Transcript Darwin Versus Christ (PowerPoint)

Canadian Press/Decima Research Poll
Poll of 1,000 adults, June 21-24, 2007
(reported by Jim Coggins in BC Christian News, Aug. 2007, p. 8)
34% — “Human beings have developed
over millions of years from
less advanced forms of life,
but God guided this process.”
29% — “Human beings have developed
over millions of years from
less advanced forms of life,
but God had no part in this process.”
26% — “God created human beings
pretty much in their present
form at one time within
the last 10,000 years or so.”
“When two opposite points of view
are expressed with equal intensity,
the truth does not necessarily lie
exactly halfway between them.
It is possible for one side
to be simply wrong.”
— Richard Dawkins, cited by Michael Shermer. 2006 (Nov.).
“Wronger Than Wrong.” Scientific American Vol. 295 No. 5
<http://www.scientificamerican.com/article.cfm?id=wrongerthan-wrong>
Darwin versus Christ:
Why You Can’t Logically Believe
Both the Bible and Evolution
at the Same Time!
Darwin versus Christ:
Why You Can’t Logically Believe
Both the Bible and Evolution
at the Same Time!
A Atheism is much more compatible with Evolution
B Bible simply does not teach Evolution
C Contradictions between Bible and Evolution
D Darwin’s own experience
E Evolutionary thinking undermines the Bible
.
A Atheism is much more compatible with Evolution
“. . . Darwin made it possible to be
an intellectually fulfilled atheist.”
— Richard Dawkins. 1987. The Blind Watchmaker: Why the evidence of evolution
reveals a universe without design. New York: W. W. Norton & Company. p. 6.
A Atheism is much more compatible with Evolution
“ ‘Evolution is the greatest engine of atheism,
‘[says
Cornell biology professor William Provine].
Attempts to join evolution with God are futile, as seen
in beliefs that God is simply natural law itself or that
God created but now is silent. ‘Those gods, frankly, are
worthless,’ Provine says. ‘They don’t give
life
after death, they don’t answer prayers,
they
don’t give you foundations for ethics.
In fact they give you nothing.’ ”
— Larry A. Witham. 2002. Where Darwin Meets the Bible: Creationists
and Evolutionists in America. Oxford: Oxford University Press. p. 23.
William Provine
A Atheism is much more compatible with Evolution
“I have found that evolutionary biologists
debase religion to a significant degree
in
order to make it compatible with science.
They think they are doing religious people
a
service by subscribing to a form of
compatibilism—that is, by maintaining that
religion and evolutionary biology are compatible.
In most evolutionary biologists’ view, there is no
conflict between evolution and religion
on
one important condition: that religion is
essentially atheistic! I know it sounds crazy, but
that is the result of my dissertation.”
— Greg Graffin. 2003. E-mail to Preston Jones. In Preston Jones (ed.). 2006.
Is Belief in God Good, Bad or Irrelevant? A Professor and a Punk Rocker Discuss
Science, Religion, Naturalism & Christianity. Downers Grove, IL: InterVarsity
Press. pp. 21f. See also <http://www.cornellevolutionproject.org/summary.html>
A Atheism is much more compatible with Evolution
“Natural selection [is] an immensely powerful idea
with radical philosophical implications. . . .
The radicalism of natural selection lies in its power to
dethrone some of the deepest and most traditional
comforts of Western thought, particularly the notion
that nature’s benevolence, order, and good design,
with humans at the sensible summit of power
and excellence, proves the existence of
an
omnipotent and benevolent creator. . . .
To these beliefs Darwinian
natural
selection presents the
most
contrary position imaginable.”
— Stephen Jay Gould. 1997 (June 12).
“Darwinian Fundamentalism.”
The New York Review of Books 44(10):34.
A Atheism is much more compatible with Evolution
“The Darwinian theory is a scientific theory, and
a great one, but that is not all it is. The creationists
who oppose it so bitterly are right about one thing:
Darwin’s dangerous idea cuts much deeper into
the fabric of our most fundamental beliefs than
many of its sophisticated apologists have yet admitted,
even to themselves. . . . The kindly God who lovingly
fashioned every one of us (all creatures great and
small) and sprinkled the sky with shining stars
for our delight — that God is, like Santa Claus,
a myth of childhood, not anything a sane,
undeluded adult could literally believe in.”
— Daniel C. Dennett. 1995 (May/June).
“Darwin’s Dangerous Idea.”
The Sciences 35(3):34, 40.
A Atheism is much more compatible with Evolution
“Haeckel says that Darwin’s theory of evolution
leads inevitably to Atheism and Materialism.
In this we think he is correct. . . .
We have thus arrived at the answer to our
question, What is Darwinism? It is Atheism.
This does not mean, as before said,
that Mr. Darwin himself and all who
adopt his views are atheists;
but it means that his theory is atheistic,
that the exclusion of design from nature is,
as Dr. Gray says, tantamount to atheism.”
— Charles Hodge. 1994. (originally published 1874).
What is Darwinism?
(edited by Mark A. Noll and David N. Livingstone).
Grand Rapids: Baker Books. pp. 114, 156.
A Atheism is much more compatible with Evolution
“Our latest survey finds that,
among the top natural scientists,
disbelief is greater than ever —
almost total. . . . Our survey found
near universal rejection
of the transcendent by NAS [U.S.
National Academy of Sciences]
natural scientists. . . . Biological
scientists had the lowest rate
of belief (5.5% in God, 7.1% in
immortality), with physicists and
astronomers slightly higher (7.5%
in God, 7.5% in immortality). . . .”
A Atheism is much more compatible with Evolution
“. . . As we compiled our findings,
the NAS issued a booklet
encouraging the teaching of
evolution in public schools. . . .
NAS president Bruce Alberts said:
‘There are many very outstanding
members of this academy
who are very religious people,
people who believe in evolution,
many of them biologists.’
Our survey suggests otherwise.”
— Edward J. Larson and Larry Witham. 1998 (July 23).
“Leading scientists still reject God.” Nature 394:313.
A Atheism is much more compatible with Evolution
Atheism and Evolution go very well together,
whereas those who want to make Evolution
fit into the Bible have to work very hard!
Thus the variety of conflicting schemes designed
to force the Bible agree with Evolution. . . .
Atheism and Evolution go very well together,
whereas those who want to make Evolution
fit into the Bible have to work very hard!
Thus the variety of conflicting schemes designed
to force the Bible agree with Evolution. . . .
1. Day-Age Theory (Hugh Ross)
2. Gap Theory (Thomas Chalmers,
C. I. Scofield)
3. Days of Revelation (P. J. Wiseman)
4. Framework Hypothesis (Henri Blocher,
Bruce Waltke)
PROCRUST
ES
Darwin versus Christ:
Why You Can’t Logically Believe
Both the Bible and Evolution
at the Same Time!
A Atheism is much more compatible with Evolution
B Bible simply does not teach Evolution
B
Bible simply does not teach Evolution
Evolution, if true, is of central importance
to our whole worldview.
So if the Bible is really a book from God,
then it should have clearly taught us
about this key “truth” of Evolution.
The Bible, however, does not teach us
about Evolution (in fact, it teaches many
things contrary to evolutionary thinking).
Therefore, either Evolution is not true,
or the Bible is not a book from God.
B
Bible simply does not teach Evolution
“I had been raised a Southern Baptist,
laid backward under the water on the
sturdy arm of a pastor, been born again.
I knew the healing power of redemption.
Faith, hope and charity were in my bones, and
with millions of others I knew that my savior
Jesus Christ would grant me eternal life.
More pious than the average teenager,
I read the Bible cover to cover, twice.
But now at college, steroid-driven
into moods of adolescent rebellion,
I chose to doubt. I found it hard to accept
that our deepest beliefs were set in stone by
agricultural societies of the eastern Mediterranean
more than two thousand years ago. . . .”
B
Bible simply does not teach Evolution
“. . . But most of all, Baptist theology
made no provision for evolution.
The biblical authors had missed
the most important revelation of all!
Could it be that they were not
really privy to the thoughts of God?
Might the pastors of my childhood,
good and loving men though they were,
be mistaken? It was all too much,
and freedom was ever so sweet.
I drifted away from the church,
not definitively agnostic or atheistic,
just Baptist no more.”
— Edward O. Wilson. 1998. Consilience.
New York: Alfred A. Knopf. p. 6.
Darwin versus Christ:
Why You Can’t Logically Believe
Both the Bible and Evolution
at the Same Time!
A Atheism is much more compatible with Evolution
B Bible simply does not teach Evolution
C Contradictions between Bible and Evolution
C
Contradictions between Bible and Evolution
1. Contradictions between Evolution and Genesis 1
regarding the sequence of events.
2. Contradictions between Evolution and the Bible
regarding the big picture of history.
1. Contradictions between Evolution and Genesis 1
regarding the sequence of events.
Evolution
• formation of Sun and stars
before (hot) Earth
• uncovered land
before oceans
• the Sun before plant life
Genesis 1
• creation of (cool) Earth
before Sun and stars
• ocean before
uncovered land
• plant life before the Sun
• evolution of marine life
• land organisms (fruit trees)
before any land organisms
before any marine life
• insects before birds
• birds and flowering plants
or flowering plants
before insects
• dinosaurs before birds
• birds before dinosaurs
1. Contradictions between Evolution and Genesis 1
regarding the sequence of events.
Evolution
Genesis 1
There were many
carnivores, mass
extinctions, and fossils
before the (very late)
arrival of hominids
and modern man.
There were no
carnivores, mass
extinctions, or fossils
before the (early)
creation of humans
by unique divine acts.
C
Contradictions between Bible and Evolution
1. Contradictions between Evolution and Genesis 1
regarding the sequence of events.
2. Contradictions between Evolution and the Bible
regarding the big picture of history.
2. Contradictions between Evolution and the Bible
regarding the big picture of history.
Evolution:
PRESENT:
Humans are the
acme of evolution!
Quality
of Life
DISTANT PAST:
An explosion
starts everything
Time (longer scale)
Bible:
Quality
of Life
Time (shorter scale)
2. Contradictions between Evolution and the Bible
regarding the big picture of history.
Evolution:
PRESENT:
Humans are the
acme of evolution!
Quality
of Life
DISTANT PAST:
An explosion
starts everything
Time (longer scale)
Bible:
Quality
of Life
Time (shorter scale)
DISTANT FUTURE:
“Heat death” of
the universe
“That man is the product of causes which
had no prevision of the end they were achieving;
that his origin, his growth, his hopes and fears,
his loves and his beliefs, are but the outcome of
accidental collocations of atoms;
that no fire, no heroism, no intensity of thought and
feeling, can preserve an individual life beyond the grave;
that all the labour of the ages, all the devotion,
all the noonday brightness of human genius, are destined
to extinction in the vast death of the solar system;
and that the whole temple of man's achievement must
inevitably be buried beneath the debris of a universe in ruins —
all these things, if not quite beyond dispute, are yet
so nearly certain, that no philosophy which rejects them
can hope to stand. Only within the scaffolding of these
truths, only on the firm foundation of unyielding despair,
can the soul's habitation henceforth be safely built.”
— Bertrand Russell. 1966. “A Free Man's Worship.” In Why I Am Not a Christian.
New York: Simon and Schuster. p. 107.
2. Contradictions between Evolution and the Bible
regarding the big picture of history.
PRESENT:
Humans are the
acme of evolution!
Evolution:
Quality
of Life
DISTANT PAST:
An explosion
starts everything
DISTANT FUTURE:
“Heat death” of
the universe
Time (longer scale)
Bible:
DISTANT PAST:
“Very good”
Quality
of Life
PRESENT:
“This present evil age”
Time (shorter scale)
DISTANT FUTURE:
Perfect bliss for
those who know Christ
Darwin versus Christ:
Why You Can’t Logically Believe
Both the Bible and Evolution
at the Same Time!
A Atheism is much more compatible with Evolution
B Bible simply does not teach Evolution
C Contradictions between Bible and Evolution
D Darwin’s own experience
D
Darwin’s own experience
Kenneth R. Miller
• professor of biology, Brown
University, Providence, RI
• coauthor (with Joseph Levine)
of Biology 11 textbook
used in many B.C. schools
D
Darwin’s own experience
Kenneth R. Miller
• professor of biology, Brown
University, Providence, RI
• coauthor (with Joseph Levine)
of Biology 11 textbook
used in many B.C. schools
• raised as a Roman Catholic
• concludes his book
Finding Darwin’s God by
quoting Darwin’s reference
to “the Creator” (in the
final sentence of Origin of
Species) and then stating,
“I believe in Darwin’s God.”
D
Darwin’s own experience
• Charles Darwin was raised
within Unitarianism
• on Sundays his mother
Susannah, daughter of
the noted Unitarian
Josiah Wedgwood,
regularly took her
children to the
Unitarian chapel
(Adrian Desmond and James Moore.1994.
Darwin: The Life of a Tormented
Evolutionist. New York: W. W. Norton. p. 12)
D
Darwin’s own experience
• in 1827, as he prepared to
study for the Anglican ministry,
Darwin investigated, and
appeared to be comfortable with,
Trinitarian orthodoxy
(Adrian Desmond and James Moore.1994.
Darwin: The Life of a Tormented
Evolutionist. New York: W. W. Norton. pp. 48ff.)
• even as late as the mid-1830s,
when aboard the Beagle,
Darwin was “heartily laughed at
by several of the officers . . . for quoting the Bible as
an unanswerable authority on some point of morality.”
(Francis Darwin, ed.1958. The Autobiography of Charles Darwin
and Selected Letters. New York: Dover Publications. p. 62)
D
Darwin’s own experience
• during and after his Beagle voyage,
Darwin was progressively becoming
more and more agnostic
• he gave up any trust in the
Old Testament as a divine
book, he rejected miracles,
he dismissed the credibility of
the gospels, and he “gradually
came to disbelieve in Christianity
as a divine revelation.”
(Francis Darwin, ed.1958. The Autobiography of Charles Darwin
and Selected Letters. New York: Dover Publications. p. 62)
D
Darwin’s own experience
• by 1851, when his favourite
daughter died, Darwin had lost
any vestige of Christian faith
• “Annie’s cruel death destroyed
Charles’s tatters of belief in a
moral, just universe. Later he
would say that this period
chimed the final death-knell for
his Christianity, even if it had
been a long, drawn-out process
of decay. . . . Charles now took
his stand as an unbeliever.”
(Adrian Desmond and James Moore.1994. Darwin: The Life of a
Tormented Evolutionist. New York: W. W. Norton. pp. 48ff.)
D
Darwin’s own experience
• in 1876 (six years before
his death) Darwin wrote:
“The old argument from
design in Nature, as given
by Paley,which formerly
seemed to me so conclusive,
fails, now that the law of
natural selection has been
discovered.”
(Francis Darwin, ed.1958. The
Autobiography of Charles Darwin
and Selected Letters. New York:
Dover Publications. p. 63)
D
Darwin’s own experience
It is true that Darwin was
willing to use the term
“Creator” at the conclusion
of his Origin of Species
(published in 1859).
But it seems that, at best,
he was acknowledging
merely the possibility of
some sort of “First Cause”
or “philosopher’s God.”
D
Darwin’s own experience
As Darwin explained (in 1876): “[There is an] extreme
difficulty or rather impossibility of conceiving this immense
and wonderful universe, including man with his capacity of
looking far backwards and far into futurity, as the result of
blind chance or necessity. When thus reflecting, I feel
compelled to look to a First Cause having an intelligent mind
in some degree analogous to that of man; and I deserve to be
called a Theist. This conclusion was strong in my mind about
the time, as far as I can remember, when I wrote the Origin
of Species, and it is since that time that it has very gradually,
with many fluctuations, become weaker. . . .
The mystery of the beginning of all things is insoluble by us,
and I for one must be content to remain an Agnostic.”
(Francis Darwin, ed.1958. The Autobiography of Charles Darwin
and Selected Letters. New York: Dover Publications. p. 66)
D
Darwin’s own experience
On September 28, 1881 (less than
seven months before his death),
Darwin was visited by Edward Aveling
and Ludwig Büchner, who had come
to London to attend the Congress of
the International Federation of
Freethinkers.
D
Darwin’s own experience
After eating they adjourned to the smoking room.
“They lit cigarettes and Darwin, completely out of
character, pitched in. ‘Why do you call yourselves
atheists?’ In his dotage, forty years since his covert
notebook days, he finally dragged the issue into
the open. He preferred the word agnostic, he said.”
“Why do you call
yourselves atheists?”
D
Darwin’s own experience
“ ‘Agnostic’ was but ‘Atheist’ writ respectable,”
Aveling replied, searching for common ground,
“and ‘Atheist’ was only ‘Agnostic’ writ aggressive.”
‘Agnostic’ = ‘Atheist’
writ respectable;
‘Atheist’ = ‘Agnostic’
writ aggressive.
D
Darwin’s own experience
“But, Darwin retorted,
‘Why should you be so
aggressive?’ ”
“Why should you be
so aggressive?”
(Adrian Desmond and James Moore.1994.
Darwin: The Life of a Tormented Evolutionist.
New York: W. W. Norton. p. 657.)
D
Darwin’s own experience
But didn’t Darwin convert to Christianity on his deathbed?
Sadly, no.
Evolutionists and creationists now agree that this idea is just
wishful thinking, not based in historically verifiable events.
James Moore. 1994.
The Darwin Legend.
Grand Rapids:
Baker Books.
Darwin versus Christ:
Why You Can’t Logically Believe
Both the Bible and Evolution
at the Same Time!
A Atheism is much more compatible with Evolution
B Bible simply does not teach Evolution
C Contradictions between Bible and Evolution
D Darwin’s own experience
E Evolutionary thinking undermines the Bible
.
E
Evolutionary thinking undermines the Bible
.
1. Majesty of God
2. Message of the Gospel
3. Meaning of Genesis
E
Evolutionary thinking undermines the Bible
.
1. Majesty of God
According to the Biblical account of origins,
God is the central figure — creating, shaping,
evaluating, blessing, commanding.
But according to Evolution, God is
non-existent, irrelevant, or malicious.
E
Evolutionary thinking undermines the Bible
.
“I would give absolutely
nothing for the theory of
Natural Selection, if it requires
miraculous additions at any one
stage of descent. . . .
If I were convinced that
I required such additions to
the theory of natural selection,
I would reject it as rubbish.”
— Charles Darwin, in a letter to his mentor,
Charles Lyell. The Sciences 35(3):37, 1995.
E
Evolutionary thinking undermines the Bible
.
“The struggle for life and elimination of
the weakest is a horrible process,
against which our whole modern ethics
revolts. . . . 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.”
— Nobel laureate and atheist Jacques Monod,
during a 1976 TV interview
E
Evolutionary thinking undermines the Bible
.
1. Majesty of God
2. Message of the Gospel
3. Meaning of Genesis
E
Evolutionary thinking undermines the Bible
.
2. Message of the Gospel
“Many if not all of the miracles
happened according to law; their
miraculous nature
comes from their meaning or
significance. The every-day
miracles of the Gospels — turning
the water into wine and feeding
the five thousand and even
raising Lazarus — can be
explained as the enthusiasm
of the moment. . . .”
E
Evolutionary thinking undermines the Bible
.
2. Message of the Gospel
“People’s hearts were so filled with
love by Jesus’ talk and presence
that spontaneously and out of
character they shared their food.
To think otherwise — to think that
Jesus actually turned loaves and
fishes into a banquet — is if anything
a bit degrading, making the
Redeemer a kind of high-class
caterer. Lazarus and the ruler’s
daughter were more than likely
brought back from trances. . . .”
E
Evolutionary thinking undermines the Bible
.
2. Message of the Gospel
“In fact, even the supreme miracle
of the resurrection requires no lawbreaking return from the dead. One can
think Jesus in a trance, or more likely
that he really was physically dead but
that on and from the third day a group of
people, hitherto downcast, were filled
with great joy and hope. . . . It is from
this regeneration of spirit that true
Christianity stems, not from law-defying
physiological reversals in the early hours
of a Sunday morning. . . .”
E
Evolutionary thinking undermines the Bible
.
2. Message of the Gospel
“. . . There are quite enough problems
with the authenticity of the miracles
because of the ambiguous (perhaps
corrupt) nature of the biblical texts,
making them dubious as a matter of pure
reason, without the added difficulties of
science and its commitment to law. If you
are prepared to accept the miracles (as
law-breaking miracles) despite these
difficulties, I doubt that science is going to
make much difference anyway.”
— Michael Ruse. 2001. Can a Darwinian be a Christian?
The Relationship between Science and Religion.
Cambridge, UK: Cambridge University Press. pp. 96f.
E
Evolutionary thinking undermines the Bible
.
1. Majesty of God
2. Message of the Gospel
3. Meaning of Genesis
E
Evolutionary thinking undermines the Bible
.
3. Meaning of Genesis
“Unquestionably the language is poetic.
. . . the first few chapters of Genesis,
the book of Job, the Song of Solomon,
and the Psalms, have a
more lyrical and allegorical flavor,
and do not generally seem to carry the
marks of pure historical narrative. . . .
the first chapters of Genesis had
much more the feel of a morality play
than an eyewitness report on the
evening news. . . .”
E
Evolutionary thinking undermines the Bible
.
3. Meaning of Genesis
“In looking closely at chapters 1 and 2
of the book of Genesis, we [conclude] . . .
that this powerful document can best
be understood as poetry and allegory
rather than a literal scientific
description of origins.”
— Francis S. Collins. 2006. The Language of God:
A Scientist Presents Evidence for Belief. New York:
Free Press (Simon and Schuster). pp. 83, 175, 206.
E
Evolutionary thinking undermines the Bible
.
3. Meaning of Genesis
Genesis 1 and 2 is not Hebrew poetry!
(a) Parallelism is not generally found in Genesis 1-2.
(b) The direct object marker ‫(אֶ ט‬eth), a typical feature of
Hebrew narrative, is found 40 times in Genesis 1-2.
(c) The waw consecutive (sometimes translated “and” at
the beginning of a verse), a typical feature of
Hebrew narrative, appears 75 times in Genesis 1-2.
E
Evolutionary thinking undermines the Bible
.
3. Meaning of Genesis
But why did E. J. Young call
Genesis “semi-poetic”?
“Genesis one is a semi-poetic
account of creation, told as
straightforward narration.”
— Edward J. Young. 1964. Studies in Genesis One.
Phillipsburg, NJ: Presbyterian and
Reformed Publishing. p. 40.
E
Evolutionary thinking undermines the Bible
.
3. Meaning of Genesis
“We use the term semi-poetic merely to stress
the elevated character of the language.
Inasmuch as true parallelism in the verses is
lacking Genesis one cannot legitimately be
designated poetry in the Hebrew sense.”
— Edward J. Young. 1964. Studies in Genesis One. Phillipsburg, NJ:
Presbyterian and Reformed Publishing. p. 40 (footnote).
E
Evolutionary thinking undermines the Bible
.
3. Meaning of Genesis
“Genesis one is written in exalted, semi-poetical
language; nevertheless, it is not poetry. For one
thing the characteristics of Hebrew poetry are
lacking, and in particular there is an absence of
parallelism. . . . The Bible does contain poetic
statements of creation, namely, Job 38:8-11
and Psalm 104:5-9. . . . The latter two passages
are poetic for they contain parallelism,
and it is this feature which is lacking
in the first chapter of the Bible.”
— Edward J. Young. 1964. Studies in Genesis One. Phillipsburg, NJ:
Presbyterian and Reformed Publishing. pp. 82f.
“Genesis one is not poetry or saga or myth,
but
straightforward, trustworthy history, and, inasmuch
as it is a divine revelation, accurately records those
matters of which it speaks.
That Genesis one is historical may be seen from
these considerations. 1) It sustains an intimate
relationship with the remainder of the book. . . .
2) The characteristics of Hebrew poetry are lacking.
There are poetic accounts of the creation and these
form a striking contrast to Genesis one.
3) The New Testament regards certain events
mentioned in Genesis one as actually having
taken place. We may safely allow the
New
Testament to be our interpreter
of this
mighty first chapter of the Bible.”
— Edward J. Young. 1964. Studies in Genesis One. Phillipsburg, NJ:
Presbyterian and Reformed Publishing. p. 105.