Explore

Feedback archive → Feedback 2005

Christian chemist’s assumptions lead to accusations

11 July 2005; reposted and updated 18–19 November 2006
Trilobite
The supposedly primitive trilobite had eyes that look like they were designed by a master physicist

This feedback comes from a self-described Christian who took issue with our site on a number of issues. First, he accused us of claiming that a Christian can’t be an evolutionist, although we have repeatedly said otherwise. Second, he accused us of not understanding science, which would be news to the Ph.D. scientists on our staff with earned Ph.D.s from secular universities. Third, he presented evidence that allegedly supported evolution, but this ignored several indisputable facts. Fourth, he argued about what Christianity is allegedly all about, but he cited only parts of what it’s all about, ignoring others. Fifth, he accused us of taking the whole Bible literally, then raised counterexamples to our supposed method in areas such as the Lord’s Supper, Baptism and morality.

We print his letter below, first in its entirety without comment, followed by the entire letter with Dr Sarfati’s point-by-point response interspersed as per normal email fashion.

I stumbled upon your site while doing a search for scientific information. I was very surprised and disturbed and slightly angered.

I am a Christian. I am a Chemist, more specifically I am a Biochemist. In the area on ‘creation where is the proof’ there are many incorrect and insulting presumptions made and inferences offered and suppositions determined. Why do you speak as if someone that believes in evolution cannot be a Christian? This is insulting to me personally. You presume to determine who can be Christian and who can’t? Who do you suppose that you are to make such a ruling? And how do you think that you can go around talking about evolution and even, God forbid, teaching against evolution without even having the understanding of what the theory entails?

I have no doubt that you are one of the ignorant masses that uses the term theory in place of the word guess. That is not the meaning of the word. In light of the fact that many, many, many scientists like myself are devoted Christians, how dare you say that we look at the ‘evidence’ from a position in which we presuppose that there is no God. That is a lie and a defamation.

And for the whole facts, evidence, theory and records debate, there is this thing called science that you are wholly and unfortunately unfamiliar with. If there was time I would love to give you the benefit of my education in science, but I know there is not time and I fear that you lack the aptitude and willingness. The scientific process is not altogether difficult for even laymen such as yourself to understand. I will try to explain it in terms that you can comprehend.

When an observation is made, like the FACT that simple organisms appear in the strata before more complex organisms and that there is a definite trend to the fossil record showing that the further down you go the simpler life forms become and the higher up one goes the more complex life forms are, then there is a causal question asked. In this case it would be something like “Why does the fossil record clearly show that earlier in time (due to the level in the strata) life forms are simple and that later in time life forms are more complex?” To which a hypothesis or several hypotheses are formed. Perhaps one might think the simpler life forms dig deeper into the soil or maybe that more complex organisms dig up other complex organisms and move them to higher in the fossil record. Or perhaps just maybe one might think that it might be possible that simpler organisms develop into more complex organisms. Then one can test these hypotheses with either experimentation or observation. In this case all observation and experimentation (and there is truly a boat load) has unequivocally pointed to the idea that simpler organisms developed into more complex organisms. This is not only supported by fossil evidence but also tons of biochemical evidence in the form of genetics and proteomics as well as the energy pathways of all living things.

While I am sure that there are many scientists that believe that there is no God, I would bet money there are more religious scientists than not. I want to state this as clearly as possible: ALL that the theory of evolution states is that the more complex organisms that are present today developed from earlier simpler organisms. There is no how, there is no why. Any talk about how, why, or any beginning of life is mere speculation.

Does this prove or even suggest God? Of course not. Science is not here to talk of God. Science is a study of the physical universe. God is not something that can be explained by science. God is not something that can be explained by anything. As soon as you presume to explain God or understand God, you have limited Him in your mind and you are guilty of the most heinous form of blasphemy that we face today. There is no limit to God. Science is about categorizing and numbering and computing and estimating and predicting and calculating. Once you do any one of those things to God you have blasphemed.

But you are definitely correct in stating that you and your group of ignorant, uneducated and obviously suggestible followers are looking at the FACTS and evidence through tainted goggles, but I would never even suggest that those goggles have anything to do with Christianity. In order to be related to Christianity they would have to be associated with Christ and they absolutely have nothing in common with Him. Christ was about love and acceptance and forgiveness and salvation, not exclusion and propagation of ignorance and spewing of lies and half-truths and bending and warping the realities of the surrounding universe to fit some bizarre ideal that one has about the beginning of anything or everything.

Why do you lie about your belief that everything in the bible be taken literally? You accept what you want an throw away what you don’t like. I will prove it to you. Christ said that whoever doesn’t eat His flesh and drink His blood has no part with Him. Do you believe that you partake of His flesh and blood, and that without doing so you will have no part in His salvation? I didn’t think so. You see it as a symbol, a metaphor for something else because you don’t like the sound of it and you refuse to accept it.

And the fact that both Christ and St Paul state that you must be baptized to be saved, I would be surprised if you had everyone in your family baptized in order to save them. Once again you see it as a symbol, a metaphor. Paul quite clearly states that it is through baptism that we take part in Christ’s death and resurrection and that is how we are saved from death, by taking part in Christ’s defeat of death.

Perhaps then you believe, as the bible clearly states that people should be put to death. Of course you do. How about children who disobey their parents, that’s in there too? And of course there is the whole eye for eye, tooth for tooth. Never mind that Christ Himself refuted that in stating that ‘you have heard eye for eye and tooth for tooth but I say do good to those who hate you, pray for those who abuse you.’ How about turn the other cheek, ever done or even considered it?

I pray for God’s blessings on you. I realize that you are trying to do what you believe is right in your deluded way. I pray most of all that you will begin to understand how wrong you are. God bless.

J.S.
USA

Dear J.S.:

I stumbled upon your site while doing a search for scientific information. I was very surprised and disturbed and slightly angered.

Thomas Chandler Haliburton’s comment may be applicable here. He said, ‘When a man is wrong and won’t admit it, he always gets angry.’ ;)

I am a Christian. I am a Chemist, more specifically I am a Biochemist. In the area on ‘creation where is the proof’ there are many incorrect and insulting presumptions made and inferences offered and suppositions determined.

One of the main points of CMI’s presuppositional approach is that the Bible should be the magisterial authority. As a Christian, I would have thought that you would have agreed with Christ who said ‘Scripture cannot be broken’ (John 10:35; see also Jesus Christ on the infallibility of Scripture).  And one would have thought that you would concur with His chosen Apostle Paul that ‘all Scripture [which must logically include Genesis] is God-breathed and profitable for teaching, for reproof, for correction, for training in righteousness’ (see The Authority of Scripture). Therefore, as the article outlined, it would be improper for a Christian to allow the Bible to be relegated to the backburner, as it were, in a discussion about creation.

Why do you speak as if someone that believes in evolution cannot be a Christian? This is insulting to me personally. You presume to determine who can be Christian and who can’t? Who do you suppose that you are to make such a ruling?

Actually, as if you had examined our site more fully (as our feedback rules request) you would have found:

As you can see, we state that one can be an evolutionist and still be a Christian, but that the two are logically incompatible. I.e. that theistic evolution is both scientifically and biblically untenable. But many people are saved due to ‘blessed inconsistency’—there is no hint in the Bible that the ability to hold mutually contrary thoughts in the same skull is an unforgivable sin.

How does one decide which parts of the Bible are to be ignored as historically and/or scientifically inaccurate? Science tells us that men do not rise from the dead and that virgins do not conceive. Yet, our very salvation is from the ‘last Adam’ (1 Corinthians 15:45), who through the bloodline of the Virgin Mary was thereby our Kinsman-Redeemer (Isaiah 59:20), saving us from the sins of the first Adam in the Garden of Eden, and rose from the dead which validated His claims.

And how do you think that you can go around talking about evolution and even, God forbid, teaching against evolution without even having the understanding of what the theory entails? I have no doubt that you are one of the ignorant masses that uses the term theory in place of the word guess. That is not the meaning of the word.

Again, it appears that you did not search the site to find out what we actually do say, rather than being critical about things which we do not say (a.k.a., building straw man arguments), or in fact advise against saying. We caution our readers against that very argument in both the article, Moving forward: Arguments we think creationists shouldn’t use, a condensation of our longer FAQ, Arguments we think creationists should NOT use; and the DVD of the same title.

In light of the fact that many, many, many scientists like myself are devoted Christians, how dare you say that we look at the ‘evidence’ from a position in which we presuppose that there is no God.

No, that you presuppose naturalism, which is the same thing for all practical purposes when it comes to origins. Atheistic biology professor Will Provine of Cornell Uni said:

‘… belief in modern evolution makes atheists of people. One can have a religious view that is compatible with evolution only if the religious view is indistinguishable from atheism.’ [‘No free will’. In Catching up with the Vision, ed. Margaret W Rossiter, Chicago University Press, 1999, p. S123.]

That is a lie and a defamation. And for the whole facts, evidence, theory and records debate, there is this thing called science that you are wholly and unfortunately unfamiliar with. If there was time I would love to give you the benefit of my education in science, but I know there is not time and I fear that you lack the aptitude and willingness. The scientific process is not altogether difficult for even laymen such as yourself to understand.

We really would suggest you familiarize yourself with our ministry before making such unfounded accusations. Our speakers and authors consist of scientists, and other highly trained people, who hail from well-respected universities. I myself have an earned doctorate in science, and co-authored a paper in Nature on high-Tc superconductors when only 22.

I will try to explain it in terms that you can comprehend. When an observation is made, like the FACT that simple organisms appear in the strata before more complex organisms and that there is a definite trend to the fossil record showing that the further down you go the simpler life forms become and the higher up one goes the more complex life forms are, then there is a causal question asked.

That’s highly debatable in the first place. E.g. trilobites have such sophisticated eyes that they look as if they have been designed by a master physicist, yet they are right down in the Cambrian. There is also evidence for organisms complex enough to photosynthesize at 3.7 evolutionary billions of years ago (Rosing, M.T. and Frei, R., U-rich Archaean sea-floor sediments from Greenland—indications of >3700 Ma oxygenic photosynthesis, Earth and Planetary Science Letters 217:237–244, 2004).

In this case it would be something like “Why does the fossil record clearly show that earlier in time (due to the level in the strata) life forms are simple and that later in time life forms are more complex?”

Or rather, why do you ask leading questions?

To which a hypothesis or several hypotheses are formed. Perhaps one might think the simpler life forms dig deeper into the soil or maybe that more complex organisms dig up other complex organisms and move them to higher in the fossil record. Or perhaps just maybe one might think that it might be possible that simpler organisms develop into more complex organisms. Then one can test these hypotheses with either experimentation or observation. In this case all observation and experimentation (and there is truly a boat load) has unequivocally pointed to the idea that simpler organisms developed into more complex organisms. This is not only supported by fossil evidence but also tons of biochemical evidence in the form of genetics and proteomics as well as the energy pathways of all living things.

Or that the succession does not represent a sequence of age at all but a sequence of burial by the Flood and its aftermath. For more information, see Dr Tas Walker’s Biblical Geology Page.

While I am sure that there are many scientists that believe that there is no God, I would bet money there are more religious scientists than not.

Of course, and as pointed out earlier, many work at Creation Ministries International. But also, being ‘religious’ means nothing if it is not the true religion revealed in the Bible—see Is evolution ‘anti-religion’? It depends.

I want to state this as clearly as possible: ALL that the theory of evolution states is that the more complex organisms that are present today developed from earlier simpler organisms.

This is a deceptive (intentional or not) equivocation—see Definitions as slippery as eels. 

There is no how, there is no why. Any talk about how, why, or any beginning of life is mere speculation.

You may want to suggest the same to your secular peers, then, who assume the conclusion of abiological origins based on (blind) faith, contrary to the understanding that life comes from life (Law of Biogenesis). (See also, Origin of Life Questions and Answers and, more specifically, we have a DVD/VHS resource entitled Chemicals to Living Cell: Fantasy or Science?)

Does this prove or even suggest God? Of course not.

And that is the point of Creation: ‘where’s the proof?’ that you cited yourself!

Science is not here to talk of God.

You have it back-to-front. The biblical framework is the only one that provides the foundation for science, voluntary will, logic and morality, as I explained in this feedback response. Atheism, or the theistic evolutionary god who didn’t act miraculously in creation, can provide no such foundations.

Science is a study of the physical universe. God is not something that can be explained by science. God is not something that can be explained by anything. As soon as you presume to explain God or understand God, you have limited Him in your mind and you are guilty of the most heinous form of blasphemy that we face today. There is no limit to God.

We really would stress, again, that you familiarize yourself with what we do teach, rather than building these straw men arguments to knock down by complaining about what we do not teach. Also it would be good if you learned the difference between origins and operational science.

Science is about categorizing and numbering and computing and estimating and predicting and calculating.

That rules out evolution from goo to you via the zoo! Actually we agree that science is ‘about categorizing and numbering and computing and estimating and predicting and calculating’; however, it is also about making assumptions based on what one observes, and all assumptions are ‘tainted’, as it were, by the presuppositional framework.

Once you do any one of those things to God you have blasphemed. But you are definitely correct in stating that you and your group of ignorant, uneducated and obviously suggestible followers

How would you know what our followers are like? You are wrong anyway, as well as being hypocritical for dishing out offense while bleating piously about imagined offenses on our part.

are looking at the FACTS and evidence through tainted goggles, but I would never even suggest that those goggles have anything to do with Christianity. In order to be related to Christianity they would have to be associated with Christ and they absolutely have nothing in common with Him.

How about His teaching on marriage which was based on the fact that God made a man and a woman ‘from the beginning of creation’?

Christ was about love and acceptance and forgiveness and salvation,

Salvation from what? Sin? Where do you get that concept from, if Genesis 3 is not history? Furthermore, if the first man, Adam, didn’t sin and bring death, what is the point of the Last Adam, Jesus (1 Corinthians 15:21–22, 45)?

not exclusion and propagation of ignorance and spewing of lies and half-truths and bending and warping the realities of the surrounding universe to fit some bizarre ideal that one has about the beginning of anything or everything.

It is only through the bias based on Scripture, inspired by God, that we have the Eyewitness to the truth, rather than blind guesswork. We have stated many times that science should not be used to quantify Scripture (or God), but rather that Scripture is to take the magisterial role over science. Again you, seemingly unfamiliar with anything about our ministry, have claimed we are doing things to which we are diametrically opposed.

Why do you lie about your belief that everything in the bible be taken literally?

Why do you continue to ask such deceitful leading questions? If you had read our position on this matter more carefully (or at all), you would have known that we have stated that we do not believe that the whole Bible should be taken literally, as in Russell Grigg’s article Should Genesis be taken literally, as well as defended that point in answer to one of our reader’s feedback, but rather that it be read plainly, keeping both the style of writing and its context in mind, as the original reader would have understood it.

You accept what you want an throw away what you don’t like. I will prove it to you. Christ said that whoever doesn’t eat His flesh and drink His blood has no part with Him. Do you believe that you partake of His flesh and blood, and that without doing so you will have no part in His salvation? I didn’t think so. You see it as a symbol, a metaphor for something else because you don’t like the sound of it and you refuse to accept it.

No, because this comes from the context. You are referring to John 6:51–58:

51 ‘I am the living bread that came down from heaven. If anyone eats of this bread, he will live forever. This bread is my flesh, which I will give for the life of the world.’

52 Then the Jews began to argue sharply among themselves, ‘How can this man give us his flesh to eat?’

53 Jesus said to them, ‘I tell you the truth, unless you eat the flesh of the Son of Man and drink his blood, you have no life in you.

54 Whoever eats my flesh and drinks my blood has eternal life, and I will raise him up at the last day.

55 For my flesh is real food and my blood is real drink.

56 Whoever eats my flesh and drinks my blood remains in me, and I in him.

57 Just as the living Father sent me and I live because of the Father, so the one who feeds on me will live because of me.

58 This is the bread that came down from heaven. Your forefathers ate manna and died, but he who feeds on this bread will live forever.’

The context of the verse has nothing to do with the Last Supper. The Last Supper was instituted at Passover a long time after the John 6 discourse. Also, the Lord’s Supper was instituted at a Passover meal, where the whole idea is remembrance. The Passover is loaded with representative symbols, e.g. the salt water is (=represents) the tears of suffering in Egypt, the haroseth is (represents) the mortar, the bitter herbs represent the bitterness of bondage.

Thus in its grammatical context, it is clearly metaphorical. This can be shown by comparing it with other similar constructions in Scripture, ‘I am the true vine’ (John 15:1), ‘I am the door’ (KJV; gate in NIV) (John 10:7). So a Jew, on hearing Jesus’ words ‘This is my blood’, would have recalled 2 Samuel 23:15–17:

15 David longed for water and said, ‘Oh, that someone would get me a drink of water from the well near the gate of Bethlehem!’

16 So the three mighty men broke through the Philistine lines, drew water from the well near the gate of Bethlehem and carried it back to David. But he refused to drink it; instead, he poured it out before the Lord.

17 ‘Far be it from me, O Lord, to do this!’ he said. ‘Is it not the blood of men who went at the risk of their lives?’ And David would not drink it. Such were the exploits of the three mighty men.

Although David said of this water, ‘this is the blood …’, he clearly did not mean that the water that his men risked their lives for was transformed into the substance of their blood, while retaining the accidents of water.

The passage about eating Jesus’ flesh and drinking His blood can again be understood by comparing Scripture with Scripture. In the same discourse, Jesus had said (John 6:35):

35 Then Jesus declared, ‘I am the bread of life. He who comes to me will never go hungry, and he who believes in me will never be thirsty.’

Note that ‘coming’ to Jesus stopped hunger, and ‘believing’ in Him stopped thirst. Thus ‘eating’ was a figure of speech for coming, and ‘drinking’ = believing.

All this shows how important comparing Scripture with Scripture is, and understanding it in its historical context.

And the fact that both Christ and St Paul state that you must be baptized to be saved,

Where? In my article Loving God with all your mind: logic and creation, I show that this teaching is based on a logical fallacy:

he fallacy of denying the antecedent is committed by some groups that teach the error of baptismal regeneration by citing the following statement of Christ according to the Majority Text of Mark 16:16:

16 Whoever believes and is baptized will be saved, but whoever does not believe will be condemned.

The first part of the verse is an implication: if a person believes and is baptized then he will be saved. It is invalid to argue from this that anyone who is not baptized will not be saved. The second part is an explicit statement that unbelief results in condemnation.

To demonstrate the fallacy, examine the following statement which is in the same logical form: ‘Whatever has feathers and flies is a bird, but whatever does not have feathers is not a bird.’ This statement does not teach that there are no flightless birds.

[Update: see also Is baptism necessary for salvation?.]

I would be surprised if you had everyone in your family baptized in order to save them.

Which ‘you’ were you disparaging here? The author of the article that you question? The ‘you’ (and his wife) that would answer your feedback (both of whom I can assure you have been obediently baptized—though not to be saved but to be obedient and publicly declare that they had already been saved)? Or the collective ‘you’ of hundreds of scientists, ministry workers, and volunteers in our international ministry? Before broadbrushing anyone in such a libelous manner, you should have read our publicized Statement of Faith:

Salvation is a gift received by faith alone in Christ alone and expressed in the individual’s repentance, recognition of the death of Christ as full payment for sin, and acceptance of the risen Christ as Saviour, Lord and God {ff., Ephesians 2:8–9}.

Note that Paul said we are saved by believing the Gospel (1 Corinthians 15), but had earlier said, ‘For Christ did not send me to baptize but to preach the gospel’ (1 Corinthians 1:17). Baptism is something saved people should do, not what people should do to be saved.

Once again you see it as a symbol, a metaphor. Paul quite clearly states that it is through baptism that we take part in Christ’s death and resurrection and that is how we are saved from death, by taking part in Christ’s defeat of death. Perhaps then you believe, as the bible clearly states that people should be put to death. Of course you do. How about children who disobey their parents, that’s in there too?

Evidently you don’t realize that Jesus Himself endorsed the fact that this was God’s command to ancient Israel:

For God commanded, ‘Honor your father and your mother,’ and, ‘Whoever reviles father or mother must surely die.’ (Matthew 15:4).

While this sounds rather harsh for squeamish modern thoughts, ancient societies were always one step away from anarchy. It was especially serious for Ancient Israel, because this is the people from whom the Messiah would come. Rebellion against parents would threaten the entire social order, so God dealt with it very strongly in the Old Testament. The penalty of being stoned to death was imposed because cursing one’s parents and ignoring their authority was considered a serious offense before God, the same as murder or adultery. Just the threat of this penalty was probably enough to curb rebellion, unlike the way that rebellion of youth is encouraged and celebrated today. I explain more about the role of the Mosaic Law in Answer to philosophy/religion professor on biblical exegesis and the problem of evil.

And of course there is the whole eye for eye, tooth for tooth. Never mind that Christ Himself refuted that in stating that ‘you have heard eye for eye and tooth for tooth but I say do good to those who hate you, pray for those who abuse you.’

Actually, what Jesus was addressing was not the written law but the Pharisaic oral traditions (Mark 7)—note that He said ‘you have heard …’. This was totally different from ‘it is written …’ which settled matters for Him—for Jesus, what Scripture said, God said.

How about turn the other cheek, ever done or even considered it?

More than that—I have learned the Jewish context. The passages in Matt 5:39 (ff., Luke 6:29) that refer to turning the other cheek are as follows:

‘But I say to you, do not resist him who is evil; but whoever slaps you on your right cheek, turn to him the other also.’

But note that these verses do not stand alone as a solitary lesson, but are examples of the greater picture. Verse 44 of Matthew 5 continues, ‘But I say to you, love your enemies, and pray for those who persecute you’ and in Luke 6, verses 46–49, we read:

‘And why do you call Me, “Lord, Lord,” and do not do what I say? Everyone who comes to Me, and hears My words, and acts upon them, I will show you whom he is like: he is like a man building a house, who dug deep and laid a foundation upon the rock; and when a flood rose, the torrent burst against that house and could not shake it, because it had been well built. But the one who has heard, and has not acted accordingly, is like a man who built a house upon the ground without any foundation; and the torrent burst against it and immediately it collapsed, and the ruin of that house was great.’

This is the education that Creation Ministries International strives to present with its ministry: that Scripture is true and can be believed from the very first verse. This is not achieved by ‘turning the other cheek’, when that phrase is equivocally used to mean ‘turn a blind eye’ to the ever-increasing attacks propagated by those hostile to Christianity. This is the shoring up against the torrents of anti-biblical and anti-Christian misinterpretation, misinformation, and evolutionarily (and humanistically) biased presuppositions, providing protection to the foundations by enabling Christians, internationally, to follow the edict of 1 Peter 3:15 to ‘always be ready to make a defense to everyone who asks you to give an account for the hope that is in you’, and 2 Corinthians 10:5, ‘We destroy arguments and every lofty opinion raised against the knowledge of God, and take every thought captive to obey Christ.’ (See also What? A Christian mind?) We also follow Christ’s example of the challenge-riposte paradigm.

I pray for God’s blessings on you. I realize that you are trying to do what you believe is right in your deluded way. I pray most of all that you will begin to understand how wrong you are.

Don’t you find it a bit odd to be questioning our ability to ‘turn the other cheek’ after the preceding tirade of insults and the follow-up jab of calling us ‘deluded’? Aside from indicating that obvious contradiction, it should be pointed out that it is unfortunate that today’s society seems to equate ‘turning the other cheek’ with the revised meaning of ‘tolerance’ (see The tyranny of ‘tolerance’ and The hypocrisy of intolerant ‘tolerance’). Rather than ‘cherry-picking’ platitudes, it is important to read Scripture in its context.

God bless.

J.S.
USA

And you as well. But I have to say that I wouldn’t want to be blessed by The god of an old earth. This is a key problem with all long-age compromise. See also The Fall: a cosmic catastrophe—if you are sincere in wanting to know where we are coming from, please try to understand how billions of years of death and suffering before sin undermines Jesus’ teaching. Even the atheist Jacques Monod understood this:

‘… selection is the blindest, and most cruel way of evolving new species, and more and more complex and refined organisms … The more cruel because it is a process of elimination, of destruction. The struggle for life and elimination of the weakest is a horrible process, against which our whole modern ethics revolts. An ideal society is a non-selective society, is one where the weak is protected; which is exactly the reverse of the so-called natural law. I am surprised that a Christian would defend the idea that this is the process which God more or less set up in order to have evolution’ (emphasis added).

(Dr) Jonathan Sarfati
CMI – Brisbane, Australia

Published: 18 November 2006