News Snippets From All Beats

If you’ve been referring to yourself as an Evangelical, now may be the time to consider a new moniker. First there was the headlong rush to embrace environmentalism’s religious fervor by the National Association of Evangelicals’ Richard Cizik which has resulted in churches becoming recycling centers, and designating Sunday worship services to praise the earth. Recently, Rich Mouw, president of Fuller Theological Seminary, teamed up with other Evangelical luminaries and authored an “An Evangelical Manifesto” that differs from the Communist and Humanist manifestos on only a few points, and shares much of their call to secular ecumenism, in a religious sort of way.

Now it is being reported that the academic wing of evangelicals are garnering respect due to their intelligence; which is evidenced by there embrace of “evolution guided by God.”¹ The only thing still holding these evangelicals back from realizing their secular apotheosis? “Many equate evangelicals with fundamentalists,” according to an Associated Press article, “an evangelical subset that interprets the Bible literally — as in the six calendar days of creation — and is home to ardent evolution opponents.”² It would seem that if these evangelicals could jettison the stigma of being associated with a less-evolved subspecies that believes the biblical account of creation they would be home free.

That is what is being put on the agenda by Peter Berger, a Boston University sociologist. Berger, a liberal Lutheran, is concerned over Evangelicals not making enough progress in those “elite circles of society” where the important recognition takes place.³ He has teamed up with Timothy Shah, an evangelical political scientist at Pew Forum, to study this growing “evangelical intelligentsia”⁴ to see if they can’t help it evolve into a more acceptable evangelicalman. Perhaps an evolutionary Evangelical Manifesto II is already in the wings.

Notes:

^1-4. Jay Lindsay, “`Evangelical intelligentsia’ explored,” Boston.com, May 15, 2008.

http://www.boston.com/news/local/massachusetts/articles

/2008/05/15/evangelical_intelligentsia_explored/

Ben Stein’s film “Expelled: No Intelligence Allowed,” set for release April 18, is not a case made for the creation of man, or even for intelligent design. Its focus is the persecution educators and scientists are subjected to for challenging the theory of evolution. The film is the result of interviews conducted over a period of two years with more than 150 educators and scientists who doubt the theory is an explanation for the origin of life. The film also contains interviews with leading proponents of the theory that include Richard Dawkins. As the title of the film implies, rigorous and open examination of the evidence used to support natural selection is considered unacceptable, and in many instances it brings retaliation and ruined careers.

Nevertheless, the number of scientists who have weighed the evidence and found it wanting, and are willing to go public, continues to grow. Since 2001, over 700 scientists have singed the “Scientific Dissent from Darwinism” list proclaiming they are “skeptical of claims for the ability of random mutation and natural selection to account for the complexity of life.”¹

As the Darwinian Evolution unravels under scientific scrutiny, Walt Ruloff, Executive Producer of “Expelled,” observes that the only thing holding it together is “politics”.² In the world of research grants, text book publishers, and careers that’s easy to appreciate, but there is another aspect of Darwinian Evolution that has become a gigantic leap of blind faith exhibiting something on the order of a religious adherence. And that places the theory where it belongs, and where it is most easily dispatched. Take for example how it is addressed in this section from the feature article “Immediate Man” running on The Bible Beats; which shows various ways the Bible defeats the theory:

Evolving Inanimate Objects: A Standard the Theory Cannot Meet

The foregoing verse [Gen. 1:26] presenting the creation of man as man is not an anomaly. There are no less than eight verses in the first two chapters of Genesis that demand immediate man in order to be intelligible to the text (i.e. Gen. 1:26, 27; 2:3, 7, 8, 15, 16), and if only one of them should be chosen for memories sake it would have to be this one:

And the LORD God formed man of the dust of the ground, and breathed into his nostrils the breath of life; and man became a living soul (Gen 2:7).

At one time, and in one instance, man was fully formed up to his nostrils before he had any life in him at all-no living cells struggling for survival, no grotesque mutating and mindless devouring as protoplasm. God completely formed him out to the dust of the ground and then breathed into him the breath of life, and by miraculous means man became a living soul; not an intermediate soul, not half a soul, but a living human soul in its entirety starting life in the image of God. The scriptures give us an unmistakable assurance of a straight forward and literal account of creation for fowl, animals, and man; and they may even provide us with something more.³

The article does provide more by use of unique illustrations, and seemingly unrelated characters like Jonah, to show God’s creation of mankind is a literal account in Genesis. The treatment is both good study for the faithful, and particularly useful to dispel the idea that the Bible is harmonious with evolution as the mechanism God used in creating life.

Notes:

^1. Troy Anderson, “Ben Stein Makes His Case for Doubting Darwin,” Daily News, April 5, 2008.

^2. Ibid.

^3. David Dansker, “Immediate Man,” The Bible Beats.com, February 16, 2008.

As the presidential race appears to narrow to one leading candidate in the Republican Party squaring off against his rival in the Democratic Party, Christians leaders are starting to endorse John McCain. Pastor John Hagee of San Antonio Texas has given McCain his endorsement citing McCain’s support for Israel, and his pro-life voting record.¹ While these are in deed characteristics deserving of praise, they do not by themselves overcome McCain’s unsuitability for Christian support.

Potential voters should not be swayed by his strategic support for Israel (as an outpost for democracy), nor his stand against abortion (as politician); though admirably made from his personal convictions. McCain’s convictions are as subject to change as his person is. Only when these, and many other convictions, are grounded on the immutable word of an unchanging and eternal God will they be minted for an economy of the faithful. This reliance on the trustworthiness of God is hardly the case with McCain who, retreating on claims made in scripture, has publicly and emphatically called God a liar.

When asked during the GOP Presidential Debates if he believed in evolution, MaCain gave a resounding “yes” answer.² What this means is that if McCain believes God is lying about the creation account of man, then he could come to believe that God is also lying when he said of permanency and prophetic future of Israel: “Happy art thou, O Israel: who is like unto thee, O people saved by the LORD, the shield of thy help, and who is the sword of thy excellency! and thine enemies shall be found liars unto thee; and thou shalt tread upon their high places” (Deu 33:29). McCain could also come to believe that God is lying when He speaks of the identity of human beings as fixed while they are yet in the womb (Jer 1:5).

This means that these positions taken by McCain must be discounted as inevitably disposable because he holds them absent their mooring on the word of God, who he claims to prevaricate wherever science finds Him out.

As the time grows short, however, pressure from both to political and religious camps is going to be ratcheted up on Christians to vote for McCain. This is going to be the argument that will be made for the candidate: that he should receive Christian support because he is the lesser of two evils. If you do not vote for him, the argument goes, than a worse candidate will take office, and we, as a nation, will suffer through their appointments; such as those for judges.

That’s how it will be put to voters, but that is not the argument; that’s the spin on the argument. Here it is without the dressing: if you don’t agree to affirm blasphemy (McCain’s accusing the Lord God of lying), then some guy in a black robe will give you reason to fear. But what saith the scriptures?

And I say unto you my friends, Be not afraid of them that kill the body, and after that have no more that they can do. But I will forewarn you whom ye shall fear: Fear him, which after he hath killed hath power to cast into hell; yea, I say unto you, Fear him. (Luk 12:4-5)

This country does not stand or fall on one man, or one president, or nine judges. This nation stands at the patience of the Lord God; who has graciously given us time to do His will, so that some might be saved. And we can not devote ourselves as we should in fidelity on this cause if we constantly allow ourselves to be sided against God in compromise after compromise. Do not profess one thing in the square, and then pull the curtain closed to prevaricate. Fear God.

Notes:

^1. Michelle Roberts, “McCain Gets Endorsement of Texas Evangelical Leader,” Christian Post, February 28, 2008.

http://www.christianpost.com/article/20080228/31352

_McCain_Gets_Endorsement_of_Texas_Evangelical_Leader.htm

^2. You Tube, GOP Debate - Evolution Question,

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=t4Cc8t3Zd5E (accessed February 27, 2008)

When disease causing viruses and bacteria mutate, they become extremely resilient. For example, the AIDS virus is so successful at mutating that it consistently fools the body’s immune system, and refuses to be eradicated by cocktails representing everything science can throw at it. The result is that people continue to die from AIDS. The tenacious and highly infectious methicillin-resistant Staphylococcus aureus (MRSA) is, as its name reveals, resistant to the strongest antibiotics available. It is so contagious that the prefix of community-associated (CA-MRSA) has been added to it. More menacing is its cousin Necortizing Fasciitis, the flesh eating variety, that is caused by MRSA. The efficiency of Necrotizing Fasciitis to overcome its victims is measured in hours.

In what scientists term molecular evolution, the deadly effects of these bacteria can result from a mutation of a single stain that renders it drug-resistant.

The interesting aspect to these examples of mutation in the scheme evolutionary theory is that random selection is supposed to depend on such mutations to select out the fittest specimens for survival. While all appears well for these diseases at the micro level, without the intervention of intelligent human beings, forestalling as best they could the disappearance of all hosts, they would have been doomed for survival at the macro level.

By being selected to completely destroy the host, the diseases end their own existence too. This apparent setback might be explained if natural selection was counting on population figures to perpetuate the strain only to mutate advantageously later on, but this would mean that natural selection was a third-party observer, with intelligence; something that does not fit the theory of blind chance.

This is a News Service of TheNewsBeats.com, All Rights Reserved