Wednesday, July 17, 2019

A False Claim about the Evolution of Christianity

Since materialists believe that everything evolved, that also means religion itself evolved as well. A Darwinist believes that societies conjured up gods via natural selection when their population levels reached a million people, and these gods were ill-tempered.

Materialists believe that since everything else evolved, religion must have as well. One foolish speculation is not logical and reeks of desperation.
Background image courtesy of Why?Outreach
There are far too many fallacies in this foolish speculation to count. (One reason biblical creationists emphasize logic and critical thinking to so that people can learn to catch atheists and evolutionists in their bad reasoning and falsehoods.) There stories reek of desperation. Such a notion is also self-refuting, such as how love, compassion, forgiveness, and other good things are overlooked.
A typical theory on the ‘evolution of religion’ commits multiple logical blunders, not the least of which is ignoring evidence.
What’s wrong with this line of reasoning? ‘The Greeks reached a certain population size. At that population size, the idea of Zeus arose. Zeus was a vengeful god. Having a vengeful god gave the powerful a way to control the population. Conclusion: This explains the origin of religions.’
To laugh and also learn, read the rest by clicking on "Did Christianity Evolve from a ‘Vengeful God’ Myth?"


Wednesday, July 10, 2019

Compartmentalizing Creation

by Cowboy Bob Sorensen

When I began doing creation apologetics many centuries ago, I foolishly tried to divorce the Bible from scientific and logical evidence. My approach was only discussing theology when necessary, keeping scientific evidence for creation separate, arguing on neutral ground. Essentially, I was compartmentalizing.


We cannot separate science and theology, especially when discussing origins. It may seem valid on the surface, but such an approach will not work.
Floral compartments image credit: Unsplash / Michael Aleo
One big problem with the idea of neutral ground is that it is contrary to Scripture. If you ride up to the top of the hill and get the bigger picture, you'll also see that discussions of origins are metaphysical in nature. Really, they involve theology. 

Have you ever noticed that folks who want both sides presented in an unbiased view so people can "make up their own minds" seldom (if ever) accurately represent biblical creation science? They are biased toward materialism, therefore favoring atheistic interpretations of evidence.


via GIPHY

You want equal time, pilgrim? The secularists dominate science, so creation science ministries exist so we can present evidence that is suppressed. But they don't want you to hear our side, nor do they want to hear it themselves. Suppressing evidence is not science, nor is shouting down creationists and crying, "Liar!" while throwing outdated, irrelevant secularist links at us. You savvy? For an interesting discussion on accusations of creationists selectively rejecting science, see "Denouncing Science".

Both creationists and evolutionists have their starting points. Those of us with a high view of Scripture presuppose the truth of the Bible and creation, while evolutionists insist that their materialistic views are the only way to use science. Secularists fail to realize that their arbitrary view of science is based on metaphysical philosophies.

To take the compartmentalization concept a step further, I still have a tendency to do that. (Posts and articles on this site lean more toward theology than those at Piltdown Superman or Radaractive, but there is still some theology over there.) While I occasionally use this site to discuss various biblical topics and some may be considered side issues, I realized that I am compartmentalizing again.

My calling is to help equip Christians defend the faith regarding origins, so I tend to avoid certain side issues. (On more than one occasion, I have been surprised by an out-of-the-blue query at The Question Evolution Project on Fazebook where I had to reply, "I have no idea.") Like with politics, sometimes topics must necessarily overlap — especially when they involve core doctrines of the faith or matters that are extremely important to Christians. We cannot fully compartmentalize between science, the Bible, and certain doctrines.

The article linked below is specific for Creation Ministries International (after all, they can speak of their own ministry's experiences and policies), but I think you will see that it applies to related ministries as well. There are two feedback letters and their replies. To see it, click on "Should CMI ‘stick to the science’?"



Wednesday, July 3, 2019

Evangelism and the Genesis Flood

While professing Christians claim to believe the Bible, far too many put atheistic interpretations of modern science philosophies into a magisterial position. That is, Scripture is interpreted through the spectacles of long ages. This is backwards.


Some professing Christians shy away from or even deny the global Genesis Flood. They think it is a problem for evangelism. Such a view causes several problems.
Credit: RGBStock / rkirbycom
Some who compromise with secular views put down biblical creation with the falsehood that it hinders evangelism, so they ride for the old earth brand. (Did you ever notice that these folks usually deny the global Flood of Genesis in one way or another?) Bible believers teach the hard truth of sin, Judgment, repentance, and redemption.

People may shy away from the Flood because of old earth beliefs, but also because it describes judgment against the wicked people of the day. It is referred to in the Bible, and Peter even likened the Flood to the coming final Judgment (2 Peter 3:5-6). Discussing the Genesis Flood is actually helpful in evangelism.
Some Christians claim that insisting on a literal Genesis is a hindrance to evangelism. Since science has supposedly proved that the creation and Flood it describes weren’t real, historical events, they see a literal Genesis as an intellectual stumbling block to potential converts. However, this thinking is completely backward. It is the denial, not the affirmation, of Genesis that is damaging to effective evangelism.
To read the rest of this short article, click on "The Genesis Flood and Evangelism".



Labels