Churches celebrating the ‘Year of Darwin’
Compromising churchians in self-destruct mode
by Gary Bates
Photo by Adam Carr, Wikipedia.org
St Paul’s Cathedral, Melbourne
Published: 19 February 2009(GMT+10)
Even before work started in earnest on
CMI’s Darwin Film early in 2008, we predicted (and
cautioned) that there would be much fanfare in 2009 over the double
celebration of Darwin’s birth (200 years ago), and the 150th anniversary
of the publication of his world-changing Origin of Species. And hardly
a day goes by without us being made aware of some pro-Darwin/evolution event being
promoted. However, it is even more disturbing when the church is the one doing the
promoting.
This is the case with St Paul’s Cathedral in Melbourne, Australia who have
commenced a year-long festival of events to “celebrate evolution”. Even
a prominent local newspaper was surprised when it wrote:
“Given that Charles Darwin is supposedly the central figure in the divide
between religion and science, one might not expect the first place to celebrate
the bicentenary of his birth to be a church.”1
The newspaper gets it, so why doesn’t this Anglican church? Of course, the
secular media easily recognize the incompatibility between the plain straightforward
creation events of Genesis and the millions-of-years particles to people concept
of evolution. It is not my intent to be condescending, but the reality is that atheistic
evolutionists of the ilk of Richard Dawkins,
Michael Shermer, Christopher Hitchens and
Sam Harris et al. must be rubbing their hands with glee when
they see the church embrace evolution in such a way.
In an article called “Darwin a uniting force for science and religion”,
it was reported:
“Both the cathedral service and festival were born in the fertile mind of
Melbourne University geneticist Philip Batterham, a devout Christian. He approached
Melbourne Anglican Archbishop Philip Freier, and Dr Freier, who originally trained
as a biologist, was delighted. ‘I don’t see any incompatibility between
science and Christian faith, and this is a good time to reflect on the way they
work together, because Darwin is the central figure in the supposed divide,’
Dr Freier told The Age.”
Making the church relevant with evolution?
Although it is their genuine (but misguided) intent to show that somehow the church
is not out of step with modern science, they have completely misunderstood the difference
between what most people understand as science and the theory of evolution. CMI
has no problem with “science”. In fact, we probably employ more scientists
than any other Christian organization, and I can vouch that every one of them believes
that gravity (discovered by a creationist!)
is a real phenomenon, and that water boils at 100° Celsius (212° F). Such
facts are in the realm of operational science, which
deals with events that we can observe happening. Evolution and creation are both
beliefs about the past that cannot be observed in the present.
Evolutionary atheists know only too well that a devout acceptance of evolution leads
the majority to unbelief in God. A recent survey of evolutionary scientists showed
only 3 percent believed that evolution and religion were completely
compatible. Although at times Richard Dawkins has applauded, and appealed
to, Christian leaders for their opposition to creationist beliefs, elsewhere he
has ridiculed them for believing in evolution. For example,
he said:
“Oh but of course the story of Adam and Eve was only ever symbolic, wasn’t
it? Symbolic?! Jesus had himself tortured and executed for a symbolic sin by a non-existent
individual. Nobody not brought up in the faith could reach any verdict other than
barking mad!”2
And he went on to say:
“It seems to me an odd proposition that we should adhere to some parts of
the Bible story but not to others. After all, when it comes to important moral questions,
by what standards do we cherry-pick the Bible? Why bother with the Bible at all
if we have the ability to pick and choose from it, what is right and what is wrong?”
If there was no literal Adam and Eve, and no literal sin, and if death did not enter
the world through their actions, then we do not literally need to be saved from
anything.
If the church, in its acceptance of evolution, also does not accept the account
of Adam and Eve as being real history, then one wonders on what basis the church
can preach to people that they need to be saved? In short:
- If there was no literal Adam and Eve,
- And no literal sin,
- And if death did not enter the world through their actions,
- Then we do not literally need to be saved from anything.
It is for this reason that evolutionists, claiming the first book of the Bible to
be incorrect, correctly understand that the whole gospel of Christ depends on the
foundational events in Genesis. The well known statement by Richard Bozarth writing
in the American Atheist magazine sums it up:
“Christianity has fought, still fights, and will continue to fight science
to the desperate end over evolution, because evolution destroys utterly and finally
the very reason Jesus’ earthly life was supposedly made necessary. Destroy
Adam and Eve and the original sin, and in the rubble you will find the sorry remains
of the Son of God. If Jesus was not the redeemer who died for our sins, and this
is what evolution means, then Christianity is nothing.”3
Alarm bells
When Christian leaders start accepting the scientific interpretations
of those who are openly hostile to the Bible to start with, why aren’t
there alarm bells going off inside their heads? Why don’t they apply critical
thinking skills to the information being presented? One can only presume it’s
because there is a misapprehension that the science (they mean evolution) being
spoken about only deals with facts and that it is somehow religiously neutral. But
just how religiously neutral are the major (and very
militant I might add) organizations who are pushing for evolution to be the only
acceptable explanation for origins? Is evolution even scientific
to start with?
Photo Wikipedia.org
Eugenie Scott
For example, Dr Eugenie Scott of the staunchly anticreationist National Center for
Science Education NCSE) revealed their agenda when she said:
“ … I would describe myself as a humanist or a nontheist. I have found
that the most effective allies for evolution are people of the faith community.
One clergyman with a backward collar is worth two biologists at a school board meeting
any day! … What we [such clergy and atheists] have in common is that we want
to see evolution taught in the public schools … .”4
Some years ago, the PBS channel in the US broadcasted a series about evolution.
Scott’s organization produced and published a free online study guide specifically
so that church groups and Christians in general could allegedly harmonize evolution
and their faith. CMI’s Dr Jonathan Sarfati
dealt with each weekly broadcast as it appeared and
this formed much of the content of his book
Refuting Evolution 2.
And as we reported recently, a self-avowed atheist Michael
Zimmerman, is canvassing and enlisting the support of churches around the
world to endorse evolution and celebrate Darwin for an
evolution weekend. It’s not even very subtle is it?
Head in the sand
It is such a shame that the church is being openly misled and deceived by atheists
who want nothing more than the God of the Bible relegated to the trash heap of history.
They know that dividing opinion in the church (see Foxes crying
foul in the henhouse) will lead to self destruction just as the Lord Jesus
warned us about (that a house divided against itself will not stand, Mark 3:25). Unfortunately, the well-meaning clergy’s
answer to this is “We must all embrace evolution” without fully comprehending
that this is, in reality, a fast track to atheism.
We have more information today to support what we should believe in this specific
area than at any time in church history!
The reason I say it is a shame is that there is an abundance of sound, credible
scientific information to support the Bible’s account in Genesis. At the time
of writing, on this site alone, there are over 6,500 fully searchable articles.
We have more information today to support what we should believe in this specific
area than at any time in church history! We should be out there shouting this from
the rooftops instead of trying to win over unbelievers by accepting their own foundational
belief system (or just burying our heads in the sand on the issue). And the information
is life-changing and empowering. For example Don N. wrote how creation information
actually opened his mind:
“The idea of a young earth and literal interpretation of Genesis was THE KEY
that opened my mind and my heart (in 1981) to accept everything else the Holy Spirit
has now been able to teach me through the Bible … Coming to grips with a
believable Genesis lifted a veil from my eyes so I could see the true condition
of this world and myself. Baptized, raised, and confirmed in a compromising church,
God seemed uninvolved, unimportant, even capricious. But now, words fail me to describe
how seriously I take God’s word and I couldn’t in this lifetime recount
the miracles that I now can see and thank God for. Thank you for continuing in this
work.” (Emphasis in original).
Sometimes when the tide seems against us, the task seems insurmountable. But be
encouraged. In this year of Darwin, let’s rise up and make a difference. It
did in Don’s life!
A reader’s comment:
Gabriel K., United Kingdom, 26 September 2009
I just wanted to amplify the point made by Don N’s testimony in this article.
I became a Christian in 1990 and it is only in the last 5 years or so that I can
boldly look head-on at the Propositions of Scripture, armed and equipped with a
biblical hermeneutic predicated not upon the tenets of Naturalism (and its poster-child,
Evolution(-ism?)but the faith-building, encouraging work of such resources as yourselves.
I’m beginning to wonder whether Evangelical churches (of which I count myself
a member) are emulating Israel’s history in chasing after competing cultural
alternatives, mediated on the secular intellectual front, such that we’re
effectively praying "Lord, I cannot accept your Word ‘as is’ for it
is buffetted t! o and fro in the market-place of Ideas-therefore, send your Holy
Spirit instead!" Nonetheless, I have benefitted and continue to look to such resources,
teachings and encouragement as you provide in order that I may love God ‘with
all my mind’. Bless you for the workhorse, unspectacular and person-transforming
ministry you provide: you really ARE at the coal-face!
|
Related articles
Further reading
Related resources
References
- Darwin a uniting force for science and religion, < www.theage.com.au/national/darwin-a-uniting-force-for-science-and-religion-20090208-811o.html>,
9 February 2009. Return to text.
- Quite so: Paul’s arguments in Romans 5:12 ff. and 1 Corinthians 15:21 ff depend on a historical first man,
Adam, who brought bodily death into the world. Paul then contrasts Adam with Jesus,
“the last Adam”, who brought bodily resurrection from the dead.
Return to text.
- G. Richard Bozarth, ‘The Meaning of Evolution’,
American Atheist, p. 30. 20 September 1979. Return to text.
- Research News and Opportunities in Science and Theology
<www.researchnewsonline.org> Return to text.
|
