Evolutionary Evangelism

Caught this editorial on the January 10, 2008 issue of the journal Nature,

“Spread the Word: Evolution is a scientific fact, and every organization whose research depends on it should explain why.”

Here are some tidbits,

But die-hard creationists aren’t a sensible target for raising awareness. What matters are those citizens who aren’t sure about evolution–as much as 55% of the US population according to some surveys.

And because the general theory of evolution (and thus its implications) is only scientific in nature and allegedly does not have religious and/or philosophical underpinnings and thus, assertions in those veins,

Evolution is of profound importance to modern biology and medicine. Accordingly, anyone who has the ability to explain the evidence behind this fact to their students, their friends and relatives should be given ammunition to do so.

Seriously folks, how can evolutionists be taken seriously when they rail against certain meddling religious people when what this editorial shows is that they’re not “above” evangelistic efforts when it benefits their religion?

Since it’s been chic to use the word “Bible-thumper” are we going to see the word “Evo-thumper” enter public discourse?

Advertisements

Want to Become an “Evo Warrior”?

“What can you do if your local school board proposes a curriculum that downplays evolution?”

Well according to a brief in the journal Science (315, p.21), you can become an “Evo Warrior” (funny how the bellicose imagery poses no problem in this situation, yet when the Christian asserts the reality of spiritual warfare, objections are not in short supply).

The brief piece points recruits to a website where “downloadable documents provide pointers on meeting with public officials, testifying at school board hearings and related topics”.

If you’re interested in joining the cause click here.

I cite this article merely for balance 😉
“Why Darwinism is So Dangerous”

Books to Read

The “inspiration” for this post came from a comment made by j razz over at his blog (Blogged Down World).

It can be truly said that the wife and I are bibliophiles. We’ve gotten to the point where we buy more books than we have time to read and as a result the queue is getting increasingly long.

For what it’s worth, here’s the list of books that are sitting on my shelf (or numerous other places throughout our home) and which I know that God willing I will finish at some point in the future:

Read more of this post

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?

Is this the End Result of Evolutionary Thought?

finland.jpg

Based on conversations I’ve had with evolutionists (not counting in the blogosphere), I get the sense that they seem to think that humans are really nothing special.

We’re just primates that somehow got “lucky” and how dare we think that we’re worth more than any other creature on earth (see the shirt above). I’ve been told that I’m arrogant for thinking that there is a God who made humans in His Image and cares for us in any way.

The picture above came from this story, “The YouTube killer: eight die in schoolroom shooting massacre”.

According to the story the young man (Pekka-Eric Auvinen) in the picture killed 7 of his classmates and a principal from his school. The tragedy took place in Finland not in the United States, which unfortunately has seen its share of school shootings.

The article states that young Eric made a video (the source of the picture) in which he stated,

The chilling home-made video shows a young man staring out of a blood-red screen, pointing a gun and declaring: “I, as a natural selector, will eliminate all who I see unfit.”

While I will not say that Modern Evolutionary theory drove him to murder 8 people (human depravity plus a host of other factors did), are his actions the end result of a worldview which views humans as nothing more than self-contemplating matter?

Did this young man carry out this worldview to its logical conclusion?

This tragedy brings to mind a cartoon I saw a couple of years ago,
life-lessons.gif

Answers in Genesis chimes in on James Watson’s Comments

Paul Taylor from AiG wrote an article, DNA Pioneer in Evolutionary Racism Storm, addressing Dr. Watson’s ill-conceived comments.

Taylor writes,

At Answers in Genesis (both U.K. and U.S. sister offices) we profoundly disagree with Watson’s views on the origin of the so-called “races.” We concede that most evolutionists would share Rose’s non-racist views and that most evolutionists would be equally shocked by Watson. Nevertheless, it is only fair to point out that Watson is actually being more consistent with evolutionary theory than Rose. As soon as one believes that human beings have evolved from creatures of lesser intelligence, it is an easy corollary to assume that some people groups are more evolved than others. Watson repeated these views in the same newspaper (The Independent) on October 19, 2007, while protesting that this was not a comment on the “inferiority or superiority” of any people group. Yet we contend that a comment on the supposed intelligence levels of different people groups is clearly a value judgment.(emphasis mine)

Is Taylor right in saying that Watson is “actually being more consistent with evolutionary theory” than evolutionists who correctly denounce Watson’s comments?

I like Taylor’s closing sentence,

Contrary to the belief of evolutionists, there is actually only one race—Adam’s race. And Adam’s race includes “black” people, “white” people—all human beings everywhere.

Dr. James Watson Makes Regrettable Comments

Dr. James Watson, who along with Francis Crick, “discovered” the double helical structure of DNA, with a little help from one of their friends, X-Ray Crystallographer Rosalind Franklin.

Watson and Crick won the 1962 Nobel Prize in Medicine for their groundbreaking work as well as worldwide acclaim.

Dr. Watson was to speak to an audience at the Science Museum, but his speech was canceled due to some ill-advised comments he made.

According to this story,

DNA pioneer Dr Watson, who discovered the double helix with Briton Francis Crick, has been roundly condemned for saying he was “inherently gloomy about the prospect of Africa” because “all our social policies are based on the fact that their intelligence is the same as ours – whereas all the testing says not really”.

Also,

Dr. Watson was also quoted as saying that while he hoped all races were equal, “people who have to deal with black employees find this is not true.”

He also added,

there is no firm reason to anticipate that the intellectual capacities of people geographically separated in their evolution should prove to have evolved identically.

Our wanting to reserve equal powers of reason as some universal heritage of humanity will not be enough to make it so

Then of course, a statement to avoid the inevitable conclusion of his statements,

However, he said people should not discriminate racially, because “there are many people of colour who are very talented.”

These statements seem to be a racist’s dreams come true. One can almost see a collective “I told you so” from white supremacist groups.

I wonder if Watson realizes the import of what he allegedly said, and if he’s going to get Carleton Coon(ed) for said comments.  Probably not since Watson’s words will probably be dismissed as the ramblings of an old man.

Watson has also made other brow raising comments, according to this story,

In 1997, he told a British newspaper that a woman should have the right to abort her unborn child if tests could determine it would be a homosexual.

Wonder what Joel Ginsberg would say to that?