Tag Archives: Charles Darwin

Bill Lockwood: Foundation of True Science 0 (0)

Posted on by One comment

by Bill Lockwood

Christians need to recognize the foundational importance of the Bible’s doctrine of Creation.  It is not a periphery issue, but is in reality the basis of the Bible as well as true science as well.  How is the case that the Bible’s doctrine of creation is the foundation of true science?

First, scientific investigation is based upon the concept of rationality.  Rationality is simply drawing the conclusions as warranted by the evidence.  That is, the law of correct thinking.  But what is “correct thinking” if atheism and its doctrine of spontaneous generation is true?  If reason is just a physical sensation … there is no reason for the atheist or evolutionist to say that he is using his mind and the theist is not.  Matter in motion would have produced in the atheist his atheistic arguments and matter in motion would have produced in the theist his faith in theism.  There is no reason why one should be accepted as the true insight into reality over the other.  Atheism or evolutionism gives us no confidence that it could possibly be the true insight into reality.

Second, scientists admit that the foundations of true science are found in a Christian world-view. Stanley Beck, an evolutionist writing in Bioscience (1982), confessed that the basic premises of science find their foundation or origin in Christian theology.  That is to say, that since the world was created by a divine Creator and man was created in God’s image, therefore nature makes orderly sense, man is able to decipher its operations, and true science becomes possible.  If the world, on the other hand, was a mere product of jumbled masses of atoms and our brains were nothing more than jumbles of matter and electrical impulses, science itself becomes nonsense.

Third, some evolutionists confess that given evolution (as opposed to Creation), man has no free moral choice.  William Provine, who died in 2015, was a professor in the Department of ecology and Evolutionary Biology at the distinguished Cornell University, lectured at the University of Tennessee in Knoxville in 1998. His remarks included the following: “Naturalistic evolution has clear consequences that Charles Darwin understood perfectly. 1) No gods worth having exist; 2) No life after death exists; 3) No ultimate foundation for ethics exists; 4) No ultimate meaning in life exists; and 5) Human free will is non-existent.” Provine spent the balance of his time discussing “free will” because he noted “the first 4 implications are so obvious to modern naturalistic evolutionists that I will spend little time defending them.”

Provine was exactly right, given his naturalistic premises. There would be no such thing as free will if the general theory of evolution is true. These considerations alone ought cause professors of science today to rethink commitment to the ungodly doctrine of evolution. Creation gives man his only basis for True Science. 

Bill Lockwood: The Religion of Evolution 0 (0)

Posted on by Leave a comment
The Religion of Evolution- “Either God or Evolution.”

by Bill Lockwood

Evolutionists, who believe that man’s origin can be explained by the theory that he has “evolved” from lower forms of life, frequently charge Bible believers with clutching an unfounded “faith” in God and Jesus Christ. This is ironic. Considering the fact that Bible faith is grounded upon historical evidence (Heb. 11:1) and it is the evolutionist who takes giant leaps into the dark, believing what he wishes without support of evidence, it is amazing that the evolutionary theory has become the modern cultural myth in the same vein as ancient legends.  This cultural myth is the modernist religion.

First, many evolutionists classify their own theories as religious faith equaling a myth. In 1925 Louis T. More said, “The more one studies paleontology the more certain one becomes that evolution is based upon faith alone; exactly the same sort of faith which it is necessary to have when one encounters the great mysteries of religion” (Quoted by Bales, 1976, p. 47).

Philip Johnson, in his devastating review of Darwinism, wrote,

The continual efforts to base a religion or ethical system upon the evolution are not an aberration, and practically all the most prominent Darwinist writers have tried their hand at it. Darwinist evolution is an imaginative story about who we are and where we came from, which is to say it is a creation myth. (1991, p. 133)

Second, evolution as admitted to be only a theory, not a fact. This is not parallel to the Bible’s definition of faith, but it is parallel to the modern misconception of biblical faith in the minds of unbelievers. Michael Denton, an Australian molecular biologist, observed, “Darwin’s model of evolution is still very much a theory and till very much in doubt … it is impossible to verify by experiment or direct observation as is normal in science.”

Again, Denton wrote,

Ultimately the Darwinian theory of evolution is no more nor less than the great cosmogenic myth of the twentieth century. Like the Genesis based cosmology it replaced, and like the creation myths of ancient man, it satisfies the same deep psychological need for an all embracing explanation for the origin of the world which has motivated all the cosmogenic myth-makers of the past …” (1985, p. 358)

If this is not shocking enough, consider what one hardened atheist/evolutionist proposed as to the origin of life.

Perhaps the primordial atom that then exploded was but an episode in the eternal (and perhaps cyclical) career of matter/energy. Possibly the super-sensuous first cause created that atom just before it blew up. Perhaps the primordial atom cane into existence spontaneously, i.e., out of nothingness without any cause (acausally), or perhaps it was self-created, whatever that might mean when applied to a primordial atom bent on exploding. (1993, p. 135).

Each of McKown’s alternatives is very unscientific! This is the material of which myths are made when one is “bent” on refusing to consider that an all-powerful God created the universe.

Third, some evolutionists even propose a god—after their own will. Consider Philip Johnson’s observation regarding Francis Crick. Crick is a Nobel prize winning scientist, a co-discoverer of DNA. Crick toyed with the idea of panspermia—the notion that life was “seeded” upon the earth in the long ago by alien space creatures.

Crick would be scornful of any scientist who gave up on scientific research and ascribed the origin of life to a supernatural Creator. But directed panspermia amounts to the same thing. The same limitations that made it impossible for the extra-terrestrials to journey to earth will make it impossible for scientists ever to inspect their planet … Those who are tempted to ridicule directed panspermia should restrain themselves, because Crick’s extra-terrestrials are not more invisible than the universe of ancestors that earth-bound Darwinists have to invoke. (1981, p. 110-11).

Not only have scientist seriously suggested panspermia, but Darwin himself clothes the process of “natural selection” with the qualities and attributes of an intelligent, creative being such as a “process” that “scrutinizes”, “rejects,” and “preserves.”

Fourth, evolution even proposes miracles—just as long as God is not the miracle-worker. Richard Dawkins, an outspoken atheistic evolutionist, has argued that “an apparently (to ordinary human consciousness) miraculous theory is EXACLTY the kind of theory we should be looking for in the particular matter of the origin of life.”

Jacques Monod, an ardent evolutionist of yesteryear, described the “origin of the genetic code” as the major problem for evolutionists. “Indeed, it is not so much a problem as a veritable enigma” he mused. Thomas H. Huxley, who vociferously defended Darwinism, said he believed that “There is no absurdity in theology so great that you cannot parallel it by a greater absurdity in Nature” (Life and Letters, I:259).

Francis Crick frankly admitted that “An honest man, armed with all the knowledge available to us now, could only state that in some sense, the origin of life appears at the moment to be almost a miracle, so many are the conditions which would have had to have been satisfied to get it going.”

The famous late American astronomer and naturalist Carl Sagan said, …the discovery of life on one other planet—e.g. Mars—can, in the words of the American physicist Philip Morrison, of the Massachusetts Institute of Technology, ‘transform the origin of life from a miracle to a statistic’ (1977, p. 358).

Michael Denton concludes his work mentioned above with a notice of such admissions as Sagan offered with this,

The complexity of the simplest known type of cell is so great that it is impossible to accept that such an object could have been thrown together suddenly by some kind of freakish, vastly improbable event. Such an occurrence would be indistinguishable from a miracle. (p. 264)

Fifth, evolutionary theory requires an unfounded type of “faith” in order for one to accept it. Robert Jastrow admits as much.

There is a kind of religion in science; it is the religion of a person who believes there is order and harmony in the Universe, and every event can be explained in a rational way as the product of some previous event … This religious faith of the scientist is violated by the discovery that the world had a beginning under conditions in which the known laws of physics are not valid … (1978, p, 111-12)

Sixth, one scientist described what he called a “baptism” for those who accept evolution. That scientist was W.R. Thompson who called evolution a “fairy tale for adults.” The baptism to which he referred was the “baptism of ignorance” in which theorems rise to walk in language of “fact.”

Seventh, evolutionists maintain a creed. James Bales, long-time professor at Harding University, observed,

Since it is admitted that it has not been scientifically established, and since it is admitted that drastic changes have often taken place in these fields of study which supposedly sustain evolution, one would think that the majority of evolutionists would not be so strongly wedded to the hypothesis. However, they are and many of the bow down before the sacred cow of evolution and recite the creed: ‘I believe. My faith is the substance of fossils and other evidence which are but hoped for, and the evidence of descent which is not seen in the fossil record, the record in living nature, or the record in the lab. And yet, I do believe that the forces of nature which are now working produced results in the past which we cannot prove they are producing today. I believe in attributing to nature whatever power is necessary in order for nature to do everything which is required to create through evolution. (p. 53)

Eighth, one leading evolutionist of a century ago characterized teachers of evolution as priests. Paul LeMoine, one of the editors of the French Encyclopedia, was he who made that characterization. “Evolution is a sort of dogma in which the priests no longer believe that they maintain for their people (1937, in Bales, 1976).

Ninth, evolutionists practice their own conversion. As a matter of fact, all evolutionists, humanists, atheists, agnostics, and other classes of unbelievers, advocate their views so ardently so as to convert the unsuspecting. Those whom they seek primarily to convert are Christians and those who believe in the biblical account of Creation. This is because the “existence of an intelligent Creator is the only alternative to belief in life being created by matter and physical laws alone” (Taylor, 1991, p. 76).

There is no third alternative. Either God or evolution. However, the concept that of these two choices we have options between a “religious faith” and “science” is a mammoth-sized mistake. Both involve religious faith, but only one has any historical footing—God’s Book, the Bible.

James D. Bales, Evolution and the Scientific Method, 1976.

Francis Crick, Life Itself, 1981.

Michael Denton, Evolution, A Theory in Crisis, 1985.

Robert Jastrow, God and the Astronomers, 1978.

Philip Johnson, Darwin on Trial, 1991.

Delos McKown, The Myth-Maker’s Magic, 1993.

Carl Sagan, Intelligent Life in the Universe, 1977.

Paul S. Taylor, The Origins Answer Book, 1991.

Scientific Socialism 0 (0)

Posted on by Leave a comment
Scientific Socialism– “This labeling became a weapon.“

by Bill Lockwood

One of the lesser remembered items regarding communism is that Karl Marx, the founder of modern forms of communism, dubbed it Scientific Socialism. Marxism, as a philosophy, was claimed by Marx to be “scientific.” This label was habitually used by him “to distinguish himself from his many enemies. He and his work were ‘scientific,’ they were not” (Paul Johnson, Intellectuals). This labeling became a weapon. With the seeming onslaught of socialism engulfing America today, we would do well to learn the lesson of “labeling.”

Karl Marx

First, by expressing his theory as “scientific socialism” Marx was expressing his kinship with Charles Darwin’s theory of evolution. “He felt he had found a scientific explanation of human behavior in history akin to Darwin’s theory of evolution.” However, just as today, Darwin’s theory was the unprovable thesis that began on the assumed premise that the explanation of the world had nothing to do with God. Communism begins and ends with atheism. This goes a long way in explaining how American culture has changed into an irreligious one.

After reading Darwin’s Origin of the Species, Karl Marx wrote to Friedrich Engels. “Although developed in a coarse English manner, this is the book that contains the foundation in natural history for our view” (Quoted by Richard Weikart, From Darwin to Hitler, Evolutionary Ethics, Eugenics, and Racism in Germany).

As pointed out by Weikart, “many pacifists, feminists, birth control advocates, and homosexual rights activists … were enthusiastic Darwinists and used Darwinian arguments to support their political and social agenda.” Darwinism, like Marxism, is an entire worldview. As German biologist Arnold Dodel stated in in 1904, Darwinism is a “new worldview” which actually “rests on the theory of evolution. On it we have to construct a new ethics … All values will be revalued.”

Magnetic Pull

Second, to label Marxism “science” exerted a “magnetic pull” on the intellectual class of the United States which had already rejected a God-centered worldview. Many Americans, from the Civil War period forward, adopted a materialistic view of the world. This included President Woodrow Wilson, who was himself a “historical materialist.” This notion basically states that material conditions alone determine the course of history. Man’s spiritual nature is excluded from consideration. This concept appealed to elitists such as Wilson who was bred in the halls of higher education. It appealed to their vanity.

As a matter of fact, Darwin’s theory of evolution was and is at the bottom of the entire “progressive” movement—which is nothing less than socialism. This doctrine of “historicism,” Wilson’s faith, is described as the evolutionary theory applied to history and politics (Ronald J. Pestritto, Woodrow Wilson and the Roots of Modern Liberalism). This, in turn, was rooted in Hegel’s philosophy; precisely the scholastic who influenced Karl Marx. There is little difference between Marx’s dialectic, which he borrowed from Hegel while emphasizing that economic conditions of men determine the course of man’s development and Wilson’s historicism, which posited that history must run a predetermined materialistic course and one cannot transcend one’s historical environment (Pestritto). For Marx, all of reality was framed in “economics”; for Wilson, all of reality was framed in the historical time-frame from which one could not escape.

All of this is simply materialism—there is no reality beyond the material world—but labeling it “scientific” gave it an air of snobbish superiority. After all, once one sides with the “infallibility” of “science,” the “theories” spawned in those halls are beyond review by the rest of us ordinaries.

Ironically, Marx was anything but a scientist. He not only was temperamentally unfit to be a scientist, for there was nothing scientific about him, but in a “deeper sense he was not really a scholar at all.” Marx was not interested in finding truth, but merely in proclaiming theories whether they squared with reality or not (Johnson, 54).

Marx, along with his fellow communists, were only interested in devising weapons for building a totalitarian dictatorship and for “fomenting unrest and ill will between man and man everywhere in the world.” And wherever class warfare rages there is the hobgoblin of communism—scientific socialism.

Joseph Campbell: New Age Rage 0 (0)

Posted on by Leave a comment

Joseph Campbell: New Age Rage- “…God is “only a thought”– not a reality.”

by Bill Lockwood

For those who wonder how it is that our culture is imploding, they need look no further than the New Age religious hodge-podge that is being promoted at the University campus level. For example, flatly rejecting, even ridiculing biblical concepts such as the resurrection of the dead as a “clown act,” the late New Age guru Joseph Campbell gives us his picture of a purposeless world in which everyone is simply to follow “their own bliss.” “I don’t believe life has a purpose. Life is a lot of protoplasm with an urge to reproduce and continue in being.”

With degrees from Columbia University Campbell later taught at Sarah Lawrence College. He had grown up as a Roman Catholic in New York but recounts his “conversion” experience to an anti-Christian worldview as occurring as a boy when he visited the Museum of Natural History. Captivated by “Native American mythology” he ironically bought into the Greatest of All American Myths—the general theory of evolution which posits that man evolved from lower life forms. “Science” made a “housecleaning of his religious beliefs.”

Using the unproved and unprovable Darwinian template Campbell utilizes this scenario and places it upon religious development as well. “Monotheism is an evolutionary development from polytheism” is the professor’s idea. Historical data that disproves this nonsense is simply dismissed. Irrationality is enthroned with no apology. This, of course, means a complete repudiation of the Bible which then became Campbell’s primary object of scorn. No wonder that Newsweek reviewed Campbell as one of the “rarest of intellectuals in American life; a serious thinker who has been embraced by the popular culture.”

Embracing Gnosticism

Gnostics of the early centuries of Christianity fabricated numerous texts which espoused their paganistic worldview. Texts that they composed, such as the “Secret Book of James” or “The Secret Book of John” promote a godless experiential concept such as that Jesus did not really die on the cross as people supposed but was laughing “in space” above the cross. Current “scholars” such as Elaine Pagels, who have long ago rejected the inspiration of the Bible, have swooned over these self-conflicting anonymous texts. Salvation is to be found only by mystical “self-knowledge.”

Go back into ancient history where honoring of the “goddess” was practiced, declares Pagels and Campbell. Throw rational logical thinking out the window and get in touch the “god inside of you” exults Campbell. So taught the drug-induced hippies of the sixties. But the modern New Ager preaches the identical nonsense without mind-altering substances. Practically every Gnostic theme of yesteryear is repeated by Joseph Campbell.

New Age

New Age themes run rampant throughout Campbell’s writings. “Satan is god;” “Get in touch with the god inside of you;” the “vegetable world is conscious;” Get back in touch with nature; worship Gaia; our bodies are actually part of the goddess Gaia; one can never know the truth—any truth; heaven is “within you;” the Apocryphal Book of John of the Nag Hammadi “Scriptures” reveals the real account of Jesus’ life; denial of evil; God is “only a thought”– not a reality; You are God!; Let’s all worship the earth; God is wicked because he invented hell—and many other such blasphemous nonsensical assertions are lodged by Campbell.

Relativistic Self-Contradictions

One of the interesting aspects of those who reject the Bible is the fact that most of them sooner or later commit hari-kari in their thinking processes. The broadest-based example of this, demonstrated continually in The Power of Myth with Bill Moyers and in The Hero With a Thousand Faces, Campbell not only continually contradicts himself with wild assertions, but commits the serious fallacy of supposing that commonality proves borrowing. The Egyptian god Osiris supposedly died and was resurrected; Jesus is said to have died and resurrected; therefore they both are myths and Christianity is assumed to have borrowed the tale from the common mythology of the world. Assertions, assertions, assertions.

Campbell strategically ignores the fact that the Bible is amply demonstrated historically as well as examining the concept of fulfilled prophecies. Ancient pagan cultural myths do not even pretend to do this. But to New Agers, logical lapses seem to make little difference.

What Campbell refuses to do is to come to grips with the fact that the New Testament never purports to be a mere book of ethics or stories, but is good news bound up in the historical order rooted deeply in the historical narratives presented. What distinguishes Christianity from the rest of the world’s religions and philosophical systems is that it purports to be an actual historical record and it is verifiable at thousands of points as it intersects with secular records and archaeology. The New Testament documents are historically reliable and are doubtlessly authentic.

Can One Know the Truth?

Dogmatically railing against Christianity as “exclusivistic,” Campbell tells us that all religions, including Christianity, are merely subjective thoughts of adherents. If all religious philosophies are merely subjective opinions of men whose minds are nothing more than “excreting protoplasm,” as Campbell says he believes, how can he label one of those opinions—Christianity—as a “clown act” and wholly wrong?

If Campbell is right, he could never have discovered it nor could he have ever labeled one of those systems as illogical. “The person who thinks he has found the ultimate truth is wrong” pronounces Campbell. Is that statement of wrongness true? If so, how did he discover it seeing that his brain, by his own admission, is nothing more than moving protoplasm? In truth, even Campbell appeals to ultimate reality when seeking to slay Christianity.

Such is the plight of all those who have become infatuated with New Ageism. They may speak of peace and harmony and “oneness with the universe”—but they rage against the religion of Jesus Christ. Refusing to recognize the historical evidences of New Testament Christianity, New Agers throw correct thinking out the window of their minds and float into a make-believe world of Nirvana.

Socialism: The Devil’s Gospel 0 (0)

Posted on by Leave a comment

Socialism: The Devil’s Gospel- “Our society seems to be going the way of all the earth—in a hand-basket…”

by Bill Lockwood

Genuine biblical principles of Christianity are frequently corrupted when the ill-informed blend deviant concepts with them. The resulting combination usually is more fatal than bald error because people are more willing, perhaps innocently, to adopt the hybrid. They cannot see the underlying fallacy. For example, the simple biblical teaching of creation is soiled by those who wish to mix with it the general theory of evolution. The result? Theistic Evolution. In the same vein, naturalistic theories of mankind have spoiled the pure sterling fundamentals of giving resulting in socialism. Consider both of these dangerous hybrids, emphasizing the latter.

Evolution

Charles Darwin, the popularizer of the theory of evolution, wrote to his evangelist, T.H. Huxley, on August 8, 1860. Referring to the general theory of evolution he said, “My good and kind agent for the propagation of the Gospel—i.e., the devil’s gospel” (Francis Darwin, Editor, Life and Letters of Charles Darwin, 1898, II, p. 124). As a scientist Darwin thought he knew, through the theory of evolution, all about life’s forms and particularly its origins. For the philosophy of evolution endeavors to explain the universe, our solar system, life’s origin and its manifold forms, the past, the present, the future, morality, and society in terms of natural processes. Consistent evolutionism erases the supernatural and explains all in terms of the natural.

As Bert Loewenberg put it: “Once a man was swept into the evolutionary orbit, the logic of science became applicable to all forms of human activity. The logic of science applied not only to rocks but to animals, not only to animals but to man. Hence the logic of science and the dynamics of evolution applied to mind, to morals, and to society. This was the Darwinian revolution. It was not a revolution in science alone; it was a revolution in man’s conception of himself and his works” (Darwinism: Reaction or Reform?)

Due to the influence of evolution, even the biblical teaching of mankind, as made in the image of God, was re-created into the humanistic model of a mere matter-machine that reacts, not to ideas and doctrines, but to mere physical pressures. “The Devil’s Gospel.” Medicate the man with chemicals, but certainly do not hold persons accountable for their actions.

Socialism

The political left is all about “Social Justice.” What exactly is Social Justice? Putting it most succinctly, the National Association of Scholars says the term is understood to mean the “advocacy of egalitarian access to income through state-sponsored redistribution.” Egalitarianism means that all outcomes will be equal. The wealthy need be less so. Families in poverty need to share in the former’s wealth. This is to be accomplished through the all-powerful state. After all, property is not to be privately acquired or owned but should be the commonwealth of all.

Now we know why the Al Sharpton’s of the world blame “the system” for the deaths of people like Michael Brown, the thug who was the catalyst for the Ferguson, MO riots. This he did at the Brown funeral. Sharpton is preaching the Devil’s Gospel of Socialism.

Socialism is constructed upon two main pillars. One, the collective ownership of goods and properties; and Two, that human behavior is solely determined by what one owns or is able to “access” in a society. Improvement of society therefore is tied to material possessions and the “collective ownership” concept justifies the strong arm of government making this happen.

How is this in reality “The Devil’s Gospel” of materialism? Because it causes man to look outside of himself and to blame others (or society) for his problems and ignore personal sin. Materialists and socialists therefore love to harangue the “injustices” of the system. However, the root cause, the heart of man out of which are determined the issues of life, is left unnoticed.

This is like a drug addict who blames the drug dealer for his problem or blames the system that has not removed drugs from society. The missing ingredient in this diagnosis is the all-important one: Personal Responsibility or Personal Behavior. Our society seems to be going the way of all the earth—in a hand-basket—and the Al Sharpton’s of the world are pleased to dither in false diagnoses.

But he is not alone. Even the National Council of Churches majors in the “devil’s diagnosis” of materialism by demanding a re-distribution of goods and services all across the spectrum of America. That the purity of God-inspired free-will giving has been confused with socialism of the first order by the National Council of Churches as well as other religious institutions and individuals who name the name of Jesus Christ, it does not speak well of our understanding of biblical principles.

Government re-distribution of America’s resources, even to non-citizens of America, is in reality The Devil’s Gospel of Socialism. Government thievery with the veneer of Christianity. Nothing to do with the Bible. At least Donald Trump sees this much.

Divine Science: Why Christians Should Be Involved in Politics 0 (0)

Posted on by Leave a comment

Divine Science: Why Christians Should Be Involved in Politics- “Plainly put, politics is not simply about who has what or enjoys what. ”

by Bill Lockwood

Multitudes of Christians seem to be far too-short sighted when it comes to understanding the implications of their own faith. Especially is this the case regarding how the principles of God work themselves out in the affairs of men. For example, biblical teaching of God’s creation eliminates any compromise with evolutionary theories that dominate the educational system. Not only are there bold contradictions between them, but both creationism and evolutionary theory are expressions of an entire world view. There are also principles involved in each which are at cross-purposes with the other.

Yet, many there are who name the name of Christ but also wish to honor the name of Charles Darwin. Sad is the state of the complacent Christian mind that does not recognize the disconnect and even contradiction between these or thinks it not substantial enough to “give answer” to designed assaults against its worldview (see 2 Pet. 3:15).

Exactly so pertaining governing concepts or the polity in a society. Too many Christians have been fooled so as to consider the realm of politics to be divorced from any religious or biblical principle. “These are two different realms and never the twain shall meet,” seems to be the motto. The exact opposite is the case. As Founding Father John Adams instructed, “The foundation of every government is some principle or passion in the minds of the people. The noblest principles and most generous affections in our nature, then, have the fairest chance to support the noblest and most generous models of government.”  Adams recognized the plain simple fact that there are only two basic worldviews. One, theism; Two, atheism.

In spite of the many subsets that may be offered of the two basic worldviews– whether pagan, polytheism, socialism, fascism, communism—all fall neatly into two categories; Theism or Atheism. Every form of governance, be it the United Nations or the United States of America, or any other political organization, is an offspring of one of these two philosophies. Governments are the outworking of principles that flow from a God-centered worldview or a Naturalistic worldview.

Divine Science of Politics

The above is the very reason why a host of the founding generation sacrificed their fortunes to serve in politics. John Adams even described “politics” by the well-known phrase divine science. “Politics are the divine science, after all. How is it possible that any man should ever think of making it subservient to his own little passions and private interests? Ye baseborn sons of fallen Adam, is the end of politics a fortune, a family, a gilded coach, a train of horses, and a troop of livery servants, balls at Court, splendid dinners and suppers? Yet the divine science of politics is at length in Europe reduced to a mechanical system composed of these materials.”

Plainly put, politics is not simply about who has what or enjoys what. It involves whether or not God has bestowed upon man certain rights and whether or not we are enabled by God Almighty to construct any formulation government to protect those rights based upon those principles. This alone explains why Adams thusly wrote, “What is to become of an independent statesman, one who will bow the knee to no idol, who will worship nothing as a divinity but truth, virtue, and his country? I will tell you; he will be regarded more by posterity than those who worship hounds and horses; and although he will not make his own fortune, he will make the fortune of his country.”

What Adams realized, and what is surprisingly so lacking today in the churches and pulpits, is a cross-examination of the basic principles behind prevailing winds of political doctrine.

Illustrations

The American Revolution. As illustrative of these basic concepts one might consider the difference between the American Revolution and the French Revolution. John Quincy Adams explains that they were “actuated upon very different principles” (Forward to Frederick Gentz; The American and French Revolutions Compared, iv). Our American “principles of religious liberty did not result of indiscriminate contempt of all religion whatever.”

“The essential difference between these two great events, in their rise, their progress, and their termination, is here shown in various lights … A modern philosopher may contend that the sheriff, who executes a criminal, and a highwayman, who murders a traveler, act upon the same principles; the plain sense of mankind will see the difference between them …”

Either Christian principles are at work in society or not. The French Revolution proved, at least in France, they were not. The American Revolution ended in a very different place, precisely because of differing principles.

Communism. Writing with reference to the worldviews of Communism versus Christianity, Lester DeKoster observes, “The American Declaration of Independence is the last significant political document which attributed human freedom to a superhuman force. Its immediate successor, the French Declaration of the Rights of Men, its title betraying already the shift of emphasis, ignores the Creator; and fifty years later, the Communist Manifesto sneers at Him” (Communism and Christian Faith).

Like it or not, both communism and socialism are the out-workings of religious principles. For a modern counterpart to the French Declaration one might peruse the United Nations’ Declaration of Rights and be enlightened on the very different principles that inspired America.

Socialism. The philosophy of socialism is a competing worldview with Christianity. In the Encyclopedia of Religion Vergilius Ferm writes, “American socialism is heir to the tradition of materialism and atheism. It relies on the growth of automatic perfection, not indeed by virtue and the given faculties of man, but as the product of causally inevitable economic changes. The result is parallel to that of the liberal utopia …this is an overtly anti-Christian doctrine” (720).

Socialism is “an anti-Christian doctrine.” It is a matter of no little concern that hardened atheists such as Karl Marx, who popularized a socialist state through The Communist Manifesto, readily recognized that his mandates for government were a direct thrust against the God of the Bible. Materialistic philosophy was a bold and direct repudiation of a God-centered and biblical worldview and so it continues today.

For the same reason the early 20th century Swiss socialist-theologian Karl Barth came to a crisis point in his faith. Having bound himself to the eternal “progress” of man, he had a re-thinking in the wake of World War I. Either man was continuing onward and upward in an evolutionary trajectory as taught by his utopian socialism; or man was a creature made in God’s image whose fallen state demanded governing principles of a different sort. It was all about religion.

What a person believes about mankind, about the future, and about God, has everything to do with how he will behave in the present. That includes what kind of governing principles we will own upon which to operate a society. Call it politics or civic society or whatever, but the administrative concepts which govern decisions at a local and national level are religious in nature. If Christians remain unaware of the implications of their own belief-system, little shall we expect them to “give an answer” to the political assaults that arise from atheistic socialism. Even Donald Trump cannot change this.

Richard Dawkins Cannot Live with His Own Theory 0 (0)

Posted on by Leave a comment

Richard Dawkins Cannot Live with His Own Theory

by Bill Lockwood

With all the authoritarian haughtiness of a religious priest he claims to despise, evolutionist Richard Dawkins publicly rebukes Republican presidential candidate Ben Carson for his belief in Creationism. As unbridled arrogance does to every heart in which it resides, Dawkins cannot see that the worldview which he champions logically disallows such criticisms. If Dawkins is right that naturalistic evolution is a fact then Carson can no more help himself from arriving at his conclusions than a rock rolling down a hill can freely choose to stop rolling.

Interview on CNN

Dawkins was recently interviewed on CNN by Fareed Zakaria. Reflecting upon Creationists generally and Dr. Ben Carson specifically, he lamented: “This fills me with despair. This is not something you believe in or not. I mean, this is a fact. It is a fact. It’s just as much of a fact as the Earth goes around the Sun. You can’t not believe it unless you’re ignorant.” Dawkins could barely contain himself. After adding how “deeply depressing” was this situation, he continued: “I mean, that’s a disgrace. … [F]or a very senior eminent distinguished doctor as he is to say that is even worse. Because of course, evolution is the bedrock of biology and biology is the bedrock of medicine.” “He clearly doesn’t understand the fundamental theorem of his own subject,” he continued. “That is a terrible indictment.”

This is mild-mannered Dawkins. The Oxford professor had this to say in 1989 regarding the ‘Ben Carsons’ and creationists of the world: “It is absolutely safe to say that if you meet somebody who claims not to believe in evolution, that person is ignorant, stupid, or insane (or wicked, but I’d rather not consider that).”

Filled with Despair?

Why should the professor be filled with despair? The “Fundamental theorem of his own subject” (evolution) is that matter in motion is the sole reality. We must assume that he understands its implications—unless the “terrible indictment” falls upon his own head. What is that fundamental theorem of matter in motion? Everything in the universe has strictly material origins and is explained solely on mechanistic grounds.

For example, Thales, the ancient Greek philosopher, sought to explain natural phenomena without recourse to “the gods.” His oversimplification was apparently that everything is composed solely of water. This extreme position differs not from the Dawkins’ of the world who propound the theory that everything is reducible to chemistry and all motions are explained by mechanics. It is a philosophical assumption of what Elton Trueblood called the “Nothing But …” theory.

Therefore, per Dawkins’ own system, which eliminates everything except “matter in motion,” thought processes in the brain are explained by the same assumptions. Logic and reasoning have nothing to do with anyone’s beliefs. Why then, be frustrated or filled with despair, Richard Dawkins? The movement of atoms in Carson’s brain are no more responsible for the electrical impulse called “Creation” any more than the movement of grey matter in yours can help becoming an evolutionist.

And all of this time you supposed evolutionary theory was based upon scientific fact to which all reasonable minds must come! No, no. The only way to change the functioning of a mechanistic machine such as the brain is to either bang it on the head or add different chemicals. I guess in the end Dawkins’ despair and frustration with Creationists is to be explained on the same basis. No reasoning. No rational conclusions drawn from evidence. Just chemicals squirting through the labyrinths of grey matter in the Dawkins cranium. He cannot help it. Does Richard Dawkins ‘understand the fundamental theorem of his own subject?’ Apparently not.

Back to Homepage

Homosexuality is Not Genetic 0 (0)

Posted on by Leave a comment

Homosexuality is Not Genetic

by Bill Lockwood

There is no “gay gene.” As much as the anti-religious crowd dislikes that fact and in spite of the cultural pressure to discover some biological factor that is responsible for homosexual behavior, no “gay gene” has been found. At a recent 2015 meeting of the American Society of Genetics scientists presented their “gene-based algorithm” which supposedly could predict male homosexuality with 70 percent accuracy.

But as Yasmin Tayag observes in an article entitled, How to Talk about the “Gay Gene” Without Being Homophobic or Wrong, Step one: Don’t Call it a “Gay Gene,” “The scientists from UCLA’s David Geffen School of Medicine discovered that methylation, a form of DNA modification, in certain regions of the genome differed between homosexual and heterosexual identical twin brothers. What they did not find were the elusive ‘gay genes.’”

But Tayag’s headline says it all, doesn’t it? We need to learn “how to talk” about it. No science. No biological fact. Certainly, no Bible. Just cultural instructions on how to address the issue. This reaches back to the restructuring of our language two decades ago when “sexual preference” was politically replaced by “sexual orientation.” The homosexual agenda works off of a high pressure belief-system which molds our anti-God culture from education to entertainment to politics by making it socially incorrect to suggest that homosexuality is a choice that people make. Science comes later, if at all.

Isn’t this exactly how liberalism works? Political pressure for society to conform to its worldview—worry about facts later. Charles Darwin floated the theory of evolution and suggested that science would discover evidence for change in the rocks as time moved forward. “Discovery” mattered little. What was important was that the doctrinaire was altered and it became “out-of-touch” to express an objecting opinion. See also how human-caused Climate Change deniers are being persecuted for being suspicious of political mandates that “the science is in!”

Back to supposed Gene-caused homosexuality.

From the radical left UK blog called The Guardian this recent observation was written by Simon Copland (7-10-15):  “This is the major problem that advocates of a gay gene face. Our sexual desires and ideals change based on our society at any given time. Do proponents of the gay gene believe that those in Ancient Greece … had a greater prevalence of a gay gene than we do today? Do our perceptions of female beauty change over the times because of shifts in the genes of straight men?” “Of course this still doesn’t answer the question of where our sexuality comes from.

When faced with this criticism, proponents of the gay gene ask the question, ‘Why would people choose to be gay in a world where homosexuality is so persecuted?’ We live in a society where non-heterosexual sex is still highly discriminated against, so why are there homosexuals in this world?” Homosexuality is a choice. Further, where in America are homosexuals jailed for their “choice to be gay?” Seems like County Clerks are jailed for Christian beliefs and the military is cracking down on Christian views—certainly not homosexual ones.

Copland, in answer to where sexuality “comes from,” offers: “The answer is complex, and we don’t really know all the factors involved. But look at the current research and you can see that social conditions still play a major role.” I would say “the decisive role” is more like it. Then follows this from Copland, For example, whilst almost all of the focus of research into the gay gene has focused on gay men, research into female sexual desires has continued as well.

In 2006 for example,  HYPERLINK “http://www.csw.ucla.edu/publications/newsletters/academic-year-2006-07/article-pdfs/Dec06_Garnets_Peplau.pdf” Linda Garnets and Anne Peplau presented research they described as a “paradigm shift” into female sexuality. Their research found that women’s sexual orientation is potentially fluid, shaped by life experiences and can change over the course of a life span. Of particular importance they found that female sexual orientation is “shaped by such social and cultural factors as women’s education, social status and power, economic opportunities, and attitudes about women’s roles.”

This pro-homosexual outlet says that sexual “orientation” is due to “attitudes” and “social and cultural factors.” Copland concludes, Where does this leave us? Clearly we do not know how sexuality is created and why some people end up with different sexual desires than others. But if we look at our history it is clear that it is not due to some inherent genetic marker.  HYPERLINK “http://www.latrobe.edu.au/news/articles/2014/opinion/an-evolutionary-view-of-gay-genes”

Jenny Graves at La Trobe University in Australia suggests that what is likely is that both men and women will inherit genetic variants leading to them being “somewhere between very male-loving and very female-loving”. Or, as I would describe it, we have human-loving genes. Homosexuality therefore is not due to genes, but develops, as  HYPERLINK “http://www.theguardian.com/commentisfree/video/2015/apr/22/julie-bindel-i-m-a-lesbian-but-i-wasnt-born-this-way-video” Julie Bindel says, due to “a mix of opportunity, luck, chance, and, quite frankly, bravery.” (emp. added)

As The Guardian put it, “People have searched for centuries to find biological reasons for sexual desires. But what if it all comes down to choice?” Good question. The ramifications of homosexuality being a “choice” are gigantic. From the Supreme Court and flowing through our collegiate classrooms and entertainment industry, America itself has re-structured marriage and therefore our entire society to conform to demands of the homosexual doctrine. But the few pulpits that have remained undaunted by a hedonistic civilization and continue to announce that homosexuality is sinful — and therefore is oriented to choices we make and NOT biology — are nearer the truth than anointed cultural leaders.

Back to Homepage