The Creation of an Evolutionist

Expanding Beyond the Event Horizon

noreply@blogger.com (Mike Beidler) — Sun, 21 Aug 2011 06:22:00 +0000

Yes, it’s been some time since my last post (and the one before that). But change is afoot. Or should I say that this blog is evolving?

When it comes to Christianity, there is a definite connection between that which was, that which is, and that which is to come. In other words, how we Christians view origins has a phenomenal impact on how we live in the present and how we view the future.

As my (new) blog’s new title, Rethinking the αlpha and Ωmega, suggests, I’m incorporating my long-standing view of eschatology into the mix. Of course, I expect to receive either (1) a standing ovation for bringing another contentious issue to the forefront of the discussion of what it means to be an Evangelical Christian, (2) a second cry of “heresy” to match the one typically associated with an acceptance of evolutionary theory, or (3) lengthy yawns by those who really don’t care to hear what I have to say on the issue.

In the case of option (1), I greatly appreciate your support in my effort to move beyond the “event horizon” of the creation-evolution debate into territory I’ve rarely seen treated in theological circles: consistency in one’s protology (the study of origins and first things) and eschatology (the study of last things), especially when one’s protology consists of the aforementioned acceptance of what The Truth Project host Del Tackett labels “imago goo.”

In the case of option (2), I greatly appreciate your prayers in my pursuit of both truth and my own intellectual honesty.

In the case of option (3), I urge you to stick around. At the very least, you’ll be entertained by a bunch of Christians arguing about whether Jesus is ever going to come back, and if so, when. And if not, why.

Stay tuned. There’s much more to come …

PS – Like any major move from one household to another, the transition from Blogger to WordPress software has had its hiccups. Please be patient while I restore categories to each of my 100+ posts; add “about me” and “statement of belief” pages; and add various widgets, bells, and whistles. I may, on occasion, reach out to my WordPress brothers for advice. (For example, how the heck do I choose a particular font and right-hand justify my posts?) Last, but not least, I want to personally thank my good friend Matthew Raymer for helping me make the transition to my own domain. Couldn’t have asked for a better and more patient partner in the effort!

A Response to Tim Keller's "Killer Argument" Against a Mythological Adam

noreply@blogger.com (Mike Beidler) — Tue, 14 Jun 2011 01:57:00 +0000

Several weeks ago, Christianity Today published the cover story of their June 2011 issue online. As a subscriber to the magazine, I decided to wait for my hard copy to arrive before delving into Richard Ostling's article "The Search for the Historical Adam." Although it took me several breakfasts to get through the article, I eagerly anticipated the conclusion, hoping for a positive sign that certain prominent Christian pastors and scholars (beyond the usual suspects) were exercising their God-given reason and giving science a chance to illuminate the historical reality surrounding the origin of our species, all the while retaining belief in the spiritual reality in which our species has found itself since the beginning of our interaction with the Supreme Creator and His moral law. As I read the final paragraphs this morning and swallowed my last spoonful of Frosted Mini-Wheats, the milk seemed to suddenly sour. I was wrong.

While I greatly admire the ministry and works of Tim Keller, I was taken aback considerably when Ostling quoted a paper Keller wrote for a BioLogos workshop: "[Paul] most definitely wanted to teach us that Adam and Eve were real historical figures." My spider-sense (courtesy of a distant evolutionary cousin) manifested itself as a tingling at the base of my skull. Was Paul's discussion of Adam in Romans 5:12-21 really meant to instruct his audience in the historicity of Adam and Eve? Nothing could be further from the truth. Although living in Rome, the historicity of Adam and Eve was already something assumed by his Jewish audience. There was no need for Paul to remind his readers of something that was part and parcel of their culturo-religious milieu. They did, however, need to be reminded of something much more important: the reality of their spiritual condition and their dire need for a savior, Jesus the Christ. That, Mr. Keller, is the focus of Paul's teaching.

If that wasn't enough, Keller went on to write, "If Adam doesn't exist, Paul's whole argument -- that both sin and grace work 'covenantally' -- falls apart. You can't say that 'Paul was a man of his time' but [then say that] we can accept his basic teaching about Adam. If you don't believe what he believes about Adam, you are denying the core of Paul's teaching." Once again, nothing could be further from the truth, specifically in regard to our salvation hinging on the historicity of Adam and Eve. While the scientific evidence of our primordial heritage is clearly recorded in our DNA and argues forcefully against a historical Adam and Eve -- traditionally understood to be the first pair of human beings created de novo approximately 6000 years ago -- our collective observations and human experience argue just as forcefully that we are spiritual victims of our own genes. We are subject to some of the same primal instincts that caused our particular evolutionary lineage to survive and thrive. We are driven to eat, drink, and sow our wild oats. We are compelled to protect that which is ours, desire that which isn't, and bond together in a society for utilitarian purposes. Despite all the survival benefits that our genes have conferred upon us, we still envy. We still murder. We still commit adultery. We still bite the hands that feeds us. Our motives aren't purely altruistic. It is clear to me that we human beings, as enlightened as we are as a species, are still quite in need of God's power to transform our minds, allowing us to transcend that which makes us human and move us to new stage in human evolution: adopted children of God with truly transformed spirits, destined to experience a new dimension of relational living with each other and the Creator who made us. Destined, as heirs of eternal life, to survive in some fashion beyond the grave, no longer subject to the gene-ridden flesh which made us sinners unable to move beyond ourselves by our own power.

Both the Hebrew and Christian scriptures declare unerringly the truth that is the crux of Paul's argument: We are sinners in need of salvation. Salvation from ourselves and the propensity to sin that is inherent in our species, from the moment of our conception to the moment fog no longer graces the mirror in which we see clearly our imperfections. To paraphrase the Mexican bandit in Mel Brooks' Blazing Saddles,* "Adam? We don't need no stinking Adam." To prove our need for Christ, all we need is to be ourselves. To be human. For example, if I were to develop cancer, it would concern me much less as to the cause of my condition than the fact that I was suffering from a deadly disease. In the same way, how and when the human race became sinful is infinitely less important than recognizing our sinful state and seeking out a way to remedy it.

The "core of Paul's teaching," Mr. Keller, is that we are sinners who require redemption from the bondage of sin -- inescapable sin brought on by our inherited flesh -- through recognition of the loving, faithful-unto-death act of the very historical personage of Jesus of Nazareth. While we don't need the First Adam, we still need the Second Adam in order to make us more human than human. To deny that fact, Mr. Keller, is to deny the "core of Paul's teaching." That would crumble the foundations of the Christian faith. Nothing more, nothing less.

Oh, yeah ... I almost forgot. I'm back! :D

* Which, in turn, paraphrases a line from the 1948 film adaptation of The Treasure of the Sierra Madre.

UPDATE: At Joel Watts' suggestion, I've changed the title of this post for the sake of accuracy from "A Response to Tim Keller's 'Killer Argument' Against Theistic Evolution" to its current title. Thanks, Joel!

Q&A with the Evolutionary Creationist

noreply@blogger.com (Mike Beidler) — Mon, 02 Aug 2010 22:11:00 +0000

I received an email recently from a good friend of mine who's just started investigating this whole Evolutionary Creationist bit that I've been promoting on this blog for nearly three years now. His email featured great questions indicative of a genuine seeker, and I felt compelled to answer them as best I could within the limitations of the email format and the time available to me. He's probably not the first of my readers to ask those very same questions, and I'm sure some of his questions are ones that my regular readers have asked themselves in regard to what I believe. Thus, I requested permission to post his questions, and he quickly gave me the green light. So, here's the Q&A, warts and all. (I take personal responsibility for any scientific inaccuracies or over-generalizations.)

One last thing: Toward the end of this post is an offer to purchase the original questioner the books mentioned in the Q&A. Unfortunately, it's not something I can offer my readers at large. Money doesn't grow on phylogenetic trees, ya know.

********************************************************************

Here is a list of questions I have after having read (and watched) your twelve-part series. I don’t expect you to address all of them. You may wish to simply point me toward the appropriate reading material for where I’m at in this journey.

1. Do you believe in abiogenesis?

Yes. I believe God created the universe for a purpose. I also believe that God created a universe with all of the necessary natural laws to form itself (e.g., planets, stars, etc.), and that those self-same laws worked to form the first "life" on earth, from which I believe all living things on earth are descended. Taking God out of the that particular "event" takes nothing away from His majesty, for not only did He set the cosmos in motion, but He also continues to uphold and sustain it by the word of His power.

The irreducible complexity argument (which fails at its most basic level) requires God to tinker with the cosmos merely because the laws He put into effect weren't sufficient to achieve His purposes. I understand some feel the need to have God's hand directly involved in the creation of life, but wouldn't the creation of the universe itself fulfill the same need?

As for evidence of abiogenesis, the scientific literature is replete with examples (based on lengthy, observed experiments) of how life could have formed on its own. What's in question is the exact method by which it did so. And that is likely an impossible question to answer. It's akin to figuring out how a molecule of air made it from one end of a maze to the other in a maze with more than one possible route.

In the end, my choice to believe in abiogenesis is slightly more a scientific choice rather than a philosophical one. I find it quite plausible.

2. Where are all the transition forms? Especially if irreducible complexity is negated because the intermediate steps actually served a purpose (wouldn’t they continue to exist?).

Considering the manner by which fossils are formed, no one should expect the geologic column to preserve every so-called "transitional form" for our study. (I believe ALL fossil specimens and ALL living beings are transitional in nature to one degree or another.) In fact, even today, the act of fossilization is extremely rare, only occurring in certain environments. We're lucky to have the specimens we have. Highly recommended: The Bible, Rocks and Time: Geological Evidence for the Age of the Earth (Davis A. Young and Ralph F. Stearley, both Evangelicals). I'm half-way through it and it's absolutely fascinating!

Nevertheless, the fossil record records for us, in chronological order as preserved in the geologic column, a wonderful bounty of "transitional forms" (e.g., fish to amphibians, reptiles to mammals, horses, land-dwelling "whales" to seaborn mammals, etc.). These fossils serve as "snapshots" of evolutionary change, in much the same way we observe how our children have grown up by looking at their annual school photos. What's missing are the in-between months. Similarly, as a species continues to evolve, you wouldn't necessary notice the change from generation to generation due to the fact that the changes are, in most cases, small (albeit critical in some cases). Using the previous example of watching your children grow up, you don't necessarily notice the day-to-day changes, although you become quite aware of them when viewing photos separated by a certain measure of time. Highly recommended: Evolution: What the Fossils Say and Why It Matters (Donald Prothero).

3. Material I’ve read (decidedly anti-evolution) indicates that even with 4.5 billion-year old earth, there simply isn’t enough time for random mutations to account for the diversity of life.

I used to parrot this argument, but it really isn't a very good one. What most people (Christians or otherwise) don't appreciate is how long a million years really is, especially in terms of reproductive life cycles. It's a loooooooooooooong time. So is a billion years. There's more than enough time to account for the diversity of life. In species that have extremely short life cycles (e.g., bacteria, viruses, fruit flies, etc.), scientists have observed massive amounts of evolutionary change. Heck, we observe it every flu season as certain populations of viruses meet their timely demise while others are able to evolve and "dodge" the vaccine, requiring ever-new vaccines. Highly recommended: Why Evolution Is True (Jerry Coyne) and The Greatest Show on Earth: The Evidence for Evolution (Richard Dawkins). (Just ignore their occasional digs at theism.)

4. Is there no teleological argument for God? If everything arose by chance, how do the heavens declare His glory? The psalmist wrote that he was fearfully and wonderfully made, but by who – Father God or Mother Nature?

Sure, there's a teleological argument for God, but it has nothing to do with science. It's purely a philosophical argument. Moral purpose cannot be scientifically proven, only philosophically deduced. In fact, I would say that, scientifically speaking, the non-teleological argument carries more scientific weight. However ...

Supposing God exists, the heavens declare His glory for the very reasons I mentioned in Answer #1: He set the cosmos in motion, and He continues to uphold and sustain it by the word of His power. Again, one can't scientifically prove that. It is a choice, and one that I make because of my admittedly subjective experience with the being Whom I believe to be the Living God. Highly recommended: Finding Darwin's God: A Scientist's Search for Common Ground Between God and Evolution (Catholic scientist Kenneth R. Miller).

5. Do you believe in punctuated equilibrium?

To a degree. I don't think "punk-eek" applies universally, but rather at certain times and for certain species. But I recommend you read up on the theory (especially the "common misconceptions" section) before passing judgment on it. (It's an easy thing to do if you're not familiar with the 40,000-foot view.) It merely suggests that while evolutionary change is always occurring, it makes its most critical advancements in spurts as a population of species undergoes hyper-evolution under just the right geo-environmental conditions. This is, of course, somewhat misleading, for that self-same "hyper-evolution" still occurs over tens (if not hundreds) of thousands of years.

6. How does evolution develop a moral code? C. S. Lewis eventually embraced God and Christianity because of the conscience inherent in man – the “moral ought” – which he felt had to have been given to man by someone or something. He believed this was evidence of God. Was conscience actually only a evolutionary product which God merely took advantage of in Lewis’ life?

I think you hit the nail right on the head. Our spirituality, I believe, is an outgrowth of our physicality, an evolutionary development (for the non-teleologically-inclined) or achievement (for those of us who view life in a teleological manner). In this view, our moral conscience is truly inherent, but it wasn't always the case in the evolution of the creaturely branch that led to our species. Of course, there would have been, at some point, a time when we became morally culpable for our actions.

Personally, I believe that God did not interfere in the affairs of our world until such time as a creature (Homo sapiens, in the case of planet Earth) achieved mental and moral characteristics that mirrored God's own. It was because of this very development/achievement that God chose mankind, a creature capable of representing God (i.e., bearing His "image") on Earth.

Of course, this also leaves open the possibility that, at some point in Earth's distant future, another species could achieve moral culpability.

7. Do you believe there is other life in the universe?

Yes. I believe the statistical odds favor it. Personally, that's a very exciting prospect! (In my new bio-spiritual body, I'd love to take a "star trek" and explore the rest of God's grand universe.) A corollary to this belief is the idea that if a morally culpable species should ever arise elsewhere in the universe, then God would also desire to enter into a covenantal relationship with it, entering its social and religious world (much like He did with the Israelites), and expressing His love to them in a manner relevant to their unique culture, possibly by performing another act of Incarnation and dying in a culturally-relevant manner.

That’s it for now. As I stated before, I’m warming up to the idea that Genesis may not be a creation account of the physical universe. Evolution, on the other hand, is a different story.

Highly recommended is this one-two punch: Begin with Wheaton College's John Walton and his The Lost World of Genesis One: Ancient Cosmology and the Origins Debate, and then proceed to Denis Lamoureux's Evolutionary Creation: A Christian Approach to Evolution and/or I Love Jesus & I Accept Evolution (which is really a less-expensive condensation of Evolutionary Creation), both of whom are Evangelicals.

In fact, if you are willing to read any of these books, let me know and I'll have any (or all!) of them shipped to your house in a matter of days. My treat. As well, I think you'd really enjoy The BioLogos Forum website. Great Q&A, scholarly essays, and contributions by a few good friends of mine.

Searching for Truth in "The Truth Project" — Lesson 8: Unio Mystica — Am I Alone?

noreply@blogger.com (Mike Beidler) — Sat, 10 Apr 2010 18:58:00 +0000

Looking briefly at the outline for Lesson 8 prior to watching the session, I decided to test myself: Could I actually watch an entire Truth Project session without writing down a single criticism? By the end of the hour-long session, the outline sheet looked exactly as it had when it was handed to me.

I had absolutely no issues with Del Tackett's Trinitarian-based theology as he discussed the biblical themes of intimacy, union, and oneness as it relates to (1) a husband and wife, (2) Christ and the Church, and (3) God and mankind. And, to the best of my recollection, nary a mention of Darwin and the "pernicious truth" of evolution. Well done, Del. But don't believe for a minute I'll be so kind when I blog about Lesson 9 ...

That being said, Dear Reader, I have a question:

Despite my rejection of biblical inerrancy and the Bible's ancient Near Eastern cosmology, and my subsequent acceptance of evolution as fact, why has my faith in God not wavered? Why is it that I still affirm a significant portion of traditional Christian theology instead of embracing atheism?

Searching for Truth in "The Truth Project" — Lesson 7: Sociology — The Divine Imprint

noreply@blogger.com (Mike Beidler) — Sun, 28 Mar 2010 15:44:00 +0000

Lesson 7 of The Truth Project (TTP) is another mix of good Christian theology and poor scientific reasoning. For Del Tackett, it's not enough to have biblical support for God's ideal social order for mankind in general and the Church in particular. It needs scientific support as well. The danger of this approach is obvious: When the scientific facts contradict the reasons for belief, belief itself is left holding the bag and subject to unnecessary ridicule.

Tackett introduces Lesson 7 by declaring God to be a God of order (cf. Job 25:2 [NIV] and 1 Cor 14:33). Because God is a God of order, it is understood that He created directly mankind's social order from the beginning, leaving His "divine imprint" to direct human society toward an ideal relationship structure that reflects God's own triune nature, a nature which delineates specific roles among the three persons of the Godhead. These roles, in turn, necessitate certain persons of the Trinity to possess, in some cases, authority over the other person (or persons) in the Godhead, and requiring submission by the person (or persons) so as to preserve divine unity. From an orthodox Christian perspective, this is acceptable theology (although I find some of his analogies forced and potentially problematic). Tackett's argument, however, is tarnished by his anti-evolution obsession.

Tackett claims that the "exquisite design and intricacy" of a chicken egg poses a problem to evolutionists: order. Because "randomness results in chaos and disorder," the so-called "random" forces of evolution could not have produced (and cannot produce) order on the level of a chicken egg (or, for that matter, even a single-celled organism). And since God is a God of order, evolutionary processes cannot have been the means by which God created. It quickly becomes clear that Tackett desires to extend his anti-evolution bias to sociology, claiming that desirable, orderly social systems could not have evolved via natural means and, because both the "ideal" human family and the "ideal" Christian Church reflect the triune Godhead in certain ways, it is unimaginable to him that these orderly social systems could have resulted from the "random" forces of cultural evolution.

As I've noted a number of times in this series, evolution is anything but random. It is certainly indifferent, but evolutionary processes do not disobey the natural laws which govern the workings of the cosmos. Even the results of a "random" coin toss are determined by the laws of nature. If it were possible to enter the Matrix and take advantage of the realm of "bullet time," one could feasibly calculate the results of a coin toss by taking into account all sorts of factors such as air density, the force of the toss, the angle at which your thumb strikes the coin, etc. These things only appear random as a result of our limited ability to ascertain their direct causes or calculate particular magnitudes. So much for the God of evolution being a God of disorder.

As for the evolution of human civilization, it's obvious that while ascertaining which cultural factors may have played a role in the extinction of some of our hominid cousins is extremely difficult (if not impossible), this much is clear: Just as hominid biological structures are subject to the forces of natural selection, hominid cultural practices are also subject to environmental pressures. If a certain aspect of hominid culture leads to a particular group's extinction, cultures with superior social constructs which survive successfully in a particular environment will remain; if a certain aspect of an individual's behavior leads to his shunning, that individual tends to adapt his behavior in such a way that it benefits him. So what if the best aspects of human civilization arose through "cultural selection"? What's wrong with God taking the best of human societal structures—products of eons of cultural evolution—and declaring them to be ideal? While I can affirm, from a certain point of view, Tackett's declaration that "God has designed these [social] spheres," I must disagree with the manner by which Tackett claims God "designed" them. From an evolutionary creationist perspective, God's modus operandi in regard to the fundamental ethos that undergirds human civilization is identical to the manner by which God designed the body you use to read this blog: via natural (or, in this case, cultural) evolutionary processes. Although ideal human societal structures may indeed reflect certain aspects of God's triune nature as revealed in Scripture, it is not necessary for them to have been "created" de novo in the Garden of Eden, as a literal interpretation of Scripture would suggest. From an evolutionary creationist perspective, God's "divine stamp" didn't come upon human social order until after our fundamental ethos arose naturally. It came about later through God's occasional intervention in human affairs over the course of thousands of years, beginning with the call of Abraham. From there, human society was remolded, refashioned, and transformed gradually, finding its maturity with the advent of the Christ, and aging (sometimes not so gracefully) into the future by a process of "divine selection." In short, humanity's God-endorsed social order ... evolved.

Moreover, because God accommodated His ideals to His chosen people gradually, co-opting existing symbols and traditions to transform Israel from a physical entity into a spiritual one, there can be no true homology between God's nature (as revealed in Scripture) and His ideal social order, especially when viewing the entirety of Scripture. The cultural evolution of God's chosen people, from the early days of Israel's history to the early days of the Church and beyond, is clearly seen in both Scripture and Church history. To assert that a snapshot of 15th-century BC Israelite society (commanded by God Himself through Moses) and the culture of those who support Focus on the Family represent the same divine social order is to deny both anthropological reality as well as the theological diversity so evident throughout Scripture.

After his discourse on God's ideal social order as it relates to the family and the Church, Tackett enters into a general discussion of why human society has failed to live up to God's standard. "What happened at the Fall?" he asks rhetorically. "Relationships were severed and damaged between God and man, man and man, and man and creation." As much as I disagree with the "historical" aspect of his argument, I do believe this to be true ... from a "certain point of view" (HT: Obi-Wan Kenobi). Assuming God's existence, humanity is certainly in rebellion against the Creator. Without exception, we sin against each other. And we clearly aren't in harmony with nature. Despite the fact that I reject the historicity of Adam and Eve, as a Christian, I can affirm the theology behind the biblical language. What Genesis does so well is capture the state of humanity, in all of its sinfulness (Gen 6:5). It captures all of the familial disharmony that we experience today (Gen 4; 16:1-6; 25:23). And it offers eternal life to those who obey His commands (Gen 2:9, 16-17; cf. Gen 3:22). No refutation of Genesis' historicity or cosmology can change that.

Returning to my main point, Tackett's claim for objective, scientific support for the ideal Christian society flies in the face of established scientific and historical fact. While Tackett appeals to Psalm 19:1-4

The heavens declare the glory of God,
   and the sky above proclaims his handiwork.
Day to day pours out speech,
   and night to night reveals knowledge.
There is no speech, nor are there words,
   whose voice is not heard.
Their voice goes out through all the earth,
   and their words to the end of the world.

and Job 12:7-8

But ask the beasts, and they will teach you;
the birds of the heavens, and they will tell you;
or the bushes of the earth, and they will teach you;
and the fish of the sea will declare to you.

Tackett fails to heed the very call to which he demands we listen! He ignores the fossil record. He ignores the evolutionary history embedded in our DNA. He ignores the findings of anthropology. He ignores the culturo-theological diversity in Scripture. He refuses to let our ever-expanding knowledge of human history and the cosmos inform him.

On Being a Person of Faith and Science

noreply@blogger.com (Mike Beidler) — Mon, 08 Mar 2010 15:51:00 +0000

The faculty of faith is not meant to kill the faculty of criticism and the instinct of curiosity, but rather to keep them keen and alive, and prevent them dying of despair. Faith is the mark of those who seek and keep on seeking, who ask and keep on asking, who knock and keep on knocking, until the door is opened. The passive, weak-kneed taking of everything on trust which is often presented as faith is a travesty of its truth. True faith is the most active, positive, and powerful of all virtues. It means that a man, having come into spiritual communion with that great personal Spirit Who lives and works behind the universe, can trust Him, and, trusting Him, can use all his powers of body, mind, and spirit to cooperate with Him in the great purpose of perfection; it means that the man of faith will be the man of science in its deepest, truest sense, and will never cease from asking questions, never cease from seeking for the reason that lies behind all mysteries.

— G. A. Studdert Kennedy (1883-1929)

The Hardest Part (London: Hodder and Stoughton, 1919), p. 83-84

Searching for Truth in "The Truth Project" — Lesson 6: History — Whose Story?

noreply@blogger.com (Mike Beidler) — Sat, 06 Mar 2010 18:06:00 +0000

As we moved away from The Truth Project's (TTP) focus on the "pernicious lie" of evolution in Lesson 5 to the targeting of "historical revisionism" in Lesson 6, I felt as if the worst was behind me in terms of finding truth in the series. In a sense, I was correct. In another sense, I was dreadfully wrong. As much as I agreed wholeheartedly with most of what Del Tackett had to say regarding the topic of historical revisionism and the importance of the meta-narrative, I couldn't help but be reminded time and time again how Tackett's approach to the topic of human evolution nullified the impact of his words.

I can certainly stand arm-in-arm with Tackett against the evil forces of historical revisionists. There is, he warns, extreme danger and power in the act of historical revisionism. "If you rewrite the past," Tackett says, "you can make people believe whatever you want in the present." In the context of TTP, Tackett's warning targets specifically relatively recent attempts in various forms of media to downplay or outright erase the influence of Judeo-Christian culture upon on our founding fathers' personal belief systems as well as our present-day political system. Historical revisionism, regardless of how unsavory the past is to one's sensibilities, is downright criminal. But isn't historical revisionism what Tackett attempts to do in Lesson 5? Rewrite the past of our species?

Historical revisionism isn't just relegated to the written word, but also to the various scientific disciplines. While ignoring the fact that TTP finds itself an unwitting ally of the Intelligent Design movement, of which a significant number accept the basic principles of evolutionary theory and common descent, and recognizing that TTP is not a mouthpiece for the young-earth creationist movement, TTP remains guilty of historical revisionism when in comes to human biology, anthropology, archeology, sociology, paleontology, geology, and a host of other -ologies, for all of these academic fields intersect heavily with evolutionary theory. Once one denies the fact of human evolution from less complex lifeforms and propagates such a worldview, one becomes guilty of attempting to erase the evidence of our aforementioned biological heritage from all of these fields of scientific endeavor, effectively taking credit away from the very unifying principle which has enabled a vast portion of our scientific advancements to come to pass.

One of Lesson 6's interviewees is Christian author and social critic Dr. Os Guinness. Guinness muses that Christians have "an abominable view of the past" and wisely notes that "where we've come from—the past and history—is the key to who we are and where we are. And those who don't know history have no sense of identity and no sense of wisdom as they explore where they're gonna go. Without history, we're lost, both in terms of identity and in terms of wisdom as we go our way forward." Well said, Dr. Guinness. However, I just about snorted Diet 7-Up out my nose as I realized how forcefully Dr. Guinness' words thrust solidly into the heart of TTP's anti-intellectual aversion to evolutionary theory. Take Dr. Guinness' quote and replace history with evolutionary history, and you'll see what I'm talking about.

What Tackett and other anti-evolutionists don't quite comprehend is that evolutionary theory is, arguably, the foundation for modern scientific advancement in dozens of fields, including medicine, psychology, genetics, etc. Once you throw evolutionary theory out the window, what do you have? Either a crippled scientific community, hobbling around attempting to find a more "biblically" acceptable pathway to a workable medical solution, or a cognitively dissonant scientific community that assumes the truth of evolutionary theory with their hands while they shake their heads and close their hearts in disbelief at their own discoveries.

Another concept that Tackett champions is the meta-narrative, the "larger story" in which we find ourselves and in which God plays the primary roles of Creator of the cosmos and Lord of believers' lives. Nevertheless, Tackett rejects the much larger story of human history, including our evolutionary descent from extremely humble beginnings, thus removing an important piece of the puzzle that is the "how" of human existence. "A people who are caught up in their own little story will never be willing to lay themselves down as stepping stones for others," Tackett instructs. Amen, Mr. Tackett. Unfortunately, Tackett's own nearsightedness truncates the true meta-narrative in favor of one that eliminates most of human history from the very meta-narrative he champions. He is caught up in a falsehood, a particular "little story" dictated by an uninformed understanding of the first three chapters of Genesis. As a result, he fails to endorse evolution-based scientific endeavors as "stepping stones" toward the greater health and wealth of human society, condemning the methods and principles by which these things are exclusively obtained. Although Tackett warns us against having a myopic view of history, Tackett advocates a much larger version of myopia when it comes to human origins. In essence, Tackett is saying, "Let it be rewritten, let it be done!" I don't think so.

Oh, yeah ... Han shot first.

An Evolutionary Creationist's Declaration of Independence (Apologies to Mr. Jefferson)

noreply@blogger.com (Mike Beidler) — Fri, 26 Feb 2010 21:33:00 +0000

In the BODY OF CHRIST, February 26, 2010.

The unanimous declaration of theistic evolutionists in the Evangelical Christian community.

When, in the course of Christian history, it becomes necessary for one people to dissolve the doctrinal bonds which have connected them with another, and to assume among the rational minds of the earth, the separate and equal station to which the laws of nature and of nature’s God entitle them, a decent respect to the opinions of both scientists and theologians requires that they should declare the causes which impel them to the separation.

We hold these truths to be self-evident, that all truth is God’s truth, that nature is endowed by its Creator with certain unalienable laws, that among these are Newton’s law of gravitation, the four laws of thermodynamics and Heisenberg’s uncertainty principle. That to observe these laws, the scientific method is instituted among men, deriving its just powers from the consent of the rational. That whenever any form of pseudo-science becomes destructive to these ends, it is the right of the Evangelical church to alter or to abolish it, and to institute proper methods of observation, laying its foundation on such principles and organizing its powers in such form, as to them shall seem most likely to effect positively their intellect and faith. Prudence, indeed, will dictate that creation doctrines long established should not be changed for light and transient causes; and accordingly all experience hath shown that the Evangelical church is more disposed to suffer, while evils are sufferable, than to right itself by abolishing the Special Creationist form of pseudo-science to which it is accustomed. But when a long train of abuses and usurpations, pursuing invariably the same object evinces an unintelligent design to reduce them under absolute doctrinal despotism, it is its right, it is its duty, to throw off such doctrine, and to provide new guards for its future security. Such has been the patient sufferance of these theistic evolutionists; and such is now the necessity which constrains them to alter their former creation doctrine. The history of the present Special Creationist movement is a history of repeated spiritual injuries and scientific usurpations, all having in direct object the establishment of an absolute doctrinal tyranny over Evangelical Christianity. To prove this, let facts be submitted to candid Evangelicals.

Special Creationists have refused their intellectual assent to natural laws, the most wholesome and necessary for scientific advancement.

They have forbidden Evangelical Christian scientists to acknowledge natural laws of immediate and pressing importance, unless “suspended” in their operation till their assent should be obtained; and when so “suspended,” they have utterly neglected to observe them.

They have refused to observe other natural laws for the accommodation of large portions of the Body of Christ, unless those people would relinquish the right of membership in their respective churches, a right inestimable to them and formidable to doctrinal tyrants only.

They have called together pseudo-scientific organizations at places unusual, uncomfortable, and distant from the depository of scientific knowledge, for the sole purpose of fatiguing Evangelical Christians into compliance with their doctrinal measures.

They have dissolved spiritual bonds repeatedly, for opposing with manly firmness their invasions on the intellectual rights of Evangelical Christians.

They have refused for a long time, after such dissolutions, to cause many non-Christians to become “elect”; whereby the observational powers, incapable of annihilation, have returned to secular scientists at large for their exercise; the Evangelical church remaining in the meantime exposed to all the dangers of invasion from within, and convulsions without.

They have endeavored to prevent the population of true science in American public schools; for that purpose obstructing the scientific method for both Christian and non-Christian students; refusing to pass others to encourage their scientific knowledge hither, and lowering the conditions of new appointments to school boards.

They have obstructed the administration of justice, by refusing their assent to recent Supreme Court rulings regarding the teaching of “creation science” in public schools.

They have made judges dependent on their will alone, for the tenure of their offices, and the amount and payment of their salaries.

They have erected a multitude of new Special Creationist-sympathetic organizations, and sent hither swarms of lawyers to harass our people, and eat out their brains.

They have kept among us, in times of scientific advancement, fallacy-laden “scientific” textbooks without the consent of our children’s parents.

They have affected to render the Evangelical church independent of and inferior to cultural and moral power.

They have combined with others to subject us to a spiritual jurisdiction foreign to our God-given intellect, and unacknowledged by the laws of nature; giving their assent to their acts of pretended science:

For quartering large quantities of deluded school board officials among us:

For protecting them, by mock trial, from punishment for any intellectual murders which they should commit on the members of the Evangelical church:

For cutting off our children with all parts of the scientific world:

For imposing pseudo-scientific doctrine on us without our consent:

For depriving us in many cases, of the benefits of using the minds God gave us:

For transporting us past the gates of so-called “orthodoxy” to be tried for pretended offenses:

For abolishing the free system of knowledge exchange in neighboring Evangelical communities, establishing therein an arbitrary church government, and enlarging its boundaries so as to render it at once an example and fit instrument for introducing the same pseudo-scientific doctrine in our churches:

For taking away our ability to think critically, abolishing our most valuable asset, and altering fundamentally the forms of our thought processes:

For suspending our own church memberships, and declaring themselves invested with power to “lord it over us” in all cases whatsoever.

They have abdicated respect here, by declaring us out of God’s favor and waging war against us.

They have plundered our schools, ravaged our courts, burned our copies of Darwin’s On the Origin of Species, and destroyed the spiritual lives of our families and friends.

They are at this time transporting large quantities of pseudo-scientific theory to complete the works of intellectual death, spiritual isolation and doctrinal tyranny, already begun with circumstances of ignorance and perfidy scarcely paralleled in the most barbarous ages, and totally unworthy the representatives of Christ.

They have constrained our fellow Evangelical Christian scientists taken captive in the laboratory to bear witness against their microscopes, to become the intellectual executioners of their friends and brethren, or to fall themselves by their hands.

They have excited academic insurrections against us, and have endeavored to bring on the inhabitants of our intellectual frontiers, the merciless secularists, whose known rule of warfare, is undistinguished destruction of all religions, sects and churches.

In every stage of these oppressions we have petitioned for redress in the most humble terms: our repeated petitions have been answered only by repeated spiritual injury. Special Creationist doctrine, the character of which is thus marked by every act which may define doctrinal tyranny, is unfit to be the doctrine of a intellectually free people.

Nor have we been wanting in attention to our Special Creationist brethren. We have warned them from time to time of attempts by their sympathetic deacons and pastors to extend an unwarrantable jurisdiction over us. We have reminded them of the circumstances of our intellectual emigration and settlement in theistic evolution. We have appealed to their native justice and magnanimity, and we have conjured them by the ties of our common spiritual bonds to disavow these usurpations, which, would inevitably interrupt our connections and correspondence. They too have been deaf to the voice of academic justice and of consanguinity. We must, therefore, acquiesce in the necessity, which denounces our separation, and hold them, as we hold the rest of Christian pseudo-scientists, enemies in intellectual war, in spiritual peace friends.

We, therefore, the theistic evolutionist representatives of the Evangelical church, in the Body of Christ, assembled, appealing to the Supreme Judge of the cosmos for the rectitude of our intentions, do, in the name, and by the authority of Jesus Christ, solemnly publish and declare, that these united Christians are, and of right ought to be free and independent intellectually; that they are absolved from all allegiance to Special Creationist doctrine, and that all theological connection between them and Special Creationism, is and ought to be totally dissolved; and that as free and independent intellectuals, they have full power to levy doctrinal war, conclude doctrinal peace, contract spiritual alliances, establish intellectual commerce, and to do all other acts and things which Christians may of right do. And for the support of this declaration, with a firm reliance on the protection of Divine Providence, we mutually pledge to each other our intellectual lives, our souls and our sacred honor.

Staying Abreast of the Creation/Evolution Debate: How You Can Support My Blog ... Among Other Things

noreply@blogger.com (Mike Beidler) — Wed, 24 Feb 2010 19:14:00 +0000

Several years ago, I became an Amazon.com Associate, selling books on the creation/evolution debate by way of my online store (accessible on the right-hand side of your screen). To date, I've sold 16 items, but not 16 books. And not everything was related to the creation/evolution debate. As I scanned the list of items, I was reminded up how much the World Wide Web really is like a web. Enjoy.

Apparel & Accessories

Vanity Fair Women's Body Superior Support Contour Underwire Bra, Star White, Size 38D

Books

Ancient Near Eastern Thought and the Old Testament: Introducing the Conceptual World of the Hebrew Bible

Answering God: The Psalms as Tools for Prayer

God's Word in Human Words: An Evangelical Appropriation of Critical Biblical Scholarship

Introduction to Relativistic Quantum Chemistry

Origins: A Reformed Look at Creation, Design, and Evolution

Paradigms on Pilgrimage: Creationism, Paleontology and Biblical Interpretation

Smart Stepmom, The: Practical Steps to Help You Thrive

The Language of God: A Scientist Presents Evidence for Belief

The Living God: Systemic Theology: Volume One (Systematic Theology, Vol 1)

The NIV Application Commentary Genesis

Kitchen & Housewares
LCM Home Fashions Micromink / Sherpa 50-Inch by 60-Inch Throw, Red	1

Searching for Truth in "The Truth Project" — Lesson 5: Science — What Is True?

noreply@blogger.com (Mike Beidler) — Mon, 22 Feb 2010 20:46:00 +0000

Ladies and gentlemen, I give you the “pernicious lie”: Del Tackett's presentation of the scientific evidence against evolution. Sadly, one will not find in Lesson 5 the correct answer to Tackett's question concerning science, “What is true?” Lesson 5 of The Truth Project (TTP) might not descend to the same level as Kirk Cameron and Ray Comfort's “crocoduck” argument, but it gets pretty darn close. Like the dynamic duo of Cameron & Comfort, Tackett not ignores only the enormous wealth of evidence for evolution but also misrepresents what evolutionary theory teaches. Clearly, Tackett hasn't done his homework and, as a result of his ignorance of the objective facts, ends up feeding lies to the very people whom he wishes to discover and embrace the truth. If I were a critically-thinking Christian, I would demand he conduct his research with more fidelity.

As I watched the two-part lesson, I noticed a number of things:

(1) “Evolution,” Tackett claims, is “one of the greatest lies ever foisted upon man.” What Tackett doesn't tell his audience is that TTP uses material promoted by the Discovery Institute extensively. It is, essentially, a mere mouthpiece for the Seattle-based Intelligent Design (ID) “think tank.” Much to my chagrin, Tackett finds himself in bed with a body of “scientists” of whom some profess belief in evolutionary theory (albeit directly guided by the hand of God) and common descent. For example, Michael Behe, whom Tackett treats like a rock star, recently wrote an article mentioning his belief in the descent of humans and apes from a common ancestor, “which I have always said I think is correct.” Either Tackett hasn’t really read either of Behe’s books, or he chooses not to reveal that fact to his audience for fear that it would ruin the integrity of his argument. The former would be sloppy research; the latter would be pure and simple deception.

(2) Tackett quotes selectively from atheistic scientists, such as Richard Dawkins, to persuade his audience that belief in evolution in any form (with the possible exception of so-called “micro-evolution” within species) is a necessary and logical component of a godless paradigm. He also quotes exclusively from literature written by proponents of Intelligent Design in order to back his claims. Nary a quotation from Christian scientists who have embraced evolution, such as Francis Collins, Kenneth R. Miller, Denis O. Lamoureux, or Stephen Matheson. Not a peep either from Christian theologians who accept theistic evolution/evolutionary creationism, such as Bruce Waltke, Scot McKnight, or Mark A. Noll. As I mentioned in my critique of Lesson 4, if Tackett were to mention the mere existence of those listed above, Tackett’s argument would explode like just another supernova.

(3) Tackett misuses terms such as hypothesis, theory, fact, and law extensively in order to discredit the fact of evolution and dismiss it as a “just a theory.” Thus, it is no surprise to watch Tackett warn his audience how frequent those terms are misused and misunderstood and, at the same time, butcher the very meanings of those terms he purports to understand.

By this point in TTP, I’m no longer surprised at the “sleight of hand” Tackett uses to make his personal “biblical worldview,” as narrow as it actually is, appear to be the broad umbrella within Evangelical Christianity that he wishes it to be.

Common Ground and Not-So-Common Ground

To be fair, I find some common ground with Tackett at the beginning of his presentation. Whereas the mere contemplation of the cosmos stirs Carl Sagan’s heart because of his chemical connection to the stuff of stars, “another reason” stirs our hearts. When we look at our marvelous universe, both Tackett and I are compelled to contemplate the nature of the Creator of the cosmos in addition to the nature of the cosmos itself. We both believe that “the heavens declare the glory of God and the sky above [lit. firmament] proclaims his handiwork” (Psalm 19:1 ESV), and that the Creator’s “invisible attributes, namely, his eternal power and divine nature, have been clearly perceived, ever since the creation of the world, in the things that have been made” (Romans 1:20 ESV).

Unfortunately, beyond this is where the ground upon which I stand lacks commonality with Tackett’s. Whereas my recognition of an “intelligent designer” is a byproduct of my theistic paradigm and is, admittedly, a subjective conclusion (much like “beauty is in the eye of the beholder”), Tackett actually has faith that the results of an objective pursuit of scientific truth should be persuasively sufficient to result in one’s adoption of the theistic philosophy of ID. Tackett looks to science to validate what Scripture taught millennia before we even had the power to look beyond what the naked eye could see. In doing so, however, he inadvertently makes the Bible and the doctrine of creation “subservient to scientific discussion” and places them “at the beck and call of the latest empirical evidence and interpretation” (Conrad Hyers, The Meaning of Creation, p. 88). What would happen, Mr. Tackett, if it were ever proven that “irreducible complexity” was actually “reducibly complex”? Remember my supernova analogy?

Irreducible Complexity

Speaking of “irreducible complexity,” Tackett resurrects ID’s poster argument from the grave, despite the fact that a voluminous amount of research over the last 15 years has demolished the ID movement’s extravagant claims first popularized in Michael Behe’s Darwin’s Black Box: The Biochemical Challenge to Evolution. As if Behe’s 14-year-old book had just hit Borders (gotta love that new book smell!), Tackett quotes Darwin, who wrote that his new theory would absolutely break down if it could be demonstrated that a complex system could not have evolved via a slow, gradual process. Taking up Darwin’s humble challenge, Tackett proffers the complexity of the human blood clotting system as evidence of intelligent design. Actually, after extensive research, we've found it’s not that complicated after all: each successive “cascade” of the blood clotting system is built upon nearly identical proteins, the existence of which resulted from gene duplication. In what appears on the surface to be a watertight argument, Tackett smirks and asks, “How long did it take before we got the clotting system right?” By this question, he implies that if we human beings didn’t have a complex, operable blood clotting system from the get-go, our species would have literally bled ourselves into extinction. What Tackett does not mention is that our primordial ancestors didn’t require a complex blood clotting system since their circulatory systems didn’t require the high-pressure system that we do. I doubt it ever occurred to Tackett that that blood clotting systems (and their more complex iterations) developed first, allowing for the later (or parallel) development of higher-pressure circulatory systems.

The next “irreducible complexity” argument Tackett trots out is Behe’s “biological mousetrap,” the bacterial flagellum. It is, according to proponents of ID, one of many examples of an intelligently designed, irreducible complex machine. Take away one piece of the mousetrap, so the argument goes, it is useless. Evolutionary biologists are quick to point out that the various structures of the flagellum likely performed different functions before coming together in its current form and purpose, while other structures derived from convenient gene duplication upon which mutation could work its magic without harm to the organism. However, ID theorists are just as quick to argue that, while evolutionary biologists may be correct regarding some structures of the flagellum, there is “no explanation via Darwinian mechanism” for the entire structure, and that evolutionary theory requires the “borrowing [of] parts from nothing.” I wonder what will be made of that statement another 15 years from now.

The Insufficiency of the Fossil Record

Tackett asks whether Darwin’s theory “stacks up against reality.” Tackett’s answer is that it does not. He claims that Darwin “has a problem with the fossil record,” which, allegedly, possesses a total lack of evidence for so-called “macro-evolution.” The first nail in evolution’s coffin is Discovery Institute fellow Jonathon Wells’ Icons of Evolution: Science or Myth—Why Most of What We Teach About Evolution Is Wrong, which highlights ten evolutionary “hoaxes” and “myths.” Seriously, if this is all Wells has to go on in order to discredit evolution, he is going to have to write a lot more, and it would have to be factual as well.

Tackett also ridicules Stephen Jay Gould’s fossil-record-explaining theory of “punctuated equilibrium.” Again, it isn’t surprising to hear Tackett not only misstate Gould’s theory but also twist it beyond recognition, making it fit his anti-evolutionary purposes.

It is to evolution critic David Berlinski that Tackett appeals next. In an interview clip with Berlinski, he highlights the so-called “problem” of whale evolution. We have two fossil forms on either end of the alleged spectrum, Berlinksi notes, but where are the other 49,998 versions in between the two fossil forms which complete the 50,000+ molecular changes (determined by “back of the hand” calculations!) to account for the Point A to Point B evolutionary journey? “There ought to be some evidence!” Tackett cries! And so there is.

There are other “fossils” of which Tackett is either completely unaware or, because of the strength of the DNA evidence, chooses not to bring up out of fear. Can you say, “Human chromosome 2”? Good! I knew you could.

Randomness in Creation = God’s Lack of Sovereignty

Tackett also dredges up the tired argument that evolution’s allegedly “random” nature somehow forces evolution proponents to deny God’s sovereignty over creation, making evolutionists deists at best, and atheists at worst. Sadly, evolution critics blunder when describing evolution as a “random” process. The mechanisms of evolution, as random as they might seem because of our limited perception and knowledge, are still subject to the laws of nature that govern the universe; cause and effect are still at work within the evolutionary process. Even Tackett should recognize that even the results of a “random” roll of the dice are known by an omniscient God (cf. Proverbs 16:33). (For readers who are familiar with quantum mechanics and Heisenberg’s “uncertainty principle,” please do not view my statement above as a challenge to those concepts. My invocation of Proverbs 16:33 is more of an affirmation of God’s sovereignty, not His measure of direct control.)

In another example of Tackett’s penchant for false dichotomies, he claims that abiogenesis (which he mislabels “spontaneous generation”) requires that such an occurrence come about by godless forces. But why should something that occurs via natural means be considered something that was never intended by God to happen? Why should the natural laws God designed be insufficient to create life from non-life? One individual in my small group stated that she thought a God who used evolution to create was a failure, for He had to try and try again in order to “get it right.” What a narrow view of nature and the amazing process by which it diversified! Personally, I find a God who would create natural laws to produce everything without the need for His direct intervention to be much more amazing than a God who resorts to pulling a cud-chewing rabbit out of his hat just to make science comport with His own Scriptures. In the end, it is Intelligent Design, not evolution, that actually limits God’s power and creativity.

I Guess I’m an Atheist Now

In addition to ignoring the objective results of scientific endeavor, Tackett fears the alleged philosophical results of methodological naturalism, namely atheism. “The result,” Tackett claims, “is the propagation of a worldview that ‘scientifically’ excludes the Creator, thus ‘freeing’ mankind from accountability to a higher authority.” Tackett claims further that “evolution effectively rules out the existence of God.” Gee, if I had known beforehand that accepting the evidence for evolution would automatically make me a functional atheist, I probably wouldn't have fallen for the “pernicious truth” in the first place and instead found solace in cognitive dissonance. Of course, Tackett wouldn’t recognize evolutionary theory if it bit him with 6-inch T. rex teeth, as he states time and time again (as evidenced throughout TTP) that the theory of evolution is intimately related to questions dealing with the origin of the universe and the origin of life. The pernicious truth is that evolutionary theory does not speak to those events; rather, evolutionary theory speaks to how the diverse forms of life on earth, both extant and extinct, came to be; likewise, evolutionary theory speaks neither to the existence of a Creator nor to the non-existence of a Creator. As Tackett rightly says, it only does so when “science has moved into philosophical mode” and attempts to encroach upon a domain in which it has valid claim. Mr. Tackett, do you not recognize that you engage in the very same behavior of which you accuse Richard Dawkins? Your own philosophy has “moved into scientific mode” and is encroaching upon a domain in which it has no valid claim. “Why does evolution shut out any scientific evidence against it?” you ask. “Don’t let the philosophical side of science affect the scientific evidence,” you warn. Hello! Science shouldn’t have a philosophical side, Mr. Tackett! As much as you want there to be, there shouldn’t.

But atheism is the least of our worries, Tackett argues. Moral evil will abound as well if we Christians fall for the pernicious truth. Darwinism is, after all, one of the “primary theories that has been used to persuade people there is no God.” That may be true for some, but it is not true for everyone. It certainly wasn’t true for Darwin, whose agnosticism had more to do with his inability to form a personally satisfying theodicy after the death of his daughter Annie than his scientific research did. As a counterpoint to Tackett’s logic, I could highlight the use of the Bible to justify slavery by many Southern clergy in the 18th and 19th centuries. Since biblical authority implies the existence of God, then one could just as easily argue that theism is one of the “primary theories that has been used to enslave African-Americans.” Just as Christianity has been used to justify all sorts of moral horrors throughout the last two millennia, so has Darwinism suffered by the hands of those whose concern was more about power than the truth.

Not only does evolution destroy the need for God, it destroys the need for a Savior. Tackett quotes with delight G. Richard Bozarth, who, in a 1978 article in American Atheist, wrote, “Evolution destroys utterly and finally the very reason Jesus’ earthly life was supposedly made necessary. Destroy Adam and Eve and original sin, and in the rubble you will find the sorry remains of the son of God . . . and if Jesus was not the redeemer who dies for our sins, and this is what evolution means, then Christianity is nothing.” Evolution means nothing of the sort. As an evolutionary creationist, I still believe that humanity possesses a sinful nature and that we are still in need of a Savior. Tell me again, Mr. Tackett, the part about where I become an atheist?

Conclusion

As I conclude my critique of this particular lesson, I will admit that Tackett said one other thing with which I agree: “General revelation is a valid source of truth.” He also offers wise advice in that “we must be careful as Christians that we don’t see what we want to see.” Amen, Mr. Tackett. It’s a shame, however, that you refuse examine the body of evidence yourself that you might recognize the true nature of the very revelation you claim to study. Like you said, you really need to be more careful.

[NOTE: This post has been modified to correct any inaccuracies regarding the views of Richard Dawkins. For a “history” of my error, see the comments below.]

Preview of Searching for Truth in "The Truth Project" — Lesson 5: Science — What Is True?

noreply@blogger.com (Mike Beidler) — Sat, 20 Feb 2010 16:32:00 +0000

Because Lesson 5 is a two-part session, I've found it difficult to organize my thoughts in just 24 hours. As a result, my next post may take a few more days to compose. In the meantime, here's a preview of my thoughts regarding Del Tackett's treatment of evolution. Until then ...

Exploding Interpretations of Scripture

noreply@blogger.com (Mike Beidler) — Sat, 13 Feb 2010 20:34:00 +0000

Another gem from Steve Douglas of Undeception:

Science, logic, hermeneutics, a firm grasp of the languages in which [the Bible] was written, and all other machinations of the human mind have the potential to explode interpretations of Scripture that steadfastly remain uninformed, dogmatic, and benighted by prejudice.

Searching for Truth in "The Truth Project" — Lesson 4: Theology — Who Is God?

noreply@blogger.com (Mike Beidler) — Sat, 13 Feb 2010 09:21:00 +0000

This will likely be one of the shortest installments in my "Searching for Truth in The Truth Project" series. There is, I believe, much to commend this particular lesson; but that may be because the question Who is God? is less controversial within the wide swath of Christianity that exists. Of course, there are finer points of debate, such as the "openness" of God and process theology, but I feel that those discussions are well outside the scope of this series. I am, for the purposes of this post, comfortable thinking of God in traditional, biblical terms, which is not to say that my concept of how God works His will in the grand scheme of things hasn't been affected by my move from young-earth creationism to evolutionary creationism. It's just that that particular part of my theological journey is much less settled than others.

I appreciate Del Tackett's humility when it comes to the question asked in this lesson, for the answer to that question is virtually impossible to answer. I would venture to say that Mr. Tackett would agree with me that, even with the Church's possession of the Bible and our peek into the person of Jesus Christ through the eyes of His disciples, we'll have to settle for "partial credit." Even if we were to spend time with Jesus face-to-face during His incarnation, we would still be at a loss as to who God really is. While Jesus reflected the Father perfectly in some aspects of His nature, the very incarnational nature of Jesus' earthly ministry kept other aspects of God's nature hidden and shrouded in the mists.

After discussing the grandiosity of the answer, Tackett moves into a discussion about eternal life. To be honest, I was expecting a discussion dealing with personal eschatology, and I was surprised that Tackett's take on the answer was much more sophisticated than what usually passes muster in most Evangelical churches these days. Eternal life, says Tackett, is something that is presently obtained by the establishment of a personal and transformational relationship with God through Jesus Christ, which only increases in intimacy upon passing from this life into the next.

My biggest issue with this particular lesson was the degree with which Tackett hangs his personal theology on the nature of inspired Scripture. "Ninety percent of the work is done" if we accept (1) the existence, nature, and character of God as revealed in the Bible, and (2) the nature of the Bible as God's inerrant and infallible written word. Granted, for the Christian, the Bible is the only source of specific revelation we have about Jesus Christ, whom all true Christians accept as the incarnation of the infinite God in fallible flesh. As I mentioned in an earlier post, I believe that the Gospel accounts of the person and ministry of Christ are historically reliable; at the same time, I don't believe it is necessary that the Bible be an inerrant document in order to transmit historical truth. It is on this very point—the nature of the Bible and the degree to which it is inspired—that Tackett's worldview is most susceptible to crumbling.

For Tackett, the real battle over what constitutes a biblical worldview is found in the halls of academia. In what is becoming a usual past time for Tackett, he presents his audience with a false dichotomy: either the Bible is, in its entirety, perfect and without error, or it is completely unreliable and untrustworthy. There is no mention of a gradient in between the two opposite conclusions (e.g., my own view of "biblical adequacy"). There is only mention of the extreme liberal position represented by the infamous Jesus Seminar, which Tackett ridicules. (While I appreciate and accept many of the advances made in the field of biblical criticism, I do believe the Jesus Seminar went too far in their attempt to reconstruct the so-called "historical Jesus.") Tackett also makes mention of the Documentary Hypothesis (commonly referred to as the JEDP Theory), which posits that the Pentateuch was compiled from as many as four separate sources and later compiled by a post-Exile redactor (or editor). The belief in non-Mosaic authorship of the Torah, that the Bible "evolved over time," is a hallmark of liberal theology and should be rejected outright, Tackett claims. This is quite contrary to the research of Evangelicals like Peter Enns and Kenton Sparks, both of whom are quite comfortable with accepting, to a significant degree, many of the results of biblical criticism (see Enns' Inspiration and Incarnation: Evangelicals and the Problem of the Old Testament and Sparks' God Word in Human Words: An Evangelical Appropriation of Critical Biblical Scholarship). Is Tackett really willing to admit that the Books of Moses hadn't undergone any redaction or editing throughout the centuries? Even though the authorship of the Torah is attributed to Moses by Jesus himself, is Tackett really willing to claim that Moses wrote of his own death and burial (cf. Deuteronomy 34)?

That the absolute trustworthiness of Scripture (including places where it touches on science) is foundational to Tackett's worldview is shown by his admission that alleged contradictions in Scripture (e.g., 2 Kings 1:17; 8:16; and 3:1) "threw [him] into a terrible crisis." Without resolution, Tackett says, his entire Christian experience would be thrown into doubt and would very likely result in atheism. Thankfully, Edwin Thiele came to Tackett's rescue and, through The Mysterious Numbers of the Hebrew Kings and its research regarding differing reign-calculation methods between Judah and Israel, cleared up the apparent contradiction, making right what Tackett feared was wrong. With Thiele's scholarship in his back pocket, Tackett sighs with relief, "You can trust the Scriptures." No, Mr. Tackett, you can trust the historians who recorded the reigns of the Hebrew kings, just like you can trust secular historians to give you the dates during which Abraham Lincoln occupied the office of the President of the United States. (This also begs the question whether Thiele's work is without error.) And while you can trust that particular portion of 1 Kings, why do you feel that the accuracy of one particular aspect of 1 Kings automatically transfers to the remainder of Scripture? Moreover, just because one alleged contradiction is resolved doesn't mean that the resolution constitutes proof of a passage's inspiration, only its inerrancy. Even the concept of inerrancy runs into a problem: a phone book can be free of error, but such a quality says nothing about whether it was God-inspired. There is danger in Tackett's line of logic, for the removal of just one card could very well result in the collapse of the entire house. I find it sad and unfortunate that his worldview is so dependent upon a particular view of Scripture and not on the transforming faith experience he has undoubtedly undergone.

I don't intend to debate here the finer points of biblical criticism, the nature of Scripture, or the degree to which it was inspired. What I do want to make clear is this: Tackett is not giving his audience the full picture and proceeds to restrict the Christian faith to an extremely narrow intellectual path, one fraught with dangerous obstacles and traps of human construction. In doing so, he diverts the traveler from exploring safer routes that lead to the very truth he so desperately desires to possess. Once again, Tackett fails to illuminate his audience by providing examples of dedicated Christ-followers in the Evangelical community who disagree with him. Where's the truth in that?

Searching for Truth in "The Truth Project" — Lesson 3: Anthropology — Who Is Man?

noreply@blogger.com (Mike Beidler) — Sat, 06 Feb 2010 14:58:00 +0000

Philosophizing Monkey (1893) by Hugo Reinhold

The Truth Project’s third lesson is a mixed bag, full of both good and bad theology, cutting philosophical insight, and a plethora of false dichotomies. It had me both cheering from the couch and throwing mental tomatoes at the screen. Sometimes even within the same talking point.

Tackett begins this particular session by announcing, “The answer to the question 'What is man?' is not simple.” Man has existed, Tackett explains, in a number of modes, all of which can be readily drawn out of Scripture and thus constitute the “good theology” that I mentioned previously. Mode #1 is a state of innocence (although I’m not sure how Tackett exegeted man’s state of innocence from Gen 1:27) and mode #2 is our post-Edenic, fallen state (Rom 5:12). In this state, humanity becomes an odd mixture of “imago dei” (Latin for “image of God”) and a sinful nature (Gal 5:16-17). Tackett divides mode #2 further into mode #2a, the state of being unsaved and destined for hell (Rev 20:15). Lastly, there is mode #3, the state of being saved and redeemed, destined to eternal life and eventually glorified, which is mode #3a (Rev 5:9).

Honestly, I have no problem speaking in those terms. As a Christian, I find that they are biblical terms and the theology couched in those terms is good and true. However, I admit to finding myself thinking beyond those terms to the soteriological reality conveyed by the anthropologically incorrect proto-history that is Genesis 2-3. Over the course of the last year, I have come to recognize that the story of Adam and Eve is not an historical account of humanity’s transition from innocence to a fallen state. Rather, the story was written with an etiological purpose in mind. Using the genre of myth, which has profound explanatory power, the writer(s) provided the Hebrew people with an apologetic for why man’s nature is sinful. The sinful state of man is recognized, the question “Why are we the way we are?” is asked, and the cause behind our condition is explained in terms that had meaning for them—terms and meanings that are typically lost on 21st-century Americans by virtue of the cultural chasm that exists between civilizations separated by thousands of years and miles. Although not historical, I believe the story of Adam and Eve still wields considerable theological power and, in a sense, speaks to each of us individually. We all are born in a state of relative innocence and, at the same time, have within ourselves the “curse” of our evolutionary ancestors. Our selfish inclinations and our instinct for self-preservation served us well in the battle for survival in millennia past, yet they continue to rear their ugly heads throughout the course of our lives. There is, to be sure, a point in each of our lives at which we become cognizant of our actions and their moral implications, and we find ourselves faced with a choice: to do right or to do wrong. Unfortunately, 100% of the time, we pick the fruit off the Tree of Knowledge of Good and Evil. In the eyes of God, we become sinners in need of redemption.

The story of Adam and Eve can also be viewed as the story of humanity itself. Our personal experiences transitioning from a state of innocence to a state of rebellion can be extrapolated to the history of the human species. As mankind evolved, our primitive ancestors lived in a state of relative innocence, unaware of their actions’ moral implications. In the course of time, however, our capacity as a species to distinguish between good and evil arose and, as a result of our gradual transformation into a moral creature, the laws of God were written on the hearts of men (Rom 2:14-15). Since then, humanity has been in constant rebellion against its Creator, and we forever will be this side of the grave.

In Tackett’s paradigm, however, to accept such propositions would be to admit that we are “goo-men.” We are no better than the worms that I cut in half as a child, and no less worthy of a similar fate. But man is different. Tackett claims that man possesses unique qualities such as self-awareness, creativity, and moral consciousness. I think this greatly exaggerates (and quite possibly oversimplifies) the uniqueness of humanity in relation to the rest of the animal kingdom. Although I have not researched this particular aspect of man’s alleged uniqueness, I suspect that socio-biological literature is replete with examples of self-awareness, creativity, and moral consciousness in relatively advanced life forms other than human beings. At the very least, I believe it is safe to say that we human beings possess the aforementioned characteristics to a much greater degree. From a faith perspective, it could be argued that these characteristics evolved in our ancestors to such a degree that God saw fit to reveal Himself and fellowship with them and, by extension, us.

Tackett also brings up another aspect of humanity with which I am currently struggling to reconcile: the dualism of man. Most Christians believe that man is either a tripartite being (body, soul, and spirit) or bipartite (body and soul/spirit, with the differentiation between the soul and spirit being nonexistent). After coming to terms with the common descent of man from less complex life forms and accepting that the Bible reflects, in many areas, ancient scientific worldviews that are recognized today as inaccurate, I have begun to question the scientific accuracy of those portions of Scripture which teach the existence of man’s immortal soul, distinct from the flesh inherited from his or her parents, and given to each of us by God at the moment of our conception. Lately, I have been leaning toward monism, a anthropological term that describes man’s nature as holistic. (On my reading list is Joel B. Green’s book Body, Soul, and Human Life: The Nature of Humanity in the Bible. If anyone has any other suggestions, feel free to comment.) In this view, man does not possess separate, supernatural facets of his being that are distinct from his physical body. I think there is much to commend the view that man does not actually possess a distinct spirit, yet can be granted eternal life by God on a conditional basis. When our bio-physical “coil” dies, our “identity,” or kernel (1 Cor 15:37), is granted a bio-spiritual body prepared for life in the presence of God, a life that “flesh and blood” cannot inherit (1 Cor 15:50).

Once again, however, Tackett views the rejection of man’s tripartite or bipartite nature as a highway to hell. To believe that man does not possess a supernatural and immortal soul is to fall for a “pernicious lie.” Such a lie, he claims, is a “result of [accepting the findings of] science,” and trusting in science leads to things such as radical environmentalism, a greater suicide rate, and the acceptance of a philosophy that man is no more important than an insect. What a gross over-generalization. Tackett seems to having nothing better to do than to highlight the “worst of the worst”—a “minority majority” of sorts—to bolster his claims, and proceeds to lump all scientists and humanists into the same refuse pile. Surely, there are many individuals who, when rejecting certain presuppositions, fall into the aforementioned philosophies and fates; but I can just as easily blame King James Only-style fundamentalism (a la Peter Ruckman) on one’s adoption of the doctrine of biblical inerrancy. Falling victim to such philosophies is not a logical result of adopting monism. Tackett also falsely claims that part and parcel of monism is the concept that humanity is basically good and that it promotes a philosophy of “self-actualization.” What?!?! Ever take any theology or philosophy courses in your doctoral studies, Mr. Tackett?

I believe that monism is what you bring to it. If you bring to monism the belief that there is no possibility of an afterlife, then there is no afterlife in your monist worldview. On the other hand, if you bring to monism the belief that God can grant that “kernel,” that part that makes you uniquely you, the gift of eternal life, then where is the danger in holding such a view? The end result, whether it be Tackett’s tri-/bipartitism or Christian monism, is the same for the Christian believer.

Tackett then presents another false dichotomy for which his audience falls, to wit, that if man does not have a supernatural and immortal soul, then “man has no purpose, no meaning in life, no free will.” This is patently untrue. Those who are Christian monists do not seem to have any problems finding purpose and meaning in life, or freely choosing their course. Tackett claims that our view of God and man is fundamental to how we live our lives. I wholeheartedly agree. Regardless of the reality underlying the debate, our personal worldview affects the outworking of our faith (or lack thereof). But while Christian monists reject the existence of man’s immortal soul this side of the grave, they still live for Christ. So is there truly danger in holding to Christian monism? Even without belief in God, one can find purpose and meaning in life. Purpose and meaning are generated by self-aware, moral creatures; they are not generated by the mere existence of a soul. You sell yourself and the rest of humanity short, Mr. Tackett. Consider this: If there truly is no God, what are we to make of your sense of purpose, Mr. Tackett? Is your sense of purpose in life merely illusory? Of course not.

These discussions beg the question: Why do our differing theologies come to the exact same conclusions regarding man’s sinful nature and his need for redemption, and the existence of life after death in the presence of God? Because they both recognize the current state of reality and the future promised state, even though the means differ by which we became sinners and by which we will become glorified. Unfortunately, Tackett would never accept the possibility that a genuine Christian could accept (much less hold) such views. I suspect that recognizing the true literary nature of Genesis 2-3 would implode Tackett’s worldview and drive him into severe depression and a false sense of purposelessness. It is as simple as that.

I would ask Mr. Tackett this: Why do you refuse to hold up dedicated Christians like myself as counter-examples, or “third ways,” to your false dichotomies? Wait, don’t answer that. I will answer it for you: Because you can’t hold us up as alternatives for fear that recognizing our existence would destroy all for which you have worked in promoting your particular biblical worldview.

Now that I have trashed Tackett’s logic on several points, I will give him props on one particular point. One of the questions that Tackett asks is “Why is there evil”? Although he does not really address the origin of evil, he does catch secular humanists using flawed logic. When atheistic materialists attempt to argue against the existence of God by appealing to the existence of evil, Tackett presses the question back on them. Not only can they not answer their own question, the very question rings hollow, for their use of ethical language is not valid given that a godless cosmos is amoral.

Lastly, there are several conversational crumbs I wish to highlight:

In an interview clip featuring R. C. Sproul, Sproul claims that “atheism is in our nature.” Really, R. C.? I guess that explains why the vast majority of the world’s population worships God or some other deity/deities.
Tackett holds up Ernst Haeckel’s allegedly fraudulent embryo illustrations (first published in 1874, not 1876, as TTP states) as evidence against evolution by using the “why-fake-an-illustration-if-evolution-is-true” argument. He also claims that if one falls for the “ontogeny recapitulates phylogeny” concept, then one cannot help but reduce humanity to the level of an amoeba, voiding mankind of any importance or special quality. Firstly, Haeckel—genuineness of the illustrations notwithstanding—was not off the mark one bit. Check out these resources. Secondly, does the use of fraudulent evidence in certain circles of Christian apologetics invalidate Christianity by virtue of their use? Of course not. Don’t be so obtuse, Mr. Tackett. It doesn’t become you.
Tackett came up with another anti-evolution epithet: “imago goo.” I just about peed my pants when he said that. “Imago Goo” would make a great title for a blog.

Searching for Truth in "The Truth Project" — Lesson 2: Philosophy & Ethics — Says Who?

noreply@blogger.com (Mike Beidler) — Sat, 30 Jan 2010 20:27:00 +0000

In Lesson 2 of The Truth Project (TTP), Del Tackett begins to establish the foundation of what he labels "The Truth Temple," a "framework of foundational concepts." Two pillars of this temple are (1) philosophy and (2) ethics, both of which I believe to be absolutely essential to a profitable worldview. Philosophy, Tackett argues, must comport with truth, which, in turn, must accurately depict reality (as discussed in Lesson 1). Thus, there is, in Tackett's mind, only one true philosophy derived from one true religion. I agree. The only problem is that Tackett assumes his philosophy—one of the pillars of his conception of a "biblical worldview"—is correct, exclusive of all others that exist within Christianity.

Tackett then quotes from Webster's 1828 American Dictionary of the English Language. "True religion," Webster writes, "and true philosophy must ultimately arrive at the same principle." I believe this is true. However, as I aim to show in later installments of this series, Tackett's foundation is cracked and, ultimately, does not comport with reality as he demands it should do. My point in bringing this up is not to tear down the pillar of philosophy, but rather to highlight Tackett's penchant for quoting from Webster as if it were Scripture, as if Webster's definitions were eternally valid from time to time everlasting. (He did this a number of times in the first two lessons, and I suspect he'll continue this practice in future lessons.) It's as if Tackett doesn't recognize that Webster's dictionary was as much of a product of its time (i.e., early 19th-century America, which was heavily influenced by Christianity) as today's more secular Webster's 3rd New International Dictionary. It is Tackett's tendency toward narrow-mindedness that blinds him to the environment from which his worldview sprung which constitutes one of TTP's greatest weaknesses. (I doubt highly that Tackett even recognizes from where his own particular brand of creationist philosophy is derived. See chapter 6 of Timothy P. Martin & Jeffrey L. Vaughn's Beyond Creation Science.)

The truth is, the only true philosophy may very well not be Tackett's. It reminds me of a parenting course that my wife and I began to take (and quickly abandoned) prior to having our first child. It is titled Growing Kids God's Way. How arrogant. As if the Ezzos, who developed the approach, had finally discovered a one-size-fits-all method of parenting that God endorses, complete with allowing the Ezzos to add His name to their project. As much as I agree with Tackett regarding the importance of possessing a correct philosophy derived from a correct religion, and as much as my ethics may align with Tackett's, I can't agree that Tackett necessarily possesses the correct philosophy. The mere claim implicit in the title of Tackett's DVD series smacks of pride. (God knows I've been guilty of the same many times in my life.)

As Tackett continues the lesson, he spends a considerable amount of time drawing attention to the philosophy of Carl Sagan, focusing on his famous declaration that "the Cosmos is all there is, all there was, and all there ever will be." He also highlights Sagan's equally famous quip that we humans are made of "star-stuff," which is why our species feels so drawn to discover what I call our "solar heritage." "Our contemplations of the Cosmos stir us," Sagan said, toward obtaining a greater understanding of our place in this universe, pushing us to recognize and meditate on our connectedness to everything else around us. "Some part of our being," Sagan continues, "knows this is where we came from. We long to return and we can because the Cosmos is also within us." While neither Tackett nor I believe that Sagan's "cosmos" tagline, nor his implicit pantheism, is correct, Tackett ridicules Sagan's "star-stuff" comment, following it up with the anti-evolution epithet "goo-man," referencing evolutionary biology's assertion that human beings, along with the rest of the living world, have their origin in lower, less complex lifeforms. Science aside, I don't think "dirt-man" has a flagellum to stand on. Ever read Genesis 2:7, Mr. Tackett?

Tackett then goes on to list a bunch of -isms that he believes constitute "hollow and deceptive philosophies," such as materialism, idealism, empiricism, rationalism, naturalism, determinism, relativism, mentalism, mechanism, solipsism, subjectivism, institutionism, and hedonism. Again, I agree that all of these -isms are hollow and deceptive, especially if not complemented by theism. (No disrespect intended to my atheist or agnostic friends!) One of the -isms that Tackett contends against relentlessly in TTP is atheistic humanism, represented by science historian William B. Provine, the living, breathing "straw man" that Intelligent Design founder Philip E. Johnson had been waiting for his entire life. After playing a clip from a debate between Provine and Johnson, Tackett pounced upon Provine's personal declaration of Darwinism's implications, to wit, that "there are no gods or purposes, no ultimate foundation for ethics, no free will, no life after death, and no ultimate meaning in life." Provine is dreadfully wrong, for Darwinism implies none of those things. Rather, Provine's philosophical end game is a direct result of adopting an atheistic and philosophically materialist worldview, and not a result of accepting evolution as fact. Unfortunately, Tackett knows nothing about evolutionary biology and proceeds to take Provine at his word, holding him up as a paragon of non-virtue, and attacks the very science that I and many other Christians believe represents accurately the truth about the mechanisms by which life's diversity arose.

I must also take exception to Tackett's presupposition that God has revealed Himself in only two ways. The first method is through nature, or "general revelation." Score one for Tackett, for I, too, believe that God's nature is reflected by the orderliness and beauty of the cosmos, inasmuch as we understand it accurately (i.e., correct science). The second method, Tackett declares, is through the written Word, the Bible. While I believe that the Bible is, in a sense, revelation from God, I don't necessarily believe that it can provide us with a correct "worldview" when taken as a whole, especially considering that there exists, within its very pages, inaccurate scientific concepts. If Tackett were truly bent upon adopting a worldview exclusively from the Bible, he'd join the ranks of the Flat Earth Society. Not to the exclusion of the written Word, I much prefer to recognize Jesus Christ as a superior method by which God revealed/reveals Himself, Jesus being the God-man about whom the Bible testifies. Only insofar as the testimonies of the New Testament writers reflect the true person of the Christ—and I believe those testimonies to be reliable and trustworthy—can we begin truly to develop a ~~biblical~~ correct "worldview," one based upon the Living Word whose theology derived directly from the Father.

Lastly, I want to draw attention to something of which Tackett warns his audience: assumptive language. According to Tackett, assumptive language is a "powerful and deceptive use of words in which a seemingly simple statement is made, hoping the hearer will buy the simple statement without recognizing the huge assumptions that come with it." If I may be so bold, Mr. Tackett, you are not innocent of manipulating assumptive language, and your audience is clearly not immune to falling prey to it. Being a dyed-in-the-wool Evangelical doesn't mean your "goo" don't stink. Can I get an "Amen"?

Searching for Truth in "The Truth Project" — Lesson 1: Veritology — What Is Truth?

noreply@blogger.com (Mike Beidler) — Sun, 24 Jan 2010 14:55:00 +0000

In the first The Truth Project (hereafter, TTP) session, Dr. Del Tackett asked the question, “What is truth?” Under my breath, I whispered, “An accurate understanding of reality.” Ten minutes later, after a montage of various definitions from a rotating cast of interviewees, Dr. Tackett revealed, using Webster’s 1828 definition, what he believed to be the correct answer: “Conforming to fact or reality.” It was then that I knew Dr. Tackett had just painted himself into a corner. While I wholeheartedly agree with Dr. Tackett’s assessment of what Jesus’ mission was (“to testify to the truth”; cf. John 18:37) as well as the definition of truth (“conforming to fact or reality”), I found myself, time and time again, calling him out for obscuring the very thing which he attempts to defend in TTP.

One method Dr. Tackett used (consciously or unconsciously only God knows) to obscure the truth from his audience was prefacing much of what he said with the phrase “Most scholars believe …” To be sure, Dr. Tackett made a number of points, theological or otherwise, with which I agreed. However, more often than not, the phrase was, when compared to the much larger body of Christian theology, a demonstrably false statement. It may be an accurate statement amongst those who share Dr. Tackett’s particular theology, which is decidedly not “most scholars,” but his all-too-casual use of the phrase only served to ruin his credibility in my eyes. When one is executing a “truth project,” I’d venture to say that it’s best not to say things like that.

At the end of the session, I asked the small group, “Why do you believe the Bible is true?” One individual, formally trained in theology, was taken aback by the question and laughed aloud, “Because the Bible says it’s the Word of God!” I looked at him and said, “That proves absolutely nothing. The Book of Mormon makes the same claim for itself. So does the Qur’an, even more explicitly than the Bible does.” (I almost added, “Don’t make the Bible a self-licking ice cream cone,” but I thought better of it.)

I followed up with a challenge for everyone to really reflect and think about why they believe the Bible is true. In other words, how can it be demonstrated to be true? Are there objective criteria by which we can measure the truthfulness of the Scriptures? What if, in the process of using these objective criteria, we discover that the Bible contains scientific or historical error? Should we be suspect of the entire Bible’s veracity, as most Evangelicals claim? For the sake of argument, let’s assume there is a single, solitary historical inaccuracy in the Bible. Does that error, then, invalidate the accuracy of the rest of Scripture? Is the entire thing to be rejected and thrown out based on a single wrong date? A wrong census number? A wrong name? My answer was, of course not. Others in the group weren’t too keen on that answer.

When I first jotted down these observations on Facebook, one friend of mine, more thoughtful than the “because the Bible says so” individual, used a certain line of logic to prove the truth of the Bible, namely apologist Norman Geisler’s “The 12 Points That Show Christianity Is True”:

Truth about reality is knowable.
The opposite of true is false.
It is true that the theistic God exists.
If God exists, then miracles are possible.
Miracles can be used to confirm a message from God (i.e., as an act of God to confirm a word from God).
The New Testament is historically reliable.
The New Testament says Jesus claimed to be God.
Jesus' claim to be God was miraculously confirmed by: (a) His fulfillment of many prophecies about Himself; (b) His sinless and miraculous life; (c) His prediction and accomplishment of His resurrection.
Therefore, Jesus is God.
Whatever Jesus (who is God) teaches is true.
Jesus taught that the Bible is the Word of God.
Therefore, it is true that the Bible is the Word of God (and anything opposed to it is false).

Does anyone else see what’s wrong with this list? I have no problems with points 1 and 2. However, I can’t help but be skeptical about the use of point 3 in this line of logic. It’s quite presumptive, no? Or is there some scientific proof of God’s existence of which I’m unaware? Don’t misunderstand me: I am a theist, and a Christian at that. But you won’t catch me using the “fact” of God’s existence as a linchpin in any argument, especially with skeptics or atheists.

There are other weak links within these 12 points that require one to make certain assumptions; for example, point 6 (the New Testament is historically reliable). Unfortunately, accuracy in the recording of certain historical facts (e.g., that Herod was king during the birth of Jesus) says nothing about whether the acts of Jesus really occurred. In fact, a document can certainly appear to be securely grounded in history, giving the illusion of historicity; just think of modern works of historical fiction that place a completely untrue account within the wrappings of a genuine place and time. (Even the Epic of Gilgamesh, the Babylonian version of Noah’s Flood, rings “truer” in its conversations and in its descriptions of the ark’s construction than does the biblical account.) Don’t get me wrong: I believe that the Gospel accounts are reliable testimonies to the words and acts of Jesus Christ, but there is, in the end, no proof of Jesus’ acts that can be examined under a microscope. Even the resurrection of Jesus, which I believe to have occurred, cannot be definitively proven. They are, like all historical events, trusted and assumed to have occurred based on the weight of certain lines of evidence, not “proofs.”

Countering my challenge, a friend of mine on Facebook asked me, “Why do you believe the Bible is true? [Answer the question] as if it were being asked of you by God himself.” Honestly, I can’t answer that question because, in my case, the line of questioning is wrong. For one thing, I don’t believe the Bible is without error. Point in fact: the Bible possesses and declares an ancient Near Eastern conception of the physical cosmos and how it came into being. In fact, the Bible is replete with examples of its three-tiered cosmos paradigm in both the Old and New Testaments. Most Christians don’t even realize it. Why? Because their heliocentric paradigm, informed by the findings of modern science, was foisted upon them prior to a serious reading of the Scriptures. As a result, what they read as phenomenological or poetic language was, to the ancient Hebrews, a scientific depiction of reality!

But I digress. To me, the Gospel accounts are convincing enough that I believe them to be historically trustworthy. In concert with my (admittedly subjective) experiences with the living Word and the Holy Spirit, I believe that the New Testament can be relied upon to accurately portray who and what Jesus is claimed to be by those who encountered him. I don’t require an inerrant document to convince me of who Jesus is and what he did. Reliable human testimony should be enough to convince, just as reliable human testimony is used every day in our court systems to convince juries of the truth. Just as was done throughout the early Church, which did not possess any New Testament writings for several decades following Jesus’ ascension.

My final words to the small group were that I hoped each individual would dig deeper into the question of what the foundation of his or her faith really is. If his faith is based on fiction or faulty reasoning, that is a serious problem. She may have arrived at the correct destination, but only a fool would walk 24,901.55 miles to reach a goal that was, in truth, one step behind her.

Searching for Truth in "The Truth Project" — Introduction

noreply@blogger.com (Mike Beidler) — Fri, 22 Jan 2010 21:10:00 +0000

As a result of my recent move from beautiful Monterey, California, to the Middle East, where I'm experiencing an extremely high workload, this blog has been considerably quiet since my graduation from the Defense Language Institute last November. It's extremely tough to find the time to sit down and untie the various threads of thought generated by the several books on evolution and theology I've been reading in what little spare time I have. So, the very fact that this blog has any new content at all since fall 2009 has everything to do with the prodding of Undeception's Steve Douglas. As Steve wrote to me, "[something's] usually better than nothing." So please take an excursion over to his wonderful blog and thank him personally. ;-)

This new series that I'm launching, which features my takeaways from Focus on the Family's The Truth Project, doesn't focus solely on the creation/evolution debate. The Truth Project, hosted by Dr. Del Tackett, is about the importance of discovering and holding to a biblical worldview. I'm inclined to agree with Del and I'm fairly confident that there is much in the DVD series onto which I can comfortably hang my hat. However, the question is begged, What does it truly mean to possess a biblical worldview? Surely, there are just as many "biblical worldviews" as there are Christian denominations. And certain of those myriad of "biblical worldviews" will impact one's views on the creation/evolution debate directly. It just so happens that the "biblical worldview" suggested by The Truth Project (hereafter, TTP) to be the biblical worldview rams headlong into a denial of both scientific truth and objective reality (especially when it comes to discerning the true nature of the Bible).

The group with which I'm watching the series meets weekly on Friday nights, so you can expect a new blog post every week (Insha'allah!) for the next 3-4 months. Hang on to your hats, folks. This should be an interesting ride ...

The Return of the Evolutionist?

noreply@blogger.com (Mike Beidler) — Mon, 09 Nov 2009 06:34:00 +0000

As you may have noticed, this blog has been relatively quiet lately, due in no small part to my Persian Farsi language studies. With every week of the year-long program (squeezed into 18 months due to last year's ruptured disc), the demands of the program increased and the amount of time to put down on my thoughts on "paper" dwindled. The most I had time for was posting links to online news bites and articles on my Facebook account and occasionally interacting with those that stopped by to comment.

This Tuesday, however, I graduate from the Army's Defense Language Institute with an AA in Persian Farsi, so I'm happy to announce the imminent "return of the evolutionist"! Now, don't expect things to heat up too quickly, as I'm in the process of preparing for a move overseas to the lovely Kingdom of Bahrain for a year-long tour, and I fully intend to engage in quality "family time" during my 30-day leave period; but once I get to my new desert home and acclimate to the time change and work schedule, things should start getting busier around here.

The New Year is looking quite promising ...

How the Discovery of Saturn's Eighth Ring Threatens the Science of Astronomy

noreply@blogger.com (Mike Beidler) — Wed, 07 Oct 2009 19:56:00 +0000

As I was surfing the web during my lunch period, I came across several articles that detailed an amazing discovery. According to these articles, astronomers have discovered a previously undetected ring around Saturn, a find which, I believe, threatens the entire science of astronomy. Now, before I get into why I believe this to be so, please read these brief articles.

In the Telegraph article, Douglas Hamilton of the University of Maryland, College Park, believes that the discovery of Saturn's heretofore undiscovered ring answers a mystery regarding one of Saturn's moons, Iapetus:

The ring also may answer the riddle of another moon, Iapetus, which has a bright side and a very dark side. The ring circles in the same direction as Phoebe, while Iapetus, the other rings and most of Saturn's other moons go the opposite way.

Scientists think material from the outer ring moves inward and slams into Iapetus. "Astronomers have long suspected that there is a connection between Saturn's outer moon Phoebe and the dark material on Iapetus," said Hamilton. "This new ring provides convincing evidence of that relationship."

Professor Carl Murray, in the BBC article, agrees:

"We've got a 'smoking gun'," said Professor Carl Murray, a scientist working on the US-European Cassini probe, which is currently touring the Saturnian system. "We know now that this is where this coating at Iapetus [one of Saturn's moons] comes from. Phoebe is the source. Something has hit Phoebe, produced lots of material that moves around the orbit of Phoebe and then gradually spirals in. We've solved several mysteries with this observation," the UK researcher told BBC News.

Now, for my take on this discovery. The fact that scientists must now revise their theory regarding how many rings Saturn could actually have, what causes certain of Saturn's moons' features, in addition to the obvious need to rewrite "scientific" textbooks in order to accommodate the "new discovery," proves that cosmic evolutionists' current theories of planetary, satellite, and ring formation is ENTIRELY wrong and should be abandoned in favor of some other theory, preferably one in which an Intelligent Ringer is involved.

The Sufficiency of the New Living Translation

noreply@blogger.com (Mike Beidler) — Wed, 23 Sep 2009 02:48:00 +0000

An odd title for a TCOAE post, I know. Truth is, it's not actually a TCOAE post. "Polycarp" from The Church of Jesus Christ blog invited me to guest blog for his 24-hour New Living Translation (NLT) blog-a-thon. Despite the fact that I'm 6 weeks away from taking the Defense Language Proficiency Test, I found a precious hour to comment a bit on the sufficiency of "dynamic" Bible translations, specifically the New Living Translation (NLT), to faithfully transmit theological truth; I also used my journey into ANE cosmology to prove a point about unreasonable approaches toward Bible translation and unwavering commitment to using only "essentially literal" translations of Scripture.

If anything, you might gain some insight into the inner workings of my mind on this topic and understand how my acceptance of modern scientific findings regarding evolution has had an effect on my views regarding the sufficiency of various translation and transmission methods of the Bible through the millennia.

Feel free to comment at the original post or, if you are so inclined, swing back over here to speak your mind.

PZ Meyers' Visit to Answers in Genesis' Creation Museum

noreply@blogger.com (Mike Beidler) — Tue, 11 Aug 2009 03:14:00 +0000

Image courtesy of Mad magazine, via Pharyngula

Trust me. I'm no fan of PZ Meyers. But his review of Answers in Genesis' Creation Museum, located in Petersberg, Kentucky, is phenomenal (with the exception of some of his atheist ranting, of course, as well as his unsubstantiated charge of racism on the part of AiG).

Here are a few excerpts:

It's an ongoing theme throughout the "museum" that there are these two views in opposition, and it's often stated quite unashamedly that the conflict is between God's word and . . . human reason. It's also quite clear that human reason is the enemy to Ken Ham and his crew.

. . .

[Ken Ham] hurtles along heedlessly pretending that the evidence simply doesn't exist, so he doesn't need to argue against it, and it's enough to back up his claims by quoting Bible verses. I suppose it works well for the gullible attendees, but for those of us looking for some ideas with which to wrestle, the impression left is one of credulous vacuity. It's an empty "museum," with no real ideas, no evidence, just a collection of props to illustrate an unquestioned myth. When they do make plain statements that contradict the science, they don't bother to provide a reason to accept their view over the scientific one — reason is the enemy, you may recall. It's enough to simply declare that this is GOD'S WORD, therefore it is true. Never mind that it is only one narrow interpretation of their god's awesomely vague words, that many of their fellow Christians can interpret it differently, or that the evidence of nature (which, presumably, is their god's creation) says something completely different.

. . .

The various exhibits that have gotten a fair amount of press, such as the models of Adam and Eve, the construction of the Ark, the consequences of the Fall, etc., etc., etc., just sit there. There isn't any evidence for them, other than a few sentences in an old book, so the construction crews in Kentucky just let their imaginations run loose and built improbably scenes out of the fabric of quaint myths. But there they are, solid and visible, and that's their sole purpose — to solidify Bible scenes in the minds of the faithful.

Inheriting the Hot Wind: Mind Control and Young-Earth Creationism

noreply@blogger.com (Mike Beidler) — Sat, 30 May 2009 15:20:00 +0000

As I lined up with hundreds of others to get inside Petersberg, Kentucky’s famed Creation Museum to visit its new anti-evolution exhibits ("secular" scientists are celebrating Charles Darwin’s 200th birthday this year), I couldn’t help but wonder: Was this going to be some kind of attempt at mind control? After I went through the exhibition, there was no doubt!

The anti-evolution exhibits reminded me of one of those bizarre science fiction movies where people line up to be placed in a special machine and emerge like robots; these people now can’t think for themselves, and they end up being like those people who brainwashed them.

In a related way, I found the anti-evolution exhibits to be a very clever form of mind control, basically consisting of:

Setting up straw-men arguments that totally misrepresent what many intelligent and devout Christians accept.
Showing how wrong some Christians are for believing the things they supposedly believe (which they believe for good reason!).
Convincing visitors that special creationism is true, and that one is a fool to believe otherwise (and certainly foolish to believe the undisputed scientific evidence).

Actually, this kind of mind control is already being used constantly on America’s children, especially through the private education system, the Christian media, and science museums (even in many Christian schools and colleges, sadly). Using Answers in Genesis’ anti-evolution exhibition, let’s look at how they are using mind control:

Visitors read this display:

Before Henry Morris was born, most people in America accepted certain ideas about the natural world as given. Species were linked in a single family tree. They were connected, related, and changed since the moment of the first one-celled organism's appearance, and earth itself was thought to be so old, perhaps billions of years old, that there would have been plenty of time for species to change. . . . Before Henry Morris, it was impossible to see the world as young, being created in an instant only 6,000 years ago, and unchanging.

Wrong. That’s a straw man. People who know and understand science are aware that the earth has indeed changed because of what’s recorded in the fossil record (e.g., the rise of complex multi-celled organisms, the transition of some species of fish into amphibians, and the evolution of horses). Those who believe the geological sciences know that two of every “kind” (seven of some) of land-dwelling animal weren't saved from a global flood. All the different species (special creationists can't even scientifically define a biblical "kind") of land animals that are alive today descended from a small group of one-celled organisms. Yes, animals have changed—and the earth has changed drastically since the formation of the earth.

In fact, before Henry Morris came along, natural selection was producing all different sorts of fish, reptiles, mammals, humanoids, and so on. Even in the anti-evolution exhibit, it is stated that “he [Henry Morris] refused to believe that nature selected organisms with desirable traits and that over time the fossil record preserved some of these transitional creatures. . . . Dogs were always dogs, even though a tiny lap dog and a large lean greyhound look nothing alike.” I just wonder how many visitors noticed this gross inconsistency.

Of course, everyone knows that animals change. The exhibition’s straw-man argument—that Bible-believers must believe that animals can’t evolve—is set up so that the trustworthiness of human observation can easily be knocked down.
Now that the museum visitors are beginning to have their minds controlled to believe that Bible-believers must not accept that things have evolved, the exhibition’s mind controllers state:

Discoveries in geology have challenged the idea that the world and all its species had evolved over the last 4.6 billion years. Fossils clearly show that in past ages the world has been inhabited by the same species as those existing today . . .

So, scientists believe animals change, but Henry Morris figured out that they don't, proving modern science wrong. This absence of change was his evidence of special creationism (e.g., instantaneous creation of man).

This, too, is designed to make the Creation Museum’s visitors think that they have to reject the "secular" scientific account of origins and an ancient earth.
Now, here was the final step in indoctrinating visitors to disbelieve modern science through mind control. They are indoctrinated to believe in an additional straw-man: Christians can't accept that new species can form. But we can and do. We have stated innumerable times that speciation occurs—and that natural selection happens (as they show in a new Darwin exhibit at London’s famed Natural History Museum). We declare that natural selection can result in evolution—the idea that one totally different species of creature (not "kind"), over the course of multiple generations that experience gene mutation, genetic drift, and environmental pressures, can change into a totally different species (e.g., reptiles becoming birds). The anti-evolution exhibit says:

Henry Morris’ theory of special creationism is the only biblical and scientific explanation for the spectacular diversity of life on earth. It provides a powerful framework for understanding nature and is one of the essential theories of the very core of science. . . . As Morris himself anticipated, some Christians have held to the conviction that species are the result of natural, evolutionary processes divinely ordained and sustained by the Creator. We find incompatible with our religious beliefs the concept that humans share a common ancestry with earlier primates and that humans and other species evolved over immense spans of time. Creationism, including Intelligent Design, offers a scientific alternative to the theory of evolution by invoking the intrusive acts of a Creator or an Intelligent Designer as the explanation for large diversity.

Sad, isn’t it?

The Bible warns us about such mind controllers at the anti-evolutionist exhibition: It is they “who suppress the truth in unrighteousness” (Romans 1:18). Now I ask: To what extent have the mind controllers of this age influenced you and your family, and not just with the creation/evolution question? Think about it. Then make sure you keep supplying yourself with answers to defend our integration of Christian faith and modern science!

*******************************************************

For the original article, click here. ;-)

Pursuing the Mind of God

noreply@blogger.com (Mike Beidler) — Mon, 25 May 2009 06:02:00 +0000

I believe that pure thinking will do more to educate a man than any other activity he can engage in. To afford sympathetic entertainment to abstract ideas, to let one idea beget another, and that another, till the mind teems with them; to compare one idea with others, to weigh, to consider, evaluate, approve, respect, correct, refine; to join thought with thought like an architect till a whole edifice has been created within the mind; to travel back in imagination to the beginning of the creation and then to leap swiftly forward to the end of time; to bound upward through illimitable space and downward into the nucleus of an atom; and all this without so much as moving from our chair or opening the eyes—this is to soar above all the lower creation and come near to the angels of God.

— A. W. Tozer (1897-1963), Man: The Dwelling Place of God [1966]

Intelligent Falling?

noreply@blogger.com (Mike Beidler) — Sun, 24 May 2009 23:54:00 +0000

Science and Christian Education Series by Gordon J. Glover

noreply@blogger.com (Mike Beidler) — Sun, 24 May 2009 22:10:00 +0000

This morning, I received word from Gordon J. Glover, author of Beyond the Firmament: Understanding Science and the Theology of Creation, that his 16-part Science and Christian Education video series is finally complete. All 16 of Gordon's 7- to 11-minute, high-quality videos can be found on his official YouTube channel. (As a result, any links you might have saved previously to access specific videos will no longer work.)