Devolution

It was legendary writer GK Chesterton who observed that the doctrine of original sin is “the only part of Christian theology which can be really proved.”

A casual glance at newspapers, news sites etc. will bear out the fact that human beings, despite technological advances and other such things, continue to demonstrate their ability to cause each other great harm.

In his book, The Battle for the Beginning, John MacArthur refers to the human condition as a devolution. I’ve heard it said that humanity is the way it is because we haven’t gotten there yet, we aren’t sufficiently evolved.

Some even say the animals are farther along because they don’t hurt each other to the degree we hurt ourselves (the fact that a higher creature has a greater capacity for good and evil is strangely ignored)

Johnny Mac says this in his book,

Deliverance from this state [the human condition, a fallen state] will not come from any process of evolution, either. In fact, the whole creation-including the human race-is now subject to a kind of devolution, which no amount of education, enlightenment, environmentalism, psychology, civilization, or technology will ever be able to reverse. What is needed is redemption.

What is curious to me is how the folks who most aggressively reject the Christian explanation for the human condition and thus God’s cure for it (redemption through His Son Jesus Christ), are the folks who have a different sort of faith though they ridicule so-called people of faith.

One could even say their faith is a blind faith, one that naively holds that social programs will somehow change human nature or a continuous reiteration of the so-called “golden rule” will somehow keep us from what comes naturally.

As CS Lewis commented,

What is the good of drawing up, on paper, rules for social behaviour, if we know that, in fact, our greed, cowardice, ill temper, and self-conceit are going to prevent us from keeping them?

Advertisements

CS Lewis and the Social Gospel?

From Mere Christianity,

‘Niceness’–wholesome, integrated personality–is an excellent thing. We must try by every medical, educational, economic, and political means in our power to produce a world where as many people as possible grow up ‘nice’; just as we must try to produce a world where all have plenty to eat.

But we must not suppose that even if we succeeded in making everyone nice we should have saved their souls. A world of nice people, content in their own niceness, looking no further, turned away from God, would be just as desperately in need of salvation as a miserable world–and might even be more difficult to save.

It is a good thing that truly nothing is impossible with God or else none of us would escape His wrath…

The Chris Comer Mess

I’m a creationist. I believe that God created the heavens and the earth, as to the time frame in which he did it, as a friend of mine likes to say, “it depends on what day of the week you ask me.”

To be sure I tend to lean towards the literal interpretation of Genesis since that is what Scripture seems to indicate, but I don’t consider a literal view a litmus test for orthodoxy.

I thank Paleontologist Kurt Wise for summing things up,

Although there are scientific reasons for accepting a young earth, I am a young-age creationist because that is my understanding of the Scripture. As I shared with my professors years ago when I was in college, if all the evidence in the universe turns against creationism, I would be the first to admit it, but I would still be a creationist because that is what the Word of God seems to indicate. Here I must stand.

I’m not a big fan of the Intelligent Design movement mainly due to their ambiguity as to who this Designer is. God has revealed Himself through Scripture, one can be repulsed by that but it doesn’t change the fact.

I do not believe that this point of view should be taught at public schools. For reasons which Romans 1 talks about the scientific establishment has stood its ground on the modern synthesis.

It would be an injustice for Christian students wishing to go into the scientific field not to be taught evolutionary theory for they will have to know what its claims are to be able to get any sort of scientific degree. They don’t have to agree with it but I do believe they should know what it’s about.

That being said, Chris Comer, the Texas Director of Science, was forced to step down. The reason? According to the story,“Hey Science, Don’t Mess with Texas” (I like the misleading title),

We begin our story on October 26 when Comer forwarded an e-mail announcing a presentation titled, “Inside Creationism’s Trojan Horse,” by Barbara Forrest. Forrest co-authored a book arguing that creationist politics are advancing the movement to get intelligent design theory taught in public schools, and are doing so through public relations rather than through scientific research. Shortly after forwarding the e-mail, Comer was put on administrative leave.

“Ms. Comer’s e-mail implies endorsement of the speaker and implies that TEA endorses the speaker’s position on a subject on which the agency must remain neutral,” according to the author of a TEA memo calling for Comer’s firing.

How can the Texas Education Agency justify her firing her for endorsing a view which is taught at every Texas public school?

How can you blame Comer for holding a view which public school biology teachers throughout Texas are forced to teach?

Is TEA going to fire every biology teacher who teaches evolutionary theory? There’d be no bio teachers left!

Now Barbara Forrest (the fact that she is a philosopher speaks volumes) has replied to this unfortunate incident by writing a statement,

Barbara Forrest on Chris Comer’s forced resignation”

I don’t blame Forrest for her dismay at what happened, if I shared her viewpoint I’d be similarly outraged, heck I don’t but I’m still confused as to why Comer was let go.

Something which Forrest said in her statement grabbed my attention however for its naked irony,

Has the process of administering the public education system in Texas become so politicized that even the truth is a threat to people’s jobs? One can only conclude that it has.

This cuts both ways for scientists who are creationists and find themselves in the situation which Forrest laments. Their commitment to the inerrancy of the Bible whose author is Truth Himself is a threat to their jobs. I wouldn’t even go as far as creationists I would say anyone who questions evolutionary dogma, as Ben Stein will allegedly make clear in his upcoming movie, “Expelled”.

I don’t expect those who hold Forrest’s worldview to agree, how can they when their minds are still in the dark?