The Boycott, Divestment and Sanctions (BDS) movement says it’s fighting for Palestinian rights, but it’s really just trying to destroy Israel. Jonathan Sacks, author and former Chief Rabbi of the United Kingdom, explains how.
Month: April 2017
The French Election Explained
I grabbed this whole interview, partly because I think it is important to better know who these candidates are that I had some misconceptions about myself. Dennis Prager interviews Philippe Karsenty (TWITTER) about the French elections that took place and are coming up.
Recently, I came across these two sentences that made me rethink my thoughts on the two main characters:
- “…Macron’s pledges of gradual deregulation in France and cuts in state expenditure and the civil service are the kind of talk global financial markets like to hear. Le Pen wants to print money to finance expanded welfare payments and tax cuts, ditch the euro currency and possibly pull out of the EU, all of which raise huge uncertainties….” (REUTERS)
In conversation between some friends, one mentioned Marine Le Pen’s connection to racist ideologies via her father, Jean-Marie Le Pen, who founded the National Front Party in 1972. HEAVY has 5-facts on him that make me wary of Marine, including his apparent denials of the Holocaust.
At any rate, I am thank to Philippe for bringing more clarity to the issue.
Earth Day Failures (AEI Edition)
(Above audio) Dennis Prager comments on and reads from an AEI’s report about past failed predictions of Earth Day type “scientists” and environmentalists:
See my previous critique of PRINCE EA’s propaganda video (2015): EARTH-DAY FAILS! PRINCE EA’S VIDEO IS FULL OF HOT AIR
The following comes from BREITBART’S article entitled, “5 Scientific Facts The ‘Science March’ Has Yet to Acknowledge”
1) THERE ARE ONLY TWO GENDERS
This fact is particularly popular amongst people who question the “science march’s” commitment to, well, science.
The idea that there are only two genders, male or female, and that you have to be born either one or the other is a basic truth acknowledged by most people. Biologically, it is irrefutable: humans are a sexually dimorphic species. The only exceptions are the tiny minority of intersex people, who in very rare cases are born with chromosomal types that do not align with regular male-female patterns.
That’s the only exception. If you are not intersex, you are a man or a woman. You certainly aren’t one of Facebook’s 58 gender options, which extend to “lesboflexible,” “agender” and “pansexual.”
[…..]
[Editor’s note for #2: we are one race, the human race. “Ethnicity” is a better word to use rather than race.]
2) RACE IS NOT A SOCIAL CONSTRUCT
Sorry Rachel Dolezal, you’re white. The case for a biological basis for race, and all the differences of skin color, height, weight and physical characteristics that come with it, is overwhelming. Indeed, the biology of race is so real that you can trace it with a DNA test.
[…..]
3) GREEN ENERGY IS INEFFICIENT
Climate change and renewable energy is one of the chief causes of the Science March, championed by Bill Nye and others. The march was deliberately scheduled to take place on Earth Day, when people are supposed to demonstrate their support for the environment by turning all their lights on (MILO recognizes Earth Day by turning all his electronic devices up to max).
Yet many of the fossil fuel alternatives championed by the eco-warriors are woefully inefficient. Wind farms in particular are a poster child for wastefulness, operating at 90 percent capacity or above for just 17 hours a year. Solar energy is another shocker – according to electrical engineering professor Petr Beckmann, it would take 1,000 hours of pure sunshine for a 15-square inch solar panel to generate the same amount of energy as a single lump of coal.
In the U.K., vast sums of money have been poured into green energy schemes, only to disappear after the companies that took advantage of government spending either went into administration or failed to deliver.
[…..]
4) INEQUALITY IS NOT (PREDOMINANTLY) SOCIALLY CONSTRUCTED
One of the most troubling scientific facts for the left concerns the heritability of intelligence and behaviour. In the 1960s and 70s, the consensus in the fields of psychology and sociology argued that both intelligence and behaviour are wholly or mostly shaped by our external environment. In other words, if we grow up surrounded by books, with smart parents and good teachers, we become smart ourselves. Alternatively, if we grow up surrounded by poverty and crime, we’re more likely to fall into poverty and crime ourselves. Unequal environment, unequal outcomes.
This theory is central to the thinking of the left. It’s also long past its sell-by date. Known as the “Standard Social Science Model,” it has been undermined by a growing body of research which highlights the innate, genetic factors that drive human behaviour and achievement.
The research from geneticist Robert Plomin is particularly difficult to argue with. Plomin has used studies of twins raised in separate households to determine the heritability of character traits. He has found that even when a twin is raised in isolation from their biological parents, they still end up far more similar to their sibling – and to their biological parents – than they do to their foster parents. Plomin has estimated that 58 percent of variation in school test scores can be accounted for by inherited ability.
[…..]
5) MEN AND WOMEN ARE BORN DIFFERENT
The Science March has made a big deal out of the lack of diversity in STEM (Science, Technology, Engineering and Math). “The lack of inclusivity and diversity in STEM thwarts scientific advancements,” says an official statement on the march’s website.
But diversity in STEM, particularly gender diversity, is not something that can be solved by policy. Feminists insist that the lack of women in some STEM fields, like physics, is caused by entrenched sexism. However, these accounts consistently fail to explain why this alleged sexism is nowhere to be found in biology, where 58 percent of doctorates, bachelor’s, and master’s degrees are awarded to women. Or in zoology, psychology, and veterinary science — all scientific fields, all dominated by women. So why do women choose the latter, but not the former? It it just sexism?
The answer can again be found by looking at studies that trace the innate differences, and preferences, of men and women. Autism expert Simon Baron-Cohen has been studying the differences between men and women for over a decade, ever since he discovered that boys were far more likely than girls to develop autism. His research has found that boys (on average) are born with brains oriented towards understanding systems rather than people, emotions, and living things.
This is backed up by research on newborns, which show clear differences between male and female newborns in their preferences. Before they are nine months old, infants show gendered preferences with regards to toys, with male infants gravitating towards trucks and mechanical objects, and girls gravitating towards dolls. The study on newborns in particular helps rule out the the theory that sexist influences from a child’s social environment are the cause of gender differences.
PLACES TO GO ON MY SITE FOR MORE INFO
#1 – Transgender
#2 – Transracial
#3 – Climate Links (Various Topics)
#4 – Wealth Inequality in America ~ Critiques On Inequality
#5 – Male/Female Differences
Educational Indoctrination | Dennis Prager Interviews Lee Habeeb
Dennis Prager had Lee Habeeb on to discuss his article entitled, “Are All White People Racists? One Leftist School Is Teaching This.” In it Lee makes crystal clear the goals of organizations like this that make school principles and superintendents “feel good” about themselves – as if they are participating in fighting evil, thus, putting on the moniker of “social justice warrior.” A great interview!
- Lee Habeeb’s bio can be found HERE;
- Many of his National Review articles are HERE (as well as his older TOWNHALL articles);
- Follow “Our American Stories” on TWITTER.
4-Historical Facts That Prove Jesus Rose From The Dead (SS)
A SERIOUS SATURDAY post:
Video Description:
Easter 2017 – Did Jesus rise from the dead? We will deal with the question, “Did Jesus rise from the dead?” We will share 4 historical facts accepted by the majority of New Testament scholarship today. They include the honorable burial of Jesus, His empty tomb, His post-mortem appearances, and the origin of the disciples’ belief in God. Related:
Proof of the Resurrection of Jesus (by Mike Licona); 10 Myths About the Resurrection of Jesus (by Mike Licona); Q&A on the Resurrection of Jesus (by Gary Habermas); Resurrection Debate (between Gary Habermas and Antony Flew); Refuting the Jesus Seminar (by Gary Habermas); Refuting Terrible Books on Jesus (by Gary Habermas and Craig Evans); In Defense of Jesus (by Lee Strobel); Jesus of Testimony (Documentary); A Lawyer Defends Christianity (by John Warwick Montgomery); In Defense of Christianity (by John Warwick Montgomery); John Warwick Montgomery Critiquest Bart Herman; Answering Bart Ehrman (by William Lane Craig); 10 Common Objections to the Resurrection of Jesus (by Daniel Janosik); Evidence for the Resurrection of Jesus (by Doug Potter); Is Jesus a Legend? (by Phil Fernandes); The Christ Myth Theory (by Phil Fernandes); Jesus and the New Testament (by J. P. Holding).
Just some SeanG ruminations on my pastor’s Easter sermon:
“…and if the Messiah has not been raised, then our message means nothing and your faith means nothing. In addition, we are found to be false witnesses about God because we testified on God’s behalf that he raised the Messiah—whom he did not raise if in fact it is true that the dead are not raised. For if the dead are not raised, then the Messiah has not been raised, and if the Messiah has not been raised, your faith is worthless and you are still imprisoned by your sins. Yes, even those who have died believing in the Messiah are lost. If we have set our hopes on the Messiah in this life only, we deserve more pity than any other people. But at this moment the Messiah stands risen from the dead, the first one offered in the harvest of those who have died.” (1 Corinthians 15 : 14-20, ISV)
The Christian faith IS an historical faith… and history is where a vast majority of our knowledge comes from. NOT the scientific method.CS Lewis points out that there is no way to scientifically prove…
- “…what Napoleon did at the battle of Austerlitz by asking Mr. Bonaparte to come and fight it again in a ‘laboratory with the same combatants, the same terrain, the same weather, and in the same age….’ You have to go to the records. We have not, in fact, proved that science excludes miracles: we have only proved that the question of miracles, like the innumerable other questions, excludes laboratory treatment” ~ C. S. Lewis, God in the Dock: Essays on Theology and Ethics (Grand Rapids, MI: William B. Eerdmans, 1970), 134.
We know historical events to be true by way of testimony… this is our (mankinds) main avenue of past events:
“What are the distinctive sources for our beliefs about the past? Most of the beliefs we have about the past come to us by the testimony of other people. I wasn’t present at the signing of the Declaration of Independence. I didn’t see my father fight in the [S]econd [W]orld [W]ar. I have been told about these events by sources that I take to be reliable. The testimony of others is generally the main source of our beliefs about the past…. So all our beliefs about the past depend on testimony, or memory, or both.” ~ Tom Morris, Philosophy for Dummies (Foster City, CA: IDG Books; 1999), 57-58.
“In advanced societies specialization in the gathering and production of knowledge and its wider dissemination through spoken and written testimony is a fundamental socio-epistemic fact, and a very large part of each persons body of knowledge and belief stems from testimony.” ~ Robert Audi, ed. The Cambridge Dictionary of Philosophy, 2nd edition (New York, NY: Cambridge University Press. 1999), 909.
“But it is clear that most of what any given individual knows comes from others; palpably with knowledge of history, geography, or science, more subtly with knowledge about every day facts such as when we were born..” ~ Ted Honderich, ed., The Oxford Companion to Philosophy (New York, NY: Oxford University Press, 1995), 869.
In fact… as Pastor Steve noted in the sermon, our FAITH* is indeed a historic one. Need I say that out of all the worlds religions and various break-away beliefs (cults and the like), Christianity is the only falsifiable religion.
In a wonderful post over at MAKING THEOLOGY ACCESSIBLE, these two drawings go a long way to simply show the idea the the Apostle Paul talked of:
HOW CHRISTIANITY STARTED
So why not spend some time getting to know the Scripture’s supporting the many evidences for our Historic worldview? Take 1 Peter 3:15 (<< ISV link) to heart when it says: “But sanctify the Lord God in your hearts: and be ready always to give an answer to every man that asketh you a reason of the hope that is in you with meekness and fear” (<< KJV).
Dr. Henry Morris notes this about 1 Peter 3:15 (<< HCSB link):
? 3:15 ANSWER – “Answer” is the Greek apologia, from which we get our word – apologetics, meaning the careful, logical defense of the Christian faith against the attacks of its adversaries and showing its validity as the true saving gospel of God, our Creator and Savior. In effect, Peter is admonishing believers to be always prepared to give an apologetic for the faith, especially when confronted by those who deny it and would destroy it if they could. This surely means that there is an effective apologetic that can be given, and it is each Christian’s responsibility to study (2 Tim 2:15) and be ready to give it when needed. In contrast, the unbeliever is “without excuse” (Rom 1:20), “without an apologetic.” His faith is strictly based on credulity and wishful thinking, not historical and scientific evidence like that for the Christian faith.
? 3:15 A REASON – “Reason” is the Greek logos, from which we derive our word, logical. We do, indeed, have logical, factual reasons for our hope in Christ …
RECOMMENDED RESOURCES
…to help the believer know how to defend well our historic faith.
- (Video) The Case for the Resurrection | Homicide Detective Examines Jesus Death & Resurrection;
- (Video) The Resurrection Evidence that Changed a Generation of Scholars | Gary Habermas;
- (Video) Did Jesus Rise From the Dead? | Yale 2014, William Lane Craig;
- (Book) Cold-Case Christianity: A Homicide Detective Investigates the Claims of the Gospels | J. Warner Wallace;
- (Book) The Case for the Resurrection of Jesus | Gary R. Habermas and Michael Licona;
- (Book) The Son Rises: Historical Evidence for the Resurrection of Jesus | William Lane Craig.
* FAITH:
- “Certain words can mean very different things to different people. For instance, if I say to an atheist, ‘I have faith in God,’ the atheist assumes I mean that my belief in God has nothing to do with evidence. But this isn’t what I mean by faith at all. When I say that I have faith in God, I mean that I place my trust in God based on what I know about him.”
William A. Dembski and Michael R. Licona, Evidence for God: 50 Arguments for Faith from the Bible, History, Philosophy, and Science (Grand Rapids, MI: Baker Books, 2010), 38.
The Simpsons vs. SJWs
More Cow Bell – Talking With A Satanist At P.P.
WARNING: VULGAR LANGUAGE. This is actual footage outside of a Planned Parenthood. Pastor Jeff Durbin was attempting to reach the women walking in for a scheduled abortion. Apologia Church has witnessed God saving over 70-babies from death at the local mills (one just this week!). The woman in the video is a Planned Parenthood “escort”. She helps the women and men to go in and to be comfortable. She came over with a cowbell in an attempt to drown out Jeff’s voice (she not successful). What you will see is the conversation Jeff attempted to have with her.
“The Day I Broke My Back”
FROM THE GUY WHO BROKE HIS BACK: I had a awesome day riding with a couple of friends, but I got alil’ cocky when I swapped with my mate and tried his KTM300EXC for the first time, little lite bike and too many revs equals pain, chopper ride and hospital stay. I landed straight on my arse and broke 2 vertebrae, but I was lucky as I was able to walk afterwards..
Minimum Wage Realities (UPDATED)
UPDATE via the WASHINGTON EXAMINER with a shout-out to THE SAGE!
San Francisco’s higher minimum wage is causing an increasing number of restaurants to go out of business even before it is fully phased in, a new study by the Harvard Business School found.
The closings were concentrated among struggling, lower-rated restaurants. The higher minimum also caused fewer new restaurants to open, it found.
“We provide suggestive evidence that higher minimum wage increases overall exit rates among restaurants, where a $1 increase in the minimum wage leads to approximately a 4 to 10 percent increase in the likelihood of exit,” report Dara Lee and Michael Luca, authors of “Survival of the Fittest: The Impact of the Minimum Wage on Firm Exit.” The study used as a case study San Francisco, which has an estimated 6,000 restaurants in the Bay Area and is ratcheting up its minimum wage. Restaurants are one of the largest employers of minimum wage workers.
The city’s minimum wage is currently $13 an hour, compared with California’s rate of $10.50 and the federal rate of $7.25. The city’s rate is set to increase to $14 in July and again to $15 next year. That rate, unlike federal law, does not include an exception for tipped employees. The rest of the Golden State will see the minimum rate rise to $15 in 2022. States are free to set rates higher than the federal level, and cities can do the same regarding state minimums.
[…..]
Higher minimum wages also reduce the rate at which new restaurants open by 4-6 percent per $1 increase in the minimum, the study found.
Editor’s Note: In case you do not realize the outcome… the only food places able to stay open are the BIG… CORPORATE… CHAIN RESTAURANTS. Which is why they like raising wages… it kills any real competition — this is ECON 101. But we know that BIG GOVERNMENT likes to be in bed with BIG BUSINESS.
(clears throat… *Ehem*, Dems)
GAY PATRIOT comments on the recent study on the effects of minimum wage, hailing from lib-tard central San Francisco:
[….]
- with Starbucks. Or,
- with the rise of automated ordering at fast-food restaurants. Or,
- with that San Francisco bookstore that was destroyed by a minimum wage increase it had supported.
Leftists like to deny math and other facts of business and economics. What makes it odious is, they’re also smug about it. It isn’t just their ignorance; it’s their aggressive pride in staying ignorant.
Via HotAir, now a study confirms that San Francisco’s minimum wage does indeed injure the businesses and workers of that city.
San Francisco’s higher minimum wage is causing an increasing number of restaurants to go out of business even before it is fully phased in, a new study by the Harvard Business School found.
The closings were concentrated among struggling, lower-rated restaurants. The higher minimum also caused fewer new restaurants to open, it found.
“We provide suggestive evidence that higher minimum wage increases overall exit rates among restaurants, where a $1 increase in the minimum wage leads to approximately a 4 to 10 percent increase in the likelihood of exit,” report Dara Lee and Michael Luca, authors of “Survival of the Fittest: The Impact of the Minimum Wage on Firm Exit.” The study used as a case study San Francisco, which has an estimated 6,000 restaurants in the Bay Area and is ratcheting up its minimum wage.
So, Nancy Pelosi and her fellow limousine-socialists are looking at fewer restaurant selections for themselves – and more unemployed people. Do they understand that? Or even notice it?
There is only one time when the minimum wage doesn’t hurt employment: When it’s low enough, in real terms, to be ineffectual…..
Theistic Evolution ~ Wayne Grudem
What follows is the section of the book Professor Wayne Grudem was touching on in his class:
- Wayne Grudem, Systematic Theology: An Introduction To Biblical Doctrine (Grand Rapids, MI: Zondervan, 2000), 275-279.
2. Some Theories About Creation Seem Clearly Inconsistent With the Teachings of Scripture. In this section we will examine three types of explanation of the origin of the universe that seem clearly inconsistent with Scripture.
a. Secular Theories: For the sake of completeness we mention here only briefly that any purely secular theories of the origin of the universe would be unacceptable for those who believe in Scripture. A “secular” theory is any theory of the origin of the universe that does not see an infinite-personal God as responsible for creating the universe by intelligent design. Thus, the “big bang” theory (in a secular form in which God is excluded), or any theories that hold that matter has always existed, would be inconsistent with the teaching of Scripture that God created the universe out of nothing, and that he did so for his own glory. (When Darwinian evolution is thought of in a totally materialistic sense, as it most often is, it would belong in this category also.)19
b. Theistic Evolution: Ever since the publication of Charles Darwin’s book Origin of Species by Means of Natural Selection (1859), some Christians have proposed that living organisms came about by the process of evolution that Darwin proposed, but that God guided that process so that the result was just what he wanted it to be. This view is called theistic evolution because it advocates belief in God (it is “theistic”) and in evolution too. Many who hold to theistic evolution would propose that God intervened in the process at some crucial points, usually (1) the creation of matter at the beginning, (2) the creation of the simplest life form, and (3) the creation of man. But, with the possible exception of those points of intervention, theistic evolutionists hold that evolution proceeded in the ways now discovered by natural scientists, and that it was the process that God decided to use in allowing all of the other forms of life on earth to develop. They believe that the random mutation of living things led to the evolution of higher life forms through the fact that those that had an “adaptive advantage” (a mutation that allowed them to be better fitted to survive in their environment) lived when others did not.
Theistic evolutionists are quite prepared to change their views of the way evolution came about, because, according to their standpoint, the Bible does not specify how it happened. It is therefore up to us to discover this through ordinary scientific investigation. They would argue that as we learn more and more about the way in which evolution came about, we are simply learning more and more about the process that God used to bring about the development of life forms.
The objections to theistic evolution are as follows:
1. The clear teaching of Scripture that there is purposefulness in God’s work of creation seems incompatible with the randomness demanded by evolutionary theory. When Scripture reports that God said, “Let the earth bring forth living creatures according to their kinds: cattle and creeping things and beasts of the earth according to their kinds” (Gen. 1:24), it pictures God as doing things intentionally and with a purpose for each thing he does. But this is the opposite of allowing mutations to proceed entirely randomly, with no purpose for the millions of mutations that would have to come about, under evolutionary theory, before a new species could emerge.
The fundamental difference between a biblical view of creation and theistic evolution lies here: the driving force that brings about change and the development of new species in all evolutionary schemes is randomness. Without the random mutation of organisms you do not have evolution in the modem scientific sense at all. Random mutation is the underlying force that brings about eventual development from the simplest to the most complex life forms. But the driving force in the development of new organisms according to Scripture is God’s intelligent design. God created “the great creatures of the sea and every living and moving thing with which the water teems, according to their kinds, and every winged bird according to its kind” (Gen. 1:21 Niv). “God made the wild animals according to their kinds, the livestock according to their kinds, and – all the creatures that move along the ground according to their kinds. And God saw that it was good” (Gen. 1:25 my). These statements seem inconsistent with the idea of God creating or directing or observing millions of random mutations, none of which were “very good” in the way he intended, none of which really were the kinds of plants or animals he wanted to have on the earth. Instead of the straightforward biblical account of God’s creation, the theistic evolution view has to understand events to have occurred something like this:
And God said, “Let the earth bring forth living creatures according to their kinds.” And after three hundred eighty-seven million four hundred ninety-two thousand eight hundred seventy-one attempts, God finally made a mouse that worked.
That may seem a strange explanation, but it is precisely what the theistic evolutionist must postulate for each of the hundreds of thousands of different kinds of plants and animals on the earth: they all developed through a process of random mutation over millions of years, gradually increasing in complexity as occasional mutations turned out to be advantageous to the creature.
A theistic evolutionist may object that God intervened in the process and guided it at many points in the direction he wanted it to go. But once this is allowed then there is purpose and intelligent design in the process—we no longer have evolution at all, because there is no longer random mutation (at the points of divine interaction). No secular evolutionist would accept such intervention by an intelligent, purposeful Creator. But once a Christian agrees to some active, purposeful design by God, then there is no longer any need for randomness or any development emerging from random mutation. Thus we may as well have God immediately creating each distinct creature without thousands of attempts that fail.
2. Scripture pictures God’s creative word as bringing immediate response. When the Bible talks about God’s creative word it emphasizes the power of his word and its ability to accomplish his purpose.
By the word of the LORD the heavens were made,
and all their host by the breath of his mouth.
For he spoke, and it came to be;
he commanded, and it stood forth. (Ps. 33:6, 9)
This kind of statement seems incompatible with the idea that God spoke and after millions of years and millions of random mutations in living things his power brought about the result that he had called for. Rather, as soon as God says, “Let the earth put forth vegetation,” the very next sentence tells us, “And it was so” (Gen. 1:11).
3. When Scripture tells us that God made plants and animals to reproduce “according to their kinds” (Gen. 1:11, 24), it suggests that God created many different types of plants and animals and that, though there would be some differentiation among them (note many different sizes, races, and personal characteristics among human beings!), nonetheless there would be some narrow limits to the kind of change that could come about through genetic mutations.20
4. God’s present active role in creating or forming every living thing that now comes into being is hard to reconcile with the distant “hands off” kind of oversight of evolution that is proposed by theistic evolution. David is able to confess, “You formed my inward parts, you knit me together in my mother’s womb” (Ps. 139:13). And God said to Moses, “Who has made man’s mouth? Who makes him dumb, or deaf, or seeing, or blind? Is it not I, the Lord?” (Ex. 4:11). God makes the grass grow (Ps. 104:14; Matt. 6:30) and feeds the birds (Mau. 6:26) and the other creatures of the forest (Ps. 104:21, 27-30). If God is so involved in causing the growth and development of every step of every living thing even now, does it seem consistent with Scripture to say that these life forms were originally brought about by an evolutionary process directed by random mutation rather than by God’s direct, purposeful creation, and that only after they had been created did he begin his active involvement in directing them each moment?
5. The special creation of Adam, and Eve from him, is a strong reason to break with theistic evolution. Those theistic evolutionists who argue for a special creation of Adam and Eve because of the statements in Genesis 1-2 have really broken with evolutionary theory at the point that is of most concern to human beings anyway. But if, on the basis of Scripture, we insist upon God’s special intervention at the point of the creation of Adam and Eve, then what is to prevent our allowing that God intervened, in a similar way, in the creation of living organisms?
We must realize that the special creation of Adam and Eve as recorded in Scripture shows them to be far different from the nearly animal, just barely human creatures that evolutionists would say were the first humans, creatures who descended from ancestors that were highly developed nonhuman apelike creatures. Scripture pictures the first man and woman, Adam and Eve, as possessing highly developed linguistic, moral, and spiritual abilities from the moment they were created. They can talk with each other. They can even talk with God. They are very different from the nearly animal first humans, descended from nonhuman apelike creatures, of evolutionary theory.
Some may object that Genesis 1-2 does not intend to portray Adam and Eve as literal individuals, but (a) the historical narrative in Genesis continues without a break into the obviously historical material about Abraham (Gen. 12), showing that the author intended the entire section to be historical,21 and (b) in Romans 5:12-21 and 1 Corinthians 15:21-22, 45-49, Paul affirms the existence of the “one man” Adam through whom sin came into the world, and bases his discussion of Christ’s representative work of earning salvation on the previous historical pattern of Adam being a representative for mankind as well. Moreover, the New Testament elsewhere clearly understands Adam and Eve to be historical figures (cf. Luke 3:38; Acts 17:26; 1 Cor. 11:8-9; 2 Cor. 11:3; 1 Tim. 2:13-14). The New Testament also assumes the historicity of the sons of Adam and Eve, Cain (Heb. 11:4; 1 John 3:12; Jude 11) and Abel (Matt. 23:35; Luke 11:51; Heb. 11:4; 12:24).
6. There are many scientific problems with evolutionary theory (see the following section). The increasing number of questions about the validity of the theory of evolution being raised even by non-Christians in various scientific disciplines indicates that anyone who claims to be forced to believe in evolution because the “scientific facts” leave no other option has simply not considered all the evidence on the other side. The scientific data do not force one to accept evolution, and if the scriptural record argues convincingly against it as well, it does not seem to be a valid theory for a Christian to adopt.
It seems most appropriate to conclude in the words of geologist Davis A. Young, “The position of theistic evolutionism as expressed by some of its proponents is not a consistently Christian position. It is not a truly biblical position, for it is based in part on principles that are imported into Christianity.”22 According to Louis Berkhof “theistic evolution is really a child of embarrassment, which calls God in at periodic intervals to help nature over the chasms that yawn at her feet. It is neither the biblical doctrine of creation, nor a consistent theory of evolution.”23
[19] See pp. 279-87 below, for a discussion of Darwinian evolution.
[20] “We do not need to insist that the Hebrew word min (“kind”) corresponds exactly with the biological category “species,” for that is simply a modern means of classifying different living things. But the Hebrew word does seem to indicate a narrow specification of various types of living things. It is used, for example, to speak of several very specific types of animals that bear young and are distinguished according to their “kind.” Scripture speaks of “the falcon according to its kind,” “every raven according to its kind,” “the hawk according to its kind,” “the heron according to its kind,” and “the locust according to its kind” (Lev. 11:14, 15, 16, 19, 22). Other animals that exist according to an individual “kind” are the cricket, grasshopper, great lizard, buzzard, kite, sea gull, and stork (Lev. 11:22, 29; Deut. 14:13, 14, 15, 18). These are very specific kinds of animals, and God created them so that they would reproduce only according to their own “kinds.” It seems that this would allow only for diversification within each of these types of animals (larger or smaller hawks, hawks of different color and with different shapes of beaks, etc.), but certainly not any “macroevolutionary” change into entirely different kinds of birds. (Frair and Davis, A Case for Creation, p. 129, think that “kind” may correspond to family or order today, or else to no precise twentieth-century equivalent.)
[21] Note the phrase “These are the generations of” introducing successive sections in the Genesis narrative at Gen. 2:4 (heavens and the earth); 5:1 (Adam); 6:9 (Noah); 10:1 (the sons of Noah); 11:10 (Shem); 11:27 (Terah, the father of Abraham); 25:12 (Ishmael); 25:19 (Isaac); 36:1 (Esau); and 37:2 (Jacob). The translation of the phrase may differ in various English versions, but the Hebrew expression is the same and literally says, “These are the generations of….” By this literary device the author has introduced various sections of his historical narrative, tying it all together in a unified whole, and indicating that it is to be understood as history-writing of the same sort throughout. If the author intends us to understand Abraham, Isaac, and Jacob as historical figures, then he also intends us to understand Adam and Eve as historical figures.
[22] Davis A. Young, Creation and the Flood: An Alternative to Flood Geology and Theistic Evolution (Grand Rapids: Baker, 1977), p. 38. Young includes a discussion of the views of Richard H. Bube, one of the leading proponents of theistic evolution today (pp. 33-35).
[23] Berkhof, Systematic Theology, pp. 139-40.
BONUS
This is John Mackay’s opening statement in a larger debate that can be found here, on Mackay’s YouTube. Defending the evolutionary position is John Polkinghorne, a retired Physics Professor and is Canon Theologian at Liverpool Cathedral. John Mackay is a young earth creationist who has a background in geology and biology. He has given presentations like this (on various topics) for 30 years.
- John Mackay’s website, Creation Research can be found here: Creation Research (a dated website, needs to be refreshed). The YOUTUBE CHANNEL is way more current.
Faith + Evolution – Although there are some theistic evolutionists in the Intelligent Design Movement (like Michael Behe and William Dembski) they are not radical like the Neo-Darwinian evolutionists. This video shows the many problems of theistic evolution. (Appearances by: Jay Richards, John G. West, Jonathan Wells, Richard Sternberg, Stephen Meyer)
An Islamic Loony Toones Break (Flat-Earth)
Saudi Arabian cleric Sheikh Bandar al-Khaibari has claimed that the Earth is stationary and the sun rotates around it in a speech he gave to students AT A UNIVERSITY in the United Arab Emirates on Sunday. The claims have since been mocked by Twitter users and Cambridge University scientists alike. We take a look at video of the Muslim cleric’s attempt to debunk the rotation theory.
“Ten Things You Can’t Say In America” |CSPAN|
C-SPAN Washington Journal FLASHBACK book discussion by Larry Elder and his first book, Ten Things You Can’t Say In America:
Mr. Elder talked about his book, “The Ten Things You Can’t Say In America,” discussing the political correctness, racial issues, and racism within the U.S. government. He also responded to telephone calls, faxes, and electronic mail.
TAKE NOTE in this playlist of Larry Elder on YouTube, I have some audio from my channel included.