Skip to main content

The Dishonesty of Evolutionary Creationism

A few years back, some atheists wanted to change their name because of the negative connotations associated with the word atheist. One suggested term was "brights", which is fallacious because it implies that they are smarter than everyone else because they choose to reject God. That kind of whitewash will not fool people, since the negative connotations have been earned, what with the protests, persecution of Christians, trolling, and generally negative attitudes in general. Some tips given for mental health and to reduce depression is to stay away from negative people. I suggest that folks start with avoiding internet atheists.


Using evolutionary creationist instead of theistic evolutionist is deceptive as well as confusing

Similarly, theistic evolutionists have a deserved bad image because they prefer the magisterial view of secular science philosophies to the written Word of God. It's like they have their evolutionism wagon and slap a sign on the back saying "God used evolution", and that somehow validates their views. TEs often saddle up with the atheists and ride for the Darwin brand on the owlhoot trail, dry-gulching biblical creationists who have a high view of Scripture — especially regarding Genesis. (Watch TEs ridicule biblical creationists, and atheists get out of their clown car to applaud the abuse.) Some theistic evolutionists are using the moniker "evolutionary creationists". Well, that's confusing!

Like I've said many times, definitions matter (see "Science, Evolution and the New Golden Rules" for an article on this). Some atheists believe in God, and I heard one professing atheist call in to a Christian radio show saying he was a Christian because he liked some of the things Jesus said! If you study on it a spell, it makes sense that if someone claims to be a "creationist", he or she rejects evolution and affirms the Bible. Biblical creation science is odium theologicum to theistic evolutionists and old earthers.

Once again, I have to point out that yes, someone can be a Christian and believe in evolution. It is not a salvation criterion, but it does show serious compromise and ignorance of the violence such views do to the gospel message. (For an in-depth pair of articles on this, begin with "Waterless Clouds, Wandering Stars". Lots of links for additional research.)

So, people who uphold Darwinism and mix that false religion with Christianity need to read the book of Galatians. But since they are being deceptive, I doubt that they will take the Bible seriously. Really, what is someone supposed to think with a name like "evolutionary creationist"?
Anyone involved in a debate knows that definitions are important. In a debate, controlling the definitions of terms allows control of the debate’s framework and frequently determines the winner.
This lesson was on my mind when I heard about a conversation a colleague had with an evolutionist who served as a college professor in a nearby town. He is a theistic evolutionist. He believes in God and confesses faith in Christ, but believes the evidence for evolution is compelling and has been critical of Intelligent Design (at AiG, we are clear that God is the Intelligent Designer). That was why he surprised my colleague when he insisted that he too was a creationist. He even wanted my creationist colleague to agree with him that they both believed God was the creator, and therefore were both creationists.
My colleague wouldn’t do it, noticing immediately that the professor was trying to reinterpret the words creation and creationist for his purpose. 
To read the rest, click on "Can an Evolutionist Be a Creationist?"



Popular posts from this blog

Andy Stanley, Frank Turek, and Bad Theology

by Cowboy Bob Sorensen Andy Stanley has been disappointing some people, and causing quite a few to be alarmed by his opposition to the authority of Scripture. (Note: Do not be confused.  Charles  Stanley is his father, senior pastor of First Baptist Church in Atlanta, Georgia, and heard on In Touch Ministries . I've found most of his teachings to be doctrinally sound, and he upholds the inerrancy and authority of the Bible.) Unfortunately, megachurch director Andy Stanley has been saying things that are destructive to the truth, including recommending the false teaching of theistic evolution. Gray wolf image credit: US National Park Service While shooting from the hip can be a good thing, someone claiming the title of pastor should reign himself in . Stanley was disrespectful of small churches, then apologized later . In another instance, " What  did he just say?", Stanley may have used a very bad word in a sermon. When the segment was legally posted on YouTube

Disappointment with Young Earth Creation

by Cowboy Bob Sorensen  First, a note for anyone who is curious. The usual format: introduction with some of my thoughts plus links for useful information, excerpts of featured articles, then links to keep reading. I put my name on it and call it an article when I have more to say. This one will be different. I will reference older articles, then add some thoughts that I hope will prove helpful. There is more following the excerpt and link. So, does anyone remember Ken Keathley? Medal image manufactured at Custom Medal Maker Several years ago, Ken Keathley renounced young earth creationism to accept an old earth view. Apparently, he was disappointed by people in the young earth community. No kidding? Taking Friendly Fire This is where I'm going to open up and get personal with both of my readers. Ken Keathley is not the only one who has been disappointed, and in addition, I've been deeply hurt by the young earth community. Things I have posted on social(ist) media have been &qu

Gopher Wood and Noah's Ark

Something that has puzzled readers of the sixth chapter of Genesis is the use of the term gopher wood. Footnotes often say that the "Hebrew term is uncertain", and Bible translations differ — "I know what that means, Cowboy Bob! Noah commanded his sons, "Shem, you gopher water, Ham can gopher more pitch, and Japheth can gopher wood". No. Anyway, Bible translations differ. Many use the term gopher wood, and using the translations in my copy of theWord Bible Software , Coverdale (1535,) Geneva (1587), and Tyndale (1526) translated it as pine. The NIV translates it as cypress and adds the "uncertain" reference. The KJV, NKJV, NASB, HCSB, ESV, WEB all render the term as gopher wood. Credit: Wikimedia Commons /  Cimerondagert  ( CC by-SA 4.0 ) An excellent possibility is that God was not specifying a particular tree that has disappeared since then, but that Noah was to use hardwood. Getting into the Hebrew language, we see the root word tha