accomplishment of building and placing such a great and powerful instrument.


Conclusion. Yes, it is fearful to contemplate the vastness of empty space teaming with billions and billions of stars. How small and insignificant this makes man -- if the measure is man alone. No further can the atheist/humanist go. Left with the honest assessment of unyielding despair, or the get over it bravado of the superficially troubling, if not terrifying truth of accidental and meaningless existence, or the counterfeit of looking low to the creature for awe and wonder, these all draw a giraffe with a short neck - man with a much diminished soul - in short, inviting man to suicide.

"Do not free a camel of the burden of his hump; you may be freeing him from being a camel. Do not go about as a demagogue, encouraging triangles to break out of the prison of their three sides. If a triangle breaks out of its three sides, its life comes to a lamentable end." G.K. Chesterton

Time Matter Chance

Once upon a point of infinite density, Nothing that was Something went boom. Then there was Everything. Everything eventually named Something Matter, the tragic character in our story. Sadly, Matter had no mind; yet this makes our tale all the more amazing!

Now Matter had only one companion, the hero of our fable, a mysterious stranger of unknown origin called Chance. Chance, though blind, was a brilliant artist. Chance taught mindless Matter to paint, and paint our pupil did. Matter painted a universe from center to rim on the canvas of a vacuum. And lo, innumerable galaxies emerged, filled with infinite wonders, beauty, order, and life. The inspired brush strokes of ignorant Matter, guided by the hands of blind Chance, created a cosmic masterpiece.

But as Matter and Chance were working away, they failed to spot our villain called Time. Time crept in unnoticed back at the boom and was extremely wound up about being stirred from his sleep. Time determined there and then to wind down again and thus rub the masterpiece out – as soon as he got hold of that Chance! Chance, being blind, didn’t see Time coming, and mindless Matter was helpless to intervene.

Now Time ruins the painting little by little and brags that by Chance, it’s just a matter of Time before the canvas is blank and the boom will swoon and everything that was Something will be Nothing again, once more a pointless point of infinite nothingness with no Time for Chance to matter anymore.


Excerpt from Searching for Truth, Discovering the Meaning and Purpose of Life by Joe Boot, pp 53-54.

I Agree with Atheist Richard Dawkins (part 3)

Go here for the previous post in this series.

"Faith is powerful enough to immunize people against all appeals to pity, to forgiveness, to decent human feelings. It even immunizes them against fear, if they honestly believe that a martyr's death will send them straight to heaven."

I know exactly what Dawkins is talking about. It's exactly the way I felt as a four year old when my mother - who I thought loved me - and the enemy nurses held me down to give me a shot when I was sick! Absolutely no pity or decent human feelings. Thank God my mother had faith to believe the shot would make me well - not absolutely guaranteed - and that the lesser (my temporary discomfort - certainly not from my point of view) was outweighed by the greater. This is a common principle we all use and should be applied to Dawkins' quote.

The problem obviously is the context and how you judge the reasoning used to evaluate the greater/lesser moral equation. The 9/11 hijackers believed heaven was the goal of life, and the only way by their faith, Islam, to guarantee heaven was as a martyr. Further, they believed their religion mandated the killing of non-believers, infidels. Looks like perfectly good reasoning to me, IF their religious understanding is true.

Everyone falls back to their core beliefs and principles from which to reason and justify their actions. Well, maybe with the exception of those who just act like animals with no need for justifying their actions to any moral standards at all. We can see that the 9/11 hijackers would try to justify their actions based on their religious beliefs. So, where do other mass-murderers find justification for their lesser/greater moral evaluation? Let's take Mao, Stalin, Hitler, Pol Pot, etc - the greatest mass murderers of all time, and all in the progressive 20th century.

Since they were atheists, I would suggest they can only look to their DNA. There is no good or bad - only "what is." They evolved by a process that endows no special moral place to the human animal above any other animals - "Nature, red in tooth and claw," in Tennyson's poem "In Memoriam." After all, this is what Darwin's theory of evolution has proved, hasn't it?

"Blindness to suffering is an inherent consequence of natural selection. Nature is neither kind nor cruel but indifferent."

Few atheists are honest enough to admit that without a transcendent moral law, morality simply becomes a matter of individual moral tastes - some love their neighbors, some love to eat them. "Might makes right" becomes the operative principle.


Thank God most atheists live to a much higher moral standard than their beliefs require.

I Agree with Atheist Richard Dawkins

I'll bet that title got your attention! Obvoiusly, as a Christian, I don't agree with everything infamous evolutionist/atheist Richard Dawkins has said, but there are a few things I believe he got right - unwittingly. It's kind of like Caiaphas saying, “You know nothing at all, nor do you take into account that it is expedient for you that one man die for the people, and that the whole nation not perish” (Jn 11:49-50, NASB), and the crowd crying out for Jesus' death at his trial before Pilate, “His blood shall be on us and on our children!” (Mt 27:25, NASB).

Examples:

"By all means let's be open-minded, but not so open-minded that our brains drop out." This one is rather tame. Who wouldn't agree - you would be surprised! Many people think minds are meant to always be open. I disagree. Minds are meant to close on facts guided by the light of truth. Openness is just a mind-phase enroute to closing.

"I am against religion because it teaches us to be satisfied with not understanding the world." I agree because Dawkins obviously does not include Christianity in his definition of religion (remember, religion is man seeking after God/Godlessness - Christianity is God seeking man) since the early pioneers of modern science were Christians. These men/women were propelled by their belief in a God of order who revealed Himself in the complexity and order of His creation. For them, uncovering the mysteries of the universe was akin to touching the mind of God. Unfortunately, ignorance (much willfull) on matters of religion is epidemic in our culture and most do not see this distinction nor know their science history. True science goes where the evidence leads ... but, wait a minute, isn't Dawkins an evolutionist?

"Faith is the great cop-out, the great excuse to evade the need to think and evaluate evidence. Faith is belief in spite of, even perhaps because of, the lack of evidence." Once again, as above, it is obvious that Dawkins excludes Christians from those of faith and for the same reasons. I'm sure there is a word that describes ghost words. In our culture today, the word faith has an unseen, but clearly understood, preceeding ghost word - blind. Of course, from the context of his quote, it is clear this is what Dawkins is referring to. Anyone who has actually studied the Christian Bible knows that the Biblical concept of faith is more a reasonable faith or trust - definitely not blind. Unfortunately for Dawkins, though, this kind of leaves him hanging on the horns of his own quote. What kind of faith does it take to believe that Darwin's theory of macro evolution is true -- in spite of the lack of evidence in support of it and the growing body of contradictory evidence?

I may continue this later ...

You may want to go here and check out more of Dawkin's quotes.