Tuesday, October 12, 2010

Theistic Evolution Verses Creationism, and Can You Spot a Heretic?

       The title of my blog post covers three subjects that are all intertwined into one recent experience that I had in requesting a conversation with a professing Christian Scientist.

You see Creationism is under attack and many Christians and Pastors alike are buying the lie without any sense of digging into the scriptures. It’s often boils down to sentiments among family, friends, pastors, scientists and colleagues something like the following, “Please don’t argue this point anymore as it really does not matter. How God created is not as important as Who created it. Let’s all just get along and love one another in Jesus and be happy.” When it comes to Genesis chapter one I have heard about every possible theory you could imagine accept for one theory: That is, the theory of heresy.


(
As you read this please note that someone accused of being a heretic does not imply that that person is intentionally evil, perverse, unethical or immoral.  A heretic is simple someone who teaches wrong doctrine that leads to deception from the truth of God's Word.  Someone who is heretical or becomes heretical is supposed to be warned so they may correct their error and continue in THE WAY. If no repentance or change occurs regardless of how honest, sincere, kind and loving someone may be, they nonetheless are in serious error and need to be barred from continued influence over the body of Christ. Today we have been so infiltrated with heresy that we do not even have the courage to deal with it, or for that matter, the discernment to recognize it. Please name me even one heretical teacher that in recent years was corrected, or removed from authority, in any of our Christian Universities.)

Science and Bible Truth

Pastors and leaders who know and love the sciences, and scientists professing Christ, often cannot (or just simply, will not) call white “white” and black “black,” and this may be the demise of the Church in these Last Days. I will admit that because the majority of believers have accepted the scientific theory of the earth and universe being billions of years old, I just assumed that was right myself and squeezed everything between the first two verses of the bible and then went on my merry way. Within the last few years, however, I was challenged to think about a young earth creation based on the Word and confirming scientific evidence— and it stretched me. The more I read and researched the more God’s Word became alive to me, and the more deception I recognized within those things I had accepted based merely upon the opinion of “Most People.”

Now I realize that it does not matter how many degrees “a man” has before or after his name, or how many “new discoveries” are found and written up by men around the world, who say things that contradict the Bible. What really matters is what God’s Word says. Even that became a study issue for me about the Bible “autographs.” When it all boils down to it we must be sensitive to the Holy Spirit in our hearts and not get so cerebral that we cannot see the forest for the trees when it comes to eternal truth and God’s word. After all, the supernatural is first and above the natural world and universe.

Deception in the Church

Paul said in 2 Thessalonians 2:3, Don't let anyone deceive you in any way. As believers I think we can think that we will not be deceived; but I want to remind you that in the Garden of Eden the very first perfect sinless humans were deceived. And if they could be deceived two people who walked with God without sin then anyone who professes Christ can be deceived as well. Is that not true? If you answer “NO” to that question (that you cannot be deceived) then I guess you will need to change some scriptures around including the one above and many others.

We need to be careful in these last days. Just because someone says they are a “Christian” (including Pastors) does not mean that they are. And even if they are genuine Christians, they could still be in a deceived state themselves and leading others in the same destructive path without being aware of such:

Should We Be Loyal to Man or Christ?

I am concerned that our “loyalty to years of friendship” may run deeper than the “truth of the gospel” in our veins.  I believe many leaders may really being compromising God’s Truth for the sake of “keeping the peace” with an old friend or colleague. But Paul commanded leaders NOT to act that way at all: After all who wants to confront a life long friend or colleague about error? 

Those [elders] who are sinning rebuke in the presence of all, that the rest also may fear. I charge you before God and the Lord Jesus Christ and the elect angels that you observe these things without prejudice, doing nothing with partiality. Do not lay hands on anyone hastily, nor share in other people’s sins; keep yourself pure….
Some men’s sins are clearly evident, preceding them to judgment, but those of some men follow later. Likewise, the good works of some are clearly evident, and those that are otherwise cannot be hidden. (An excerpt from 1 Timothy chapter 5:20-25, NKJV)

So let me draw my post here to the point at hand: It is interesting to me that a scientist (especially professing Christian Scientist) will not even talk with a creationist pastor. Let me explain what happened to me over the last year…

Standing Up For Truth

I came under great attack recently by liberals within the church world. I proposed that Professor Giberson who taught me in the late 80’s, and who had since digressed into a full-fledged evolutionist, be removed from his role in a Christian College. Professor Giberson still teaches the same classes at the same College that I attended, and now has written several books and clearly deconstructs the Bible in order to fit it into the flawed and ludicrous evolutionary theory. In 2009 I wrote to one of our denominations general superintendents about my concerns, and in essence, asked for an investigation of the issue.

Please note that I assume Karl is a great guy. He certainly was when I was a student, and I have actually read great comments about his influence on other people’s lives within the last few years. But with all those great comments and accolades he is still writing and advocating heresy (false teachings).

Now back to the string of events: Three months later I received a 3-page letter back that, in summary, said, “There is room for diversity, and he is a wonderful Christian man making a difference in the scientific community. There is room for his different belief system of theistic evolutionism within the church.” The author of that letter said that he did not see harm in that professor’s books and teachings — but he also did explicitly state that he disagreed with the professor. That last comment troubles me almost as much the reality that he refused to address a foundational doctrinal issue with seriousness and integrity.

After that response from our highest authority in the church, I wrote a one-page letter to Professor Giberson directly, inquiring about his beliefs on Adam and Eve. I received a brief personal reply that in essence said, “I do not have time for personal correspondence and please see my blog and website for the answers you seek.”

Interestingly, about 3 months later, Dr. Albert Mohler rebuked Professor Giberson publicly on the Internet within a blog post (because of his previous public comments about Dr. Mohler). It was at that point I emailed Dr. Mohler and thanked him for saying what needed to be said about a heretic that my own denomination refused to deal with.

An Unexpected Reaction

In August of this same year, my college alumni organization offered pastors the opportunity to take a book study with professors over the phone (limited to the first 15 pastors). I signed up for a book study on “Coming to Peace with Science.” This is yet another theistic evolution embracing book written by a professor Darrell Falk who teaches at another Christian University. The college sent me the book and the course was to start in September. A week before the first review was to be held on the phone, I received a call from the Chaplain of the college asking me to withdraw from taking the course. The class was not full and even now the class is not full. He gave me a reason that was unreasonable; but nonetheless I withdrew on his insistence. Why was I asked to withdraw? You can make your own conclusions, but in my opinion these science professors knew I was a solid creationist and could not or did not want to handle the heat of someone who is as passionate about creationism as they are about evolution. They do not have either a biblical or truly scientific leg to stand on — and they know it.

So since I was asked to withdraw from the book study I decided to read the book anyway. I then formed my opinions about the text, and was hoping to share them with several scientists and creationists who professed Christ.

However, while reading the book I had also noticed in it a reference to another theistic evolutionary scientist who was quoted therein, and subsequently did my research and found more information about him, including his email address. So the idea came to me that I could start a live call-in recorded podcast for both creationists and evolutionists, to discuss the issue at hand. So I set the date. I then emailed this scientist—and another who professes a Creationist view—asking these two professing Christians with opposing scientific theories about their willingness to participate in my podcast project. The Theistic Evolutionist declined and the Creationist scientist told me to call him anytime.

Though I did receive a few replies from the evolutionist, he in essence refused to participate in the podcast recording. Why? If he is an academic who truly believes that his views are based upon sound theory and verifiable evidence, shouldn’t he be willing (and prepared) to defend those views within a friendly podcast?

A Remarkable Conclusion

In the light of the things I am about to share with you, I am now beginning to think that maybe evolutionists are not just evolutionists after all. Maybe they are those who have become heretics who have fallen from scriptural Christianity and are now making inroads into the true body of Christ. In the process they as unchecked teachers are deceiving believers and destroying their faith in God’s inerrant Word.

So to give you some idea how I formed such a conclusion through my research and experiences, you will find further below my original emails to this scientist, and his replies. I did remove his name and replaced it with Mr. Mystery for courtesy sake.

After that text, I have another for you to examine…

Once this scientist declined me I sent the string of emails to a minister friend that I highly respect who is a great master of the Word of God and discerner of apostasy and heretics. I wanted his unbiased opinion of Mr. Mystery and why he thought the man declined me. I think you may find my friend’s response interesting.

But before you read my friend’s reflections please make up your own mind about Mr. Mystery’s response to me as you read his original email. See if the Lord reveals to you how crafty Mr. Mystery’s deception is, and which of his points that you agree with and do not agree with.

Then you can read the same e-mail the second time below that, with my friend’s comments inserted within the text. Once you then re-read that letter in the light of my friend’s remarks, see if you agree with his rebuttal. Then post why or why not as a comment to this post; but please base your response on scripture as much as possible.

Date: Fri, 24 Sep 2010 10:10:23 -0500
From: Peter Migner
To: Mr. Mystery
Subject: re: invite to discuss age of earth for podcast


Dr. Mystery,

I am reading the book "Coming to Peace with Science" by Darrel Falk. In his books he mentioned _________ that are over 10,000 years old as one piece of many for proof of old earth age. So as I did my research and it lead to this information from you. In your paper I see that you are a professing Christian who advocates an old earth. I was also able to find another gentleman giving an interesting perspective on the ______ that refutes the reliability of leaning on each ____ to represent each year who trusts in God for a young earth. I still have not drawn my conclusion yet on that issue, but there seems to be perspective on both sides on multiple fronts on age of earth from multiple professing Christian Scientist.

   As a pastor who believes in a young earth view I am by no means a scientist, but am willing to read and listen to the old age views by professing Christians in the theistic controversial issues of the day. My greatest concern is in the eventual deconstruction of all scriptures based on the old age view and making the bible fit into science.
I see the potential it has in breaking down a lot of solid doctrine and that greatly troubles me. To the best of my knowledge there are only a handful of accredited Universities left in North American that even teach and represent a young earth view based on scripture and scientific evidence. Since Christian Scientist represent both old age and YEC views it would seem only reasonable that all Christian Colleges and Universities should at least represent both theories well and with equal passion, thus my concern and passion as clergy.

      In October I am planning on starting a phone / web podcast a few times a month for a few months on this issue based on the book noted above and would like to have people from both sides of the issue call in and share with me for the recorded podcast. The podcast will then be available on ITunes so that other people can listen to both sides. Instead of it being hosted by a scientist in the university setting it will be hosted by clergymen (me) from the field of ministry. If you are open to such in the future please give me a call sometime. I would love to hear your testimony of how you came to know Christ and as well share mine with you.
 As I read about you I see that you have been working with NASA. I had the wonderful privilege many years ago to meet and visit with former Astronaut James Irwin of Apollo 15 to the moon. He has since passed away. I recall well looking at his moon rocks in his office in Co Springs in the early 80's and listening to his passion about the bible and creation. He shared with me his supernatural experience of grace on the moon and his return to Christ as Savior while looking at the earth. It was a moving story for sure.

God Bless

Peter Migner, Pastor


From: Mr. Mystery
To: Peter Migner
Sent: Saturday, October 2, 2010
Subject: RE: invite to discuss age of earth for podcast

Dear Pastor Migner,

I have not yet read the book "Coming to Peace with Science", but it sounds like an interesting one.

You mention the slippery slope argument--that if one accepts the idea of an old Earth, one should consider giving in on other doctrinal issues. The problem with this idea is that essentially all Christians of this generation are well down the slippery slope and just don't realize it. The Bible describes a "firmament" in which stars and other heavenly bodies are fixed. There are also Bible verses that describe the Earth as "firmly fixed", certainly implying something other than rotation and orbital motion. Also mentioned are the "ends of the Earth" and other phrases implying a flat Earth. People today can shrug these terms off as figurative, but that was certainly not the case only a few hundred years ago. That is the reason that Galileo was put on trial.

So if one is really concerned for the deconstruction of scriptures, one ought to stick with the position of the church prior to the scientific revolution: The Earth is a firmly fixed flat surface surround above us by the firmament. Of course that seems foolish today, but only because the public has completely accepted what was once heretical. We are now convinced that God was not trying to teach us in the Bible that the Earth is flat or that the geocentric theory of the solar system was correct.

I have a strong respect for those who are zealous for the orthodoxy of scriptures. However, I think we need to learn from the Pharisees. They were also very zealous for the orthodoxy of scriptures, but so much so that they could not see God's plan. My conclusion is that we need to let God be God and to remember our place, far beneath Him in our knowledge. Like the Pharisees, we will not honor God by fighting blindly for orthodoxy, but rather, we will honor God by being in awe of Him, by respecting scriptures, by hesitating to deviate from traditional interpretations but also being potentially open to them if changes to our previous interpretation are clearly needed. So I remain relatively conservative, but I clearly believe in an old Earth.

To respond to your suggestion that Christian colleges teach both young and old Earth positions: this is the very big goal of the young Earth organizations. This idea was voiced in a recent issue of World magazine. In my own experience in college (a Christian college) I learned about young Earth organizations, but not in a positive way at all. A prominent young Earth organization came to our college and gave a presentation to the science faculty. The faculty had severe doubts about many of their "evidences". The tactic of the YEC organization was to use this occasion to ask how many of the faculty believed x, y, and z doctrines (i.e., literal six-day creation, age of the Earth, and other doctrines). The YEC organization had a person or persons at the back of the room who were watching which faculty members raised their hands or didn't raise their hands in response to these questions. The organization took down the names of some of these faculty members. There was later contact by this YEC organization with the board of trustees. This kind of tactic really angered the science faculty. They thought the YEC meeting was about presenting ideas, not a means toward removal of certain faculty members. The faculty certainly did not appreciate this coming from a Christian organization. I don't believe that YEC organization was ever invited on campus again, and their ideas are not being taught in that college.

I know some of the young Earth organization leaders personally, and I have heard some of these leaders admit that the scientific evidence is stacked in favor of an old Earth, but their view of scripture is completely preventing them from accepting the weight of evidence. I know that is not the picture these leaders present to the Christian public, and this misrepresentation upsets me. However, in the end that is between them and God.

We need to recognize that these issues (method and age of creation) are not at the core of our faith. We agree that God created, that He acted in history and is sovereign, that Jesus atoned for us, and that the Bible is inspired and is useful for all purposes given in II Timothy 3:16-17. These, and our love for God and for one another, are top priority.

God bless,

-- Mr. Mystery



Now here are my friend’s rebuttal comments in blue, inserted within the original text of Mr. Mystery’s reply to me:

From: "Mr Mystery
To: Peter Migner
Sent: Saturday, October 2, 2010 6:43:43 PM GMT -05:00 US/Canada Eastern
Subject: RE: invite to discuss age of earth for podcast

Dear Pastor Migner,

I have not yet read the book "Coming to Peace with Science", but it sounds like an interesting one.

You mention the slippery slope argument--that if one accepts the idea of an old Earth, one should consider giving in on other doctrinal issues. The problem with this idea is that essentially all Christians of this generation are well down the slippery slope and just don't realize it. The Bible describes a "firmament" in which stars and other heavenly bodies are fixed. [Dr. Mystery apparently does not know the meaning of the Hebrew words here, nor the work of those associated with the Creation Evidence Museum in Glenrose, Texas at CreationEvidence.org. If he did, he would not be so uninformed with his interpretation of the “firmament.” These scientists at CE have created a Creation model that includes a “crystalline canopy” as a firmament, complete with scientific data to support their thesis. Even NASA has had Dr. Baugh lecture to them on the things they discovered with their biosphere experiments, based upon that mode.] There are also Bible verses that describe the Earth as "firmly fixed", certainly implying something other than rotation and orbital motion. [This is also a very ignorant statement, as the Bible clearly says that, “He stretches out the north over empty space; He hangs the earth on nothing” (Job 26:7). In other words, the only thing “fixed” in the Bible account is the laws upon which the earth operates, but the earth itself hangs “on nothing” i.e. is NOT supported on an object, but suspended in its orbit by gravity around the sun. ] Also mentioned are the "ends of the Earth" and other phrases implying a flat Earth. [Again, he is reading his own understanding of the “implications” of such statements, as there are MANY passages of Scripture that indicate that the earth is ROUND: e.g. “When he prepared the heavens, I was there: when he set a compass upon the face of the depth” (Proverbs 8:27). Compasses are round, and the “face” of the depth would be the horizon. Also, Isaiah 40:22 says, “He sits enthroned above the circle of the earth...”. Christopher Columbus said within his autobiography that these passages of Scripture convinced him that the earth was round, and upon these, he held firm during the many trials in which his terrified crew sometimes plotted mutiny for fear he would get them all killed. So the good doctor is quite ignorant of the Bible (and history) on these topics, and if he spent any real time looking at the MASSIVE amount of good science being reported in Creationist circles, he would know that.] People today can shrug these terms off as figurative, but that was certainly not the case only a few hundred years ago. That is the reason that Galileo was put on trial. [Galileo was put on trial by the Roman Catholic Church, NOT the Christian Church. The RC’s banned the Bible from the public, and were essentially themselves heretics in the light of Scripture. To blame Christians for Galileo's situation—which was not that bad anyway, as he lived under “house arrest” in a beautiful villa—is absurd, and a red herring of an argument. It is a logical failure known as an “ad hoc argument”: His effort to substantiate his point is nothing more than a desperate appeal to history, but one which actually does not support the point being made.

So if one is really concerned for the deconstruction of scriptures, one ought to stick with the position of the church prior to the scientific revolution: The Earth is a firmly fixed flat surface surround above us by the firmament. [That was the RC, not “The Church.” Further, that was also the primary opinion of MOST “scientific thought” for the day, regardless of the RC position on the topics. So again, a moot point with NO substantiation in the light of either Scripture or accurate history.] Of course that seems foolish today, but only because the public has completely accepted what was once heretical. [Again, he forgets the RC considered anything that was contrary to their own heresy as heretical...so he still misses the point terribly.] We are now convinced that God was not trying to teach us in the Bible that the Earth is flat or that the geocentric theory of the solar system was correct. [That is a true statement; but in spite of his thesis and evidence, not based upon such. He clearly is misinformed about both the Bible and supporting scientific evidence for a literal 6-day Creation as described therein.]

I have a strong respect for those who are zealous for the orthodoxy of scriptures. However, I think we need to learn from the Pharisees. They were also very zealous for the orthodoxy of scriptures, but so much so that they could not see God's plan. [The Pharisees were NOT zealous for orthodox interpretation of the Scriptures, as they interpreted the Bible according to the Talmud (which they elevated to “divine” status of authority) and their own whims. That is why Jesus rebuked them, saying, “You make the Word of God of none affect by your traditions” (Mark 7:13). This is an EXTREMELY ignorant statement made by Mr. Mystery. In logic, this is a fallacy called a “straw man augment.” Here is an interesting discussion of this type of fallacy, using a statement of James Dobson, of all people, as an example: http://www.fallacyfiles.org/strawman.html  So Mr. Mystery holds up a “straw man” (i.e. a false example that does not actually exist in reality, but is made up for the sake of argument). He then “tears it apart” with fine-sounding reasoning that would cause ignorant people to think that he is brilliant. The only problem is that his “target” is an illusion, and therefore, his reasoning is empty speculation about nothing that ever existed in the first place. It sounds good, but cannot hold up to either Scripture or history....once again.] My conclusion is that we need to let God be God and to remember our place, far beneath Him in our knowledge. [That, again, is a true statement; but not predicated upon his own logic or false-assertions. Again, it sounds good and even Christian, but is actually a deflection from the real issues he failed to address.] Like the Pharisees, we will not honor God by fighting blindly for orthodoxy, but rather, we will honor God by being in awe of Him, by respecting scriptures, by hesitating to deviate from traditional interpretations but also being potentially open to them if changes to our previous interpretation are clearly needed. [This is another, and rather obvious, logical fallacy called a self-contradiction: He first says in the previous sentence, “[We] need to let God be God and to remember our place, far beneath Him in our knowledge.” He then says in this last sentence, essentially, “But if we, in our own earthly human wisdom, decide that the Bible is incorrect on a topic, then we should change our interpretation to fit OUR understanding of such things.” This is his way of saying, “I like to sound as if I honor God and His Word, but in reality, my belief system is founded upon humanism and I just don’t want you to know that.”] So I remain relatively conservative, but I clearly believe in an old Earth. [i.e. “I profess to be a Bible-believing Christian, but in reality, I am not; and I don’t want to look at any evidence that supports such a literal Creation thesis.”]

To respond to your suggestion that Christian colleges teach both young and old Earth positions: this is the very big goal of the young Earth organizations. This idea was voiced in a recent issue of World magazine. In my own experience in college (a Christian college) I learned about young Earth organizations, but not in a positive way at all. A prominent young Earth organization came to our college and gave a presentation to the science faculty. The faculty had severe doubts about many of their "evidences". The tactic of the YEC organization was to use this occasion to ask how many of the faculty believed x, y, and z doctrines (i.e., literal six-day creation, age of the Earth, and other doctrines). The YEC organization had a person or persons at the back of the room who were watching which faculty members raised their hands or didn't raise their hands in response to these questions. The organization took down the names of some of these faculty members. There was later contact by this YEC organization with the board of trustees. This kind of tactic really angered the science faculty. They thought the YEC meeting was about presenting ideas, not a means toward removal of certain faculty members. The faculty certainly did not appreciate this coming from a Christian organization. I don't believe that YEC organization was ever invited on campus again, and their ideas are not being taught in that college. [Despite his experience with ONE SET of unethical YE proponents (if we can fully believe his one-sided account), that is NOT a sufficient foundation upon which he has a right to reject ANY and ALL YE proponents and their Bible-based scientific theories. Again, logically, this is a fallacy known as an “ad hoc” argument; and certainly does not raise my estimation of this man’s educational credentials one bit.]I know some of the young Earth organization leaders personally, and I have heard some of these leaders admit that the scientific evidence is stacked in favor of an old Earth, [I would like to see him name even ONE...which he does NOT. So in the light of his demonstrated ignorance of Scriptures, logical fallacies, and unsubstantiated arguments above, I just don’t believe him. There is a HUGE amount of information that supports a YE model of Creation scientifically. One particularly intriguing one is the “radio halos” found in ALL the granite rock of the earth’s crust: http://75.125.60.6/creatio1/index.php?option=com_content&task=view&id=36
I have read so much scientific evidence that supports a YE elsewhere—and so much garbage in Mr. Mystery’s email reply to you—that I will have to require some substantiation of his assertion that he knows EVEN ONE genuine YE scientist that secretly believes that the evidence supports an OE thesis.] but their view of scripture is completely preventing them from accepting the weight of evidence. [Given what I have read in his email, I would say it is more accurate to say that Mr. Mystery’s disbelieve of Scripture—and ignorance thereof—is blinding him from accepting the weight of evidence for a YE model. He has NOT substantiated his beliefs at all—and has produced ONLY logical fallacies for his reasoning. So I cannot accept him as being anything but intellectually dishonest (based on the evidence at hand) and I DO question whether he is genuinely a born again Christian or not, as he seems to lack reasonable revelation of God’s word also.] I know that is not the picture these leaders present to the Christian public, and this misrepresentation upsets me. [Substantiation...substantiation. He offers none, but a false front of “righteous indignation.”] However, in the end that is between them and God. [And he will find out how true that statement is one day, to his own detriment, unless he repents.

Furthermore, this is a typical “defense” response from heretics, in my experience. They are essentially saying, “Let’s not discuss the real issues, and especially my own position, and just let God sort it all out later.” However, that is NOT biblical. In essence, Mr. Mystery makes a “God is the judge” statement. Though his context implies “...and not me” it is really a distraction from his true intent. By saying, “God is the judge,” he really implies, “So leave me alone and don’t challenge my doctrine.”

Yet, the Bible actually TELLS us (yea, even commands us) to judge doctrine and to “contend for the faith once delivered to the saints” (see Jude). Since heresy is so easily disproved upon closer analysis, the heretics want to throw up a “shield” to prevent that scrutiny. Thus, they take advantage of the common misconception that the Bible admonishes us “not to judge”, when Jesus merely warned not to judge hypocritically; He never forbad it categorically, and in several places, TOLD us to judge; e.g.:

Judge not according to the appearance, but judge righteous judgment. (John 7:24)

Or how can you say to your brother, ‘Brother, let me remove the speck that is in your eye,’ when you yourself do not see the plank that is in your own eye? Hypocrite! First remove the plank from your own eye, and then you will see clearly to remove the speck that is in your brother’s eye. (Luke 6:42; and also Matthew 7:5)

If you review EVERY one of Jesus’ so-called “do not judge” passages (many of which I did not cite herein) He was only admonishing against being a hypocrite. Otherwise, how else can we “judge a tree by its fruit” if we are not to look at the “fruit” of others and judge such things? The logical absurdity of this common misconception about “judging others” when analyzed in the light of Scripture, is astounding.

Thus, in short, a common “defense” used by heretics is the “God is the judge” ploy. Yet, the Bible tells us to challenge heresy and error with God’s Truth, which ALL the apostles demonstrated for us in the NT, and the true prophets of old certainly demonstrated in the OT.]

We need to recognize that these issues (method and age of creation) are not at the core of our faith. [That is a lie (though he might sincerely believe that). John Calvin, Martin Luther, and many others, clearly understood that the question of Creation, the fall of man, and other such topics, are very much CORE issues; the deviation from which was pure heresy, as it undermined the very foundations upon which the Gospel is based.] We agree that God created, that He acted in history and is sovereign, that Jesus atoned for us, and that the Bible is inspired and is useful for all purposes given in II Timothy 3:16-17. [Yet he just spent his entire reply to you denying portions of the Bible’s inspiration....so this is again a logical self-contradiction, and pure folly. If we cannot believe in the Bible’s account of a literal 6-day Creation, how can we trust its literal account of the fall of man and justification through the sacrifice of Jesus? He is theologically a heretic, but either too ignorant to know it or too dishonest to admit it.] These, and our love for God and for one another, are top priority. [Most heretics I encounter also resort to the “love of God” distraction, just like he did here. Thus, I have to conclude he is knowingly a heretic as this one seems to be their favorite “trump card” in their let’s-change-the-subject-away-from-the-real-issues stratagem.]

God bless, [Don’t you just love it when heretics send you their blessing? Peter, my brother...I hope I have substantiated my point already within the notes above: I obviously believe you are dealing with a heretic here. That is why he does NOT want to be recorded for a podcast expressing his views, for fear you might expose the underlying heresies upon which they are founded.

Let me acknowledge here that Mr. Mystery obviously had not expected or intended his email to be so thoroughly scrutinized and dissected. Nevertheless, we can certainly conclude that he is truly expressing his own paradigm on these issues. So his use of logical fallacies, poor theology, and unsubstantiated facts, to support his thesis in a reply to you, betrays the unsustainable nature of the position that he has chosen to embrace against the Scriptures (and against the copious empirical evidence that supports those Scriptures).

Remember also: Augustine hit the nail on the head when he wrote, “Pride is the mother of all heresies.” This man’s pride is evident throughout his email response above, despite the false humility and many logical fallacies he used to cover that fact up. So unless you are willing to take the “Law to the Proud” and wear him out with the truth (like a good “spanking”) then you are likely going to waste your time on him; he can never accept grace (i.e. get delivered from his multiplied errors and, if necessary, even get saved for the first time) with such demonstrated pride in his heart.]

--Mr. Mystery.

Closing Remarks

Let me end this letter with a question or two: What you do believe about creation? Do you believe what the Word of God says? Do you doubt what the Word of God says because many scientists and theologians have agreed with their theories that question the clear and implied account of the history the creation and mankind? Are you willing to do serious study to determine for yourself what is truth, or will you throw your arms in the air and just say it does not matter and merely trust the theory that has the most adherents? If this generation does not defend the biblical creation account as outlined in the Bible what will happen to the next generation?



Were you taught evolution in school with an equal rebuttal of teaching of creationism? This generation more than any other sways the future for many other generations to come. With professing Christians now embracing evolution by renaming it theistic they are able to deceive the innocent with heresy in the name of God. Evolution is evolution, be it theistic or atheistic. Unless leaders who hold positions of authority in the church take the time to study and have convictions from God and react one way or the other we will have continued controversy among the sheep over this issue.  


However, when the Son of Man comes, will he find faith on the earth?" Luke 18:8

25 comments:

  1. Evolution is indeed a fact and the theory of evolution rests upon it. A theory in science is not a wild guess or something that the guys dream up after a night of heavy drinking. It is an explanation of a specific set of facts. The fact of evolution is that there are inheritable changes that occur in the gene pool of a population over time, this can be demonstrated in a lab and no reputable scientist one disputes it.

    The theory of evolution attempts to explain how that fact results in the emergence of new species, through mechanisms such as genetic drift, mutations, natural selection and so forth. It is well founded and is the basis for many other fields of science because it explains things so well and offers insights that we might not otherwise be aware of.

    Creationism begins with a premise, an inviolate assumption that the Genesis account of creation is correct. It then look for facts that give it credence. Science, on the other hand, begins by observing data and NOT making assumptions ahead of time. Secondly, if scientists find contradicting data, they discard or change their hypothesis to reflect the new changes. Because creationism is based on the "truth" of God's word it cannot be changed if the evidence contradicts it. Thus it cannot qualify as science.

    School science classes are for teaching science, not pseudo-science or religious ideology. You wouldn't permit your school to teach astrology in astronomy class or accept speaking in tongues as a foreign language requirement along with Spanish, French, German and Latin would you? For the same reason neither creationism nor intelligent design belong in the science classroom.

    I have no issue with teaching children about religion, creation stories or how religion has influenced and shaped our society, but do it in the philosophy, or sociology, or psychology classrooms, not as science.

    ReplyDelete
  2. This comment has been removed by the author.

    ReplyDelete
  3. Karl,

    How can evolution be fact and theory at the same time? Please define evolution if you are using two different definitions because your opening comment reveals heresy otherwise. I had also noted that if someone was to reply to please use scripture. Not once have you quoted the Word of God and the foundation of this post is based on truth being the Word of God and not science or the ever changing fallible science data.

    A theory is just that and not a fact. God's Word is Truth and not a theory. You obviously have no confidence in the reliability of God's Word and your foundation seems to be the Science of man. You base your theory on both present day observable data and old data that cannot be observed anymore. Also, all matter that you observe is subject to its Creator so that only the Creator's is reliable and not His changing stuff that even He changed before the eyes of men as noted in the Gospels. The natural world order of matter is under subjection to the supernatural of God. Jesus was raised from death after 3 days, Jesus walked on water, Jesus walked through walls after the resurrection, Jesus turned water into wine, Jesus multiplied bread and fish to feed a multitude, Jesus healed people without medicine and the lists goes on and on of how Jesus changed the reliability of observable science and made matter behalf differently. Just based on Him alone we can know for certain by faith that science is second in reliability to the Creator.

    Do you claim to be a follower / disciple of Jesus Christ? Having faith in the God who created the matter that can change outside of it's naturals laws is something that cannot be proven that is why faith is needed. You are filling my blog post with heretical information as it is weighed in against the Word of God. The best science is observable science of matter before us.
    Evolution is a theory and assumes on a few old observations that are not proven yet to this day. The evidence keeps changing and the evidence is the stuff of the creator, yet you want people to trust is the ever changing fallible observations of data from matter that keeps changing?

    "I have no issue with teaching children about religion, creation stories or how religion has influenced and shaped our society, but do it in the philosophy, or sociology, or psychology classrooms, not as science."

    Christianity is a relationship with a living Savior who scientifically overcame the death data. Creation is not a story but an accurate account of the history of man and the creation account provided by our Creator. Science is a field of study that has only discovered the things God has allowed so far and many of those discoveries are filled with errors because science without God equals a godless evolution theory. Evolution is man's way to explain what is without God. Science bows before the Creator and not the other way around as you propose without any scriptural quotes. Therefore your response by definition of biblical authority is heretical and false.

    ReplyDelete
  4. Pastor,

    In the same way that gravity is both a fact, i.e. if you jomp off your bed you'll land on the floor. and also a theory. A theory in science is not a rung in a ladder of certainty. A theory never becomes a fact. Facts are observations of what we can see, it is the data. A theory is an explenation of how the fact we observe work. A fact is an observation, a theory is an explenation of a specific set of facts.

    I apologize for not being clear earlier. Much of the problem that people encounter when they discuss evolution is due to not understanding the terminology. Evolution is defined in science as the "occurrence of inheritable changes in the gene pool of a population over time", that is fact and is indisputable. To challenge the fact of evolution would like insisting that the earth is flat or that gravity doesn't exist. The theory of evolution attempts to explain the mechanisms (the how and why) of those changes in terms of genetic drift, mutations, natural selection, etc.

    I would be happy to discuss any particular point that you like. The evidence for evolution is literally overwhelming, it is on par with the evidence for gravity and is the central foundation for many areas of science.

    yes, science can change, the search for truth is at the heart of science, so as new data is found and new things are learned,science is molded and sharpened to more accurately reflect what has been found.

    This is my first time posting here, I did not realize there was a requirement to quote scripture with each post, my apologies.

    ReplyDelete
  5. Excuse me, I missed proofing my first paragraph above, let me try that again LOL

    Yes, evolution is both theory and fact. They are different things in science and one does not become or turn into the other. Just as gravity is a fact, when an apple falls off a tree it hits the ground. It is also a theory, first by Newton then later replaced by Einstein. A theory explains why the facts exist, how they work, what mechanisms explain them. Scientists for years debated Einstein's theories vs. Newtons, but apples didn't suspend themselves in midair pending the outcome.

    The same is true of evolution. It is indeed a fact, defined as "the occurrence of inheritable changes in the gene pool of a population over time", but it also has a theory component to it, which attempts to explain the mechanisms involved including genetic drift, mutation, natural selection and other processes.

    ReplyDelete
  6. Dear Pastor Migner,

    I want to commend you, first of all, for taking such a strong public stand against the heresy of "Theistic Evolutionism." The fact that professing "Christians" can be so gullible as to consider these two opposing concepts as mutually compatible is a sad testament to the state of today's public ministry and "Christian" education standards.

    In truth, "Theistic Evolution" constitutes an oxymoron. The two terms each represent mutually incompatible religious views. The first, refers to faith in the God of the Bible. (This in contrast to Deism, which acknowledges a Creator, but NOT specifically and exclusively the God of the Bible; so by definition, Deism is a heresy or false religion, depending on the particular context in which it is addressed.)

    Evolution is an errant "faith" (i.e. false religion) built upon pseudo-science. In fact, it would be accurate to say it is built upon "science fiction" in that the so-called "data" that Karl Giberson referred to within his comments above do not exist as he has framed them at all! That is why Evolution has rightfully been nicknamed, "A fairy-tale for grown ups."

    So in support of your objectives and the premise of this article you posted, I intend to post a series of rebuttal comments to those absurdities posted above by "Karl." I trust you will not mind me being so forward as to post so much content to your blog.

    God bless you, sir, for your bold stand on behalf of the Truth of God's Word.

    May God bless you Pastor Migner—and your family—in all that you do.

    Always in Jesus,

    -Rev. Rich Vermillion

    ReplyDelete
  7. Karl,

    Let me give you a few points that show that Evolution is NOT a science at all...it is actually a religion. For example, within the Introduction to a 1971 publication of Darwin's Origin of Species, L. Harrison Matthews, British biologist and evolutionist, wrote quite honestly (emphasis mine):


    The fact of evolution is the backbone of biology, and biology is thus in the peculiar position of being a science founded on an unproved theory—is it then a science or a faith? Belief in the theory of evolution is thus exactly parallel to belief in special creation—both are concepts which believers know to be true but neither, up to the present, has been capable of proof.


    So despite Dr. Matthews' reference to Evolution as "fact" he also clearly (and honestly) states that it is unproven, and likely unprovable. This latter point can actually be considered almost an absolute, as "observation" of "facts" that occurred over "millions of years" is extremely improbable to ever becoming a scientifically feasible achievement.

    But here we can briefly introduce for the first time a TRUE fact about Evolution: It is a religions faith, as this notable evolutionary scientist admits. This is the reality of its nature. It is a belief system based on the unobservable. Thus, it is unproven and unprovable. It is also quite antagonistic to the Truth of God's Word, as Scholastic evolutionist, D.J. Futuyama explains in his book, Science on Trial (1983) as cited within Dr. Carl Baugh's excellent book, Why Do Men Believe Evolution Against All Odds? (emphasis mine):


    Creation and evolution, between them, exhaust the possible explanations for the origin of living things. Organisms either appeared on the earth fully developed or they did not. If they did not, they must have developed from preexisting species by some process of modification. If they did appear in a fully developed state, they must indeed have been created by some omnipotent intelligence.


    So noted evolutionists admit that Evolution is a religion based on faith in the unprovable. Evolution, therefore, competes directly with the Bible account of creation.

    Of course, the Bible is the source of our information concerning the origins of sin, and the plan for our Redemption through Jesus Christ. So evolutionary thinking is completely incompatible with the Christian faith, as it contradicts the very foundation upon which the Christian faith is based.

    Thus, logically, "Theistic Evolution" is an oxymoron. And any attempt to "merge" the two concepts results necessarily in a perversion of both. Thus biblically, it is a heresy; and evolutionarily, it undermines the very premises of that "theory."

    However, this second post of mine is still only an introduction. I am just warming up. Now on to more meaty discussion points...

    Always in Jesus,

    -Rev. Rich Vermillion

    ReplyDelete
  8. Karl,

    As we have already observed from the bona fide facts at hand within my previous comment, Macroevolution is NOT a fact, but an unproven and unprovable "theory" at best. It is also a religious belief that is anathema to the Christian faith, as we will discuss in more detail shortly. However, first, let me point out that Macroevolution is not only "unproven" and "unprovable" but it lacks the true characteristics NECESSARY for a sane person to even consider it a theory at all!

    As AnswersInGenesis.org correctly points out in their recent article, Evolution: Not Even A Theory (emphasis mine):


    A theory has its genesis in a hypothesis, which is a working assumption as to why we observe something—an educated guess. To test this assumption, scientists conduct experiments that either disprove or correlate with the hypothesis.
    Over time, if a hypothesis continues to stand up to scrutiny and many different experiments, the scientific community may begin referring to it as a “theory.” In essence, this means that because the hypothesis has not been disproved over many years and no other known hypothesis works, then we can be reasonably sure that it’s accurate....
    Two problems prevent anyone from legitimately calling evolution a theory. First, there’s no direct, observable experiment that can ever be performed. Scientists can measure bones, study mutations, decode DNA, and notice similarities in morphology (the form and structure of animals and plants), but they can never test evolutionary events in the past....
    Secondly, and related to the above, evolution misses the mark as a theory because all the supposed “tests” to confirm Darwinism do not necessarily and distinctively correspond to the idea. In other words, each has an alternate and equally viable explanation. A theory requires that the confirming experiments correspond to one specific hypothesis. Otherwise, the experiment cannot establish legitimacy. Evolution has no such legitimacy.


    Thus, to be frank about it, Macroevolution is at best a "hypothesis" according to true scientific standards. So why do its adherents, such as yourself, try to pawn it off on the unsuspecting public as "fact" when it clearly is NOT? Simple. In fact, the answer was given in my last post in some detail. Macroevolution is a religion, and not a scientific theory at all.

    So to this point, we have reviewed the TRUE FACTS that Macroevolution is: Unproven, unprovable, a religion, and merely a hypothesis from a purely scientific standpoint (if that much).

    Now, we have also noted in my last comment that Biblical Creationism is also considered "unprovable" by many in empirical scientific terms. I will not take the time to argue that point, though I believe I could make a case FOR the provableness of Creationism on the same terms that Quantum Theorists tend to make their cases stand. (For more insight on this point, however, I would suggest you read An Apology and Unification Theory for the Reconciliation of Physical Matter and Metaphysical Cognizance by Desmond P. Allen.)

    Instead, let me move on to a more pertinent question: Are either Evolution or Creationism disprovable? Can we safely eliminate one of these two choices regarding the origins of life, from the competition? Yes, we can. Further, ONLY Macroevolution is already completely discredited and disproved...while biblical Creationism can never fall into such disrepute.

    Now, to substantiate that thesis in my next post...

    Always in Jesus,

    -Rev. Rich Vermillion

    ReplyDelete
  9. Karl,

    There are two "deadly" scientific absolutes that have already dealt a decisive "death blow" to Macroevolution: The irreducible complexity of living organisms, and Entropy. We will begin with the first, through a brief discussion of Dr. Michael Behe's book, Darwin's Black Box: The Biochemical Challenge to Evolution.

    The Library Journal's description of this excellent text lays out the case (emphasis mine):


    Behe (biochemistry, Lehigh) argues that the biochemical basis of complex life could not have developed through gradual evolutionary change because too many dependent variables would have had to have been altered simultaneously. Through explanations of the functions of the eye, blood clotting, and the immune system, he sets out to argue against evolution as a sole explanation for their existence. Behe doesn't call on religion to support his thesis. Rather, he explores the scientific literature for some of the alternatives to evolution and includes his own support for life by design at the end of the text. The importance of this controversial work is in the questions it raises about the primacy of evolution as the sole creator of life. Recommended for all libraries concerned with evolution. —Eric D. Albright, Galter Health Sciences Lib., Northwestern Univ., Chicago


    Dr. Behe's thesis is one that is quite self-evident, when reflected upon: Microbiological organisms are irreducibly complex, and could NOT have possibly developed "by chance." Furthermore, he points out that Charles Darwin himself noted that such data, should it come to light, would cause his theory to "absolutely break down." I will now quote Darwin's own words from my PDF copy of Origins of Species, pages 89-90:


    It is scarcely possible to avoid comparing the eye to a telescope. We know that this instrument has been perfected by the long-continued efforts of the highest human intellects; and we naturally infer that the eye has been formed by a somewhat analogous process.... In living bodies, variation will cause the slight alterations, generation will multiply them almost infinitely, and natural selection will pick out with unerring skill each improvement. Let this process go on for millions on millions of years; and during each year on millions of individuals of many kinds; and may we not believe that a living optical instrument might thus be formed as superior to one of glass, as the works of the Creator are to those of man?
    If it could be demonstrated that any complex organ existed, which could not possibly have been formed by numerous, successive, slight modifications, my theory would absolutely break down.


    Darwin continued from his last statement above in that same paragraph with, "But I can find out no such case." In short, the limitations of his day prevented him from delving into the depths of biological systems to the point of discovering such irreducible complexity.

    Nevertheless, those technologies are available today. We KNOW of a truth that microorganisms are all irreducibly complex. But if every single cell within the creature is irreducibly complex, is not the creature as a whole? Modern biology has proven that it is.

    Creationism—or more broadly, Intelligent Design—is the ONLY theory in which irreducible complexity fits VERY NICELY into its framework without any modifications being necessary. Can we conclude that your "Theistic Evolution" is completely unsound in the light of such facts? Yes.

    So, my dear "evolutionary religious zealot," let me dive into what I consider the ultimate "death blow" to Macroevolution in my next post...

    Always in Jesus,

    -Rev. Rich Vermillion

    ReplyDelete
  10. Karl,

    Now we can move into a more universal scientific law that absolutely causes Macroevolution's foundations to be fully exploded and destroyed: Namely, Entropy.

    The Second Law of Thermodynamics is generally considered now to be a universal law, as its effects can be measured and observed easily in any sphere of reality. Things break down and disintegrate. In recent years, it was discovered that even the speed of light (thought previously to be a constant) has slowed down.

    In regard to Macroevolution:

    First, it is a fact that ALL of science has measured and noted Entropy throughout creation's spheres. Yet, the "hypothesis" of Macroevolution is completely dependent on life forms advancing to "higher" stages from lower. So not only has your, "occurrence of inheritable changes in the gene pool of a population over time" not ever been observed making "evolutionary progress" by any scientific method, but such an absurd conjecture is actually in direct OPPOSITION to the observable facts around us!

    Things are "slowing DOWN" Karl, not "speeding UP."

    Second is the now-known fact that the gravitational field of the Earth is also DIMINISHING or DECAYING. Quoting an excellent article by Andrew A. Snelling entitled, The Earth's magnetic field and the age of the Earth (emphasis mine):


    As early as 1971, creation scientist Dr. Thomas G. Barnes, then Professor of Physics at The University of Texas at El Paso, drew fresh attention to the fact that the strength of the earth’s magnetic field was decreasing. He noted that between 1835 and 1965 geophysicists had made some 26 measurements of the magnetic dipole moment of the earth’s magnetic field. When plotted against time (that is, the year of measurement) these data points fitted a decay curve which Barnes calculated had a ‘halflife’ (halving period) of only 1,400 years. On this basis he concluded that the earth’s magnetic field was less than 10,000 years old, and so the earth must likewise be that young.


    Dr. Jason Lisle adds the decay of the earth's magnetic field to his larger thesis on The Age of the Universe, Part 2, saying (emphasis added):


    ...Every century, the magnetic field decays by about 5 percent. Since the earth’s magnetic field gets weaker as time moves forward, it must have been considerably stronger in the past. Approximately 6,000 years ago, the magnetic field would have been quite a lot stronger, but still perfectly suitable for life.
    However, if the earth were many millions of years old, then the geomagnetic field would have been so strong in that alleged distant past, that life would not have been possible.


    So Karl, though you evolutionary zealots love to add millions upon millions of years in order to get some plausibility to your ludicrous "hypothesis," the fact is that you do NOT have anything more than about 6,000-10,000 years with which to work when factoring in the effect of Entropy on the earth's magnetic field.

    The Macroevolution "fairy-tale" has already been disproved. This is why former atheist, Antony Flew, abandoned it as "intellectual suicide" in the light of true scientific evidence (though he mistakenly embraced Deism as the basis for Intelligent Design). However, the very scientific evidence that flatly destroys the Macroevolution myth, happens to fit perfectly within the Bible's account of Creation, the Fall, and the introduction of the curse on the earth (i.e. Entropy).

    Now, why on God's earth would you dare to embrace such a farce? Simple. Because "evolution" is your religion...and NOT Christianity...

    ReplyDelete
  11. Karl,

    Now we get down to the "nitty gritty" of your true "faith" (which cannot possibly be Christianity, despite your claims otherwise, because you do not believe in the Bible). First, let me reiterate Evolution's religious nature, with a couple of choice quotes that highlight that fact:

    Contrary to the popular notion that only creationism relies on the supernatural, evolutionism must as well, since the probabilities of the random formation of life are so tiny as to require a "miracle" for spontaneous generation to have occurred, making belief in spontaneous generation "tantamount to a theological statement." (Chandra Wickramasinghe, testimony in the Arkansas Balanced Treatment case, December 1981, cited originally in Bill Keith's Scoptes II: The Great Debate (1982), p. 137)

    In fact, evolution became, in a sense, a scientific religion; almost all scientist have accept it and many are prepared to "bend" their observations to fit in with it. (Physics professor H.S. Lipson at the University of Manchester, "A Physicist Looks at Evolution," Physics Bulletin, Vol. 31 (1980))

    Evolution is perhaps the most jealously guarded dogma of the American public philosophy. Any sign of serious resistance to it has encountered fierce hostility in the past, and it will not be abandoned without a tremendous fight. The gold standard could go,...the Constitution itself shyly junked. But Darwinism will be defended to the bitter end. (Tom Bethell, The American Spectator, July 1994, P. 17)

    (All the above quotes were derived from Dr. Baugh's book, Why Do Men Believe Evolution Against All Odds?, chapter 2, but are provided here with their original citations from that text.)

    However, at this point Karl, you will likely argue, "But that is my point! I believe in a 'Theistic Evolution' which accounts for the miraculous, but over millions of years of evolutionary process." So let's destroy that absurdity with some theology, shall we?:

    I will not bother quoting from Genesis, as you already have stated that you do not believe in the Genesis account as a literal record of how God created the universe, earth, and all living things, including mankind. Since I understand that you do not believe in a literal "Adam and Eve" then it goes without question that you do not believe in the Bible's account of the Fall of Man either. I am assuming that you also do not therefore believe in ANY of the Genesis account, to include Noah's flood (evidence for which is copious, but I will refrain from covering herein) and other such records therein.

    So in my next post, I will share a few New Testament facts that create a MAJOR theological problem for your "Theistic Evolution" oxymoron...

    ReplyDelete
  12. Karl,

    Jesus said, "And so upon you will come all the righteous blood that has been shed on earth, from the blood of righteous Abel to the blood of Zechariah son of Berekiah, whom you murdered between the temple and the altar." (Matthew 23:35, NIV); "But at the beginning of creation God 'made them male and female." (Mark 10:6, NIV); "Pray that this will not take place in winter, because those will be days of distress unequaled from the beginning, when God created the world, until now—and never to be equaled again." (Mark 13:18-19, NIV); and Luke by the Holy Spirit finished accounting for Jesus' genealogy this way, "the son of Enosh, the son of Seth, the son of Adam, the son of God." (Luke 3:38, NIV)

    Paul wrote by the Holy Spirit, "Nevertheless, death reigned from the time of Adam to the time of Moses, even over those who did not sin by breaking a command, as did Adam, who was a pattern of the one to come. But the gift is not like the trespass. For if the many died by the trespass of the one man, how much more did God's grace and the gift that came by the grace of the one man, Jesus Christ, overflow to the many!" (Romans 5:14-15, NIV); "For as in Adam all die, so in Christ all will be made alive....So it is written: 'The first man Adam became a living being' ; the last Adam, a life-giving spirit." (1 Corinthians 15:22, 45 NIV); "For Adam was formed first, then Eve. And Adam was not the one deceived; it was the woman who was deceived and became a sinner." (1 Timothy 2:13-14, NIV)

    Peter wrote by the Holy Spirit (referencing several aspects of the Genesis account, post-Creation), "For if God did not spare angels when they sinned, but sent them to Hell, putting them into gloomy dungeons to be held for judgment; if He did not spare the ancient world when He brought the flood on its ungodly people, but protected Noah, a preacher of righteousness, and seven others; if He condemned the cities of Sodom and Gomorrah by burning them to ashes, and made them an example of what is going to happen to the ungodly; and if He rescued Lot, a righteous man, who was distressed by the filthy lives of lawless men..." (2 Peter 2:4-7, NIV)

    Jude wrote by the Holy Spirit, "Enoch, the seventh from Adam, prophesied about these men: "See, the Lord is coming with thousands upon thousands of His holy ones to judge everyone, and to convict all the ungodly of all the ungodly acts they have done in the ungodly way, and of all the harsh words ungodly sinners have spoken against Him." (Jude vs.14-15, NIV)

    Now we can quickly and easily identify a MAJOR fact from the New Testament: Jesus Christ, Luke, Paul, Peter, Jude, (and surely the rest of the apostles and prophets of the NT) ALL believed in the Genesis account of Creation, the Fall of Man, Noah's flood—and EVERYTHING else therein—as a literal record of those events.

    Next post....

    ReplyDelete
  13. Karl,

    The logic is obvious: If the NT authors believed these things were true accounts, and NT theology is predicated upon that fact, then either the NT is true...or the NT is a lie (i.e. according to Evolution's "hypothesis"). Evolution says it took "millions of years" for these things to occur (and about "6.5 billion" for then entire enchilada) but the Bible says it all happened in a literal six-day Creation, about six thousand years ago.

    These are mutually exclusive claims, which cannot be reconciled together and still be true to either the Bible or Darwin's theory. Either Macroevolution is true, or the Bible is true, they cannot BOTH be true simultaneously. Period.

    The Bible is clear, and any effort to diminish its account of Creation (and the other Genesis events) is simultaneously an effort to diminish its account of Redemption through the death, burial, and resurrection of our Lord Jesus Christ. Thus, you CANNOT be a Christian by ANY biblical definition, while simultaneously blaspheming the very Bible upon which Salvation is based. In short, you are a heretic, and likely have NEVER been born again (as your "fruit" tends to indicate you are a "bad tree" according to Jesus' Own methodology, see Matthew chapters 7 and 12).

    Karl, you wrote in one of your posts above that evolutionary facts are "irrefutable." Yet, I have demonstrated within my posts that Macroevolution is unproven, unprovable, a mere "hypothesis," and a religion. You have a choice to make: Adhere to the Truth of God's Word, or stick to Evolution's lie. Considering the warnings within the citations from Peter and Jude above, I would highly suggest you repent, turn to God in true faith, and then do deeds that prove your repentance (Acts 26:20).

    Hell is the wrong place to discover you were wrong.

    So consider yourself now officially "refuted" both on the scientific facts, and your theological heresy. In closing, here are a couple of web pages that can help you find truth on BOTH theological and scientific grounds:

    Six Evidences for a Young Earth (On AnswersInGenesis.org)

    Scientific Evidence for Creation (On CreationEvidence.org)

    The Creation Model, Session 1 (On CreationEvidence.org)

    Always in Jesus,

    -Rev. Rich Vermillion

    ReplyDelete
  14. Pastor Peter Migner,

    I want to thank you for your patience in allowing me to post the above rebuttal comments to Karl Giberson. I realize I filled your comment section up with data, and I appreciate your kindness in posting it for the public to view.

    I think it is clear to all reasonable people that a so-called "Theistic Evolutionism" is nothing but a pitiful and heretical attempt to combine two mutually exclusive religions together. Thus, it is my hope that you will continue your fight to oppose this heresy within your own denomination, and that the leaders thereof will hold Mr. Karl Giberson to a biblical standard of doctrine.

    If he fails to repent of his apostasy and get saved, I hope the leaders of that college (and the Church of the Nazarene in general) will quickly remove him from any and all positions of influence over students; and set him "free" to be a "priest of evolution" along with Richard Dawkins—Giberson's true religious and philosophical kinsman.

    God bless you, pastor, for your courage and stand for the Truth.

    Always in Jesus,

    -Rev. Rich Vermillion

    ReplyDelete
  15. Dear Reverend Vermillion,

    I appreciate your detailed response. However I think you have blended posts from two different people. While my first name is Karl my last name is not Giberson, it's Kemerait. I never claimed to be a Christian or to believe in theistic evolution. Probably just a simple oversight and not a huge problem. I will write a bit later and respond to the other claims. All of which have been debunked quite effectively over many many years.

    Briefly, to get your interest peeked I will say that you appear to be misinformed about the 2nd law of thermodynamics as it only applies to a closed systems. The earth is not a closed system, we have a huge nuclear furnace out there called the sun which constantly pours energy into the earth's processes. In addition, even in a closed system, it is perfectly permissible to use energy from one part of the system to effect change in another part as long as the total energy is not increased. Here is a simple example...by your proposition, we should not have snowflakes, they certainly represent an increase in order and design and yet, the second law of thermodynamics seems intact.

    With regard to the magnetic field of the earth, briefly...

    There is overwhelming evidence that the magnetic field has reversed itself, rendering any unidirectional extrapolation on total energy useless

    Barnes' extrapolation completely ignores the nondipole component of the field. Even if we grant that it is permissible to ignore portions of the field that are internal to the core, Barnes' extrapolation also ignores portions of the field which are visible and instead rests on extrapolation of a theoretical entity.
    That last part is more important than it may sound. The Earth's magnetic field is often split in two components when measured. The "dipole" component is the part which approximates a theoretically perfect field around a single magnet, and the "nondipole" components are the ("messy") remainder. A study in the 1960s showed that the decrease in the dipole component since the turn of the century had been nearly completely compensated by an increase in the strength of the nondipole components of the field. (In other words, the measurements show that the field has been diverging from the shape that would be expected of a theoretical ideal magnet, more than the amount of energy has actually been changing.) Barnes' extrapolation therefore does not really rest on the change in energy of the field.

    More later, if needed. The bottom line is that the science is sound, the arguments put forth by the Creation Research Institute and other young earth proponents is either out of date, incorrect, misquoted or has been otherwise refuted for many years.

    We are no longer afraid of our environment like our cave dwelling brethren of old. We are an intelligent society capable of standing on our own two feet. We no longer need to believe in the myths and practices of the past. We owe it to our children to give them every advantage from what we have learned. Religion is going away, it will fade into the past just as so many others have, cling to it if you like, put your fingers in your ears and shout "na-na-na" instead of taking an opportunity to learn and grow but remember its at the expense of your children and society's future.

    ReplyDelete
  16. This comment has been removed by the author.

    ReplyDelete
  17. Karl,

    I apologize for mistaking you for being the same professor that Pastor Migner confronted within his fine article above. That is where the last name insertion originated, so thank you for your clarification.

    In the light of the identity mixup, let me note that I was focusing my confrontation on the "Theistic Evolution" heresy (thinking of the other person). As I would gather from your clarifying remark, you would probably agree with my assertion that Theism and Evolution are mutually exclusive (and competitive), and have no business being "mixed" (as that creates an oxymoron). So in that regard, you have confirmed the primary premise of my posts above.

    That said: On the Entropy matter, my point is not diminished one bit (though your response perhaps required a clarification). Your snowflake analogy is irrelevant to my premise. ALL the physical laws put into place by God are still quite operations, but there is a "curse" element since the fall of man now at work as well.

    Living organisms age, then die, though science is often baffled as to why they systematically break down over time. The speed of light is diminishing, as the excellent article I linked to above explains quite well while discussing the evidence (some of which was discovered by evolutionists trying to debunk the earlier findings). Entropy, in a broader application as an expression of a decaying curse (which was my intent, and not a strict adherence to its use in thermodynamics) is self-evident. We can see its effects all around us in daily life, and in the scientific realm, within the observable data.

    In your response, you did address counter-evidence for the earth's magnetic field decaying (which I have not yet reviewed personally at present). That noted, you have NOT addressed the copious "Young Earth" evidence cited on the links I provided above with ANY counter-evidence or assertions at all. You simply attacked the credibility of highly-credentialed researchers (who happen to be also Christian apologists with their findings) to favor your own religious preference, Macroevolution (which you seem to be an apologist for, with your findings). So you assert something as "fact" which CANNOT ever be proven or provable, in your religious attempt to support your belief system.

    You then attack all "religions" as something going away and passing (a typical, but unsubstantiated assertion, often made by Atheists, who still number very small among the earth's population). So you "attack" religion, but fail to see you are a religious adherent in every conceivable way to your own dogma. This religious nature of Atheism (and Evolution, upon which Atheists hang their hats) has been pointed out many times previously, so it would be pointless to review that further here in such a constrained commentary thread. I will only point you to Is Evolution A Religion? by Dr. Tommy Mitchell & Dr. A.J. Monty White, for a brief substantiation.

    So you have not truly refuted any significant element of my thread (though I was obviously confused regarding your identity), and in fact you confirmed a few things; including a point of "alternate explanations" made within the insightful article: Evolution: Not Even A Theory — which I intended to include in this thread, but which failed to post for some reason.

    Thank you for taking the time to reply, however. I appreciate the lively discourse.

    Always in Jesus

    -Rev. Rich Vermillion

    ReplyDelete
  18. This looks like a "Young Earth Creationism" site. I suppose this site author think the earth is literally 6000 years old and that the earth was created in 6-24 hour days.
    If so, this site is full of heresy.

    ReplyDelete
  19. Anonymous,

    Assertions without substantiation is nothing but mere conjecture. (i.e. You have said nothing worthwhile or of substance.)

    If you look at the evidence (especially biblical evidence, of course, but I am referring to scientific data here) you will find that the Bible's account withstands the test. Further, the Evolution has already been debunked on Darwin's own stated terms: Namely, irreducible complexity, as was discussed within one of my own earlier posts.

    At best, there is only one viable explanation of origin: Intelligent Design. That is why the multi-decade proponent of Macroevolution, Antony Flew, abandoned the theory in his latter years after calling it "intellectual suicide." He adopted a deistic ID approach (which, of course, no genuine Christian can endorse outright) which does not typically adhere to the 6-24 hour day account of the Bible. Nevertheless, he is another example (of many) ex-Evolutionists who finally found enough intellectual honesty to abandon a debunked theory in favor of something self-evident: Intelligent Design. And many of these highly-credentialed scientists have embraced biblical Creationism, due to the amazing supporting evidence.

    The evidence that supports a Young Earth variant of ID (i.e. that supports biblical Creationism) is extensive and compelling. The links that I provided to several articles further above, provide just a few examples of that evidence—some of which have NO substantiated evolutionary theories with which to compete (i.e. ONLY the Bible's account can explain those phenomena). The "radio halos" found within sample of granite rock around the earth's crust is certainly one to ponder soberly.

    Lastly, by introducing the word "heresy" you seem to imply a biblical justification for that accusation. You provide none, however. Thus, any point you intended on that front is also obviously without merit.

    So again, your unsubstantiated assertions are NOTHING more than mere conjecture. Perhaps that is why you posted anonymously?

    Always in Jesus,

    -Rev. Rich Vermillion

    ReplyDelete
  20. Reverend Rich, since you didn't address any of the rebuttals which I wrote for the second law of thermodynamics and the earth's magnetic poles to your initial post, am I correct to assume that you now accept the fact that at least those two 'proofs' which you put forward have no substance?

    ReplyDelete
  21. Karl,

    Actually, I did address them on October 15th, at 1:48 PM (according to the time that this blog indicates). However, my reply was apparently caught in this blog's SPAM filter, and Pastor Migner recently released it from the queue. You can read it now further above within this thread, sandwiched between your post on that day and Mr. Anonymous.

    There are two links therein that I would like you to please review before responding. Also, if you wish to continue to promote Macroevolution, please address the irreducible complexity issue as well as my broader application of the term, Entropy—especially with respect to the obvious decay we see within the earth and universe (i.e. as opposed to things "improving" to higher forms or conditions) and the speed of light's own decay (discussed in a link above).

    BTW: The NASA concerns regarding the decay of the earth's magnetic field can be found here. Considering their challenges in keeping orbiting objects afloat, it is not surprising that they have taken a special interest in this issue.

    Lastly, let me note here briefly that this is a very busy season for me, and my replies to this thread will be sporadic at best. That fact, coupled with Pastor Migner's occasionally overly-zealous SPAM filter, may delay my responses. :)

    Always in Jesus,

    -Rev. Rich Vermillion

    ReplyDelete
  22. Reverend Rich,

    Thanks for the response, you have to love spam filters. Was it a scientific spam filter? Because it seems to only consider creationist arguments as spam...(sorry, couldn't resist!)

    While I am willing to chat for eons about these topics, could we please pick a single piece of evidence and fully discuss it before moving on to the next. You mentioned that I hadn't addressed ALL the creationist arguments for a young earth. I think that would make for a difficult discussion.

    I will make a few observations on what you said and then let you pick a direction to go from there..

    The speed of light is NOT decreasing, and if you are referring to an article by Setterfield, even the creation Research Institute has backed away from supporting his conclusion. Here are a few short articles to help you out.
    http://www.talkorigins.org/faqs/hovind/howgood-add.html#A6

    Rich, when you say things like "but there is a "curse" element" we are clearly outside of science and have entered into the world of magic. There can be no rational discussion when you revert to magic as a rebuttal.

    Here is a short list of responses to creationist arguments to get you going...(my wife tells me breakfast is waiting, so I'll write more a bit later)

    Enjoy and have a great Monday

    ReplyDelete
  23. Ooops forgot the link!

    http://www.talkorigins.org/indexcc/

    ReplyDelete
  24. Thank you brother for standing for the truths of the Bible. I hope you'll write much more! How we need it.

    ReplyDelete
  25. Dear Peter,

    I stumbled upon your blog by looking up "The House Studio" in an internet search and you had written an article about "180" so I saw your link to here and decided to check it out.

    I was asleep earlier and suddenly awakened at 3 a.m., came upstairs to write a blog about religious best sellers and their heretical content and how Christians are being manipulated with books by people who have no buisiness writing "Christian" books.

    Anywho....must have been divine intervention that I came here. Lately I have really been mulling over creation, not questioning if God created us or the Earth, but in what time frame. Like so many others, I just kind of let myself think it didn't matter or that perhaps God created everything over a period of millions of years since I have always heard that a day can be like a million years to God.

    Lately though, with all the emergent teaching in the Naz Universities, I have started to think I need to solidify ALL of my beliefs so that I am not stumped when questioned about matters of innerrancy. SO evolution has been a topic I have been wanting to get to soon. I think God is leading me to study it sooner than later-since he woke me up and sent me here.

    SO I just wanted to say thank you for this blog. I hope you will be updating it soon.

    A little bit about me is that I attended the Nazarene denomination for over 20 years and left in My of 2010. It was a culmination of things and it was a difficult decision, but in the end we felt God pulling us in another direction so we left to attend a non-denominational church.

    thank you for standing up for truth. It is so difficult these days and everyone accuses you of being judgmental or ignorant. Your reward is in heaven brother.

    ReplyDelete