Creation Is Bad Theology? Answering A Misinformed Editorial at Indiana’s Journal Gazette

Karen Francisco, senior editorial writer for The Journal Gazette, recently wrote an editorial critical of Indiana Senate Bill 89, one of several pro-creation science  bills introduced this year. The article, which you can read here, made several accusations against the bill and against creationism itself. What got my attention was that she accused creation of being bad theology and based that erroneous claim on the Clergy Letter Project!  In fact, she claims elsewhere that “The northeast Indiana ministers who pushed Sen. Dennis Kruse to introduce the bill should read the thoughtful Christian Clergy Letter, signed by 12,786 clergy, including 315 from Indiana.”

Well, that didn’t sit well with me. Once again, the Clergy Letter is being used to enforce the uncritical exclusive teaching of evolution in our public schools. Worse, now someone has the erroneous idea that the Letter’s content actually represents orthodox Christianity, when it is demonstrably otherwise: While the Clergy Letter claims to be representative of “Christian clergy of many different traditions,” upon closer examination they are merely representative of liberal, modernist and feminist traditions. As always, we feel it necessary to note that not everything that calls itself a Christian should be taken at face value. I, for one, should like to contact the signers of the Clergy Letter and ask them whether they believe Jesus Christ actually rose from the dead and whether they believe Jesus is, in fact, the Son of God, these being Biblical tests for a true Christian.  If not, the signatures of these “clergy” are invalid. It should also be noted that Zimmerman has no problem sliding in signatures of Unitarian Universalist, Mormons, Jehovah’s Witnesses, Unity cult members and members of other cults in the “Christian” version of the Clergy Letter.

In any case, I wrote a letter to the editor to correct the misinformation contained in the editorial. Would it surprise you that the have since published several guest editorials and letters to the editor which were friendly to her views while my letter remains unpublished? In fact, to my knowledge, there has not been one single letter of dissent published since Francisco wrote her editorial. Perhaps The Journal Gazette is still getting around to it…

In the meantime, here is my response in its entirety:

“Letter To the Editor[s] of the Journal-Gazette regarding the Jan 31, 2012 editorial “Creationism is bad science”,

A recent editorial printed in this newspaper accused “Northeast Indiana lawmakers experiment with bad science, misguided theology and a violation of constitutional principles in their push for creationism in the classroom” with regard to Senate Bill 89, which ”provides that the governing body of a school corporation may require the teaching of various theories concerning the origin of life, including creation science, within the school corporation.” With due respect, the editorial did not make its case.

 

For example, to support the allegation that SB 89 is scientifically unsound you appeal to Indiana’s current science standards which, as you correctly note,

require students to know that Charles Darwin’s book, “On the Origin of Species,” is supported by “a massive array of biological and fossil evidence.” Would it interest you that, rather than ignoring the scientific evidence proposed for microbes-to-man evolution, creation scientists address those self-same evidences and go on to propose alternate explanations for these observations. The origins isn’t about evidence for we have exactly the same evidence with differing interpretations. Furthermore, it was Darwin himself who noted in the Introduction of Origins the following: “I am well aware that scarcely a single point is discussed in this volume on which facts cannot be adduced, often apparently leading to conclusions directly opposite to those at which I have arrived. A fair result can be obtained only by fully stating and balancing the facts and arguments on both sides of each question.” This fair-minded analysis of the origins argument is precisely what SB 89 seeks to accomplish.

 

More seriously, you allege that this bill would be theologically unsound on the basis of the Clergy Letter Project. Just because men calling themselves clergy have signed the pro-evolution Clergy Letter does not make them representative of Christianity. The Clergy Letter signators include Unitarian Universalists, Unity cult members and liberal mainline clergy, some of whom cannot even affirm a basic tenet of authentic Christian faith: the historical, bodily resurrection of Christ! You may as well get your “sound theology” from the local skeptics society! The signers of the Clergy Letter Project are anything but orthodox representatives of the apostolic “faith once delivered.”

 

Your allegation that this bill is bad for business requires something of a crystal ball. I am prepared to concede that if top researchers in the life sciences are determined more by their ideological commitment to the current consensus of the scientific establishment than their quality of research, then, Yes, Indiana would be in big trouble. Of course, if this is really the state of affairs within modern science somebody owes Cardinal Bellarmine an apology. Whenever science insists that its practitioners adhere to the common consensus, it ceases to be science, for science is tentative, self-correcting and thrives on challenging existing theories.

 

Regarding your final allegation, that this bill violates the Establishment Clause, I do admit that it has been the recent trend of the activist judges to interpret the Establishment Clause as guaranteeing freedom from religion rather than freedom of reliogion; that is, the founders intended the Establishment Clause to protect religion from the influence of the government, not [if we consider the many religious declarations included on our monuments, state charters and other early American documents] to protect the government from the influence of religion. It has also been a recent trend for evolution enforcement organizations such as Americans United, the ACLU, the NCSE, and others, to use what amounts to legal extortion to preserve the exclusive, uncritical teaching of evolutionism in tax payer funded schools. That be as it may, Indiana SB 89 does not violate the Establishment Clause because it does not endorse or support any religion. Rather, it dares to include the consideration of other theories of origins as any valid scientist ought and does not exclude its chief origins science competitor. 

 

Regards,

Rev Tony Breeden

Founder, DefGen.org, CreationLetter.com & CreationSundays.com”

Give Me That Mountain! or Why Caleb Is One of My Favorite People In the Entire Bible

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.

More on Why Creation Is Foundational To Science – Not Evolution

It appears that a post entitled Why Creation Is Foundational To Science – Not Evolution has been the object of some spirited discussion at http://groups.yahoo.com/group/OriginsTalk/message/25760. This article drew attention recently when ScienceAgainstEvolution.org featured CreationLetter.com as their website of the month.

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

CreationLetter.com Featured as ScienceAgainstEvolution.org’s Website of the Month

Today it came to my attention that CreationLetter.com was featured in Disclosure, the monthly newsletter of California-based ScienceAgainstEvolution.org, as the August 2011 Website of the month. Specifically, reviewer Lothar Janetzko honed in on a rather popular article called Why Creation Is Foundational To Science – Not Evolution. Here’s what they had to say:

“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

Zack Kopplin’s Crusade to Insulate Microbes-to-Man Evolutionism from the Self-Correcting Mechanisms of Scientific Inquiry

Recently, atheist Dr. Michael Zimmerman has been giving a lot of press to a young man named Zack Kopplin. Kopplin, a product of the microbes-to-man evolution propaganda machine that is our public educational system, wants to repeal the 2008 Louisiana Science Education Act [LSEA] which encourages critical thinking in science education. Young Mr. Kopplin believes he is doing us a favor, that he is in effect repealing creationism, but this LSEA allows for no such thing, as the following exchange further eloborates upon:

“Mr. Kopplin,

The legislation you’re fighting doesn’t tell anyone they can teach creationism in schools. If some are doing that, then address those who are in violation of Edwards v. Aquillard – don’t toss the baby out with the bath water. The LSEA does teach students to approach science skeptically even if certain theories or models are now widely accepted; geocentrism was widely accepted by scientists in Galileo’s day but skepticism and critical analysis caused it to go the way of phlogiston! By attempting to insulate the theory of microbes-to-man evolution from critical inquiry, you’re actually leaving science and even education far behind. When you insist on presenting fish-to-philosopher evolution in schools in an uncritical, rosy, and one-sided manner, you’re engaging in indoctrination, not education. Instead of teaching science, you’re relating dogma.

It’s hubris to suggest that no one has legally challenged the LSEA because such an act would apparently require an act of martyrdom. No courage is required to initiate something that would only gain you the backing of the major scientific organizations with a presuppositional commitment to microbes-to-man evolution – only thick skin. It hasn’t been challenged because it’s not unConstitutional; it contains specific language to forbid teaching religion. But the Darwin Faithful cannot allow their theory to suffer critical analysis and that’s why folks like you and atheist Dr. Michael Zimmerman fight against a key concepts of the scientific method [skeptical and critical analysis and the non-static nature of scientific knowledge] in order to maintain a High Wall of Protection around the it!

As to your charge that evolution and Christianity are compatible, you could not be more mistaken. Evolutionary views may be imposed upon Scripture but only at the expense of tossing out traditional, apostolic doctrines. In other words, it is not compatible with historical Christianity nor with Biblical revelation. Those who impose evolutionary interpretations upon Scripture must do so by significantly editing Scriptural revelation and therefore by significantly altering Christian doctrine and theology. I’ve exposed the fact that the signatures on atheist Dr Michael Zimmerman’s pro-evolution Clergy Letter are all largely from liberal, mainline denominations who long ago abandoned historical Christianity (some of the “clergy” on his letter do not even meet the basic requirements of a Christian, such as a belief in the historical, physical resurrection of Jesus Christ, and thus are clergy in name only) and from recognized cults like the Unity “church.”

I urge you to stand up for reason, education and science by abandoning this misguided quest to keep science from being taught critically in the classroom. It should not matter in the slightest whether you feel there is a scientific alternative to evolution; if a scientific claim cannot stand up to critical analysis it should be thrown out with phlogiston and geocentrism!

You’re not fighting against creationism, you’re fighting against skeptical scientific inquiry.

Regards,
Rev Tony Breeden
Founder of CreationLetter.com and the Creation Sunday Movement”

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 Contradictory Nature of atheist Dr Michael Zimmerman’s pro-evolution Clergy Letter Project

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

Evolution Weekend: Promoting the Myth of the Compatibility of Evolution and Authentic Christianity

Recently, atheist Dr Michael Zimmerman posted an essay at http://www.patheos.com/Resources/Additional-Resources/Evolution-Sunday-Michael-Zimmerman-2-7-2011.html where he gives his usual propaganda regarding Evolution Weekend as allaeged evidence that there is no real conflict between evolution and true religion. Here was my response:

“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.