The following devotional was given to the staff of the Creation Museum on Thursday, March 19, 2009. The text has been reconstructed from my notes.

My name is Rev. Tony Breeden and I’m here to tell you a little bit about the ministry of CreationLetter.com, and to give a devotional.

The Creation Letter Project or CreationLetter.com is the Biblical Creationist response to Dr. Michael Zimmerman‘s pro-evolution Clergy Letter project. So often it is helpful to know a little about the problem before we discuss the remedy, so let me tell you a bit about Zimmerman’s Clergy Letter Project.

The pro-evolution Clergy Letter Project began in 2004 with less than 200 signatures. Dr. Zimmerman used those few signatures to fight the Grantsburg, Wisconsin school board’s proposal that “all theories of origins” be taught in district schools. He succeeded in cowing the Grantsburg school board. Instead of teaching “all theories of origins,” they settled for teaching both the “strengths AND weaknesses” of evolution – but evolution only.

Since then, the Clergy Letter has collected nearly 12,000* signatures from pastors and other clergy affirming:

• That “religious truth is of a different order than scientific truth,” that they’re “two different, but complementary forms of truth.”
• That “an overwhelming majority” of Christians “do not read the Bible literally as they would a science textbook.”
• That “beloved stories like Creation, Adam and Eve, and Noah and the Ark convey timeless truths” in the tradition of Aesop’s fables.
• That evolution is “a foundational scientific truth, one that has stood up to rigorous scrutiny and upon which much of human knowledge and achievement rests.”
• That to reject evolution or even suggest competing theories is to “deliberately embrace scientific ignorance and transmit such ignorance to our children.”

In short, every line of the Clergy letter reads like it came straight out of the Big Bad Book of Standard Bogus Evolution Arguments.

The Clergy Letter Project has promoted Evolution Sundays since 2006, expanding the concept to an entire Evolution Weekend in 2008 to accommodate “other faith traditions.” Each year on the Sunday nearest Charles Darwin’s birthday, they preach evolution and undermine the authority of God’s Word from our very pulpits.

In the case of TeachThemScience.org, a website co-sponsored by arch-humanist Paul Kurtz’ Center For Inquiry, the Clergy Letter is seeking to combat “anti-evolution” proposals and thereby enforce the monopoly of evolution in the Texas science curriculum. have you noticed a lot of these “science advocacy” groups are no more than evolution enforcement groups? On March 25, 27 [next week], Texas will decide its science curriculum standards for the next ten years. Texas is so big that publishers will change their textbooks to meet Texas standards. Many other states also adopt these textbooks. Ironically, what Zimmerman is fighting through TeachThemScience.org is a proposal that allows both the strengths and weaknesses of evolution to be taught in public schools. I remind you that when he used the Clergy Letter to brow beat the Grantsburg, Wisconsin school board down from teaching “all theories of origins” to just evolution’s “strengths and weaknesses, he called it a victory. Need we more proof that they will not stop until evolution is taught as unchallenged dogma?

The problem is this: Not only is it a pack of lies, the Clergy Letter is often cast in our faces as evidence that Young Earth Creationists are somehow an irrelevant minority, because there has not yet been a sustained, definitive response in kind.

I think it’s disgusting that this modern-day Goliath gets to mock the armies of the Living God. So I decided to do something about it…

So here’s what the Creation letter Project [CreationLetter.com] is doing.

We’re proactively seeking signatures, particularly from ministers, for the Creation letter, affirming that evolution is not observable, testable, repeatable science. It’s a belief about the past – a lie which undermines both Biblical authority and the foundational basis of the Gospel. Likewise, the creation letter affirms that the Bible stands as the revealed, inerrant Word of God. As such, the conclusions and speculations of fallible, finite men should be weighed in light of the Revelation of an infinite, infallible God – not the other way ‘round! Then we ask signers to affirm the truth of a Biblical 6-day Creation and to discourage anyone from celebrating or endorsing an Evolution Sunday.

We’re also promoting Creation Sundays. While the most recent one is past, we’re already planning next year’s. Since it will fall on Valentine’s Day, our proposed theme for 2010 is Who Do You Love?, applying Matthew 6:24 to the concept of trying to serve two masters or holding two opposing authorities in your life, because it all comes down to man’s word or God’s Word as our ultimate authority. We have lots of ideas on our website to help churches celebrate a Creation Sunday, and we’re making pastors aware that they have the opportunity to hold a Creation Sunday during our Summer of Creation initiative.

As part of this Summer of Creation, we’re actively encouraging churches and youth groups to schedule creation speakers and conferences, to host Creation VBS and youth camps, to visit local Creation Museums such as this one, and to hold Creation Sundays in order to blunt the impact of the so-called “Year of Darwin.” Our primary focus is youth. Churches typically focus on youth during the summer, through VBS and youth camps. We now have the opportunity to evangelize and tell them the truth about evolution. All school year long, they’re indoctrinated and saturated with a one-sided case for evolution as scientific fact. Statistics demonstrate that kids who are taught evolution as scientific truth largely go on to reject religious truth. I’ve seen this with my own eyes.

I literally watched one day as a  a table full of boys in a typical middle school cafeteria made the awful decision to become atheists that day. There were 8 or 9 of them. Each one was saying, “I think I’m an atheist. I think I’m gonna be an atheist, too.” Except one. One dissenting voice said, “I believe in God.”The conversation went back and forth for a while, but the dissenting voice persisted. Finally one of the born-again atheists challenged his friend, “So what if you believe in God? That’s YOUR problem.”

That day was Darwin Day, Feb 12, 2009, and I don’t think it was a coincidence.

Our secondary focus is on educating the Church. The USAmerican Church is being choked to death by thorns of complacency and by trivial pursuits. The problem isn’t Zimmerman and the near-12,000 clergy who’ve signed his letter of compromise; the problem is the silence of the rest of Christendom. We have believers who just don’t think it’s important, while our children reject Christianity largely due to a belief in evolution as scientific fact. We have churches who think the entire issue is too political, too divisive. And we still have the do-nothing “moderate” that Dr. Martin Luther King, Jr. lamented over in his Letter from the Birmingham Jail, the mugwumps who sit on the fence with their mugs hanging over one side and their wumps over the other, who forbid others to enter and neither enter in themselves. Little wonder that G. K. Chesterton declared that “Christianity has not been tried and found wanting; it has been found difficult and left untried!”

The key is education, prayer and action. The Church needs to be made aware of the problem and the importance of the fight for Biblical Creation. We need prayer, for only God can change hearts. And we need to take action for we never gained anything for God by timidity or faithlessness.

Because we practice what we preach, we have other things in the works. We’re putting the finishing touches on our downloadable Defending Genesis bulletin inserts, free for any church to use during our Summer of Creation. We’re also in the planning stages of the up-coming WV Creation Conference. Basically, we’re doing whatever God puts before us and we’re expecting Big things because we serve a Great Big God [Ecclesiastes 9:10].

Turn with me to Galatians 6:9. As our devotional this morning, I want us to consider this verse: “And let us not be weary in well doing, for in due season we shall reap, if we faint not.”

Not counting Jesus Himself, my favorite guy in the entire Bible is Caleb. You recall that at Kadesh-Barnea, Joshua, Caleb, and ten faithless fellows were sent forth to scope out the Promised Land [Numbers 13:26]. They returned with a report of a good land flowing with milk and honey [vs. 27], but right off the bat they started doubting God’s Word. “The people there are strong,” they warned. “Their cities are huge and fortified. There are giants, the children of Anak [vs. 28].”

But note Caleb’s response: “Let us go up at once and possess it; for we are well able to overcome it!”

Yet still they complained and doubted. “No, we can’t do it; they’re stronger than us [vs. 31]. That place will eat us alive! They’re bigger than us [vs. 32]. And don’t forget: they have GIANTS. We were in our own sight as grasshoppers, and so we were in theirs [vs. 33].”

The people of God listened to these doubters, and suddenly everyone wanted to go back to Egypt [Numbers 14:1-4]. Moses and Aaron hit the deck, falling on their faces before God, realizing he would not like this turn of events [vs. 5]. Joshua and Caleb tore their clothes and insisted, “The land is an exceeding good land. If God delights in us, He will give it to us, a land flowing with milk and honey. Only rebel not against the Lord, neither fear this people, for they are bread for us (we’ll eat THEM alive). Their defense is departed from them and the Lord is with us. Fear them not [Numbers 14:6-9].”

Rather than listening to their words of faith, the people of God decided to stone them, so God stepped in. He decided Caleb and Joshua would enter the Promised Land, but the others who doubted His Word would roam the desert until that faithless generation passed away [Numbers 14:10, 14].

Now that’s pretty good stuff, but that’s not why Caleb is one of my favorite fellows in the whole Book. You see, forty-five years later that faithless generation finally passed away and Joshua asked Caleb what portion of the Promised Land he wanted for his inheritance – and this is why Caleb stands out for me:

“Then the children of Judah came unto Joshua in Gilgal: and Caleb the son of Jephunneh the Kenezite said unto him, Thou knowest the thing that the LORD said unto Moses the man of God concerning me and thee in Kadeshbarnea. Forty years old was I when Moses the servant of the LORD sent me from Kadeshbarnea to espy out the land; and I brought him word again as it was in mine heart. Nevertheless my brethren that went up with me made the heart of the people melt: but I wholly followed the LORD my God. And Moses sware on that day, saying, Surely the land whereon thy feet have trodden shall be thine inheritance, and thy children’s for ever, because thou hast wholly followed the LORD my God. And now, behold, the LORD hath kept me alive, as he said, these forty and five years, even since the LORD spake this word unto Moses, while the children of Israel wandered in the wilderness: and now, lo, I am this day fourscore and five years old. As yet I am as strong this day as I was in the day that Moses sent me: as my strength was then, even so is my strength now, for war, both to go out, and to come in. Now therefore give me this mountain, whereof the LORD spake in that day; for thou heardest in that day how the Anakims were there, and that the cities were great and fenced: if so be the LORD will bewith me, then I shall be able to drive them out, as the LORD said.

And Joshua blessed him, and gave unto Caleb the son of Jephunneh Hebron for an inheritance. Hebron therefore became the inheritance of Caleb the son of Jephunneh the Kenezite unto this day, because that he wholly followed the LORD God of Israel.”

- Joshua 14:6-14

Notice what he said: “Give me that mountain, the one with all the giants, the one with the fortified cities, the one everybody was so afraid of. Give me THAT mountain!”

What a challenge!

Caleb had discovered a great mystery: it doesn’t matter how small we are; it matters how big God is. A shepherd boy named David showed us that small stones may well give us access to a giant’s sword.

G. K. Chesterton was right. Christianity has not been tried and found wanting; it has been found difficult and left untried. It is said that D. L. Moody once heard Henry Varley say, “The world has yet to see what God can do with and through and to a man fully consecrated to Him.” Dare we respond with Moody and Caleb, “I will be that man! Give me that mountain!” dare we be known as men and women who wholly followed after God??

Give me that mountain! Nevermind the mugwumps. God will shake their fences!

Give me that mountain! Nevermind the 12,000 faithless ministers who’ve slapped Biblical authority in the face. The Word of God stands sure. These are not cleverly devised fables; we will preach the Word of God, whether it’s in season or out of season!

Give me that mountain! Nevermind the hundreds of churches celebrating Darwin Sunday. We will celebrate a Creation Sunday and boldly proclaim, “let God be true and every man a liar!”

Give me that mountain! Nevermind that the Church continues to slumber while USAmerica becomes less Christian every year. We can wake them up. Be a watchman. Sound the alarm!

Give me that mountain! Nevermind that we are as grasshoppers in their eyes, for they are as grasshoppers in the eyes of a God whose strength cannot fail and they are bread for us! This is the God Who created the heavens and the earth, Whose Voice shakes the mountains, Whose Word will not return to Him void, and Who cannot lie. This is the God who said, knock, and the door will open for you; Seek, and you will find; ask, and you’ll receive,” and he also promises that we SHALL reap, if we faint not!

Let’s pray.

-End of devotional-

Notes:
*The figure of “nearly 12,000″ has risen since March 2009 to 12,757 signatures as of 9/03/11. Of course, as the case of signatories John Shuck of Tennessee and Barry Lynn of Americans United for the Separation of Church and State (neither of whom can affirm the literal and bodily resurrection of Christ, a crucial requirement of authentic saving faith per Romans 10:9) illustrate, not all of these signatures represent authentic Christian clergy but humanist clergy in Christian clerical robes. I’ve also noted how members of “Christian” cults and Unitarians are erroneously listed on the Christian Clergy Letter to inflate the numbers somewhat.

A commenter who dubs herself gluadys disagrees with me on several points:

“To begin with: the title. Neither creation nor evolution are foundational to science. What is foundational to science is the scientific method which Bree[de]n has already attributed to Christian thought about God and nature.

Creation, as a theological doctrine, plays no part in science. Of course, the created order (i.e. the natural world) is the object of scientific study, but the theology of creation does not enter into that study. Evolution is an important theory about an important part of the created order.

Here gluadys commits the fallacy of bifurcation: the old science versus religion/theology canard, pretending as if there is no such thing as creation science – only creation theology. While it’s true that our origins science is based on our theology, it is equally true that the origin science of evolution is based on an atheistic philosophy (naturalism investigates the world as if God did not exist). Since the interpretations of origins science are determined by its ultimate standard (reason or special revelation; man’s word or God’s Word), we should expect a Christian to interpet the evidence consistent with Biblical revelation. We acknowledge that some Christians are not quite so consistent in this area, but they ought to be.

Moreover, gluadys contradicts herself by stating that “Creation, as a theological doctrine, plays no part in science,” yet admitting that the scientific method is attributed to “Christian thought about God and nature.” Does she propose that Christian thought about God and nature is divorced from the theological doctrine of creation?

Of course, she’s missing the point entirely, as she reveals when she makes the contradictory statement: “Evolution is an important theory about an important part of the created order.” You see, evolution is the all-natural Just-so story of how the heavens and the earth created themselves out of nothing and how all life sprang from a single organism which sprang from random chemical processes; this modern-day all-natural fable is the inevitable result of science which plays by an arbitrary set of rules that refuses to consider supernatural agency [creation]. It is utter nonsense to suggest that God created by a process which was imagined to make Him entirely unnecessary!

And only the Biblical Creationist has a consistently rational basis for the uniformity we find in nature. Dr. Jason Lisle, author of The Ultimate Proof of Creation, has given this line of reasoning quite  a bit of thought in a post called Evolution: The Anti-Science:

“The biblical creationist expects there to be order in the universe because God made all things (John 1:3) and has imposed order on the universe. Since the Bible teaches that God upholds all things by His power (Hebrews 1:3), the creationist expects that the universe would function in a logical, orderly, law-like fashion. Furthermore, God is consistent and omnipresent. Thus, the creationist expects that all regions of the universe will obey the same laws, even in regions where the physical conditions are quite different. The entire field of astronomy requires this important biblical principle.

Moreover, God is beyond time (2 Peter 3:8) and has chosen to uphold the universe in a consistent fashion throughout time for our benefit. So, even though conditions in the past may be quite different than those in the present and future, the way God upholds the universe (what we would call the “laws of nature”) will not arbitrarily change.⁸ God has told us that there are certain things we can count on to be true in the future—the seasons, the diurnal cycle, and so on (Genesis 8:22). Therefore, under a given set of conditions, the consistent Christian has the right to expect a given outcome because he or she relies upon the Lord to uphold the universe in a consistent way.

These Christian principles are absolutely essential to science. When we perform a controlled experiment using the same preset starting conditions, we expect to get the same result every time. The “future reflects the past” in this sense. Scientists are able to make predictions only because there is uniformity as a result of God’s sovereign and consistent power. Scientific experimentation would be pointless without uniformity; we would get a different result every time we performed an identical experiment, destroying the very possibility of scientific knowledge.”

So the Biblical Creationists has a rational basis for trusting in the uniformity of nature and past experience. The evolutionist has no rational basis for the uniformity we find in nature. If the universe is the result of chance, random events, we have no way to know whether the uniformity we have experienced extends to the entire universe or will continue in the future; furthermore, if our brains are the result of chance, chemical processes, we have no way to know whether we can trust our experiences. Thus, Lisle correctly concludes:

 ”Evolutionists are able to do science only because they are inconsistent. They accept biblical principles such as uniformity, while simultaneously denying the Bible from which those principles are derived. Such inconsistency is common in secular thinking; secular scientists claim that the universe is not designed, but they do science as if the universe is designed and upheld by God in a uniform way.”

And as for theistic evolutionists, well, the inconsistencies we’ve mentioned already are their ultimate downfall: 

“A theistic evolutionist does not believe that Genesis is literally true. But if Genesis is not literally true, then there is no reason to believe that Genesis 8:22 is literally true. This verse is where God promises that we can count on a certain degree of uniformity in the future. Without biblical creation, the rational basis for uniformity is lost.

It’s not just any god that is required in order to make sense of uniformity; it is the Christian God as revealed in the Bible. Only a God who is beyond time, consistent, faithful, all powerful, omnipresent, and who has revealed Himself to mankind can guarantee that there will be uniformity throughout space and time. Therefore, only biblical creationists can account for the uniformity in nature.”

Oblivious to the logical inconsistency of her position, gluadys continues:  

“Second: the implication that the appendix and the tonsils in humans are not vestigial. I am not promoting the routine removal of these organs. As long as they cause no problems, let them be. But they are still vestigial.”

Seriously? This critic’s information appears to be a bit out-dated. Vestigial arguments presume common ancestry to be true and then propose that so-called vestigial organs are proof of common ancestry. The argument is entirely circular. See Vestigial Arguments: Begging the Question For Darwin for more on this subject. 

Third, the appellation “intellectual larceny” applied to the synthesis of different scientific theories. Scientists have every right to get insights about one field from another field of science. After all, there is only one created order, so if various theories are incompatible, at least one must be in error in some way. A good theory does  not only explain its own topic well, but is consistent with all scientific theories in all scientific fields.

Gluadys did a nice job of moving the goalposts here. Wells was talking about the fact that evolutionists seem to take credit for things that have nothing to do with microbes-to-man evolution [or co-opted portions of theories that were actually in dispute of evolutionism, in the case of Mendel, who believed in genetic limitations which would have made goo-to-you evolution impossible, or von Baer, whose work in embryology was distorted to appear to support of Darwinism when in fact it stood at odds with his theory.] For example, speciation, mutation and other observable horizontal changes within created kinds of creatures have nothing to do with the larger claim of unobserved vertical [phyletic] fish-to-philosopher evolution. In fact, as I comment in Deflating Dobzhansky’s Grand Assumption, or Why Microevolution Does Not Lead To Macroevolution:

“What we actually OBSERVE is far different from the claims of evolutionists. We see animals change over time, but there are limits to that change.

For example, bacteria may mutate to resist a vaccine but it remains bacteria. A finch or woodpecker might change beak sizes in dry/wet seasons, but they remain finches and woodpeckers respectively. Furthermore, we note that the information [genetic potential] was already there encoded in the animals DNA. No new information was added. All change is horizontal not vertical as would be necessitated by macroevolution’s claims. The deck was simply shuffled. Furthermore, we note that if there is a change in the amount of genetic variability, there is a decidely downward trend. For example, one could theoretically breed a poodle from a wolf [eventually], but you could never breed a wolf from a poodle [the latter of which is afflicted with so many genetic disorders as to make my point further evident]. ”

When evolutionists make the unsubstantiated claim that such observable phenomena are evidence for their unobservable claim of microbes-to-man evolution, they are are are guilty of the very “intellectual larceny” Wells accuses them of.

Let’s move on to gluadys’ final objection: 

“Finally the implication (never explicitly stated) that “evolutionism” has something to do with the science of evolution. He speaks of “evolutionists” for example, who “object that their theory is more rational than the belief in a Creator God.” No doubt, among the people who agree with the theory of evolution, there are some who fit this  description. But calling them “evolutionists” suggests two errors of fact:

–that most people who agree with the theory of evolution as science also take this stand about God, and
–that taking this stand about God is part of the theory of evolution.

Neither of these last statements is true.”

Evolutionists often object when we put that -ism after the word evolution, or [ironically] when we call them evolutionists. The reason for this is obvious. They believe evolution is science and thus the suffix -ism or -ist should be reserved for things they believe are mere ideologies or pseudosciences. Thus, they have no problem refering to creation science as creationistm and those who practice it as creationists; conversely, they have a problem admitting that creation science exists at all, so it’s easy for evolutionists to commit the logical fallacy of bifurcation [as gluadys demonstrated in her 1st objection].

Now, I use the terms interchangeably, because the origins debate isn’t really about evidence or science. We have exactly the same pool of evidence  because we live in the same universe, but we have different interpretations of that evidence. Creationists recognize that there are two type of science: operational and origins.

 Operational science deals with the present and is subject to the scientific method – It is testable, observable, repeatable and falsifiable. Origins science, also refered to as historical or forensic science, deals with the past and is NOT subject to the scientific method. It is not directly testable. The past cannot be observed or repeated; it’s already happened. Operational science deals with the material world we observe and is temporally limited to present phenomena.

Origins science is something of an educated guess based on a weight of arguments and evidences, the latter of which are not self-interpretive and are generally interpreted according to our presuppositions. Typically, a rescuing device may be employed to avoid falsification. Our presuppositions are derived from whatever we hold our ultimate standard of authority (eg. reason, the Bible, consensus, et cetera). Origins science is therefore not the same as operational science.

Creation science is science that holds the Bible as it’s ultimate standard. Of course, evolutionists like to pretend that they have no presuppositions, but they presuppose naturalism and, conversely, refuse to consider the very possibility of supernatural agency. Theistic evolutionists allow for some sort of nebulous supernatural oversight, but they’re inconsistent, as previously discussed. In fact, while they give lipservice to the Bible as their ultimate standard, in practice they hold  naturalism and human reason as their ultimate standard since they claim the Scriptures must be re-interpreted in accordance with the opinions of men who [largely] suppress the truth in unrighteousness. Again, if human reason is the result of chance chemical processes as evolutionists suppose, why should we trust that as our ultimate standard over the revealed Word of a God who never lies, always tells the truth, knows everything and has always been there?

The Origins Argument isn’t about facts or science; it’s about authority. Who gets to make the rules: God or men? Whose word should be our ultimate standard? It’s about authority: The revealed Word of an infallible, infinite God versus the ever-changing word of fallible, finite men who reject Him and who weren’t there.

Our ultimate standard should be the one is non-arbitrary, consistent and rational. Only the Biblical Creationist worldview provides such a basis for the uniformity of nature, without which scientific inquiry would be impossible. Which is why creation is foundational to science – not evolution.

-revTony

“This month’s web site review looks at a web site blog that I discovered while searching for a site to review for this month. If you are not familiar with blogs, a blog is a type of website or part of a website which is maintained by an individual with regular entries of commentary that are displayed in reverse-chronological order. Blogs usually are highly interactive and allow for visitors to leave comments.

For this month we are reviewing a blog entry made on January 16, 2009 that has the title “Why Creation Is Foundational to Science – Not Evolution”. This entry provides quotes from many scientists and others that provide insight into the creation versus evolution controversy. Wernher Von Braun, the Creationist rocket scientist stated that “For me, the idea of a creation is not conceivable without invoking the necessity of design. One cannot be exposed to the law and order of the universe without concluding that there must be design and purpose…To be forced to believe only one conclusion—that everything in the universe happened by chance—would violate the very objectivity of science itself.”

You will find quotes from CS Lewis, GK Chesterton, Michael Denton, Wolf-Ekkekard Lonnig, Jonathan Wells, L. Harrison Matthews and Professor W.R. Thompson. All of them make for interesting reading.

At the end of the blog the author states that “If our children are to have a proper understanding of science, evolutionism mortal flaws must be published. Evolutionism must be placed critically under the microscope instead of being carefully guarded from criticism by a High Wall of Protection.”

By looking through the Archives of the blog you can find many more interesting blog entries. The main blog page also has many links to topics of interest regarding creation and evolution.”

Of course, since the main purpose of CreationLetter.com [and CreationSundays.com, for that matter] is to provide a Bible-affirming alternative to atheist Dr Michael Zimmerman’s pro-evolution Clergy letter Project and the celebration of Evolution Sundays, it’s easy to forget that we feature articles on apologetics and the culture war on this site.  here’s a few of our favorites:

• Ex-Christians: The Evolution Factor
• Creationism – Just Too Divisive?
• Is Creationism a Side Issue?
• Clergy Letter Deconstruction
• So Much Depends on Evolution?
• Foundations of Evolution: The Fallacy of Naturalism 
• Dating the Earth: What the Fossil Record Actually Shows
• Answering a Critic – Origins Science and Operational Science

 To read our most recent posts simply select the Recent Posts link at the top menu on this site.

I should also mention that the Discolsure newsletter that featured this site had excellent articles on Archaeopteryx and Stephen Jay Gould’s fallacious “panda’s thumb” argument. Be sure to check out  Science AgainstEvolution.org’s entire newsletter at http://scienceagainstevolution.org/vol15-11.pdf

-revTony

“Mr. Kopplin,

He responded with the following:

“Rev. Breechen (sic), you know as well as I do that the intent of this law is to sneak creationism into the public school science classroom. You don’t need to look further than Sen. Ben Nevers’ quotes to find proof.”

This was rather dismissive. In light of Edwards v. Aguillard, the law could never allow creationism to be taught. He seemed to suppose intent trumps ability somehow, so I clarified my objection:

“Mr. Kopplin,

You have in fact ignored my points. You appear to be commiting an ad logicum, supposing that by refuting one piece of my rebuttal that you need not address other independent supports. Since you do not value critical thinking [at least where it concerns microbes-to-man evolution], I’ll forgive you the fallacy of logic and instea dpoint out that even if Sen. Nevers had intended this legislation to sneak in creationism, such a Trojan horse action would be futile, precisely because Edwards v. Aguillard negates the possibility of the LSEA being used to teach either ID or creationism; thus, even if Nevers intended the LSEA as a Creation Trojan Horse, his efforts were doomed from the get-go. The language of the LSEA especially coupled with Edwards v Aquillard does not allow for the teaching of either creation or ID. In a nutshell, your objection concerning Nevers’ motives is irrelevant to the point.

Therefore to allege that this bill allows for the teaching of creationism and to characterize the repealing of the LSEA as a repealing of creationism is hubris. What are you fighting against then? Oh, for the uncritical acceptance of microbes-to-man evolution. Yet the scientific method is built of skeptical inquiry and critical analysis from which no theory or model is supposed to be exempt. It is this aspect of the scientific method that has allowed us to progress from Newtonian physics to Einsteinian physics, and from geocentrism to heliocentrism. You’re being a puppet in the hands of those who want to enforce an evolutionary dogma and illegitimately protect it from criticism. This insulation of a favored model is unscientific and, if the Galileo affair has taught us anything at all, ill advised. By repealing the LSEA, you will give the rest of the country the impression that some models and theories should be insulated from the self-correcting mechanisms of scientific inquiry and you will thus do true science a great disservice.

Please come to your senses, sir.

Regards,
Rev Tony Breeden
Founder, CreationLetter.com & CreationSundays.com”

As I noted to Mr. Kopplin, the self-correcting mechanism of science requires that all models and theories be subject to scrutiny at any time. Evolution enforcement advocates (don’t be fooled when they call themselves science advocates, especially when they wish to insulate their pet theory from critical examination) don’t want microbes-to-man evolution dogam questioned. At all!

Meanwhile, another disturbing trend has come to light. Recent statistics show that U. S. high school students perform well below other developed countries in math and science.  Commenting on this, a trio of evolution-loyal scientists criticized Answers in Genesis’ Ark Encounter project back in January 2011, noting:

“Students in 17 countries, led by Finland, Hong Kong and South Korea, outperform U.S. students in mathematics, and those in 12 countries surpass our students in science. An interactive science technology theme park would be more appropriate to educate the public and inspire schoolchildren to be more competitive in math and science and to aspire to regain America’s leadership in the global market…We will not regain our pre-eminence in science and technology if we don’t teach our children how to distinguish faith-based myth from scientific fact.”

Ken Ham’s rebuttal of their attempt to pass the blame elsewhere is cogent to our discussion of Zack Kopplin’s efforts:

“Think about it: Creation, prayer, Bible, etc. have all basically been thrown out of public schools years ago. Evolution/millions of years is taught as fact in the public school system and secular (and even many Christian) universities—and has been for many years. These professors are bemoaning the poor science and math scores in U.S. schools and relating it to the Creation Museum/Ark Encounter! The illogic is incredible. The science and math scores have gone down as evolution has been taught as fact, and they blame creationists who have hardly any influence in secular education. Amazing!

Actually, it is obvious that the more anti-Christian the schools and curricula have become, the more the science and math scores have decreased.”

Think about it: Zack Kopplin is a product of the evolution-only propaganda machine which has had complete control over our science classrooms over  the past several decades of dropping science test scores… and Zack’s zeal for goo-to-you evolution (and the approval of Big Science) has blinded him to the reality that by insulating Darwin’s theory from critical inquiry he’s undermining the self-correcting mechanism of science and ensuring that dogma is taught rather than the prnciples of skeptical scientific inquiry. Meanwhile, he’s getting pats of the back from Big Science who will do anything to keep evolution’s weaknesses from being  exposed.

The Clergy Letter Project was Founded by an ATHEIST... Hmmmmm....

While we’re on friendly terms, Joel Watts is no Biblical Creationist, nor is he particularly a fan of Creation Sunday or CreationLetter.com. Joel affirms evolution and long ages, but balks at the unBiblical concept that humans evolved from apes or ape-like ancestors. Interestingly, he won’t add his name to atheist Dr Michael Zimmerman’s pro-evolution Clergy Letter Project.

Recently, he made a point that I’ve considered from time to time, but never got around to putting into a post. To set this up properly, we must first take a look at the final section of the Clergy Letter, which reads:

“We the undersigned, Christian clergy from many different traditions, believe that the timeless truths of the Bible and the discoveries of modern science may comfortably coexist. We believe that the theory of evolution is a foundational scientific truth, one that has stood up to rigorous scrutiny and upon which much of human knowledge and achievement rests. To reject this truth or to treat it as “one theory among others” is to deliberately embrace scientific ignorance and transmit such ignorance to our children. We believe that among God’s good gifts are human minds capable of critical thought and that the failure to fully employ this gift is a rejection of the will of our Creator. To argue that God’s loving plan of salvation for humanity precludes the full employment of the God-given faculty of reason is to attempt to limit God, an act of hubris. We urge school board members to preserve the integrity of the science curriculum by affirming the teaching of the theory of evolution as a core component of human knowledge. We ask that science remain science and that religion remain religion, two very different, but complementary, forms of truth.” (emphasis in Joel Watts’ post, What Does the Clergy Letter Project Really Say?)

While I don’t agree with everything Joel has to say in this particular post (especially his point about clergy who aren’t scientifically trained not being able to comment on science. His point would only follow from the example he provides only if it were a foundational scientific truth that demons caused mental depression – which isn’t the case at all!), I appalud him for recognizing the foundational inconsistency of the Clergy Letter Project’s entire premise:

“Odd that the clergy who can affirm, as clergy, a ‘foundational scientific truth’ end the letter by asking that science remains science and that religion remain religion.”

Admittedly, I’m quoting him as something of a hostile witness, but the question remains: If religion and science are to truly remain separate, how can they comment upon one another, much less endorse the other? The implied premise of the Clergy Letter is NOMA (non-overlapping magisteria, popularized by the late evolutionist SDr Stephan Jay Gould), that science and religion are two separate but equal magisteria commenting on wholly separate realms of inquiry. But if one truly supposes this to be true, how can we expect the clergyman to comment outside of his magisteria with any authority? Logically, if NOMA were true (and thankfully it isn’t), we couldn’t. Thus, every clergy signature on this atheist-founded Clergy Letter, designed to dupe school boards into believing there is no contradiction between evolution and the Christian religion, is a contradiction of the Clergy Letter’s foundational premise. (This should come as no surprise to those of us who have read Dr Jason Lisle’s wonderful resource Discerning Truth: Exposing Errors in Evolutionary Arguments: once I read this book, I couldn’t help but realize that nearly every evolutionist argument is based on a logical fallacy!)

The Biblical Creationist has no problem on this wise, for Jesus refuted this false dichotomy in John 3:12, asking, “If I tell you of earthly things and you believe not, how shall you believe if I tell you of spiritual things?” In other words, what the Bible claims about earthly things (like Creation, the Flood, Babel, the Resurrection) has a bearing on the veracity of the spritual things it teaches (the Gospel, doctrine, morality). The Biblically consistent view makes the idea that “religion is religion and science is science and never the twain shall meet” completely foreign to Christianity.

While every clergy signature is a contradiction of the entire premise of the atheist-founded Clergy Letter, every clergyman who affixes his name to the Bible-affirming Creation Letter does so with logical and doctrinal consistency. After all, the Bible affirms that the Word of God is true from the very beginning! [Psalm 119:160]

If you haven’t added your name to the Creation Letter, prayerfully consider doing so today!

-Rev Tony Breeden

“When you begin examining the signatures on atheist Dr Michael Zimmerman’s Christian Clergy Letter, you begin to notice that he inflates his numbers with Unitarian Universalists [at the expense of the separate UU Clergy Letter], Unity cult members and members of other cults. So long as they are willing to call themselves Christian, he’s not willing to look a gift horse in the mouth. When you strip away these erroneous signatures, rather than seeing “Christian clergy from many different traditions,” we cannot fail to observe that they largely represent liberal, mainline denominations who long ago abandoned any faith in the Bible nor any other basic Christian belief.

For example, Clergy Letter signator Rev John Shuck [see http://kcsg.wordpress.com/2011/01/22/tennessees-rev-john-shucks-upcoming-evolution-sunday-what-it-means-portrait-of-a-pro-evolution-clergy-letter-signer/ ] has celebrated Evolution Weekend at the Presyterian church he pastors ever since atheist Zimmerman first dreamed up the concept. By his own admission, he doesn’t really believe in miracles, God, heaven and hell or the bodily Resurrection of Jesus Christ. Since the Bible says that we must believe in God [Hebrews 11:6] and must also believe that Jesus was raised from the dead [Romans 10:9 & 1 Corinthians 15:12-18] in order to be saved, “reverend” Shuck isn’t even an authentic Christian, much less a valid clergyman. And one wonders how many of these clergymen who’ve affixed their name to this document could simply affirm basic Christian doctines as Shuck could not.

Rather than being a document showing the world that authentic Christians can also affirm microbes-to-man evolution, it evidences that those who reject Christianity’s Sourcebook [the Bible] as their ultimate authority can believe any arbitrary thing they care to. Worse, it reinforces the point that belief in goo-to-you evolution is incompatible with authentic, traditional Christianity.  As Martin Lings once noted [and research published in the book, 'Already Gone: Why Your Kids Will leave Church & What You Can Do About It' confirms], “more cases of loss of religious faith are to be traced to the teaching of evolution than anything else.”

Atheist Zimmerman has been using this Strawman Letter he’s thatched together to alternately browbeat and pacify school boards into supposing there is no conflict between evolution science and authentic Christianity, but this would be like claiming there is no conflict between creation science and pure naturalism. He hopes that no one will notice he’s conflated evolution with science or that he’s also implied that creation science is invalid so that religion is merely superstition and fuzzy morality. What’s that, O’Z[immerman]? Pay no attention to that man behind the curtain? Yet if we bother to look beyond what he wishes to present, his claims begin to unthatch themselves.

Fortunately, authentic Christians are becoming more and more aware of the growing apostasy that has been microbes-to-man evolution’s legacy in the Church. Creationist organizations are engaging the local church like never before to drive home the central truth that God’s supernaturally revealed Word is our ultimate authority and that accepting evolution scence rather than Bible-affirming science is merely a slippery slope onto the Down-Grade to heresy and apostasy. This year’s Creation Weekend [see http://creationsunday.wordpress.com] promises to be bigger than ever before!

Rev Tony Breeden
http://CreationLetter.com – The Biblical Creationist response to atheist Dr Michael Zimmerman’s pro-evolution Clergy Letter Project”

The fact of the matter is that there is no conflict between authentic Bible-affirming science and God’s revealed Word, but evolution and true Christainity must ever be at odds.

revTony: Are you completely unaware that evolution leads to apostasy? Or are you suffering from the whole frog in a kettle syndrome?

Let me ask you a direct question, “Clergy” Letter signer: Do you believe in the physical, bodily resurrection of Jesus Christ?

Rev Tony Breeden
CreationLetter.com

John Shuck: Are you completely unaware that evolution leads to apostasy?

Yes.

Or are you suffering from the whole frog in a kettle syndrome?

Ummm. Ribbit?

Do you believe in the physical, bodily resurrection of Jesus Christ?

No.

Have a nice Darwinmas!”

revTony: “John Shuck,

If what your response to my comments were honest, you’re ordination and office are a farce, for you are not even a Christian if you do not affirm the physical, bodily resurrection of Jesus Christ [per Romans 10:9].

Your own evident lack of faith in core Christian beliefs is symptomatic of the link between faith in evolution and religious unbelief. Might I suggest you read Already Gone by Ken Ham & Britt Beemer? I know you have no love for Mr Ham, but unless you are prepared to arbitrarily accuse him of lying, the statistics he presents in this book should convince all but the most heretical liberal of the link between evolution and loss of faith.

Rev Tony Breeden
CreationLetter.com”

John Shuck: “@Tony

Ho hum.

the link between evolution and loss of faith

Science has a way of undoing superstition. May the loss of “faith” continue!”

revTony: “”Rev” Shuck,

Your glib attitude toward the fate of men’s souls is unbeffitting a true minister of the Gospel. You do realize that when I speak of loss of faith that I am in no way refering to a loss of superstitious belief. Rather I am talking about people abandoning all Christian belief and going to an eternal hell!

If that doesn’t bother you [and it should since that is your destination is you don't get saved, friend], you’ve no business pretending you care at all about the flock you illegitimately tend.

For the record, I do not deny science; merely the erroneous evolutionary interpretations of some of that science. To conflate science and evolution is to commit the logical fallacy of equivocation. Would that your commitment to reason and the Cross matched your devotion to evolution and leftist political agendas! Clearly you’re nothing more than a wolf in sheep’s clothing.

How can you escape the damnation of hell?

Rev Tony Breeden
CreationLetter.com”

John Shuck: “I am in no way refering to a loss of superstitious belief. Rather I am talking about people abandoning all Christian belief and going to an eternal hell!

And that’s not superstition?

Well you have been a barrel of laughs. I am pleased you commented here. It is always good to be reminded with whom we are dealing.

You can move along now.

You know, Tony, it is polite that when you do a post on someone to at least let them know?

Ah well, carry on…

revTony: “It is polite but not mandatory. Nevertheless I included a link to my site in every post so that you would have the opportunity to see exactly who you were dealing with before you responded to me. Frankly, given the rather flippant tone of some of your responses, I was under the impression that you had already seen the post in question.

You’re everything I expected when I asked Dr Zimmerman a year or so ago whether any of his alleged clergy on his Clergy Letter could actually affirm basic Christian beliefs. You cannot and you are even proud of your unbelief.

Unfortunately for Zimmerman you serve as a prime example of why his Clergy Letter is simply crap. Rather than being Christians from many different traditions, those who’ve signed their names appear to be liberals who’ve long ago abandoned Christianity in all but name. Worse still, if they cannot affirm the bodily resurrection of our Lord, they’re unsaved and headed for hell… like you.

Yet you seem completely unconcerned about your own eternal salvation.

I pray God grants you repentance.

Rev Tony Breeden
CreationLetter.com”

John Shuck: “Your god doesn’t exist, my friend, nor does his hell. So I am not afraid for my “eternal salvation.” I do pity you for believing outrageous fairy tales and cruel ones at that. I hope you will repent as well and stop spreading fear and ignorance.

revTony: Waitaminute!

Are you actually stating that you don’t believe that people need to be saved? That there is no heaven or hell? That Jesus died for nothing of eternal consequence?

Why did you become a minister if not to preach the Gospel? Does the PCUSA know you have these beliefs and convictions [or lack thereof]??

Of course, he didn’t reply to my last question. Instead, he decided to ban me from his site for “emotional abuse.” [It appears he can dish it out but...]

I did a little bit of further digging, trying to ascertain why exactly he remained a minister since he does not ascribe to the faith. Surely his integrity [yes, unbelievers are sometimes afflicted with this trait as well as Christians] would force him to resign, right?

What I discovered is that John Shuck is a militant liberal who hopes to subvert the church. He’s not saved and he’s only in the Presbyterian denomination to undermine their efforts. So why hasn’t he been  removed  or censured by his presbytery [Holston Presbytery], who simply respond to each protest of outrage by saying that Shuck “is a minister in good standing??” Since Shuck is a member of the leadership of his presbytery, why haven’t those higher up within the denomination taken that presbytery to task for protecting him and allowing him to continue to preach blasphemy and undisguised heresy? Would they allow a Wiccan in their pulpits? A Satanist? What other devils do they call “ministers in good standing?” You would not be judged in this matter if you judged yourselves.

First, let me underscore an important point. He’s not saved. One of the requirements of saving faith is a belief in your heart that God raised Christ from the dead [Romans 10:9; I Corinthians 15:12-18]. Another requirement is a belief in a supernatural God. He’s unrepentant and mocking of the faith.

Commenting on Roy Hoover’s essay in the Fourth R, Tradition and Faith In a New Era [wherein Hoover laments: "Those who insist upon the unaltered retention of traditional forms of religious understanding and language and who retreat from the challenge posed by the actual world after Galileo want to direct the Christian community into the confines of a sacred grotto, an enclosed, religiously defined world that is brought completely under the control of scripture and tradition; and they want to turn the ordained clergy into antiquities dealers."], Shuck declares in an Easter 2010 post called “A Church Without God”:

“Don’t let them. Don’t give up without a fight.

We are facing huge changes. Our universe is 13.7 billion years old as of the latest tally. Human beings have evolved as has every species on this beautiful blue ball. We were not placed in any garden by any divine being. No god/man came to Earth, walked on water, rose from the dead and sits on a heavenly throne. That is religious fiction. It is metaphor, story, myth, human invention. It is how our ancestors tried to find meaning. Bless their hearts.

As we are in a period of transition we will wrestle with our inherited language. For some, the term “God” will have meaning. For others it will not. Religion is moving away from its supernaturalistic roots. “God” will be redefined accordingly. We are in the process of redefining meaning. “

No one with these views on God or Jesus could ever be considered anything but a rank unbeliever! Why does the PCUSA allow this wolf to remain over one of their flocks? [And, yes, those above him must give an account before God for why they allow Shuck to remain without so much as a rebuke.]

I think the Presbyterian Church USA is a little concerned that they’ll make a martyr of him if they remove him from his pulpit. He’s ceratinly itching for a fight:

“It could and likely will get ugly. Those who cling to their superstitions will be ruthless. There will be inquisitions. There will be heresy trials…. My advice for clergy and for laypeople who are growing out of a childish supernaturalistic past is to stand your ground. Don’t let them set the terms or the rules. Don’t resign.”

But those above him need to remember Jesus’ warning that a little leaven leavens the whole lump. His congregation beleives he represents a more authentic Christianity. Will they wait until rank unbelievers supplant the faithful? Frogs in a kettle!

I pray the Presbyterian Church finds its boldness and reaffirms its commitment to holiness to the Lord by ousting this wolf from the flock of God.

I also pray that people will remember that those who affirm the Clergy Letter, by and large are unbelievers like John Shuck: hypocrites with a subversive agenda. So when Zimmerman or other evolution enforcement advocates try to use the Clergy Letter to try to convince school boards that there is no conflict between authentic Christianity and evolution, remember that his entire project is a scam. He doesn’t care whether these guys really believe the basics of the Christian faith. Zimmerman is an atheist who only cares that his signators profess some allegiance to Christianity – Since he only wants to use it as a weapon to force the exclusive teaching of evolution is schools by attempting to negate the argument that evolution leads to loss of faith, he doesn’t care whether any of the signatures are from real Christians so long as he can give other people the impression that they are.

Don’t buy it. The truth is that kids who are indoctrinated in an uncritical, rosy view of evolution as scientific truth mostly go on to reject religious truth wholesale. As I mentioned in my last post, Shuck admits that his loss of faith was influenced by the evolutionary propaganda he swallowed in school: “As a kid I was bugged by this end of time idea, as well as evolution. It didn’t coincide with what I was learning in science and history classes, and I decided that this religion is not working well.” And just look where he is today?

Arm yourselves with the truth.

More information is available here: Ex-Christians: The Evolution Factor and in Ken Ham’s excellent book, Already Gone: Why Your Kids Will Quit Church & What You Can Do About It!

And may I suggest that instea dof celebrating an Evolution Sunday this year, celebrate a Creation Sunday this Feb 13, 2010 instead. You can view and add a Creation Sunday event in your area at http://creationsunday.wordpress.com

The Rev Shuck’s worship service for Sunday, Feb 13, 2011, advertizes gthe following:

“February 13th Evolution Sunday
Romans 8:14, 16,17, 19, 22 I Corinthians 3:9
Theme: From Cosmos to Cosmogenesis
This is Evolution Sunday. On this Sunday closest to Charles Darwin’s birthday, we celebrate our cosmic and evolutionary history. We celebrate the creativity of science. Science has unfolded for us a new creation myth. The universe has taken 14 billion years to create you and me here at this moment. We are participants in the extravagant unfolding of the universe. As relatively conscious beings we are now the ears and eyes of the universe (as far as we know). We can tell the universe’s story. We can tell the story of Earth and of Earth’s creatures. We are struggling to learn the human story. Who are we? Who are we becoming? How will and how might we better relate with Earth? Now as much— perhaps more—than any time in human history, we are calling on our creativity, the creativity of the universe, the creativity of God/dess to direct us toward life-enhancing choices for ourselves and for Earth.”

A couple of things stand out. For starters, he admits that accepting the claims of evolutionary science over the plain meaning of Scripture and the interpretations of creationist scientists has forced him to reject the traditional view of the Creation Week for a “new creation myth.” He’s rejected the truth and exchanged it for a fable.

I’m sure he didn’t intend such a meaning when he mentions “the creativity of science,” but this nonetheless an apt description of the imagineering that goes on in the name of fabricating our supposed “cosmic and evolutionary history” instead of celebrating the true history of the universe as revealed in God’s Word.

Lastly, I note that since he threw out the Bible as his ultimate authority where it concerns our history and origins, he has no problem compounding his error by rejecting the clear teaching of God’s Word on the identity and gender of the Creator in refering to God as ”God/dess.” The Bible identifies Christ Jesus as the Creator… as well as the Judge before whom we must also appear!   I would not wish to be Rev Shuck on tthe day he must give an account for the misinformation this false shepherd doled out to his hireling-tended flock. Commenting on a photo in another pro-Evolution Sunday post, he declares:

“This 130 million year old fossilized worm is one hundred thousand times older than YHWH (who was created by humans in the first or second millennium BCE).  There is far more evidence that this worm lived than that YHWH did (except in our imaginations). Nothing against imagination, but it seems to me long past time for religious folks to move on and put things in order.”

His estimation of the Bible and its authority and authorship are no less blaspemous:

“Rather than the Bible being a word from God, perfect in every way, to us, we see it as a work of human beings reflecting about God and themselves. The authority of the Bible and the authority of the church’s beliefs that are based on a pre-critical reading of the Bible are therefore challenged. The Theory of Evolution challenged the pre-critical understanding of the Bible’s story. The biblical narrative of creation, human fall into sin, the story of redemption in Christ, and future hope in the holy city is no longer seen by many of us as a literal account of what happened or what will happen. It is a narrative of an ancient people trying to understand their place in the whole thing.

In another post, he showes his support for gay clergy and applauds efforts to strike the wording of an ammendment that required that “hose who are called to office in the church are to lead a life in obedience to Scripture and in conformity to the historic confessional standards of the church. Among these standards is the requirement to live either in fidelity within the covenant of marriage between a man and a woman (W-4.9001), or chastity in singleness,” because he believes that “being gay is not a sin.” Did the Rev Shuck glean this view of sin from the Bible? Of course not. His theological views seem informed by the latest liberal trends rather than the revealed Word of a holy, unchanging God.

The Rev John A Shuck

Apparently, Rev Shuck considers “Darwinmas” his favorite holiday. Not Easter. Not Christmas. Not any holiday that has to do with Christ Jesus. No, the Rev Shuck unapologetically admits, “My favorite Holy Day is Darwin’s Birthday. It is such a shame that Evolution Sunday comes but once a year.” Why his reverence for Darwin at the expense of Christ? Oh, because he’s a fan of the apostate Jesus Seminar who deny the literal, bodily resurrection of Jesus Christ and promote false “gospels,” such as the Gnostic heretical work, the Gospel of Thomas.

I asked him directly, “Do you believe in the physical, bodily resurrection of Jesus Christ?”

His response: No.

Rev Shuck, you’re not even a Christian, for the Bible insists that you must confess the Lord Jesus with your mouth and believe in your heart that God raised Him from the dead in order to be saved! [Romans 10:9]

While he signed a letter that supports the excusive and uncritical teaching of evolution is public schools, his own experience testifies to the adverse effects of teaching kids evolution as a scientific fact: “As a kid I was bugged by this end of time idea, as well as evolution. It didn’t coincide with what I was learning in science and history classes, and I decided that this religion is not working well. I followed my wife into the Presbyterian Church and decided to go into the ministry.” In other words, a public school education that amounted to an evolutionary indoctrination caused him to doubt Christianity. This admission mirrors my own testimony and the statistical data collected regarding youth apostasy in the book, Already Gone by Ken Ham and Britt Beemer. His doubt and unbelief continue today though his denomination has seen fit to ordain such an unbeliever anyway. 

Yet he admits that he full well knows the meaning of evolution:

“As far as I can see, there is no design behind [evolution] or consciousness guiding it. There is no It to be aware of you–and yet you are.”

Evolution is a blind, unguided process that does not require God’s agency. What room does the good Rev Shuck leave for a Creator of any sort? Apparently none. He admits elsewhere that he believes:

“It took the universe 13.7 billion years to make you. So you ought to see yourself as pretty darn special. That is original blessing. Wow. Early thinkers on matters of theology were so impressed with themselves that they thought that they were created in the image of God. My guess is that they created God in their image but were too bashful to give themselves credit” [emphasis mine].

In a further comment upon his post, the Rev Shuck reveals that he does comprehend the issue at hand, more to his condemnation:

“I am discovering that the real issue for these folks has nothing to do with “God as Creator” or of course anything scientific. It has to do with a theological house of cards. If humans evolved rather than appear in a garden, and if Adam and Eve weren’t real people, then there is no “Fall into sin” and therefore no need for Jesus to die on the cross to save people from their sins.”

Compare this to the estimate of atheist Frank Zindler:

 “The most devastating thing though that biology did to Christianity was the discovery of biological evolution. Now that we know that Adam and Eve never were real people the central myth of Christianity is destroyed. If there never was an Adam and Eve there never was an original sin. If there never was an original sin there is no need of salvation. If there is no need of salvation there is no need of a Savior. And I submit that puts Jesus, historical or otherwise, into the ranks of the unemployed. I think that evolution is absolutely the death knell of Christianity.” –[Frank Zindler, debate with William Craig, Atheism vs Christianity video, Zondervan, 1996.]

Or G. Richard Bozarth:

“Christianity has fought, still fights, and will fight science to the desperate end over evolution, because evolution destroys utterly and finally the very reason Jesus’ earthly life was supposedly made necessary. Destroy Adam and Eve and the original sin, and in the rubble you will find the sorry remains of the son of God. If Jesus was not the redeemer who died for our sins, and this is what evolution means, then Christianity is nothing.” — quoted from The American Atheist, September 1978, p. 30.

Martin Lings noted that “more cases of loss of religious faith are to be traced to the theory of evolution… than anything else” (Studies in Comparative Religion, Winter 1970. – quoted from Christian Century, July 7-14, 1982, p. 755). Rev. Shuck is hard evidence of evolution’s degrading effect on Christian faith and theology.

Evolution Sunday Was Started By An ATHEIST... Hmmmmmm...

I urge anyone reading this post to consider the fruit of evolution and the meaning of Evolution Sunday in our churches. Rather than celebrating Darwin from our pulpits this February 13th, we urge you to celebrate a Creation Sunday instead. Let’s get back to the Word of God as our ultimate authority! You can find Creation Sunday 2011 happenings near you at http://creationsunday.wordpress.com.

• Ex-Christians: The Evolution Factor - A brief survey of the statistical and anecdotal reality that children who are taught evolution as scientific truth largely go on to reject religious truth wholesale.
• Resurrection Apologetics - Why belief in Jesus’ historical existence, actual physical death and literal resurrection from the dead is reasonable given the evidence.
• Letters to Zimmerman – Email correspondence with atheist Dr Michael Zimmerman. Notably, a series of email exchanges in March 2009 addressed whether the signers of the Clergy Letter could even affirm basic Christian beliefs like the bodily ressurection of Jesus Christ.
• More Presbyterian “Rev” John Shuck: Why He’s Not Saved & Why He’s a Minister Anyway – A follow-up post to this one.

Evolution Sunday Was Founded by an Atheist.... Hmmmmm...

In 2006, atheist Dr Michael Zimmerman first encouraged churches to preach Darwin from their pulpits on the Sunday worship service nearest Charles Darwin’s birthday. 467 churches allegedly participated in his first Evolution Sunday. Granted, there were a fair number of cults tossed in with legitimate Christian denominations and nearly all were churches from liberal, mainline denominations at that. Nevertheless, the number of congregations participating grew to 618 in 2007.

In 2008, Zimmerman expanded the concept to an Evolution Weekend to encourage other faiths to participate; the number of participants grew to 814 in 2008 and 1049 in 2009 [the year CreationLetter.com launched and began urging churches to celebrate a Creation Sunday rather than an Evolution Sunday]. Of course, 2009 was the so-called Year of Darwin, being both the 200th birthday of Charles Darwin and the 150th anniversary of the publication of Origins, so evolutionists went rabid over their promotion of evolution and compromising clergymen went out of their way to display their fealty to evolutionism over the historical reliability of God’s revealed Word. That said, the spike in participants was rather expected.

Evolution Weekend 2010′s advertised number of partipants dwindled to 861 congregations.

As of this writing, only 406 congregations are slated to participate in Evolution Weekend 2011. It may be a little early to celebrate, but we praise God for this waxing interest in promoting evolution from our very pulpits! It is our hope and prayer that Evolution Weekend and the pro-evolution Clergy Letter Project will continue to diminish in popularity. Unfortunately, BioLogos and other Christian organizations are picking up this atheist’s torch and are mounting an active campaign to teach clergymen, Sunday school teachers, Christian educators and home educators that God used evolution to create the world in far more than 6 literal, historical days. This compromise places a fossil record of death, suffering, cancer, thorns and mutation before Adam’s s.in, though the revealed Word of God clearly states that death is the result of man’s sin (Romans 5:12-19; 1 Corinthians 15:21-22).

As always, CreationLetter.com urges churches to celebrate a Creation Sunday rather than Zimmerman’s Evolution Sunday.

If your church is not hosting a Creation Sunday celebration and you’d like to attend one this Feb. 13, 2011 in your area to show your support of the Biblical doctrine of Creation, feel free to browse this list of advertised celebrations. Simply click on the link to find out more aboout your event.

Please note that we also list events taking place for the whole of Creation Weekend 2011 [Feb 11-13]; however, if the event takes place on a day other than Creation Sunday [Feb 13], it will be specifically notated [ie - all events listed take place on Feb 13th unless otherwise indicated].

If your church IS hosting a Creation Sunday celebration, please let us know at http://creationsunday.wordpress.com so we can add your church to this list!

United States

• Hebron, IN - Dr Terry Mortenson at Emmanuel Baptist Church
• Terre Haute, IN - Answers in Genesis video conference
• Glendive, MT - Dr Jobe Martin at the Dawson County High School Auditorium
• Hickory, NC – Rev Jeff Setzer at Tabernacle Christian School cafeteria [Sat, Feb 12]
• Iron Station, NC – Rev Jeff Setzer at New Grace Baptist
• Liberty Township, OH – Dr Tommy Mitchell at Liberty Heights Church
• Edmond, OK – Dr G Thomas Sharp at Fairview Baptist Church
• Johnson City, TN – Ken Ham & Dr Jason Lisle at Freedom Hall
• Johnson City, TN – Ken Ham at Heritage Baptist Church

Canada

• Simcoe, Ontario – Calvin Smith & Steve Lachonas at Emmanuel Bible Church

United Kingdom

• Diss, Norfolk – Paul Garner at Diss Baptist Church

CreationLetter.com and Operation: Wittenberg are urging you to make 2011 the Year of Taking the Bible Seriously. This year commemorates not only the 400th anniversary of the King James Bible, but also the 50th anniversary of the The Genesis Flood by Morris and Whitcomb, the book that rebooted the orthodox belief in a young Earth and a worldwide Noachain Flood, providing both Biblical and scientific support to the historical veracity of Genesis.

So we’re asking you to do 5 things this Creation Sunday.

[1] Post the Genesis Declaration and the first eleven chapters of Genesis to your church door this Creation Sunday and dedicate that worship service to dedicate the entire year of 2011 to the ultimate authority of God’s Word. Martin Luther nailed his 95 Theses to the Wittenberg Church door to protest the excesses and compromises of his day. We’d like to launch a New Reformation to protest the Biblical compromise of our age.

[2] Provide your congregation with solid teaching on Scripture and Biblical science by using our free 13-week Defending Genesis church bulletin inserts. Start using these inserts the very day you post the Genesis Declaration to your door! These bulletin inserts are like a crsh course in Biblical Creationism and Catastrophism and will arm your church against the compromises of millions of years and evolution.

[3] Celebrate a Creation Sunday this February 13, 2011 rather than atheist Dr Michael Zimmerman’s proposed Evolution Sunday! If your church, school or group is hosting a Creation event during Creation Weekend [Feb 11-13], let uhow their support.ss know at http://creationsunday.wordpress.com/add-your-creation-sunday-celebration/ and we’ll add your event to our Creation Sunday Celebration Locator so like-minded Christians in your area can also

[4] Get involved in spreading the word. Join our Creation Sunday cause on facebook at http://causes.com/creationsunday and tell your friends.

[5] If you haven’t already, we encourage you [especially if you're a member of clergy!] to add your name to the Creation Letter, affirming the historical reliability of literal Creation Week and a worldwide Flood.

Make 2011 a year dedicated to the ultimate authority of the Bible, God’s revealed Word.

God bless you and Stay in the Word,

Rev Tony Breeden