Monthly Archives: February 2015

“Sanctity of Life Saturday” Debating Kermit Gosnell Trial, Abortion and infanticide with Ark Times Bloggers Part 10 Matt Barber: I appreciate President Obama’s candor on the matter, Like he said, laws preventing abortionists like Gosnell from finishing (abortion survivors) off are “really designed simply to burden the original decision of the woman and the physician to induce labor and perform an abortion”

C. Everett Koop, 1980s.jpg
Surgeon General of the United States
In office
January 21, 1982 – October 1, 1989
President Ronald Reagan
George H. W. Bush
Francis Schaeffer
Francis Schaeffer.jpg

Founder of the L’Abri community
Born Francis August Schaeffer
January 30, 1912

Died May 15, 1984 (aged 72)

I truly believe that many of the problems we have today in the USA are due to the advancement of humanism in the last few decades in our society. Ronald Reagan appointed the evangelical Dr. C. Everett Koop to the position of Surgeon General in his administration. He partnered with Dr. Francis Schaeffer in making the video below. It is very valuable information for Christians to have.  Actually I have included a video below that includes comments from him on this subject.

Francis Schaeffer Whatever Happened to the Human Race (Episode 1) ABORTION

I have gone back and forth and back and forth with many liberals on the Arkansas Times Blog on many issues such as abortionhuman rightswelfarepovertygun control  and issues dealing with popular culture . This time around I have discussed morality with the Ark Times Bloggers and particularly the trial of the abortionist Dr. Kermit Gosnell and through that we discuss infanticide, abortion and even partial birth abortion. Here are some of my favorite past posts on the subject of Gosnell: ,Abby Johnson comments on Dr. Gosnell’s guilty verdict, Does President Obama care about Kermit Gosnell verdict?Dr. Gosnell Trial mostly ignored by mediaKermit Gosnell is guilty of same crimes of abortion clinics are says Jennifer MasonDenny Burk: Is Dr. Gosnell the usual case or not?, Pro-life Groups thrilled with Kermit Gosnell guilty verdict,  Reactions to Dr. Gosnell guilty verdict from pro-life leaders,  Kermit Gosnell and Planned Parenthood supporting infanticide?, Owen Strachan on Dr. Gosnell Trial, Al Mohler on Kermit Gosnell’s abortion practice, Finally we get justice for Dr. Kermit Gosnell .

In July of 2013 I went back and forth with several bloggers from the Ark Times Blog concerning Dr. Kermit Gosnell’s abortion practice and his trial which had finished up in the middle of May:

Elwood wrote, “Saline makes plain he wants the gubmint out of our lives and bidnesses except he wants gov in control of what wingnuts fear most, female sexuality and autonomy.”

__________

Elwood you are so concerned about the freedom of choice of ladies on the issue of abortion, but what about the right to life that unborn females have?

Matt Barber wrote on April 28, 2013 just days before the Gosnell verdict came out these words:

What’s the big deal?

I mean, why are we surprised that an abortionist and his staff would, behind the walls of an always-lethal abortion clinic, commit one of the most horrific serial killings in American history? What did you think abortionists do, heal people?

Why are we taken aback that there was no oversight, no regulation, or that Planned Parenthood, though privy to the clinic’s filthy, medieval conditions, refused to report it to the Department of Health? After all, Planned Parenthood, Barack Obama and the DNC have vehemently opposed all laws – such as those in Virginia, Mississippi and elsewhere – designed to prevent exactly the same kind of squalid conditions found in Gosnell’s clinic (and others), laws that simply direct abortion mills to meet the same minimal safety standards required of all other medical facilities.

You didn’t really buy that whole “women’s health” nonsense, did you?

Sucker.

Seriously, there are so few sociopathic doctors left willing to hack alive those inconvenient little buggers; What did you think women were “choosing” with abortion, some kind of medical treatment? Besides, there’s billions to be made in the death racket.

Let’s keep it real. The only difference between what happened in Gosnell’s Philadelphia clinic and what happens every day in Planned Parenthoods across the country can be measured by a matter of inches – by the child’s proximity to her mother in the room. Whether the baby is in the womb or 12 inches removed, a dead baby is a dead baby, right? So why all the drama? Relax. You know, Roe v. Wade and all.

Besides, what’s an abortionist to do (wink, wink) if that resilient little pest does survive, if she’s born alive? I appreciate President Obama’s candor on the matter. Like he said, laws preventing abortionists like Gosnell from finishing her off are “really designed simply to burden the original decision of the woman and the physician to induce labor and perform an abortion.” Snippety-snip, eh, Barack? You know, choice and all.

Or, as Gosnell attorney Jack McMahon noted during the trial, it’s “ludicrous … to say a baby is born alive because it moves one time.” You anti-choice zealots don’t get to define the terms here. One man’s “alive” is another man’s “unwanted pregnancy.” Potato, potahto.

In reality, to the media, this stuff is old news. Gosnell is on trial for doing something nearly indistinguishable from partial-birth abortion – a “never necessary” procedure (according to the AMA) Obama vocally endorsed. He said that banning it was part of a concerted effort “to steadily roll back the hard-won rights of American women.”

Furthermore, why are we surprised that this rush-to-judgment-when-it-suits-his-political-agenda president suddenly “can’t comment” on Gosnell “because it’s an active trial”? Remember? This is the same race-baiting “community organizer” who said that Cambridge police “acted stupidly” when arresting a combative black Harvard professor who, as it turned out, was himself acting stupidly. Don’t forget; this is the same president who had no problem laying guilt on a “presumed innocent” George Zimmerman, saying, “If I had a son, he’d look like Trayvon.”

To “pro-choicers” it’s not that old Kermit did anything wrong; it’s just that he got caught doing it. He was careless. He pulled back the curtain of “reproductive freedom” to reveal abortion’s house of horrors. Kermit Gosnell is liberalism personified, and liberalism relies on deceit. The “progressive” culture is a culture of death. Moral relativism is as moral relativism does.

Speaking of moral relativism, on Friday the first sitting president in United States history gave the keynote address at a Planned Parenthood fundraiser. Nice timing. Even as the Gosnell mass-murder trial wraps up, Obama was lending the full weight of his presidency to a mass-murder celebration.
http://townhall.com/columnists/mattbarber/…

Melissa Ohden: An Abortion Survivor – CBN.com

Melissa is the survivor of a failed saline infusion abortion in 1977 (copies of her medical records that document the abortion meant to end her life can be viewed on this website’s picture page).
2013Despite the initial concerns regarding Melissa’s future after surviving the attempt to end her life and being born alive at approximately seven months gestation, she has not only survived but thrived.  With a Master’s Degree in Social Work, she has worked in the fields of substance abuse, mental health, domestic violence/sexual assault counseling, and child welfare.  Melissa and her husband Ryan have a daughter, Olivia, whose birth at the same hospital where Melissa’s life was supposed to end, has significantly shaped Melissa’s ministry.

Melissa was formerly a College Outreach Speaker with Feminists for Life and former Patron of Real Choices Australia.  She is the Founder and Director of For Olivia’s Sake, an organization which seeks to raise awareness of the intergenerational impact of abortion on men, women, children, families, and communities. The birth of Olivia, her first child, in 2008,who never would have existed if Melissa’s birthmother’s abortion would have succeeded in ending her life, prompted Melissa to create this organization that would positively raise awareness of the ripple effect of abortion across generations.

In 2012, Melissa founded The Abortion Survivors Network, www.theabortionsurvivors.com, after recognizing the number of abortion survivors and how most felt alone in this role, and after recognizing the need for the public to be educated about the reality of failed abortions and abortion survivors.  Since ASN’s inception, Melissa has been in contact with over 130 survivors and she is working on a healing ministry curriculum and a retreat for survivors.

Melissa has been featured on television and radio programs including:  The 700 Club, EWTN’s Life on the Rock and Defending Life, Fox News, Facing Life Head On, Focus on the Family, and American Family Radio, the Mike Huckabee show, and the Teresa Tomeo show.  Her life and ministry is featured in the award winning pro-life documentary, A Voice for Life.

After years of searching for her biological family and offering them forgiveness for the decision that was made to end her life, Melissa’s story, and her life, is so much more than one of survival.  Melissa’s life story is about the beauty of God’s grace in our lives, about the power of love, about the hope for joy and healing in the midst of grief and loss, and  about the transformational power of forgiveness and in answering God’s call for your life.

Fulfilling the purpose that she believes God set out for her when He saved her from the certain death of the abortion attempt, Melissa is truly a voice for the voiceless.

For more information about hosting Melissa at an upcoming event, please see the “links” section on this site for more information on Ambassador Speaker’s Bureau, the oldest and most established faith-based talent agency in the United States, who Melissa is affiliated with, or visit the Ambassador Speaker’s Bureau website directly at ambassadorspeakers.com.

Related posts:

GBCSUMC on Gosnell: What’s abortion got to do with it? #UMC

Many in the world today are taking a long look at the abortion industry because of the May 14, 2013 guilty verdict and life term penalty handed down by a jury (which included 9 out of 12 pro-choice jurors)  to Dr. Kermit Gosnell. During this time of reflection I wanted to put forth some of the […]

Kermit Gosnell and the irony of the coat hanger back alley argument

Many in the world today are taking a long look at the abortion industry because of the May 14, 2013 guilty verdict and life term penalty handed down by a jury (which included 9 out of 12 pro-choice jurors)  to Dr. Kermit Gosnell. During this time of reflection I wanted to put forth some of the […]

History’s Jury Is Out: Has Gosnell Rocked Our Conscience?

Many in the world today are taking a long look at the abortion industry because of the May 14, 2013 guilty verdict and life term penalty handed down by a jury (which included 9 out of 12 pro-choice jurors)  to Dr. Kermit Gosnell. During this time of reflection I wanted to put forth some of the […]

Evangelical Blogger Lists Eight Reasons the Media Are Ignoring the Gosnell Murder Trial

Many in the world today are taking a long look at the abortion industry because of the May 14, 2013 guilty verdict and life term penalty handed down by a jury (which included 9 out of 12 pro-choice jurors)  to Dr. Kermit Gosnell. During this time of reflection I wanted to put forth some of the […]

Cornerstone Executive Ashley Pratte on Gosnell Trial Verdict

Many in the world today are taking a long look at the abortion industry because of the May 14, 2013 guilty verdict and life term penalty handed down by a jury (which included 9 out of 12 pro-choice jurors)  to Dr. Kermit Gosnell. During this time of reflection I wanted to put forth some of the […]

Dr. Gosnell Trial ignored for a while by mainstream media

Many in the world today are taking a long look at the abortion industry because of the May 14, 2013 guilty verdict and life term penalty handed down by a jury (which included 9 out of 12 pro-choice jurors)  to Dr. Kermit Gosnell. During this time of reflection I wanted to put forth some of the […]

ANALYSIS: Will the Kermit Gosnell verdict change the abortion debate?

Many in the world today are taking a long look at the abortion industry because of the May 14, 2013 guilty verdict and life term penalty handed down by a jury (which included 9 out of 12 pro-choice jurors)  to Dr. Kermit Gosnell. During this time of reflection I wanted to put forth some of the […]

What’s So Bad About Kermit Gosnell?

Many in the world today are taking a long look at the abortion industry because of the May 14, 2013 guilty verdict and life term penalty handed down by a jury (which included 9 out of 12 pro-choice jurors)  to Dr. Kermit Gosnell. During this time of reflection I wanted to put forth some of the […]

Kermit Gosnell and the Gospel

Many in the world today are taking a long look at the abortion industry because of the May 14, 2013 guilty verdict and life term penalty handed down by a jury (which included 9 out of 12 pro-choice jurors)  to Dr. Kermit Gosnell. During this time of reflection I wanted to put forth some of the […]

VIDEO: Kermit Gosnell killings like ‘weeding your garden’

Many in the world today are taking a long look at the abortion industry because of the May 14, 2013 guilty verdict and life term penalty handed down by a jury (which included 9 out of 12 pro-choice jurors)  to Dr. Kermit Gosnell. During this time of reflection I wanted to put forth some of the […]

Gosnell: The Silence is Deafening

Many in the world today are taking a long look at the abortion industry because of the May 14, 2013 guilty verdict and life term penalty handed down by a jury (which included 9 out of 12 pro-choice jurors)  to Dr. Kermit Gosnell. During this time of reflection I wanted to put forth some of the […]

Five Thoughts on the Gosnell Conviction

Many in the world today are taking a long look at the abortion industry because of the May 14, 2013 guilty verdict and life term penalty handed down by a jury (which included 9 out of 12 pro-choice jurors)  to Dr. Kermit Gosnell. During this time of reflection I wanted to put forth some of the […]

Implications of the Kermit Gosnell Verdict

Many in the world today are taking a long look at the abortion industry because of the May 14, 2013 guilty verdict and life term penalty handed down by a jury (which included 9 out of 12 pro-choice jurors)  to Dr. Kermit Gosnell. During this time of reflection I wanted to put forth some of the […]

Godly comments on Dr. Kermit Gosnell

Many in the world today are taking a long look at the abortion industry because of the May 14, 2013 guilty verdict and life term penalty handed down by a jury (which included 9 out of 12 pro-choice jurors)  to Dr. Kermit Gosnell. During this time of reflection I wanted to put forth some of the […]

Dr. Gosnell Trial has prompted closer look at Albuquerque abortion clinic

Many in the world today are taking a long look at the abortion industry because of the May 14, 2013 guilty verdict and life term penalty handed down by a jury (which included 9 out of 12 pro-choice jurors)  to Dr. Kermit Gosnell. During this time of reflection I wanted to put forth some of the […]

Why won’t President Obama comment on Dr. Gosnell Trial?

Many in the world today are taking a long look at the abortion industry because of the May 14, 2013 guilty verdict and life term penalty handed down by a jury (which included 9 out of 12 pro-choice jurors)  to Dr. Kermit Gosnell. During this time of reflection I wanted to put forth some of the […]

Dr. Alveda King reacts to guilty verdict of Kermit Gosnell

Francis Schaeffer: “Whatever Happened to the Human Race” (Episode 1) ABORTION OF THE HUMAN RACE Published on Oct 6, 2012 by AdamMetropolis ________________ What a great article below: Dr. Alveda King: Guilty Gosnell Verdict May Spark More Justice for Women and Babies Contact: Eugene Vigil, King for America, 470-244-3302 PHILADELPHIA, May 13, 2013 /Christian Newswire/ […]

Kristen Hatten: Dr. Gosnell guilty verdict, but what about the rest?

Many in the world today are taking a long look at the abortion industry because of the May 14, 2013 guilty verdict and life term penalty handed down by a jury (which included 9 out of 12 pro-choice jurors)  to Dr. Kermit Gosnell. During this time of reflection I wanted to put forth some of the […]

Lila Rose of Live Action comments on Kermit Gosnell guilty verdict

Francis Schaeffer: “Whatever Happened to the Human Race” (Episode 1) ABORTION OF THE HUMAN RACE Published on Oct 6, 2012 by AdamMetropolis ________________ May 14, 2013 Murdered Thousands, Convicted for Three: The Kermit Gosnell Verdict By Drew Belsky Read more: http://www.americanthinker.com/2013/05/murdered_thousands_convicted_for_three_the_kermit_gosnell_verdict.html#ixzz2TMstLk1c Follow us: @AmericanThinker on Twitter | AmericanThinker on FacebookPhiladelphia abortionist Kermit Gosnell was convicted […]

Gerard M. Nadal: Dr. Gosnell Guilty, but now what?

Many in the world today are taking a long look at the abortion industry because of the May 14, 2013 guilty verdict and life term penalty handed down by a jury (which included 9 out of 12 pro-choice jurors)  to Dr. Kermit Gosnell. During this time of reflection I wanted to put forth some of the […]

Reince Priebus on Kermit Gosnell guilty verdict

Francis Schaeffer: “Whatever Happened to the Human Race” (Episode 1) ABORTION OF THE HUMAN RACE Published on Oct 6, 2012 by AdamMetropolis ________________ A Verdict Doesn’t End the Gosnell Story By: Chairman Reince Priebus (Diary)  |  May 13th, 2013 at 03:27 PM  |  28 RESIZE: AAA The horrors that unfolded in the clinic of Dr. […]

Kirsten Powers of USA Today on Dr. Gosnell Trial

Many in the world today are taking a long look at the abortion industry because of the May 14, 2013 guilty verdict and life term penalty handed down by a jury (which included 9 out of 12 pro-choice jurors)  to Dr. Kermit Gosnell. During this time of reflection I wanted to put forth some of the […]

Top 10 Revelations of Kermit Gosnell Trial

Francis Schaeffer: “Whatever Happened to the Human Race” (Episode 1) ABORTION OF THE HUMAN RACE Published on Oct 6, 2012 by AdamMetropolis ________________ All-American Horror Story: Top 10 Kermit Gosnell Trial Revelations by Kristan Hawkins | Washington, DC | LifeNews.com | 4/12/13 3:38 PM Since so many in the media have failed/refused to report on […]

Denny Burk: We have to learn from Dr. Gosnell’s Crimes

Many in the world today are taking a long look at the abortion industry because of the May 14, 2013 guilty verdict and life term penalty handed down by a jury (which included 9 out of 12 pro-choice jurors)  to Dr. Kermit Gosnell. During this time of reflection I wanted to put forth some of the […]

Tony Perkins on Kermit Gosnell Trial

Francis Schaeffer: “Whatever Happened to the Human Race” (Episode 1) ABORTION OF THE HUMAN RACE Published on Oct 6, 2012 by AdamMetropolis _____________ Tony Perkins: Gosnell Trial – FOX News Published on May 13, 2013 Tony Perkins: Gosnell Trial – FOX News ________________ Hey Obama, Kermit Gosnell Is What a Real War on Women Looks Like […]

Ross Douthat of NY Times on Dr. Gosnell

Many in the world today are taking a long look at the abortion industry because of the May 14, 2013 guilty verdict and life term penalty handed down by a jury (which included 9 out of 12 pro-choice jurors)  to Dr. Kermit Gosnell. During this time of reflection I wanted to put forth some of the […]

Family Research Council happy with Kermit Gosnell Guilty Verdict

Francis Schaeffer: “Whatever Happened to the Human Race” (Episode 1) ABORTION OF THE HUMAN RACE Published on Oct 6, 2012 by AdamMetropolis ___ _____________ Tony Perkins: Gosnell Trial – FOX News Published on May 13, 2013 Tony Perkins: Gosnell Trial – FOX News ________________ Family Research Council Praises Jury for Bringing Justice to Victims of Abortionist […]

Peter Jones on Infanticide and Dr. Gosnell

Many in the world today are taking a long look at the abortion industry because of the May 14, 2013 guilty verdict and life term penalty handed down by a jury (which included 9 out of 12 pro-choice jurors)  to Dr. Kermit Gosnell. During this time of reflection I wanted to put forth some of the […]

Is Dr. Gosnell a “one-of-a-kind anomaly”?

Many in the world today are taking a long look at the abortion industry because of the May 14, 2013 guilty verdict and life term penalty handed down by a jury (which included 9 out of 12 pro-choice jurors)  to Dr. Kermit Gosnell. During this time of reflection I wanted to put forth some of the […]

Kermit Gosnell and the Logic of “Pro-Choice”

Francis Schaeffer: “Whatever Happened to the Human Race” (Episode 1) ABORTION OF THE HUMAN RACE Published on Oct 6, 2012 by AdamMetropolis ________________ _____________ Tony Perkins: Gosnell Trial – FOX News Published on May 13, 2013 Tony Perkins: Gosnell Trial – FOX News ________________ Kermit Gosnell and the Logic of “Pro-Choice” by  Matthew J. Franck within […]

______________________

Do New York late term abortionists need more attention like Dr. Gosnell did?

Many in the world today are taking a long look at the abortion industry because of the May 14, 2013 guilty verdict and life term penalty handed down by a jury (which included 9 out of 12 pro-choice jurors)  to Dr. Kermit Gosnell. During this time of reflection I wanted to put forth some of the […]

Dr. Gosnell Trial has prompted Texas authorities to take closer look a Houston abortionist

Many in the world today are taking a long look at the abortion industry because of the May 14, 2013 guilty verdict and life term penalty handed down by a jury (which included 9 out of 12 pro-choice jurors)  to Dr. Kermit Gosnell. During this time of reflection I wanted to put forth some of the […]

Father Frank Pavone reacts to Kermit Gosnell guilty verdict

Francis Schaeffer: “Whatever Happened to the Human Race” (Episode 1) ABORTION OF THE HUMAN RACE Published on Oct 6, 2012 by AdamMetropolis ________________ Fr. Pavone: Right to choose must yield to right to life STATEN ISLAND, NY — Father Frank Pavone, National Director of Priests for Life, had the following comment on the verdict in […]

NAF reacts to Dr. Gosnell guilty verdict

Many in the world today are taking a long look at the abortion industry because of the May 14, 2013 guilty verdict and life term penalty handed down by a jury (which included 9 out of 12 pro-choice jurors)  to Dr. Kermit Gosnell. During this time of reflection I wanted to put forth some of the […]

Hope for Kermit Gosnell’s repentance?

Francis Schaeffer: “Whatever Happened to the Human Race” (Episode 1) ABORTION OF THE HUMAN RACE Published on Oct 6, 2012 by AdamMetropolis ________________ The truth of abortion … the hope for Gosnell’s repentance A conviction in the murder trial of Philadelphia abortionist Kermit Gosnell has boosted the efforts of pro-lifers to demonstrate what abortion really […]

The Selfishness of Chris Evert Part 5 (Includes videos and Pictures)

The Selfishness of Chris Evert Part 2 (Includes videos and Pictures) _________________________________ _____________________ _______________________ __________________________ Tennis – Wimbledon 1974 [ Official Film ] – 05/05 Published on May 1, 2012 John Newcombe, Ken Rosewall, Bjor Borg, Jimmy Connors, Cris Evert… ___________________ Jimmy Connors Reflects Published on May 13, 2013 Jimmy Connors visits “SportsCenter” to discuss his memoir, […]

By Everette Hatcher III | Posted in Current Events, Francis Schaeffer, Prolife | Tagged , | Edit | Comments (0)

Answering God’s Critic BY WAYNE JACKSON

______________

Fred Hoyle once said, “The chance that higher life forms might have emerged in this way is comparable to the chance that a tornado sweeping through a junkyard might assemble a Boeing 747 from the materials therein.”

Earlier I did a post called: Antony Flew, “I was particularly impressed with Gerry Schroeder’s point-by-point refutation of what I call the MONKEY THEOREM” or the “the possibility of life arising by chance using the analogy of a multitude of monkeys banging away on computer keyboards and eventually ending up writing a Shakespearean sonnet!”

 

My favorite quote in this article below is from  C. H. Waddington, professor of animal genetics at Edinburgh University, said (regarding natural selection):

This is really the theory that if you start with any fourteen lines of coherent English and change it one letter at a time, keeping only those things that still make sense, you will eventually finish up with one of the sonnets of Shakespeare . . . [I]t strikes me as a lunatic sort of logic, and I think we should be able to do better (Waddington, Gray, et al. 1961, 38).

 

Answering God’s Critic

Display cc default img

George Johnson is a professor of biology and genetics at Washington University (St. Louis), where he has taught for twenty-seven years. He is the co-author of a textbook on biology, which, in reality, is but an apologetic for organic evolution. Mr. Johnson also serves as an editorial fellow for the Post-Dispatch, a major newspaper in St. Louis. Recently, this gentleman authored an essay titled, “Answering evolution’s critics: Let’s look at the evidence” (1999).

Yes; let’s do that.

The professor begins his piece by suggesting that over the past century, since the emergence of Charles Darwin’s “theory of evolution by natural selection,” the evolutionary concept has “become nearly universally accepted by biologists” as the best explanation for biological diversity. Yes, that is generally true. But at various periods in human history “universally accepted” ideas have been woefully erroneous. Moreover, there are many highly qualified scientists who dispute the theory of evolution. In fact, there are numerous evolutionists who find Darwin’s concept of natural selection egregiously flawed (cf. Behe 1996).

One of the criteria for determining the validity of a good theory is its ability to “predict,” certain phenomena. The professor thus contends that evolution’s “predictions supported by the experiments and observations” of generations of scientists have established evolution on a firm basis. Really? Let’s see.

Evolution’s “Predictability” Ability

First, evolutionary theory attempts to explain the universe strictly in terms of material phenomena. Such a view would predict, therefore, that either matter is eternal, or else it has some intrinsic ability to create itself. Is there any evidence for that? Not a shred. In fact, it is contradicted by well-established laws of science (e.g., the first and second laws of thermodynamics).

Secondly, evolutionary theory contends that “life first arose from the non-living world” (Simpson et al. 1957, 43). If such is the case, one might predict that somewhere there is evidence that life is being spontaneously generated today.

Is there any such evidence? None at all. In fact, scientists refer to the “principle [law] of biogenesis” (i.e., the fact that life comes only from preexisting life). [Note: Significantly, at the same opening of the volume just quoted, Simpson and colleagues, commenting upon the work of Pasteur and others, stated that the labors of their predecessors “marked the end of belief in spontaneous generation and the establishment of the principle of biogenesis—‘all life comes from life’” (Ibid., 42). How does one explain such an obvious contradiction?

Third, evolutionary theory would predict that the fossil record would commence with a scarcity of living forms, which gradually proliferated over the ages. To the contrary, the fossil “library” starts with an “explosion” of life-forms, which George Simpson—a leading advocate of evolutionary dogma—called a “major mystery of the history of life” (1949, 18). Additionally, the fossil record reveals that earth’s biological creatures are far fewer today than in the past. Of some one hundred million species that have existed, only about two percent of these remain (Howard and Rifkin 1977, 21). This is not what the evolutionary model would predict.

These examples, and others (some addressed below), demonstrate that the theory of evolution is woefully weak in the “prediction” department.

Johnson’s Irritation

Professor Johnson is distressed that Darwin’s views have not had full sway in Missouri’s schools over the years (since the advent of Darwinism—one hundred forty years ago). He opines that it is high time to bring old Darwin back into the classroom. (One expects that Charles has not been absent from class in Missouri!) As a result of a previous essay published in the Post-Dispatch, the teacher was criticized by readers, who offered objections to the gentleman’s evolutionary ideology. Johnson selected five of these “principle [sic] objections” for review.

We’d like to review his review.

Evolution Not Demonstrated

Many readers, it seems, point out that evolution is just a “theory”; it, therefore, has not been demonstrated scientifically. Johnson dismisses this by suggesting that scientists use the term “theory” in a different way from the layman. He then says: “Few of us doubt the theory of gravity because it is ‘just a theory.’”

Two observations are in order:

First, while there may be slight theoretical differences of opinion among scientists as to how gravity operates (e.g., Newton’s theory vs. Einstein’s theory), the fact of gravitation is not in dispute. Its effect is observed in a thousand ways daily. But the so-called concept of macroevolution (all forms of life have descended from an original ancestor), does not even meet the criteria of a respectable theory. It cannot be subjected to any testing process. It is, at best, a mere hypothesis—with no supporting data. Note the professor’s own admission: “Replacement of one species by another (what biologists call macroevolution)cannot be directly demonstrated, as the process typically takes millions of years” (emphasis added). This very fact thrusts evolutionary ideology beyond the pale of genuine “science.”

Second, Johnson can debate the matter of evolution’s substance with those of his own persuasion. Some years ago, Louis T. More, of the University of Cincinnati, delivered a series of lectures at Princeton University. These were subsequently published in a book titled, The Dogma of Evolution. Therein Professor More said:

The more one studies paleontology, the more certain one becomes that evolution is based on faith alone; exactly the same sort of faith which it is necessary to have when one encounters the great mysteries of religion (1925, 160).

In his introduction to the 1971 edition of Darwin’s The Origin of Species, L. Harrison Matthews, a British biologist/evolutionist, wrote:

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 (1971, x).

Even more recently, Robert Jastrow, an agnostic and militant evolutionist (in attempting to explain the origin of biological life), declared:

The second theory [that life evolved on our planet spontaneously] is also an act of faith. The act of faith consists in assuming that the scientific view of the origin of life is correct, without having concrete evidence to support that belief (1977, 52).

These sorts of quotations could be multiplied many times over; and so to act as if the issue of evolution were scientifically settled is either a reflection of ignorance or dishonesty. Professor Johnson’s claim, therefore, that biblical creation is “a religious belief,” while evolution is “scientific” is not valid. Colin Patterson, of the British Museum of Natural History—an evolutionist, mind you—has written:

Just as pre-Darwinian biology was carried out by people whose faith was in the Creator and His plan, post-Darwinian biology is being carried out by people whose faith is in, almost, the deity of Darwin (quoted in Leith 1981, 392).

Mr. Johnson’s ideology is as “religious” as anyone’s.

No Transitional Fossils

If the evolutionary story were true, one would expect to find a gradual series of biological developments preserved in the fossil record. But that is not the case. The “record in the rocks” reflects significant gaps between the major categories of flora and fauna. Darwin acknowledged this as a most “serious objection” to his theory (1859, 313).

But Johnson contends that since the days of Darwin “most fossil intermediates in vertebrate evolution have indeed been found.” That is an outrageous claim. Strange that Professor Johnson’s evolutionary colleagues are not aware of the gap fill-in. Dr. Stephen J. Gould of Harvard, America’s leading apostle of evolution, says:

All paleontologists know that the fossil record contains precious little in the way of intermediate forms; transitions between major groups are characteristically abrupt (1977, 24).

Darwin sought to explain the gaps on the basis of the “extreme imperfection of the geological record.” Modern evolutionists acknowledge that this rationalization is no longer valid. One scientist notes fossil discoveries have become “unmanageably rich,” and yet, he confesses, the “fossil record nevertheless continues to be composed mainly of gaps” (George 1960, 1,3).

Mark Ridley, professor of zoology at Oxford University, has written:

[N]o real evolutionist, whether gradualist or punctuationist, uses the fossil record as evidence in favour of the theory as opposed to special creation (1981, 831).

And why not? Because the evidence is not there. In the more than a quarter-of-a-million fossil samples in the various museums of the world, not a single creature has ever been discovered with half-formed organs. Where is the structure that is half-forelimb and half-wing? Only in the evolutionists’ dreams!

Professor Johnson’s sweeping assertions about “links” between reptiles and mammals, between apes and humans are pure spin—with not a fragment of genuine proof.

Intelligent Design

Creationists argue that biological organisms are much too complex to have happened by chance. Just as a clock demands a clock-maker, even so, a biological organism—infinitely more complex than a clock—must have had a Maker.

But George Johnson says: “Biologists disagree.” Disagree if you will—and fling common sense to the wind! Note the following quotations:

A modern building is certainly a complex and highly ordered structure, but its complexity cannot begin to compare with that of the living system (Simpson et al. 1975, 262).

And yet, the “living system” is supposed to have occurred by “accident.” Do buildings build themselves? If not, can something even more intricate fashion itself?

The nervous system of a single starfish, with all its various nerve ganglia and fibers, is more complex than London’s telephone exchange (Natural History 1961, 17).

A pair of pliers, a chain saw or even a missile guidance system doesn’t approach the lowliest parasitic worm in internal complexity. The human-made world is not nearly as intricate as the natural world (Science Digest 1981, 18).

But Professor Johnson contends that “many intermediate ‘eyes’ are known in various invertebrates.” What does that prove? Different levels of complexity in eyes does not prove that any of them developed accidentally—any more than differing levels of complexity between a roller skate and an automobile indicate that either of these happened by accident. Note the following statement from Sir Steward Duke-Elder:

The curious thing, however, is that in their distribution the eyes of the invertebrates form no series of continuity and succession. Without obvious phylogenic sequence, their occurrence seems haphazard; analogous photoreceptors appear in unrelated species, an elaborate organ in a primitive species, or an elementary structure high on the Evolutionary scale, and the same animal may be provided with two different mechanisms with different spectral sensitivities subserving different types of behavior (1973, 178).

With tongue-in-cheek, one supposes that God created eye variations to confuse evolutionists! In his book, The Enchanted Loom, evolutionist Robert Jastrow confesses:

The eye appears to have been designed; no designer of telescopes could have done better . . . [I]t is hard to accept the evolution of the eye as a product of chance (1981, 96,98).

For further evidence that the human body must have been intelligently designed—rather than having evolved fortuitously—see our book, The Human Body – Accident or Design?.

The Second Law of Thermodynamics

According to the second law of thermodynamics, as matter/energy migrates from one form to another, there is a degenerative process that results. Nature is “running down.” The Bible even alludes to the fact that the creation is growing old like a garment that, eventually, is to be laid aside (Hebrews 1:10-12). The entire universe is proceeding toward an ultimate death—if current processes were permitted to proceed infinitely.

Evolution, from the nature of the case, requires a progressive mechanism (a building-up system, from the simple to the complex), but the second law reveals that earth’s environment is running down. It would appear, on the face of it, that the evolutionary scheme is not consistent with the facts of physics.

Here is Johnson’s response to this problem. While it is true that “disorder increases in a closed system,” earth’s environment is not closed. Energy from the sun bathes the planet, and so accommodates the organization of life on earth. The professor employs this analogy. A child may have a messy room, but mother comes in (outside energy), and presto—the room is organized again! Frankly, with all due respect, this is a terribly simplistic approach.

First, it takes more than mere energy to reorganize the room in our friend’s illustration. One could throw a stick of dynamite into the room (there would be energy!), but the place would hardly be more organized as a result. Without an “intelligent” mom, with all her capabilities and equipment, no reorganization would occur. Does any mother imagine that she can simply open her child’s bedroom window, let sunshine in, and the room will be reordered?

And so, as suggested above, in order for an increase in complexity to be effected, it takes more than just energy. Also required are:

  1. an informational system that contains a plan for the utilization of the energy; and,
  2. a mechanism of implementation (i.e., that which converts the energy into functional work channels).

There is absolutely no evidence that “nature” has fabricated (or is able to) either the code (information system), or the necessary conversion machine.

Noted evolutionist, Ernest Mayr of Harvard, speaks to this very point:

Living organisms, however, differ from inanimate matter by the degree of complexity of their systems and by the possession of a genetic program . . . The genetic instructions packaged in an embryo direct the formation of an adult, whether it be a tree, a fish, or a human. The process is goal-directed, but from the instructions in the genetic program, not from the outside. Nothing like it exists in the inanimate world (quoted in Lewin 1982, 719).

In the final analysis, the evolutionary process cannot win the battle against the second law in any environment. John Ross of Harvard has stated:

There are no known violations of the second law of thermodynamics. Ordinarily the second law is stated for isolated systems, but the second law applies equally well to open systems (1980, 40).

Biological organisms have been dying upon this planet for thousands of years. Is there a solitary example of where mere energy from the sun has effected a resurgence of these creatures from death?

Natural Selection— “Lunatic Logic”

Charles Darwin contended that “natural selection” (known also as “the survival of the fittest”) is that process by which certain beneficial traits allow an organism to survive in the struggle for life. It was alleged that an accumulation of these slight, variable traits could be passed along genetically, thus eventually producing new kinds of creatures.

Many intelligent people have noted, however, that “natural selection” is not a sufficient explanation as to how new organisms could develop. But professor Johnson begs to differ. He alleges that natural selection, which he calls “Darwin’s central contention,” has been “clearly and repeatedly demonstrated” over the past one hundred forty years. This simply is not the case.

Natural selection may work as a filtering process—the weak are eliminated frequently—but that does not offer a mechanism for the creation of new, radically different kinds of creatures. The famous evolutionary botanist of the University of Amsterdam, Hugo DeVries, once wrote: “Natural selection may explain the survival of the fittest, but it cannot explain the arrival of the fittest” (quoted in Nelson 1967, 94).

More recently, Stephen Jay Gould acknowledged:

The essence of Darwinism lies in a single phrase: natural selection is the creative force of evolutionary change. No one denies that selection will play a negative role in eliminating the unfit. Darwinian theories require that it create the fit as well (1977, 28).

A significant number of evolutionists today dispute Darwin’s concept of natural selection.

Several years ago, speeches by fifteen of Great Britain’s most prominent scientists were collected into a volume titled, Science Today. In one of these, C. H. Waddington, professor of animal genetics at Edinburgh University, said (regarding natural selection):

This is really the theory that if you start with any fourteen lines of coherent English and change it one letter at a time, keeping only those things that still make sense, you will eventually finish up with one of the sonnets of Shakespeare . . . [I]t strikes me as a lunatic sort of logic, and I think we should be able to do better (Waddington, Gray, et al. 1961, 38).

In the same volume, Sir James Gray, professor of zoology at Cambridge, commenting upon the same matter, declared:

Some feel that the argument [regarding natural selection] gets uncomfortably close to a point when an adequate number of monkeys, tapping typewriters for an adequate length of time will inevitably produce an encyclopedia. Such a thing, of course, is conceivably possible but nobody in their senses takes such things into consideration in everyday life . . . . If we look on organic evolution as one of Nature’s games of chance it seems just a little strange that she should have dealt quite so many winning hands. But your guess is as good as mine (Waddington, Gray, et al. 1961, 29-30).

Brace Loring, writing in a recent edition of American Scientist flatly stated:

Readers . . . may not realize the extent to which a major part of the field of biology and almost all of paleontology has rejected Darwin’s insights concerning organic evolution. Natural selection is dismissed as contributing nothing more than “fine-tuning,” and adaptation is largely ignored in practice (1994, 484).

Colin Patterson is the senior paleontologist at the British Museum of Natural History. On March 4, 1992 Dr. Patterson was interviewed by Peter Franz on the BBC. In that session the eminent evolutionist declared:

No one has ever produced a species by mechanisms of natural selection. No one has ever gotten near it and most of the current argument in neo-Darwinism is about this question: how can a species originate and is it there that natural selection seems to be fading out and chance mechanisms of one sort or another are being invoked (quoted in Morris 1997, 135).

Conclusion

Professor Johnson’s arguments, eminent though he is, are clearly demonstrated to be without merit. It is not because our friend is lacking in ability, it is because he has no case. It is one of the tragedies of history that men of considerable intellect spend their entire careers building castles in the sand.

References

  • Behe, Michael. 1996. Darwin’s Black Box. New York, NY: The Free Press.
  • Darwin, Charles. 1859. The Origin of Species. Sixth edition. London, England: A. L. Burt Co.
  • Duke-Elder, Steward. 1973. The Eye in Evolution. St. Louis, MO: C. V. Mosby.
  • George, T. N. 1960. Fossils in Evolution. Science Progress, January.
  • Gould, Stephen Jay. 1977. The Return of the Hopeful Monsters. Natural History, June/July.
  • Howard, Ted and Jeremy Rifkin. 1977. Who Should Play God? New York, NY: Dell.
  • Jackson, Wayne. 2000. The Human Body – Accident or Design? Stockton, CA: Courier Publications.
  • Jastrow, Robert. 1977. Until the Sun Dies. New York, NY: Warner Books.
  • Jastrow, Robert. 1981. The Enchanted Loom: Mind in the Universe. New York, NY: Simon & Schuster.
  • Leith, Brian. 1981. The Listener, October 8.
  • Lewin, Roger. 1982. Biology Is Not Postage Stamp Collecting. Science, May 14.
  • Johnson, George. 1999. Answering evolution’s critics: Let’s look at the facts. Post-Dispatch, July 25.
  • Johnson, George and Peter Raven. 1999. Biology. New York, NY: McGraw Hill.
  • Loring, Brace. 1994. American Scientist, September/October.
  • Matthews, L. Harrison. 1971. Introd. to The Origin of Species, by Charles Darwin. London, England: J. M. Dent & Sons, Ltd.
  • More, Louis T. 1925. The Dogma of Evolution. Princeton, NJ: Princeton University Press.
  • Morris, Henry. 1997. That Their Words May Be Used Against Them. Sand Diego, CA: Institute for Creation Research.
  • Natural History. 1961. November.
  • Nelson, Byron. 1967. After Its Kind. Minneapolis, MN: Bethany.
  • Ridley, Mark. 1981. Who Doubts Evolution? New Scientist, June 25.
  • Ross, John, letter to the editor. 1980. Chemical and Engineering News, July 7.
  • Science Digest. 1981. April.
  • Simpson, George. 1949. The Meaning of Evolution. New Haven, CT: Yale University Press.
  • Simpson, George, C. S. Pittendrich, and E. H. Tiffany. 1957. Life: An Introduction to Biology. New York, NY: Harcourt, Brace.
  • Waddington, C. H., James Gray, et al. 1961. Science Today. New York, NY: Criterion Books.

Related posts:

RESPONDING TO HARRY KROTO’S BRILLIANT RENOWNED ACADEMICS!! (Part 10 Dr. Stuart Kauffman, Evolutionary Optimistic Humanism)

This is the fourth post I have done on Stuart Kaufman recently. The first post I did on Stuart Kauffman used the Fine Tuning Argument of Antony Flew against him among other things. In the second post, I put an article by Kauffman on the question Does science make belief in God obsolete?, and his article asserted, […]

“Schaeffer Sunday” Taking on Ark Times Bloggers on the “Absurdity of Life without God!!” Part 11(Conversation between Evolutionist Michael Ruse and William Lane Craig)

The Fruits of Atheism (Part 1) Uploaded on Apr 10, 2009 Examining the Creation/Evolution Controversy in Light of Reason and Revelation The Bible and Science (Part 03) There Is A Difference Between Absolute and Objective Moral Values Published on Dec 6, 2012 For more resources visit:http://www.reasonablefaith.org The Bethinking National Apologetics Day Conference: “Countering the New […]

“Schaeffer Sunday” Taking on Ark Times Bloggers on the “Absurdity of Life without God!!” Part 10 (Evolution’s time and chance impersonal universe is purposeless, but the alternative is God)

_________________ The Existence of God (Part 5) The Bible and Science (Part 02) How Can We Demonstrate that Objective Moral Values Exist to a Nihilist Who Holds Published on Dec 17, 2012 For more resources visit: http://www.reasonablefaith.org The Bethinking National Apologetics Day Conference: “Countering the New Atheism” took place during the UK Reasonable Faith Tour in October […]

INTERESTING QUOTES on evolution, science and God

__________________ INTERESTING QUOTES: Note:   Although we believe these quotes are authentic, we have not specifically verified the authenticity of each and every one.  If you find that any quote is in error, please let us know and we will correct it. CATEGORIES: A)                EVOLUTION AND ATHEISM B)                 INTELLIGENT DESIGN C)                PROBLEMS ABOUT FOSSIL EVIDENCE OF EVOLUTION D)                DISTORTIONS USED BY DOGMATIC […]

Examples of Adrian Rogers and Francis Schaeffer Confronting Modern Culture With The Bible! Part 2 Evolutionist William Provine

_______________________________ Adrian Rogers pictured below: __________________ I sent William Provine a letter several months ago with a CD of the following message by Adrian Rogers and in the letter were several arguments from Schaeffer. Adrian Rogers – How you can be certain the Bible is the word of God Today I am sending out another […]

Scientific evidence against evolution (short and concise) July 5, 2009

________________ Scientific evidence against evolution (short and concise) July 5, 2009verloreseun   Definition The word ‘evolution’ is used in the following contexts: Stellar / Planetary Evolution – An explosion (the ‘Big Bang’) supplied non-living material and over billions of years, supposedly this material became organized into planets and stars Cellular Evolution – At some point, non-living […]

My correspondence with the famous evolutionist Ernst Mayr!!!

________ Ernst Mayr 1904-2005 Bill Gates, John Grisham, James Michener, E. O. Wilson, Ernst Mayr, George Lucas… Published on May 19, 2012 Bill Gates, John Grisham, James Michener, E. O. Wilson, Ernst Mayr, George Lucas, James Cameron, Larry King, Ian Wilmut, Jane Goodall, Stephen Jay Gould, Tim D. White, Leon Lederman, Timothy Berners-Lee and Bill […]

How do Evolutionists answer the question: If there is no free-will, then what of morality?

______________ How do Evolutionists answer the question: If there is no free-will, then what of morality? June 24, 2009 Worldview and Evangelism Posted by jasondulle under Apologetics, Worldview [6] Comments Nancy Pearcey described a worldview as a mental map that helps us effectively navigate our world.  The better our worldview, the more effectively we ought […]

Former Atheist Antony Flew noted that Evolutionists failed to show “Where did a living, self-reproducing organism come from in the first place?”

____   Does God Exist? Thomas Warren vs. Antony Flew Published on Jan 2, 2014 Date: September 20-23, 1976 Location: North Texas State University Christian debater: Thomas B. Warren Atheist debater: Antony G.N. Flew For Thomas Warren: http://www.warrenapologeticscenter.org/ ______________________ Antony Flew and his conversion to theism Uploaded on Aug 12, 2011 Antony Flew, a well known […]

Evolutionary dogma with the biblical message are doomed to undermine faith

The Scientific Age Published on Jul 24, 2012 Dr. Schaeffer’s sweeping epic on the rise and decline of Western thought and Culture Francis Schaeffer rightly noted, “These two world views stand as totals in complete antithesis in content and also in their natural results….It is not just that they happen to bring forth different results, […]

 

___________

John MacArthur on Genesis

_______________

Francis Schaeffer “BASIS FOR HUMAN DIGNITY” Whatever…HTTHR

An impersonal beginning…raises two overwhelming problems which neither the East nor modern man has come anywhere near solving. First, there is no real explanation for the fact that the external world not only exists, but has a specific form. Despite its frequent attempt to reduce the concept of the personal to the area of chemical or psychological conditioning, scientific study demonstrates that the universe has an express form. One can go from particulars to a greater unity, from the lesser laws to more and more general laws or super-laws. In other words, as I look at the Being which is the external universe, it is obviously not just a handful of pebbles thrown out there. What is there has form. If we assert the existence of the impersonal as the beginning of the universe, we simply have no explanation for this kind of situation.

Second, and more important, if we begin with an impersonal universe, there is no explanation of personality. In a very real sense the question of questions for all generations — but overwhelmingly so for modern man — is, “Who am I?” For when I look at the “I” that is me and then look around to those who face me and are also men, one thing is immediately obvious: Man has a “mannishness.” You find it wherever you find man — not only in the men who live today, but in the artifacts of history. The assumption of an impersonal beginning cannot adequately explain the personal beings we see around us; and when men try to explain man on the basis of an original impersonal, man soon disappears.

In short, an impersonal beginning explains neither the form of the universe nor the personality of man. Hence it gives no basis for understanding human relationships, building just societies, or engaging in any kind of cultural effort. Itís not just the man in the university who needs to understand these questions. The farmer, the peasant, anyone at all who moves and thinks needs to know. That is, as I look and see that something is there, I need to know what to do with it. The impersonal answer at any level and at any place at any time of history does not explain these two basic factors — the universe and its form, and the “mannishness” of man. And this is so whether it is expressed in the religious terms of pantheism or modern scientific terms.

But the Judeo-Christian tradition begins with the opposite answer. And it is upon this that our whole Western culture has been built. The universe had a personal beginning — a personal beginning on the high order of the Trinity. That is, before “in the beginning” the personal was already there. Love and thought and communication existed prior to the creation of the heavens and the earth.
(Francis A. Schaeffer, Genesis In Time and Space, Ch. 1)

Dr. Francis schaeffer – The flow of Materialism(from Part 4 of Whatever happened to human race?)

John MacArthur on Genesis:

Well, I’m glad tonight for a little bit of extra time because I have much on my heart that I want to say along the line of our series on origins.  Last Sunday night I began to talk to you about the issue of origins and tonight I want to continue in part two on the issue of creationand the gospel.  As I said last time, the issue of origins is absolutely critical to all human thinking, human behavior and human life.  It is the foundation of our existence.  It is the foundation of our purpose.  It is the foundation of our destiny.  Without a right understanding of origins there’s no way to comprehend ourselves.  There’s no way to understand our earth, our universe or the ultimate meaning of anything.

And there are only two options when it comes to origins.  The two options are: there is a Creator God, or there is not. Those are the only two options.  There either is a Creator God or there is not.  If there is not, then everything is an impossible, implausible, irrational result of chance.   And the equation that I gave you last week is “nobody times nothing equals everything.”  If on the other hand there is a creative intelligence, if there is a Creator God, then creation is understandable.  It is possible, it is plausible, it is rational.  And even the scientists who have left their mark on the scientific world, those who think honestly and make honest confessions about origins, will tell you that there must be a creative intelligence.  Even Einstein said that.

Recently the well-known scientist who teaches at Lehigh University in Pennsylvania has written a book called Darwin’s Black Box.  He is a scientist.  He is not a Christian.  But he says, in effect, guys, the jig’s up.  The ruse is over.  There is no explanation for this universe apart from an intelligent creator.  That’s the only thing that makes any sense.  Darwin explained the universe purely on the basis of external appearance.  But the deeper science goes, the more it is forced to the conclusion of a Creator God.  Behind this complex universe is an incomprehensibly intelligent and powerful eternal being who made everything.  That is the only thing that makes sense.  In fact, evolution in any form doesn’t make sense.

Now the question is, if this universe is the product of a Creator God with an infinite amount of intelligence and power, how can we know anything about this God?  How can we know who He is and how He created?  Well, there’s only one answer and that is we can only know about Him and how He created if He chose to tell us.  That’s the only way we can ever know.  Has He?  Yes, He has.  In fact, He has revealed an entire 66 books of personal self-disclosure.  And included in that revelation, in which God has revealed Himself, is very clear instruction about how He created the universe.

For example, in Psalm 19 the psalmist writes these familiar words, “The heavens are telling of the glory of God; and their expanse is declaring the work of His hands.  Day to day pours forth speech, and night to night reveals knowledge.”  In other words, day and night, everything in the universe speaks of a Creator God.  “There is no speech, nor are there words; their voice is notheard.”  In other words, it’s a silent revelation but it’s a revelation that’s unmistakable.  Just look at the creation, look at the universe, look at the heavens and their expanse and everything that He’s created in the day and in the night and it’s clear.  He says, “Their line has gone out through all the earth, and their utterances to the end of the world.”  Everyone on the globe can look out and see the creative evidence of a Creator God.

The psalmist goes on to talk about the fact that He has made the created universe “a tent for the sun, which is as a bridegroom coming out of his chamber; It rejoices as a strong man to run his course.  Its rising is from one end of the heavens, and its circuit to the other end of them; and there is nothing hidden from its heat.”  He picks that one body, that one celestial body out of the great expanse of the universe, that one celestial body that most dominates our life, the one that is closest to us in terms of a star, the one that has the greatest impact on us, the one that affects us, the sun, the unmistakable one.  And he says about the sun that the sun runs its circuit from one end of heaven to the other so that nowhere in the created universe is its heat not felt.  That’s one of the things that science has discovered in modern times is that the sun is in orbit.  We talk about the sun as the center of our solar system and everything orbiting around it, but you need to know that science has discovered that the sun itself has an orbit and this orbit goes from one end of the infinite space to the other.  The sun is moving and dragging our entire solar system with it.  It is notfixed any more than the things that revolve around it are fixed.  So the psalmist says you can look up and you can look at the universe and look at the creation and it gives you loud testimony to the glory of God, to the majesty of His intelligence, to the massive character of His power to create all of this.

In Hebrews, chapter 1, going to the other end of the Bible, we read that God who “spoke long ago to the fathers in the prophets in many portions and in many ways, in these last days has spoken to us in His Son, whom He appointed heir of all things, through whom also He made the world.”  Hebrews 1 says that God made the world.  Psalm 19 says He made the universe.  Hebrews 1says He made the world.  The only way we’re going to know that is if God tells us that.  We are natural.  God is supernatural.  The natural cannot comprehend the supernatural.  So on our own we can’t find God, we can’t discover God.  We’re locked in a time-space world.  We can’t crawl outside of it into eternity and comprehend what is incomprehensible.  The only things we know about God are those things which He has told us, and that’s why He gave us the Bible.

First Timothy 3, 2 Timothy 3, I’m sorry, says familiar, familiar words to us. “All Scripture is inspired by God,” 2 Timothy 3:16. “All Scripture is inspired by God.”  God breathed it out, so that it is His Word.  Second Peter 1, “Know this first of all, that no prophecy of Scripture is a matter of one’s own interpretation, for no prophecy was ever made by an act of human will, but men moved by the Holy Spirit spoke from God.”  The only source of knowledge we have about God is the Bible and the external evidence of God in creation.  We can know about God by creation; we cannot know God except through Scripture.  We can know that He created, as we look at the creation around us.  It’s reasonable to assume there was a Creator.  But we cannot know how He created unless He reveals it to us.  So we can know some things through what theologians call natural revelation.  But in order to really know God, and how He created, and how He operates, and how He saves, we have to have special revelation, which is the Bible, and the Bible alone.

Now with that in mind, go back to Genesis, chapter 1.  When God began the Bible as His self-revelation, He began at the beginning.  He began with an account of origins.  He began by telling how He created the universe.  Verse 1 of Genesis 1 says, “In the beginning God created the heavens and the earth.”  And then He goes on into chapter 2 and verse 4 with a description of precisely and exactly how He created the universe.  Now this is where Genesis begins. But it doesn’t end there.  Genesis is a book of origins.  To show you how important Genesis is, let me tell you the range of origins that are found in the revelation of this one book.

Now the word genesis, by the way, means origins, beginnings.  And in the book of Genesis you find many beginnings, many origins.  First of all, and we just noted that, you find the origin of the universe.  Genesis 1:1 is unique in all literature, all science, and all philosophy.  Every other system of cosmogony explaining the universe, whether in ancient religious myths or modern scientific models, starts with eternal matter, or eternal energy in some form.  Only the book of Genesis starts with eternal God.  Genesis then is the book of the origin of the universe.

Secondly, in Genesis we find the origin of order and complexity.  Man’s universal observation of his world is that it is, it is an orderly world.  It functions on fixed rules and it is profoundly complex.  Order and complexity never arise spontaneously.  They are always generated by a prior cause programmed to produce order and complexity simultaneously.  And in the book of Genesis we meet God, who programmed order and complexity into His universe.  We also find in Genesis the origin of the solar system.  In the midst of this vast, limitless universe, God created a solar system.  The Earth, as well as the sun, and moon, the planets, all the stars of heaven, were brought into existence by the Creator and we’re told that He created them all.

Fourthly, the book of Genesis tells us about the origin of the atmosphere and the hydrosphere.  The earth is uniquely equipped with a great body of liquid water and an extensive blanket of oxygen-nitrogen gaseous mixture, both of which are necessary for life.  These have never shown up on any other celestial bodies or any other planets and are accounted for only by specialcreation by God to provide an environment for human life.

We also find in Genesis the origin of life, the marvels of the reproductive process.  The almost infinite complexity programmed into the genetic system of plants and animals are inexplicable apart from special creation by a great, supernatural, powerful intelligence.

Sixthly and certainly centrally, Genesis tells us about the origin of man.  Man is the most highly organized and complex entity in the universe.  Man is the supreme illustration of order and complexity.  He possesses not only innumerable, intricate, physical, chemical structures in the marvelous capacities of life and reproduction, but beyond that sort of physical part of man, there is a nature which can contemplate abstract entities of beauty, and love, and worship, and which is capable of understanding and thinking about its own meaning.  It is self-awareness that singularly identifies and separates man from the rest of the created order.  The true record of man’s creationis given only in Genesis.

In Genesis you also find the origin of marriage.  The remarkable universal and stable institution of marriage and the home, a monogamous, patriarchal, social culture is defined and described in Genesis as having been ordained by the Creator.  And polygamy, and infanticide, and matriarchy, and promiscuity, and divorce, and abortion, and homosexuality, and all the corruptions developed later after the Fall, corrupting God’s initial order.

You also find in the book of Genesis the origin of evil.  The origin of physical and moral evil in the universe is explained in Genesis as a kind of temporary intrusion into God’s perfect world, allowed by God as a concession to the principle of human freedom and responsibility and also to manifest Himself as Redeemer of sinners as well as Creator.  You find, number nine, in the book of Genesis the origin of judgment on evil.  All the forms of God’s wrath are set in motion and illustrated in Genesis.

Also, number ten, in the book of Genesis you find the origin of salvation by grace through God’s mercy and a substitute.  That’s all in Genesis and it starts to show as God is merciful to Adam and Eve and doesn’t kill them, even though they deserved to die for their sin.  And then God develops a system of animal sacrifice which pictures a substitute who will take the place of sinners, which is an act of mercy and grace on God’s part.  The plan of redemption leading to Christ is even referred to when the book of Genesis talks about the seed of the woman, that being the seed planted by God in Mary; the Messiah, the Savior.

It is in the book of Genesis that we find the origin of language.  You know, one of the things that evolutionists gag on all the time, and I was reading it in Newsweek this week, is how you go from apes to man not just making some physical transition, but developing language.  How you go from grunting and making unintelligible noises to human speech.  Newsweek was trying to present an article to answer that and it was just bizarre and pointless and unbelievable.  The gulf between the mindless, instinctive chattering of animals and the intelligent, abstract, symbolic communication of man is absolutely and completely unbridgeable by any evolutionary process.  And the book of Genesis not only accounts for the origin of language in general—that is, God is a communicating God and He created someone in His own image who thereby could communicate—but Genesis also tells us not only how man was given by God the ability to communicate but how so many languages occurred from the judgment of God at the Tower of Babel.  That’s in Genesis, too.

You find in Genesis, number 12, the origin of government, the development of organized systems of human government for the maintenance of orderly social structures through systems of law and punishment.  You find in Genesis the origin of culture.  You find here such things as urbanization, the development of metallurgy, music, agriculture, animal husbandry, writing, education, navigation, textiles and ceramics.  All of that starts in the book of Genesis.  You find in Genesis the origin of nations and that is related, of course, again to the Tower of Babel, as God takes one race and scatters them all over the world.  That is the only source you’ll ever find of how we have so many different peoples scattered all over the earth with different languages and cultures.

You find in the book of Genesis the origin of religion.  Both the true religion and false religions appear, first of all, in the book of Genesis; organized systems of worship and conduct.  The origin of man’s unique characteristic, of man’s own consciousness and his ability to comprehend a God and to structure a system of response to the God he believes exists.  That all appears in Genesis.

You find also significantly, number 16 in my list, the origin of the chosen people, Israel, who were the conduit for God’s revelation to all of the world.  It was Israel that was God’s people, through whom He gave His revelation and through whom His saving covenant came, in Genesis 12, to Abraham.

Now when you talk about origins you’re going to have to go back to Genesis.  This is a book of origins.  And let me put it again on the line where I put it last Lord’s Day.  Either you believeGenesis or you don’t.  It’s that simple.  Either you believe what Genesis says about all of those origins or you don’t.  And that would include either you believe the creation account in Genesis 1and 2 or you don’t.  And if you don’t believe the Genesis account, then I just, I have to tell you, you have no hope of coming to the truth.  You’re not going to discover it.  Unconverted scientists aren’t going to discover it.  You either believe Genesis or you don’t.

And what is really intolerable is to say you believe the Bible but not just the Genesis creationaccount.  You believe Genesis, you believe about the origin of sin, you believe chapter 3 on maybe.  Or maybe you’re not sure about that because you don’t really believe there was an actual Adam and an actual Eve.  You’ve got a small problem because Jesus said, “As in Adam all die, so in Christ shall all be made alive,” and there was a real Christ, so you can be sure there was a real Adam.  But just in case you don’t believe in a real Adam, maybe you don’t sign on until chapter 6, maybe you just believe the Flood.  Well, maybe you don’t believe that, maybe you believe when the Tower of Babel is described later on in chapter 11, or maybe you don’t believe that.  Maybe you don’t check in until Abraham shows up in chapter 12.  Pretty ridiculous, isn’t it?  Who are you to be sitting in judgment on Scripture?

You know, I’m never going to get caught in the trap of trying to prove to you that Genesis is true by science.  I’m just going to proclaim to you what Genesis says and let science bow its knee to that explanation.  As you will see, it will do that.  All you can know about how God created is what He said.  That’s all you can know.  And if you don’t believe what He said about creation, what kind of precedent have you established for the rest of the Bible?

And what about the end?  Do you know how all of redemptive history ends?  You know how the whole story of humanity ends?  It ends, according to 2 Peter, when the Lord uncreates the universe; I like to use that word.   The elements melt with fervent heat.  There’s some kind of a, literally an implosion, as the nuclear structure, the atomic structure of the universe, literally is totally turned against its existence, and takes it right back out of existence when He uncreates, when the elements melt as with a fervent heat in that kind of nuclear holocaust that ends human history.

And immediately after that it says in Revelation that He creates a—what?  A new heaven and a new earth.  Let me ask you this, do you believe He can do that?  Or is that going to be another umpteen billion years of evolutionary process to get the new heaven and the new earth cranked up?  Is it going to take billions of years to evolve the new heaven and the new earth, or do you really believe God might be able to do that just by fiat, just by making the statement and calling it into existence?  If you believe that, then what’s your problem in Genesis?  If God can wipe the entire universe out in a split second, if He can dissolve the whole thing, if He can send it reeling in the time of the tribulation, and refurbish it during the time of the kingdom, and then totally uncreateit at the end of the thousand years, if He can do all of that, then I don’t know why you have a problem with Him creating it all in six days.  You see, the implications of rejecting the account of Genesis are profound.

And listen to me, because what I’m going to say is very important.  It is not necessary to reject the six-day creation.  It is not necessary.  We have yielded up territory to evolution without cause.  Science knows nothing.  Science proves nothing that contradicts a six-day creation, nothing.  In fact science, as it keeps advancing, makes its own claims to evolution ridiculous, more ridiculous all the time.  You know—and having a perspective on this is very important—we’ve caved in to the scientists too long and it’s time to stop.  If you want to do some reading on this, get Philip Johnson’s book Darwin on Trial; it just devastates the scientific perspectives.  Christian people literally accepting the scientific descriptions of origins, and come out of an evolutionary bias as if somehow they’ve been proven, and somehow the Bible is going to have to give at that point, because a six-day creation is not scientifically possible; that is just not true.  But the results are staggering.

Master’s College, for example, is a member of the Christian College Coalition.  It’s a coalition of Christian colleges across America, of which there are about 110 colleges.  Of the 110 Christian colleges in the coalition, six that we know of believe in the creation account in Genesis; six out of 110 Christian colleges.  That’s a small, small fraction.  And most Christian leaders and most Christian educators have allowed the teachings of evolution to one degree or another to be added to the Bible; they sort of stuff evolution in between the verses in Genesis.  Most Christian leaders have accepted the fact that the universe is billions of years old.

Yet clearly, from the words of Scripture, God created the universe in six literal days.  And Christian leaders can’t deny that that’s what it says because that’s what it says.  You can translate it any way you want, it all comes out. The word yom means day and you have six of them.  But theybelieve somehow that scientists have proved that the age of the earth must be billions and billions and billions of years old.  So they believe you’ve got to go back to Genesis and fix it.  And in so doing they have allowed the authority of the Bible to be undermined, right?  It’s serious stuff.  If the words of the Bible means six days, and you conclude, but so-called science says that’s not true, then science is right and the Bible is wrong.  Now if you can’t trust the words of Genesis, when do you start trusting the Bible?  It’s a sad indictment of the church, isn’t it?  And the humanists even use the compromising of the Christian leaders to further their cause to undermine Christianity.  And what we have is a kind of Christianity today that loses its absolutes in Genesis 1.  That’s sad.

Christian leaders might not sign on, of course, to humanistic evolution.  They would say, “Yes, there’s a God and somehow God’s involved in the evolutionary process.”  That’s called theistic evolution, sometimes called progressive creationism, a term developed by Russell Mixter in the science department of Wheaton College a number of years ago.  But they would say, “No, there is a God and God is, sort of injects Himself at points at theistic evolution.”  Says, “God launched it and started it.”  Progressive creationism says, “He jumps in along the way but it still took millions and millions and billions of years for it to happen.”  These people call themselves believers in God. They probably would say they believe the Scripture.  But they don’t want to allow for a six-day creation.  This poses immense problems, immense problems.

Here’s one of them, I’m not going to give you all, but here’s one, just strikes me as a serious problem.  If man is created at the end of the evolutionary process, whether it’s a naturalistic evolutionary process, or it’s a theistic evolutionary process launched by God, which some Christians think they have to affirm in order to pay homage to science, or if it’s a progressive creationist view where God injects Himself along the way, the problem you’ve got is evolution is a process—listen carefully—evolution is a process by nature of death.  It’s a process known as the survival of—what?—the fittest.  It’s a process of violence.  It’s a process of bloodshed.  It’s a process of suffering.  It’s a process of disease.  It’s a process of death as the order rises higher and higher and higher until it gets to man.

Now here’s a serious problem.  You don’t have man until billions of years and when man appears he is perfect and he is sinless and there’s no such thing as death.  Death doesn’t even come into the picture until man does—what?—sins.  How can you have death before the Fall?  You don’t even have a cursed earth.  The whole of the Genesis record is stood on its head.  If there’s been all kinds of death in this billions of years of evolutionary processing, then what did sin do to the world that hadn’t already been done?  And how could God, who looked over this whole evolutionary deal when it finally reached its completion in man and said He saw it and He looked at it and He said it is good?  How could God say that?  You see then, the sin of Adam and the curse of death is meaningless, because there’s been death for millennia and for billions of years; just convolutes all of the biblical record.  Because what you have in Genesis is a perfect world until man is confronted by the serpent, and falls into sin, and God curses the universe and then comes death, and disease, and suffering, and violence, and bloodshed, and not before.  Evolution makes no sense in that perspective.

You know, I, Christians will get out there, you know, and they’ll say, “Boy, we’re against abortion, and we’re against homosexuality, and we’re against Jack Kevorkian because he’s murdering people, and we’re against euthanasia, and we’re against genocide and, you know, we’re against the moral evils of our society, etc., etc., etc.”  Why are we against those things?  Can you tell me why?  Why are we against those things?  Give me one reason.  Here it is, because they’re forbidden in Scripture. Is that not true?  The only reason we’re against abortion is because God’s against it.  How do we know that?  Because it’s in the Word of God.  The reason we’re against homosexuality, adultery, etc., etc., is because of the Bible.  You see, we stand on the Scripture.  But the problem is we don’t want to stand on the Scripture in Genesis.  So we equivocate on whether or not the Bible is an authority at all.  What do you think the watching world thinks about our commitment to Scripture?  Pretty selective, isn’t it?  And again, I say such capitulation to evolution is completely unnecessary.  Nothing requires evolution.  In fact, evolution cannot happen.  It can’t happen.

Let me tell you why.  Now again I want to give a disclaimer.  I’m not a scientist and I’ve got to tell you, I work really hard to try to understand this stuff.  I’m going to do my best to make it comprehensible to you.  I read a couple of books by a man named Dr. A. E. Wilder-Smith, who has a whole long list of letters after his name.  He’s a scientist.  Now, just to tell you how far I’ve gone in this reading, I read his book from cover to cover called, The Scientific Alternative to Neo-Darwinian Evolutionary Theory.  Now this is a very technical book and I don’t recommend that you go try to find it because you’ll not really enjoy reading it.  You just have to kind of do it, just an exercise that you’re sort of forced to do if you’re going to do what I’m going to do.  But let me distill it to you, the thesis of the book. A. E. Wilder-Smith in this book demonstrates the absurdity of evolution on the basis of one great reality and that one great reality is the encoded information in the DNA of living organisms.  Did you get that?  Every living organism has in it DNA.  DNA is genetic material and on that genetic material in every living thing is a code and that is an operative code.  And that living organism, whether you’re talking about a cell or whether you’re talking about a large man and everything in between, all of that operation of every living thing is dependent on that encoded information.  And listen to this, every different living thing has a completely different code.

Darwin had no clue about that.  There was no genetic study when he wrote his Origin of Species.  He didn’t know anything about DNA.  He didn’t know anything about chromosomes.  He didn’t know anything about genetics.  It didn’t exist as a science.  He was just describing what he thought he was seeing.  It was all according to appearance and nothing more.  If Darwin had been alive today and try to sell his deal today, it never would fly; he wouldn’t even believe it.  He barely believed his own view.  He certainly wouldn’t have believed it in a day like ours when we have this incredible ability to go with electron microscope into the DNA and see the coded information in living organisms.  The entire realm of genetics, Wilder-Smith points out, is all about information, storage and retrieval; was totally unknown to Darwin.  Every living thing, if you’re talking about before these flowers were cut, they were living things, this one is blue, this one is pink, and this one is orange, etc., because there’s information, there’s information in the DNA in the genetics that causes that to happen.  That’s a code of information in every living thing.

It has been discovered in recent years that the genetic programs of say, higher biological organisms, consist of about one thousand million bits of information.  One thousand million bits of information in one living organism; and that information that is encoded in that living organism determines the nature, the growth, the development and the death of billions of cells in that living organism.  Now who, frankly, in his right mind could ever believe that such supremely complex machines, which is what living organisms are, storing and retrieving the precise information to service a thousand million cells, diagnose defects, and repair them, and reproduce, all developed at random by chance out of nothing?  It’s absolutely idiotic.

The big issue, the issue that is bringing down evolution, is the study of the origin of information; it’s called information theory.  Where did the information come from?  Where did the code come from?  A monkey has a monkey code, and the DNA, and the chromosomes, and the genetics just keep making the monkey behave like a monkey.  There’s no code in there to turn the monkey into a man.  There’s no such thing as jumping out of your species.

Well they got all excited in science.  Wilder-Smith talks about this, as do some other writers I read, when they got into polymers and they were looking at some things, saying, “Well, maybe those polymers are the transitional things, they look a little unusual, they’re a little out of the normal.  Maybe they were the transitions.”  And the longer they studied those, the more they realized those were just elements of the encoded information doing repair work because there was some reason to repair.  That’s why it was a little unusual because it was repairing damage to that living organism.  And after all, polymers weren’t transitional forms at all; they were just encoded information in the DNA that you didn’t see until there was a need to repair something.  It’s incredible.

Where did this genetic information come from?  Where did it come from?  It couldn’t evolve out of nowhere.  It’s too precise.  Wilder-Smith says this, “Darwin’s so-called gradualism postulated, in the last analysis, all forms of biology were derived from a single, simple cell which by an unbroken series of small, gradualistic changes, gave rise to an unbroken chain of steps from the original cell up to man himself, and biology was strictly continuous.”  This is just unbelievable.  And only a man in Darwin’s time who didn’t know genetics would ever come up with such a statement, because if a one-celled thing, listen to this, developed into a man, then all the encoded information necessary to run that one-cell thing and to run everything from then on all the way up, including the man, had to be in the original cell.  And if it wasn’t in the original cell, then where did it come from?  That’s the question.  It’s ridiculous.  They know that all of the encoded information to run every living thing in the universe is not contained in a one-celled amoeba.  What is contained in a one-celled amoeba is the code for a one-celled amoeba.

Wilder-Smith goes on and says, “There was one great aspect of reality about which Darwin, and indeed everyone of his epic, knew nothing.  I’m referring to the modern science of information theory; for if a primeval kind of amoeba is to develop up to a primate, that primeval cell will have to gather all sorts of new information on how to make kidneys, livers, four-chamber hearts, cerebra and cerebella.”  It’s just going to have to, as this one-celled thing goes, it’s just going to have to collect information; from where?

If the law of entropy is true, and it is—that matter is breaking down, things are getting worse—how can things be getting more complex and more ordered simultaneously?  Wilder-Smith says, “For the synthesis of such reduced entropy systems, as for example a primate brain, requires all kinds of solid, actual information, which neither the matter of which the primeval amoeba consisted, nor the intact amoeba cell contained.  Similarly, inorganic matter will have to assemble huge numbers of bits of holistic information before it can synthesize an amoeba.”

So he says whatever it was that started the first amoeba, whatever inanimate thing started the first amoeba, would have to have collected information to make that happen.  I’ll give you an illustration; maybe help you a little bit.  Have you been reading about the fact they’ve cloned rabbits and then they cloned sheep?  You say, “Does this, is this an evolutionary triumph?”  No, you know what this proves?  This proves that it takes an outside intelligence to do this.  You can have a sheep and put him in a pen and say, “Um…mutate!”  You can put, you can put the sheep in there and say, you know, you can, “Please, have a clone.”  But that sheep’s not going to have a cloned sheep unless an intelligence, a higher intelligence, in this case a human brain, understanding genetics, works from the outside to produce that.  That is a classic illustration of why evolution can’t happen.  It’s classic.  Whenever we want to create something that is in the least sense out of the natural order, it takes an intelligent human brain to invade that level of life.  It has to come from the outside because the information isn’t in the code system.

That’s exactly how God operates.  You can’t have evolution.  First Corinthians 15 says “there’s a flesh of animals and there’s…a flesh of birds,” and “there’s a flesh of man,” and that’s how it is.  And it’s all determined by the genetic code, and they don’t crisscross and jump over those bounds.

Wilder-Smith further writes, “Assuming that original primeval form of life was kind of an amoeba, a kind of amoeba, where did it obtain the almost infinite number of bits of information required to be stored in its DNA storage and retrieval system?  In order to transform the amoeba-type of cell to a mammal, a primate, an octopus, or a bee, new bits of holistic information are required. Neither the primeval amoeba-type of cell nor the inorganic matter of which it is constructed contains such highly specialized, holistic information, which is necessary to transform from the alleged amoeba into say, an anthropoid ape.  [It is legitimate to assume that such incredible amounts of information arose.] Is it legitimate to assume that such incredible amounts of information arose spontaneously, out of thin air, by pure chance?”  Absolutely ridiculous.

I mentioned this morning, went down to the Sonoran Desert this week to spend a little time with my dad and my sister, decided to cart us out to the desert there and to go out with some naturalists and poke around under rocks and look at cactus and things like that.  And I’m always kind of fascinated by the creation of God and I’ve seen the desert a lot in my life because I’ve always lived in the West, or most always.  And, but I was introduced to some things that were really amazing by these naturalists.  You know, they turned over a rock and out came a little gecko and they gave me the whole ecology of how they operate.  And out from another rock with a little pair of tweezers came a scorpion and I, I learned more about a scorpion than I ever cared to know or could use in about five minutes.  But I did learn one thing: That they survive by cannibalizing other scorpions, and that’s how they survive.  And it talked about how their sting operates and how; they talked about all the details.  Then we went over to see a saguaro cactus.  And a saguaro cactus, there’s a whole ecology in one of those things that’s incredible.  They think they live 800 years.  They don’t know for sure because no botanist lives long enough to see one live and then die.  So, you know, it’s sort of a guess.  But they go through these incredible, this thing is incredible.  Its needles crisscross like this because there’s high winds in that, there, the only place in the world it grows in the Sonoran Desert. And the needles that grow out of them, as they do in cacti, crisscross each other, and that defuses the wind so it doesn’t blow them over, doesn’t snap them off.  It’s a marvelous ecology.  There’s legend, too, in fact one of the legends.  You ever see a saguaro cactus? Some of the arms go up and like this.  And they say the main stem of a saguaro cactus is representative of the man and the other branches are representative of his wives.  And if they grow upward, he had a very ordered life and dutiful wives, but if they go all directions, the poor guy had a really tough time.  Well, I mean that’s legend.  But apart from the legend, as they began to define the ecology of this thing, the complexity of this thing, how it retains water and how it creates these ribs, how it produces an incredibly gorgeous flower at the peak of each branch once a year, and it dies burned in the sun.  They took us over to a paloverde tree, the tree with the smallest leaves of any tree on the face of the earth.  And it desperately needs water, and they have found them, get this, with a one main root 300 feet below the surface of the ground, though the tree is only six feet high.  Amazing ecology, amazing complexity in all these forms of life.

And they were going through all of this, and all this.  Then I jumped in and said, “May I say something?”  And I gave them this speech basically that I’m giving you, you know, that every one of these living organisms in the universe has its own code.  How did it get that code?  Where did it come from?  It had to come from a divine mind who made everything.  Listen to this, when God created, He created everything and encoded everything.  Just get a grip on the vastness of His intelligence, staggering, staggering.  Everything demonstrates the imprint of God.

And then Wilder-Smith in his books, book, likes to talk about a guy named Von Neumann, Von Neumann actually, German scientist.  Von Neumann defined these living machines (machine referring to an organism that’s alive), and he said, the amazing thing about living organisms, get this, is they are self-producing, self-sustaining and self-repairing.  That is what’s known as a Von Neumann machine, self-producing, self, or self-reproducing, self-sustaining, and self-repairing.  And he points out in his book that we’ve never been able to build a machine like that.

Do you know any machine like that?  Do you know any computer that has little computers?  Do you know a computer that sustains its own life and repairs itself?  How about a car?  Do you know a car that does that?  Von Neumann pointed out if we could make a machine complex enough to reproduce itself and sustain itself it would always be in disrepair because of its complexity.  So it couldn’t keep up with the self-repairing responsibility. We’ve never created a machine like that, yet every single living organism is just that: self-producing, self-sustaining, self-repairing.  Is that incredible?  This is the mind of God.  Don’t tell me this is chance.  Blind devotion to chance is an act of defiance against reason, and more importantly against revelation, and more importantly against God Himself.

Douglas Kelley says, at the very least one can note that the whole edifice of evolutionary theory is increasingly seen as a faith rather than objective, empirical science and its foundations are shaky, end quote.

According to Michael Denton—he’s written a book called A Theory in Crisis—he says, “There can be no doubt that after a century of intensive efforts, biologists have failed to validate it in any significance sense.  The fact remains that nature has not been reduced to the continuum that Darwinian model demands, nor has the credibility of chance as the creative agency of life been secured.”  In fact—that’s end quote—in fact, it’s just the opposite.   The more science learns about astonishing complexity, the more science learns about harmony, the more science learns about design, the more science learns about the intelligence of the universe, the more science must confess there has to be an intelligent creator.

And again Douglas Kelley says, “Now in the nature of the case, we are dealing here with a unique situation, the bringing into being of the space-time universe by a transcendent source who according to the Scriptures [Listen to this.], spoke it into existence out of nothing but the word of His own power.”  Hmm, what power, what complexity, what order, what intelligence!  You know, reasonable science, reasonable science should suggest that an intelligent and powerful supernatural creator had to be out there and still is.  But although science should recognize that, because it’s the only reasonable explanation, to know who He is and to know how He created, science must bow its knee to the Scripture and the God of Scripture.

Our sole source of knowledge is the Bible, the Bible.  Evolution is an act of faith, irrational faith. Creation is an act of faith, revelational faith.  I don’t know about you, but I believe the Bible and Ibelieve the Word of God.  Evolution is a twentieth-century religious sect that denies reason and denies revelation.  Creation is the worship of the true God in perfect accord with reason and revelation.  So I go back to where I’ve started.  Either you believe in an eternal God or you believein eternal matter, or eternal energy, or eternal amoeba; nothing in between, nothing in between.  You are either a materialist who believes in the eternality of matter, or you are a supernaturalist who believes in the eternality of God.  That’s the only two choices there are.

What happens to a world that rejects the Creator and replaces Him with material?  What happens to a world that replaces the Creator God with faceless time, chance, matter, energy?  What happens? William Provine of Cornell University stated it clearly, quote: “The implications of modern science are clearly inconsistent with most religious traditions.  No inherent [Listen to this] moral or ethical laws exist, nor are there absolute guiding principles for human society.  The universe cares nothing for us and we have no ultimate meaning in life,” end quote.  That’s right.  If we’re just the result of chance, nothing matters.  There is no moral standard, there is no ethical standard; all you’re left with is tragedy and despair.  If this universe is the result of impersonal forces, if this universe is faceless, if it’s pitch dark out there because nobody’s there, that makes a tremendous difference in my life.  But if there is a Creator and if that Creator showed His face in human form in Jesus, and if He is a loving, saving, blessing God who stands behind this creation, that makes all the difference in my life.

And you know, the Bible, I’m so glad the Bible doesn’t start like this, “I know you guys are going to find this hard to believe but in the beginning God.”  It doesn’t do that.  It just says, “In the beginning God…”  There has to be something in the beginning.  The evolutionist would say, “In the beginning amoeba, in the beginning matter, in the beginning energy.”  The Bible says, “In the beginning God…”  And in John 1, “In the beginning was the Word, and the Word was with God, and the Word was God… All things were made by Him, and [without Him, this says it], without Him was not anything made that was made.”  That’s another way of saying nothing evolved.  Hebrews 11:3, “By faith we understand that the worlds were framed by the Word of God,” not by evolution.  “The worlds were framed by the Word of God.”  This is repeating: It’s in Genesis, it’s in John, it’s in Hebrews.  And as I said at the beginning, either you believe it or you don’t.

We can conclude then that evolution is a false religion.  And why in the world would we want to bring it into the Bible?  Why would we want to borrow from the false religion of evolution and impose it upon the straightforward account of Genesis?  For what?  That’s an assault on the revelation of God.  The Bible tells us how energy got here, it came from God.  It tells us how matter got here, it came from God.  It tells us how the heavens and the earth were formed, God did it.  That’s all we need to know.  Nothing could be more logical than that.  An intelligent Creator God made it.  And here come the evolutionists with all their lies, and their disregard of Genesis, and why in the world do we buy into that and try to impose that on the Scripture?

Evolution is a false religion.  Here are the principles it’s based on, just to give you another perspective:

One, evolution is pure science.  That’s what the evolutionists would like you to believe.  It’s pure science, it’s a closed system founded on reality, not on the illusion of a God.

And secondly the evolutionists would say that evolution is equal to rationality because it excludes miracles and the supernatural.  But, friends, there comes a point in which the supernatural is the only rational thing.

Thirdly—and this has been adapted from Philip Johnson’s wonderful book, Reason in the Balance—thirdly, evolution is liberating because it eliminates God and His commands, which restrict free sexual behavior.

Fourthly, the evolutionist says his religion is democratic because every man is his own source of moral judgment, since there is no God, no moral judge, no law.

Fifthly, evolution is broad because it allows a belief in God, just not the biblical God.

That’s the religion.  You want to know what the tenets are of the religion of evolution?

One, evolution is pure science, they say, it’s a closed system founded on reality not the illusion of a God.

Two, it is equal to rationality because it excludes irrational miracles and supernatural interference.

Three, evolution is liberating because it eliminates God and His commands which restrict free sexual behavior.  And, folks, I want to tell you, that’s what drives the whole thing.  They love their sin.

Fourth, evolution, they say, is democratic because every man can be his own source of moral judgment.

And fifth, evolution is broad because it allows belief in God, whatever you want Him to be except the God of the Bible.

Amazing, isn’t it?  People fighting reason, embracing absurdity, to avoid accountability to the eternal judge.

Let me close tonight by taking you over to Romans 1.  And this is just a pertinent statement from God that addresses those who reject Him.  Romans 1 verse 18:

“For the wrath of God is revealed from heaven against all ungodliness and unrighteousness of men [Listen to this.] who suppress the truth…because that which is known about God is evident within them; for God made it evident to them.  For since the creation of the world, His invisible attributes, His eternal power and divine nature, have been clearly seen, being understood through what has been made, so that they are without [What?] excuse. For even though they knew God, they didn’t honor Him as God or give thanks,…they became futile in their speculations,…their foolish heart was darkened.  Professing to be wise, they became fools, and exchanged the glory of the incorruptible God for an image in the form of corruptible man…birds…four-footed animals and crawling creatures.”

And it all starts in verse 18.  The wrath of God is unleashed on these people who replace the supernatural with the natural, who replaced God with creatures.  This is God’s judgment on them.  Now two weeks from tonight, next week is a baptism on Easter Sunday, but two weeks from tonight I want to go back and start in Romans 1 because I want to unfold this passage to you a little bit.  Then we’ll go to a number of passages in the New Testament that show you why you have to have a creationist view or you impact negatively the gospel, okay?  So, that will be two weeks from tonight.  Let’s pray.

Our Father, this is so important for us to have our faith again encouraged.  We don’t need to be caving in to the supposed wisdom of the world, those who know You not.  Give us a firm, and resolute, strong confidence that Your Word is true, that every Word of God is pure, as Scripture says, that all Scripture is given by inspiration of God, that no Scripture comes by private interpretation, but holy men of God spoke as they were moved by the Holy Spirit.  Remind us that You created the world in the way that You said, that there wasn’t anything in this universe created that You didn’t create.  By You the worlds were framed.  Father, help us to know You as the Creator, to know that the worlds were framed by Your Word and You did it so marvelously and magnificently in six days, as it’s outlined in the book of Genesis.  Strengthen our faith in the God who created, the God who redeems sinners.  We are overwhelmed at Your greatness, the vastness of Your intelligence, and Your power, and the sweetness of Your mercy toward us, and we thank You for it in our Savior’s name.  And everybody said, amen.

Related posts:

RESPONDING TO HARRY KROTO’S BRILLIANT RENOWNED ACADEMICS!! (Part 10 Dr. Stuart Kauffman, Evolutionary Optimistic Humanism)

This is the fourth post I have done on Stuart Kaufman recently. The first post I did on Stuart Kauffman used the Fine Tuning Argument of Antony Flew against him among other things. In the second post, I put an article by Kauffman on the question Does science make belief in God obsolete?, and his article asserted, […]

“Schaeffer Sunday” Taking on Ark Times Bloggers on the “Absurdity of Life without God!!” Part 11(Conversation between Evolutionist Michael Ruse and William Lane Craig)

The Fruits of Atheism (Part 1) Uploaded on Apr 10, 2009 Examining the Creation/Evolution Controversy in Light of Reason and Revelation The Bible and Science (Part 03) There Is A Difference Between Absolute and Objective Moral Values Published on Dec 6, 2012 For more resources visit:http://www.reasonablefaith.org The Bethinking National Apologetics Day Conference: “Countering the New […]

“Schaeffer Sunday” Taking on Ark Times Bloggers on the “Absurdity of Life without God!!” Part 10 (Evolution’s time and chance impersonal universe is purposeless, but the alternative is God)

_________________ The Existence of God (Part 5) The Bible and Science (Part 02) How Can We Demonstrate that Objective Moral Values Exist to a Nihilist Who Holds Published on Dec 17, 2012 For more resources visit: http://www.reasonablefaith.org The Bethinking National Apologetics Day Conference: “Countering the New Atheism” took place during the UK Reasonable Faith Tour in October […]

INTERESTING QUOTES on evolution, science and God

__________________ INTERESTING QUOTES: Note:   Although we believe these quotes are authentic, we have not specifically verified the authenticity of each and every one.  If you find that any quote is in error, please let us know and we will correct it. CATEGORIES: A)                EVOLUTION AND ATHEISM B)                 INTELLIGENT DESIGN C)                PROBLEMS ABOUT FOSSIL EVIDENCE OF EVOLUTION D)                DISTORTIONS USED BY DOGMATIC […]

Examples of Adrian Rogers and Francis Schaeffer Confronting Modern Culture With The Bible! Part 2 Evolutionist William Provine

_______________________________ Adrian Rogers pictured below: __________________ I sent William Provine a letter several months ago with a CD of the following message by Adrian Rogers and in the letter were several arguments from Schaeffer. Adrian Rogers – How you can be certain the Bible is the word of God Today I am sending out another […]

Scientific evidence against evolution (short and concise) July 5, 2009

________________ Scientific evidence against evolution (short and concise) July 5, 2009verloreseun   Definition The word ‘evolution’ is used in the following contexts: Stellar / Planetary Evolution – An explosion (the ‘Big Bang’) supplied non-living material and over billions of years, supposedly this material became organized into planets and stars Cellular Evolution – At some point, non-living […]

My correspondence with the famous evolutionist Ernst Mayr!!!

________ Ernst Mayr 1904-2005 Bill Gates, John Grisham, James Michener, E. O. Wilson, Ernst Mayr, George Lucas… Published on May 19, 2012 Bill Gates, John Grisham, James Michener, E. O. Wilson, Ernst Mayr, George Lucas, James Cameron, Larry King, Ian Wilmut, Jane Goodall, Stephen Jay Gould, Tim D. White, Leon Lederman, Timothy Berners-Lee and Bill […]

How do Evolutionists answer the question: If there is no free-will, then what of morality?

______________ How do Evolutionists answer the question: If there is no free-will, then what of morality? June 24, 2009 Worldview and Evangelism Posted by jasondulle under Apologetics, Worldview [6] Comments Nancy Pearcey described a worldview as a mental map that helps us effectively navigate our world.  The better our worldview, the more effectively we ought […]

Former Atheist Antony Flew noted that Evolutionists failed to show “Where did a living, self-reproducing organism come from in the first place?”

____   Does God Exist? Thomas Warren vs. Antony Flew Published on Jan 2, 2014 Date: September 20-23, 1976 Location: North Texas State University Christian debater: Thomas B. Warren Atheist debater: Antony G.N. Flew For Thomas Warren: http://www.warrenapologeticscenter.org/ ______________________ Antony Flew and his conversion to theism Uploaded on Aug 12, 2011 Antony Flew, a well known […]

Evolutionary dogma with the biblical message are doomed to undermine faith

The Scientific Age Published on Jul 24, 2012 Dr. Schaeffer’s sweeping epic on the rise and decline of Western thought and Culture Francis Schaeffer rightly noted, “These two world views stand as totals in complete antithesis in content and also in their natural results….It is not just that they happen to bring forth different results, […]

 

________________

FRIEDMAN FRIDAY I never thought I would say that U2’s Bono would agree with Milton Friedman but recently he did say that capitalism gives the poor of the world the best chance for a better life!!!

U2’s Bono Speaks at GU Global Social Enterprise Event

Published on Nov 13, 2012

Musician and activist Bono spoke to more than 700 Georgetown students and leaders in the corporate, nonprofit and political sectors on Nov. 12 at an event hosted by the Global Social Enterprise Initiative (GSEI) at Georgetown’s McDonough School of Business.

______________________________
I never thought I would say that U2’s Bono would agree with Milton Friedman but recently he did say that capitalism gives the poor of the world the best chance for a better life!!!
Back in 1980 I read the book “Free to Choose” by Milton Friedman and in that book I read these words:
There is an enormous amount of poverty in the world everywhere. There is no system that’s perfect. There is no system that’s going to eliminate completely poverty in whatever sense. The question is, which system has the greatest chance? Which is the best arrangement for enabling poor people to improve their life? On that, the evidence of history speaks with a single voice. I do not know any exception to the proposition that if you compare like with like, the freer the system, the better off the ordinary poor people have been.
_____________
Many times people come into the poor countries in Africa and they believe that big government is the answer to building a great society. That is not the case. Milton Friedman has asserted:

The fundamental principal of the free society is voluntary cooperation. The economic market, buying and selling, is one example. But it’s only one example. Voluntary cooperation is far broader than that. To take an example that at first sight seems about as far away as you can get __ the language we speak; the words we use; the complex structure of our grammar; no government bureau designed that. It arose out of the voluntary interactions of people seeking to communicate with one another. Or consider some of the great scientific achievements of our time __ the discoveries of an Einstein or Newton __ the inventions of Thomas Alva Edison or an Alexander Graham Bell or even consider the great charitable activities of a Florence Nightingale or an Andrew Carnegie. These weren’t done under orders from a government office. They were done by individuals deeply interested in what they were doing, pursing their own interests, and cooperating with one another.

This kind of voluntary cooperation is built so deeply into the structure of our society that we tend to take it for granted. Yet the whole of our Western civilization is the unintended consequence of that kind of a voluntary cooperation of people cooperating with one another to pursue their own interests, yet in the process, building a great society.

I was so impressed with this statement that I actually emailed the White House about it.

July 31, 2013 10:59AM

Bono: Only Capitalism Can End Poverty

This is a great day. For years, Bono has been something of a pain, banging on about the need for billions of dollars in Western foreign aid to Africa. I have criticized him for ignoring the real source of African poverty – lack of capitalism – on numerous occasions.

But, unlike many who hate capitalism without reservation, Bono is open to changing his mind. Here is Bono giving capitalism its due recognition during a recent speech at Georgetown University. As the musician put it, when it comes to poverty “free enterprise is a cure.”

Indeed, the evidence is overwhelming.

According to the World Bank, global poverty is declining rapidly. In 1981, 70 percent of people in poor countries lived on less than $2 a day, while 42 percent survived on less than $1 a day. Today, 43 percent live on less than $2 a day, while 14 percent survive on less than $1. “Poverty reduction of this magnitude is unparalleled in history,” wrote Brookings Institution researchers Laurence Chandy and Geoffrey Gertz in a recent paper. “Never before have so many people been lifted out of poverty over such a brief period of time.”

As far as Africa goes, inflation adjusted per capita incomes rose by an astonishing 97 percent between 1999 and 2010. That is good news for Africa and for humanity. More people should recognize it.

Related posts:

Bono has the wrong answer for the poor of the world (Part 4)

Bono has the wrong answer for the poor of the world (Part 4) Bono praises the election of President Obama!!! _________________________ This is a series of posts that show that Bono (who I have been listening to since 1983) has the wrong solution to the problem of worldwide hunger. Max Brantley wrote on the Arkansas […]

Bono has the wrong answer for the poor of the world (Part 3)

Bono has the wrong answer for the poor of the world (Part 3) Bono praises the election of President Obama!!! I love Milton Friedman’s film series “Free to Choose.” In that film series over and over it is shown that the ability to move from poor to rich is more abundant here than any other […]

Bono has the wrong answer for the poor of the world (Part 2)

Bono has the wrong answer for the poor of the world (Part 2) Bono praises the election of President Obama!!! _________________________ This is a series of posts that shows that Bono (who I have been listening to since 1983) has the wrong solution to the problem of worldwide hunger. Max Brantley wrote on the Arkansas […]

Bono has the wrong answer for the poor of the world (Part 1)

Bono praises the election of President Obama!!! _________________________ This is a series of posts that show that Bono (who I have been listening to since 1983) has the wrong solution to the problem of worldwide hunger. Max Brantley wrote on the Arkansas Times Blog: Politico reports here that a group of celebrities, including former Baptist […]

My favorite Johnny Cash song “God’s Gonna Cut You Down

Wikipedia noted: Johnny Cash recorded a version of “God’s Gonna Cut You Down” on American V: A Hundred Highways in 2003, with an arrangement quite different from most known gospel versions of the song. A music video, directed by Tony Kaye,[1] was made for this version in late 2006. It featured a number of celebrities, including: David Allan Coe (Intro) Travis Barker […]

Johnny Cash (Part 3)

I got to hear Johnny Cash sing in person back in 1978.  Here is a portion of an article about his Christian Testimony. The Man Came Around   A Walking Contradiction Cash’s daughter, singer-songwriter Rosanne Cash, once pointed out that “my father was raised a Baptist, but he has the soul of a mystic. He’s […]

“Music Monday” All-American Rejects Part 2 (“Finding Satisfaction in Life”)

The All-American Rejects Music Interview Tyson Ritter Full Band only on The Artist Spotlight The All-American Rejects – The Last Song The All-American Rejects – It Ends Tonight I got to go hear the All-American Rejects in Little Rock on 12-13-12. Here are some of my reactions. Tyson Ritter admitted that he lost his way […]

Johnny Cash (Part 2)

I got to hear Johnny Cash sing in person back in 1978 at a Billy Graham Crusade in Memphis. Here is a portion of an article about his Christian Testimony. The Man Came Around Cash also made major headlines when he shared his faith on The Johnny Cash Show, a popular variety program on ABC […]

“Music Monday” Moby

“The Next Three Days” Soundtrack – Be The One by Moby Moby – Extreme Ways (The Bourne Ultimatum soundtrack) I really enjoyed reading about Moby and his views on Christianity. Moby From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia   Jump to: navigation, search For other uses, see Moby (disambiguation). Moby Moby in 2009 Background information Birth name […]

Skillet is a Christian Heavy Metal Band from Memphis Part 2

  Visit http://www.skillet.com for more information. Skillet – Hero (Video) Uploaded on Jun 28, 2010 © 2009 WMG no description available ____________ Great band from Memphis and I heard about them in the 1990′s but until today I had not looked into what they were doing. Here is an earlier post I did on them […]

By Everette Hatcher III | Posted in Current Events | Edit | Comments (0)

Good review of Schaeffer’s episode “The Scientific Age:”

 

Francis Schaeffer “BASIS FOR HUMAN DIGNITY” Whatever…HTTHR

Dr. Francis schaeffer – The flow of Materialism(from Part 4 of Whatever happened to human race?)

December 16, 2007

Related posts:

FRANCIS SCHAEFFER ANALYZES ART AND CULTURE PART 48 “BLOW UP” by Michelangelo Antonioni makes Philosophic Statement (Feature on artist Nancy Holt)

_______________ Francis Schaeffer pictured below: _____________________ Why am I doing this series FRANCIS SCHAEFFER ANALYZES ART AND CULTURE? John Fischer probably expressed it best when he noted: Schaeffer was the closest thing to a “man of sorrows” I have seen. He could not allow himself to be happy when most of the world was desperately lost […]

FRANCIS SCHAEFFER ANALYZES ART AND CULTURE Part 47 Woody Allen and Professor Levy and the death of “Optimistic Humanism” from the movie CRIMES AND MISDEMEANORS Plus Charles Darwin’s comments too!!! (Feature on artist Rodney Graham)

Crimes and Misdemeanors: A Discussion: Part 1 ___________________________________ Today I will answer the simple question: IS IT POSSIBLE TO BE AN OPTIMISTIC SECULAR HUMANIST THAT DOES NOT BELIEVE IN GOD OR AN AFTERLIFE? This question has been around for a long time and you can go back to the 19th century and read this same […]

FRANCIS SCHAEFFER ANALYZES ART AND CULTURE PART 46 Friedrich Nietzsche (Featured artist is Thomas Schütte)

____________________________________ Francis Schaeffer pictured below: ______________ Francis Schaeffer has written extensively on art and culture spanning the last 2000years and here are some posts I have done on this subject before : Francis Schaeffer’s “How should we then live?” Video and outline of episode 10 “Final Choices” , episode 9 “The Age of Personal Peace and Affluence”, episode 8 […]

FRANCIS SCHAEFFER ANALYZES ART AND CULTURE Part 45 Woody Allen “Reason is Dead” (Feature on artists Allora & Calzadilla )

Love and Death [Woody Allen] – What if there is no God? [PL] ___________   _______________ How Should We then Live Episode 7 small (Age of Nonreason) #02 How Should We Then Live? (Promo Clip) Dr. Francis Schaeffer 10 Worldview and Truth Two Minute Warning: How Then Should We Live?: Francis Schaeffer at 100 Francis […]

FRANCIS SCHAEFFER ANALYZES ART AND CULTURE Part 44 The Book of Genesis (Featured artist is Trey McCarley )

___________________________________ Francis Schaeffer pictured below: ____________________________ Francis Schaeffer “BASIS FOR HUMAN DIGNITY” Whatever…HTTHR Dr. Francis schaeffer – The flow of Materialism(from Part 4 of Whatever happened to human race?) Dr. Francis Schaeffer – The Biblical flow of Truth & History (intro) Francis Schaeffer – The Biblical Flow of History & Truth (1) Dr. Francis Schaeffer […]

WOODY WEDNESDAY Francis Schaeffer’s term the “Mannishness of Man” and how it relates to Woody Allen and Charles Darwin!!!

___________ Dr. Francis Schaeffer – The Naturalistic, Materialistic, World View Francis Schaeffer and  Gospel of Christ in the pages of the Bible   Francis Schaeffer’s term the “Mannishness of Man” and how it relates to Woody Allen and Charles Darwin!!! Schaeffer noted that everyone has these two things constantly pulling at them. First, it is […]

FRANCIS SCHAEFFER ANALYZES ART AND CULTURE Part 43 “Freedom within Form” (Featured artist is Jan Fabre)

________________ Francis Schaeffer “BASIS FOR HUMAN DIGNITY” Whatever…HTTHR Dr. Francis schaeffer – The flow of Materialism(from Part 4 of Whatever happened to human race?) Dr. Francis Schaeffer – The Biblical flow of Truth & History (intro) Francis Schaeffer – The Biblical Flow of History & Truth (1) Dr. Francis Schaeffer – The Biblical Flow of […]

FRANCIS SCHAEFFER ANALYZES ART AND CULTURE Part 42 Historical Adam and Eve (Featured artist is Banks Violette)

_______________________________________________ Francis Schaeffer “BASIS FOR HUMAN DIGNITY” Whatever…HTTHR Dr. Francis schaeffer – The flow of Materialism(from Part 4 of Whatever happened to human race?) Dr. Francis Schaeffer – The Biblical flow of Truth & History (intro) Francis Schaeffer – The Biblical Flow of History & Truth (1) Dr. Francis Schaeffer – The Biblical Flow of […]

FRANCIS SCHAEFFER ANALYZES ART AND CULTURE Part 41 Sarvepalli Radhakrishnan (Featured artist is Marina Abramović)

______________________ Francis Schaeffer pictured below:   _________ How Should We then Live Episode 7 small (Age of Nonreason) #02 How Should We Then Live? (Promo Clip) Dr. Francis Schaeffer 10 Worldview and Truth Two Minute Warning: How Then Should We Live?: Francis Schaeffer at 100 Francis Schaeffer “BASIS FOR HUMAN DIGNITY” Whatever…HTTHR Francis Schaeffer has […]

FRANCIS SCHAEFFER ANALYZES ART AND CULTURE Part 40 Timothy Leary (Featured artist is Margaret Keane)

__________ A Christian Manifesto Francis Schaeffer Published on Dec 18, 2012 A video important to today. The man was very wise in the ways of God. And of government. Hope you enjoy a good solis teaching from the past. The truth never gets old. The Roots of the Emergent Church by Francis Schaeffer How Should […]

________________

FRANCIS SCHAEFFER ANALYZES ART AND CULTURE PART 48 “BLOW UP” by Michelangelo Antonioni makes Philosophic Statement (Feature on artist Nancy Holt)

_______________

Francis Schaeffer pictured below:

_____________________

I have included the 27 minute  episode THE AGE OF NONREASON by Francis Schaeffer. In that video Schaeffer noted,  ” Sergeant Pepper’s Lonely Hearts Club Band…for a time it became the rallying cry for young people throughout the world. It expressed the essence of their lives, thoughts and their feelings.”

How Should We then Live Episode 7 small

Monday, May 20, 2013

Francis Schaeffer Trilogy Blog Pt. 3

     In the last blog I wrote about how the breakdown in the concept of truth moved from the philosophies into the world of art. Van Gogh is just one example of an artist who hoped to find ultimate meaning through human artistic expression, but fell short. In the end, the Dada-ists chose randomness and created art which had at its heart the goal of propagating their chaotic and destructive worldview.

 Schaeffer next turns to music and general culture. The decay of a cohesive approach to truth through absolutes and healthy logic (antithesis) is becoming pervasive. The musique concretemovement presented its chaotic, deconstructive compositions as if to say, “All is relative, nothing is sure, nothing is fixed”.  With such a strong relativist sensibility being thrust forward “the possibility of finding any universal which could make sense of the particulars is denied”.

 Modern Cinema soon became a powerful avenue for widespread communication of modernity’s approach to truth. “The so-called ‘good’ pictures have almost all been developed by men holding the modern philosophy of no certain truth and no certain distinctions between right and wrong,” observes Schaeffer, and, “…the films they produce are tools for teaching their beliefs”. In the 1960’s Michelangelo Antonioni’s film Blow-Up carried this tag-line: “Murder without guilt, love without meaning”.

     Schaeffer’s last example of the relativistic approach’s popular infiltration is The Beatles’Seargent Pepper’s Lonely Hearts Club Band. Rather than disconnected individual songs, this album, which expertly weaved together a conceptual whole, effectively communicated “psychedelic music, with open statements concerning drug-taking, [and] was knowingly presented as a religious answer”.

_____________

Scene from the film BLOW UP below:

_______

Why am I doing this series FRANCIS SCHAEFFER ANALYZES ART AND CULTURE? John Fischer probably expressed it best when he noted:

Schaeffer was the closest thing to a “man of sorrows” I have seen. He could not allow himself to be happy when most of the world was desperately lost and he knew why. He was the first Christian I found who could embrace faith and the despair of a lost humanity all at the same time. Though he had been found, he still knew what it was to be lost.

Schaeffer was the first Christian leader who taught me to weep over the world instead of judging it. Schaeffer modeled a caring and thoughtful engagement in the history of philosophy and its influence through movies, novels, plays, music, and art. Here was Schaeffer, teaching at Wheaton College about the existential dilemma expressed in Michelangelo Antonioni’s 1966 film, Blowup, when movies were still forbidden to students. He didn’t bat an eye. He ignored our legalism and went on teaching because he had been personally gripped by the desperation of such cultural statements.

Schaeffer taught his followers not to sneer at or dismiss the dissonance in modern art. He showed how these artists were merely expressing the outcome of the presuppositions of the modern era that did away with God and put all conclusions on a strictly human, rational level. Instead of shaking our heads at a depressing, dark, abstract work of art, the true Christian reaction should be to weep for the lost person who created it. Schaeffer was a rare Christian leader who advocated understanding and empathizing with non-Christians instead of taking issue with them.

“BLOW UP” TRAILER (in HD!)

Uploaded on Apr 23, 2009

The original trailer for the Michelangelo Antonioni film “Blow Up,” starring David Hemmings, Vanessa Redgrave, and Sarah Miles.

A reflection on ‘How Should We Then Live?’ by Francis Schaeffer

By: Russell Smith

  • Published: December 18, 2013
    Updated: December 18, 2013

“How should we then live?” Francis Schaeffer asks this question of his readers before his book is even opened. He tries to grab the reader’s attention as they respond, “As a result of knowing what?”

Schaeffer takes the reader through the history of western culture beginning in Roman Europe and ending in the Immoral States of America. He brings the reader through the major philosophical ideas of history beginning with the Self Deification of the Romans (particularly the emperors) and into today’s humanistic, apathetic anti-philosophy.

Given the vast knowledge that Schaeffer provides in his book, readers are left to draw our own conclusions to this question as he does not explicitly say how we should “then” live. Which in and of itself is a good thing, otherwise we would all be a bunch of little Schaeffers running around waiting for the Elite Society Members to take over the world and doom us all for one last time.

One thing in this book was particularly striking throughout Schaeffer’s discourse on the “rise and decline of western thought and culture.” The idea of using the cinema as a vehicle for philosophy was and still is a powerful mode of “infiltrating” the minds of the “westerners” with the ideas and ideals that the directors and producers have in mind.

Using “art” (and the word “art” is used here loosely) as a vehicle to show the viewer the “artist’s” worldview is not exactly a new concept. In the time before the cinema even existed, artists showed their worldview through their paintings, plays, music, tattoos and photography. With the evolution of technology, man is now able to use film (in the sense of movies) to let the world look in on how he perceives it.

The use of cinema for this purpose really took off in the 1960s. Before this, most films were more or less for entertainment purposes. (However, Schaeffer would contest that it is impossible for art to exist for sheer entertainment. Instead he would say that all art produced says something about the philosophy of the producer.) In the 1960s, though, men like Alain Resnais, Ingmar Bergman, Luis Bunuel, and Michelangelo Antonioni popularized cinematic philosophy.

These directors were at no loss for viewers, as movies were, and still are, one of the most popular mediums for entertainment. This kind of popularity allowed for many to see and be “infiltrated” with the worldview of the directors. At this time, in the 1960s, the popular philosophy being expressed in the cinema was that of humanism and non-reason. These movies portrayed man as nothing more than a machine. They sought to extract any trace of emotion or humanity from the human being.

This idea is best noted in the movie “Blow Up” by Antonioni. ”Blow Up” is essentially a story about a photographer who thinks that he may have photographed a murder while casually snapping photos. He then “runs into” a mysterious woman who wants him to turn over the film to her. When he does not oblige, she shows up at his studio (without having known the address). The evidence (presumably of the murder) then disappears. The woman does a series of disappearing acts. The photographer returns to the park without his camera and finds the body, which then disappears itself. The film closes with a scene of mimes playing tennis.

Many people misunderstand the intentions of Antonioni in his making of this film. They perceive it to be an analysis of the fashion business in the 1960s. However, Antonioni’s purpose in making this film was to show to the world that everyone perceives reality in their own way and ultimately sees only what they want to see.

Directors pushing their worldview upon viewers are prevalent in today’s society as well. Many movies of today seem to say basically the same things as the movies of the 1960s, just less intelligently. Movies of today speak of guiltless crimes, sexual enjoyment without commitment, and senseless gross-out humor. Is this what our culture is? Do the leaders of media really believe this is where our culture is?

The answer is a resounding “yes” for both questions. This must be where our culture is – otherwise, movies like this would not be grossing upwards of $50 million on their opening three days. As we as a society even today (as in the 1960s) slip further into non-reason and self gratification, yet attempt to, at the same time, seek after optimism, we just slip further and further into the detachment of meaning from mankind.

As saddening as this might be to the Christian sector, there is little being done to counteract these worldviews. If cinema is used as a vehicle to express philosophies and worldviews, then why not try to harness it for the advancement of the Biblical worldview? A few people have put forth valiant efforts, yet none have really succeeded (save for Mel Gibson’s “Passion of the Christ”, “Left Behind”, and “Facing the Giants”).

Maybe Christian producers lack the (monetary) resources to make “quality” films. This is not really the case however. Christian cinema lacks the following of the secular crowd. Why would the non-reasoning western culture want to see a movie that promotes morals, and a purpose for all of mankind? This would by no means be cool at all. Also, Christian movies are made, most of the time if not all of the time assuming that the viewer already has some sort of understanding of the basic principles of Christianity, which is not always the case. This leads to the question: Why are Christians making movies? Is the purpose merely to entertain ourselves? Or is it to evangelize the unsaved?

I would submit that if it were for the evangelizing of the unsaved, then we are doing a lousy job at it. How can we expect an unsaved person to understand something that is completely foreign to them?

Cinema as a vehicle for philosophy has been very successful. The films of today speak volumes about where society as a whole is today. This is troubling, and as long as humanist philosophy is played on the big screen, society will stay troubled. Society might not want to stay troubled though, if Christians can offer “quality” alternatives. These alternatives need not be preachy and evangelistic, but they can offer good morals and values with an appealing story.

Bibliography

Schaeffer, Francis A. “How Should We Then Live? The Rise and Decline of Western Thought and Culture.” Wheaton, Ill.: Crossway Books, 2005.

Jawills. “A parable about the possible dehumanizing effects of photography.” IMDB. 19 May 2000. Accessed 2007.

___________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________

Francis Schaeffer has written extensively on art and culture spanning the last 2000 years and here are some posts I have done on this subject before : Francis Schaeffer’s “How should we then live?” Video and outline of episode 10 “Final Choices” episode 9 “The Age of Personal Peace and Affluence”episode 8 “The Age of Fragmentation”episode 7 “The Age of Non-Reason” episode 6 “The Scientific Age” , episode 5 “The Revolutionary Age” episode 4 “The Reformation” episode 3 “The Renaissance”episode 2 “The Middle Ages,”, and  episode 1 “The Roman Age,” . My favorite episodes are number 7 and 8 since they deal with modern art and culture primarily.(Joe Carter rightly noted,Schaefferwho always claimed to be an evangelist and not a philosopher—was often criticized for the way his work oversimplified intellectual history and philosophy.” To those critics I say take a chill pill because Schaeffer was introducing millions into the fields of art and culture!!!! !!! More people need to read his works and blog about them because they show how people’s worldviews affect their lives!

J.I.PACKER WROTE OF SCHAEFFER, “His communicative style was not that of a cautious academic who labors for exhaustive coverage and dispassionate objectivity. It was rather that of an impassioned thinker who paints his vision of eternal truth in bold strokes and stark contrasts.Yet it is a fact that MANY YOUNG THINKERS AND ARTISTS…HAVE FOUND SCHAEFFER’S ANALYSES A LIFELINE TO SANITY WITHOUT WHICH THEY COULD NOT HAVE GONE ON LIVING.”

Francis Schaeffer’s works  are the basis for a large portion of my blog posts and they have stood the test of time. In fact, many people would say that many of the things he wrote in the 1960’s  were right on  in the sense he saw where our western society was heading and he knew that abortion, infanticide and youth enthansia were  moral boundaries we would be crossing  in the coming decades because of humanism and these are the discussions we are having now!)

There is evidence that points to the fact that the Bible is historically true as Schaeffer pointed out in episode 5 of WHATEVER HAPPENED TO THE HUMAN RACE? There is a basis then for faith in Christ alone for our eternal hope. This link shows how to do that.

Francis Schaeffer in Art and the Bible noted, “Many modern artists, it seems to me, have forgotten the value that art has in itself. Much modern art is far too intellectual to be great art. Many modern artists seem not to see the distinction between man and non-man, and it is a part of the lostness of modern man that they no longer see value in the work of art as a work of art.” 

Many modern artists are left in this point of desperation that Schaeffer points out and it reminds me of the despair that Solomon speaks of in Ecclesiastes.  Christian scholar Ravi Zacharias has noted, “The key to understanding the Book of Ecclesiastes is the term ‘under the sun.’ What that literally means is you lock God out of a closed system, and you are left with only this world of time plus chance plus matter.” THIS IS EXACT POINT SCHAEFFER SAYS SECULAR ARTISTS ARE PAINTING FROM TODAY BECAUSE THEY BELIEVED ARE A RESULT OF MINDLESS CHANCE.

___________

Francis Schaeffer below in his film series shows how this film was appealing to “nonreason” to answer our problems.

In the book HOW SHOULD WE THEN LIVE? Schaeffer notes:

Especially in the sixties the major philosophic statements which received a wide hearing were made through films. These philosophic movies reached many more people than philosophic writings or even painting and literature. Among these films were THE LAST YEAR AT MARIENBAD by Alain Resnais (1961), THE SILENCE by Ingmar Bergman (1967), JULIET OF THE SPIRITS by Federico Fellini (1965), BLOW UP by Michelangelo Antonioni (1966), BELLE DE JOUR by Luis Bunuel (1967), and THE HOUR OF THE WOLF by Ingmar Bergman (1967).

They showed pictorially (and with great force) what it is like if man is a machine and also what it is like if man tries to live in the area of non-reason. In the area of non-reason man is left without categories. He has no way to distinguish between right and wrong, or even between what is objectively true as opposed to illusion or fantasy….One could view these films a hundred times and there still would be no way to be sure what was portrayed as objectively true and what was part of a character’s imagination. if people begin only from themselves and really live in a universe in which there is no personal God to speak, they have no final way to be sure of the difference between reality and fantasy or illusion.

But Bergman (like Sartre, Camus, and all the rest) cannot really live with his own position. Therefore in The Silence the background music is Bach’s Goldberg Variations. When he was asked in the filmed interview about music, he said that there is a small holy part of the human being where music speaks. Bergman also said that while he was writing the script for the film SILENCE that he had the music of Bach’s Goldberg Variations playing in his home and the music interfered with that which was being set forth in that film.

A good example is Antonioni’s BLOW UP. The advertisement for the film read: “Murder without guilt, love without meaning.” Antonioni was portraying how, in the area non-reason, there are no certainties concerning moral values, and no human categories either. BLOW UP had no hero. Compare this with Michelangelo’s DAVID–that statement of humanist pride in the Renaissance. Man had set himself up as autonomous, but the end result was not Michelangelo’s DAVID, but Antonioni’s non-hero. All there is in the film is the camera which goes “click, click, click,” and the human has disappeared. The main character snaps pictures of individual things, particulars. One might point out, for example, the models he snaps: all their humanity and meaning are gone.

After a scene in which clowns play tennis without a ball, there is at the end of the film a reverse zoom shot in which the man who is the central character disappears entirely, and all that remains is the grass. Man is gone. Modern people, on their basis of reason, see themselves only as machines. but as they move into the area of non-reason and look for their optimism, they find themselves separated from reason and without any human or moral values (pp. 201-203)

____________________

Schaeffer noted:

How Do We Know We Know?
During the early stages of modern philosophy (as distinguished from medieval philosophy) – that is, around the seventeenth century in Europe – the question that was troubling philosophers was this: how do we know that we know?
The early modern scientists had made advances in the physical sciences by rejecting previous human authority. For example, they rejected much of what had been inherited from the science of the Middle Ages. At that time, investigation had been governed and restrained by the concepts of Aristotle. In the field of astronomy, this had meant that the Ptolemaic system held sway. Suddenly, observations were made which cast doubt on that entire system of understanding the heavenly bodies. The result was, of course, the Copernican revolution: the discovery that the sun does not move around the earth but, rather, the earth around the sun. Thus, a general attitude was developed toward the ideas which had prevailed till then. The scientists said, “We must not accept the ideas passed down to us or derived from various previous authorities. We must start from scratch and simply observe the world and see how it works. Otherwise, we may be hampered from seeing what is there.”
The early modern scientists did not, however, reject the knowledge that God gave in the Bible as they rejected previous human authority and opinion. For example. in Novum Organum (1620) Francis Bacon wrote: “To conclude, therefore, let no man out of weak conceit of sobriety, or an ill applied moderation, think or maintain that a man can search too far of be too well studied in the book of God’s word, or in the book of God’s works.”81 “The book of God’s word” is the Bible. “The book of God’s works” is the world which God has made.
Modern scientists in general lived, thought, and worked in the framework of rejecting human authority, while respecting what was taught in the Bible in regard to the cosmos – right up to the time of Michael Faraday and James Clerk Maxwell in the second half of the nineteenth century.
The philosophers (and later the materialistic scientists) went further. Their error was to confuse the escape from past human authority (which was indeed confining) with putting man at the center and rejecting God’s authority as well. They wanted to reject all outside authority. They wanted to establish everything only on human observation. That was how the question of epistemology (how we know we know) became so important in modern philosophy. It has remained so right up to our own day.

_______________________________________
The philosopher who first raised these questions was Rene Descartes (1596-1650). Descartes wrote in Meditations on First Philosophy:
How often it happened to me that in the night I dreamt that I found myself on this particular place … whilst in reality I was lying on my bed! At this moment it does seem that it is with eyes awake that I am looking at this paper …. But in thinking over this I remind myself that on many occasions I have in sleep been deceived by similar illusions, and in dwelling carefully on this reflection I see so manifestly that there are no certain indications by which we may clearly distinguish wakefulness from sleep that I am lost in astonishment. And my astonishment is such that it is almost capable of persuading me that I now dream.82
Here is the modern epistemological problem expressed three centuries ago! All knowledge comes through the senses, but how can we rely on our own senses? Sometimes, as in dreaming, we seem to be experiencing things very really, yet the reality is only in our heads.

______________________________
We are reminded of the 1966 film by Michelangelo Antonioni called Blow-Up, in which one of the central issues was this same question. A photographer had taken a picture of a murdered man in a park in London and then became uncertain whether this was, in fact, part of reality or an experience of fantasy similar to a drug trip. Within the humanist world-view there is no final way of telling. And Antonioni ends his film by making the point graphically. Tennis players play the game without a ball. The invisible “ball” goes back and forth and the spectators watch its “path” from side to side until finally the “ball” (which does not exist) goes out over the surrounding wire and “falls” at the photographer’s feet. He pauses for a moment, uncertain about what he should do. (Is observation simply a matter of the majority? Does the reality of things come from the general agreement in society and nothing more?) Then the photographer stoops down, picks up the “ball,” and throws it back onto the court. Here, depicted brilliantly, is the problem of any system which builds its epistemology on man alone. This film was a philosophic statement of the period in which we are living.

BLOW-UP (Michelangelo Antonioni, 1966.) Tenis silencioso

Blow Up – Michelangelo Antonioni (Original Trailer)

Uploaded on Jul 7, 2008

Blow-up (1966)
Director:Michelangelo Antonioni
Writers:Michelangelo Antonioni (story)
and Julio Cortázar(short story)
Release Date:18 December 1966 (USA)
Brief Description: A mod London photographer believes that he has photographed a murder.

Julio Cortázar is an argentinian writer, of an incredible style, who made “Las babas del diablo”, from where the story was taken.

In this Film also The Yardbirds perform Stroll on, a stylish raging Mod song, a permited version of “Train Kept A-Rollin”. Originally, The Who were approached, but they declined, and then The In-Crowd had been planned but they were unable to attend the filming. The Yardbirds filled in at short notice, and the guitar that Beck smashes at the end of their set is a replica of Steve Howe’s instrument. Antonioni instructed Beck to smash his guitar in emulation of The Who’s Pete Townshend

In 1967 antonioni won the Golden Palm in Cannes for this film, and also the Critic’s Award in 1968 for Best Foreign Film.

The Cast:
Vanessa Redgrave – Jane
David Hemmings – Thomas
Sarah Miles – Patricia
John Castle – Bill
Jane Birkin – The Blonde
Gillian Hills – The Brunette
Peter Bowles – Ron
Veruschka von Lehndorff – Herself (as Verushka)
Julian Chagrin – Mime
Claude Chagrin – Mime

Bergman and Antonioni

Published on Aug 4, 2012

In this archived episode from the Movie Geeks United podcast, the hosts pay tribute to Ingmar Bergman and Michelangelo Antonioni days after their deaths on July 30, 2007 with guests Peter Burnett and NY Times writer Adam Bernstein.

For more information on Movie Geeks United, and to listen to our archive of over 600 filmmaker interviews, visit us at http://www.moviegeeksunited.net.

Blow-up – Antonioni (Yardbirds Scene)

Uploaded on Apr 26, 2009

Directed By Michelangelo Antonioni in (1966)

The Yardbirds (with Jimmy Page and Jeff Beck) playing Stroll On 

AGE OF FRAGMENTATION

I. Art As a Vehicle Of Modern Thought

A. Impressionism (Monet, Renoir, Pissarro, Sisley, Degas) and Post-Impressionism (Cézanne, Van Gogh, Gauguin, Seurat): appearance and reality.

1. Problem of reality in Impressionism: no universal.

2. Post-Impression seeks the universal behind appearances.

3. Painting expresses an idea in its own terms as a work of art; to discuss the idea in a painting is not to intellectualize art.

4. Parallel search for universal in art and philosophy; Cézanne.

B. Fragmentation.

1. Extremes of ultra-naturalism or abstraction: Wassily Kandinsky.

2. Picasso leads choice for abstraction: relevance of this choice.

3. Failure of Picasso (like Sartre, and for similar reasons) to be fully consistent with his choice.

C. Retreat to absurdity.

1. Dada , and Marcel Duchamp: art as absurd. (Dada gave birth to Surrealism).

2. Art followed philosophy but came sooner to logical end.

3. Chance in his art technique as an art theory impossible to practice: Pollock.

II. Music As a Vehicle of Modern Thought

A. Non-resolution and fragmentation: German and French streams.

1. Influence of Beethoven’s last Quartets.

2. Direction and influence of Debussy.

3. Schoenberg’s non-resolution; contrast with Bach.

4. Stockhausen: electronic music and concern with the element of change.

B. Cage: a case study in confusion.

1. Deliberate chance and confusion in Cage’s music.

2. Cage’s inability to live the philosophy of his music.

C. Contrast of music-by-chance and the world around us.

1. Inconsistency of indulging in expression of chaos when we acknowledge order for practical matters like airplane design.

2. Art as anti-art when it is mere intellectual statement, divorced from reality of who people are and the fullness of what the universe is.

III. General Culture As the Vehicle of Modern Thought

A. Propagation of idea of fragmentation in literature.

1. Effect of Eliot’s Wasteland and Picasso’s Demoiselles d’ Avignon

compared; the drift of general culture.

2. Eliot’s change in his form of writing when he became a Christian.

3. Philosophic popularization by novel: Sartre, Camus, de Beauvoir.

B. Cinema as advanced medium of philosophy.

1. Cinema in the 1960s used to express Man’s destruction: e.g. Blow-up.

2. Cinema and the leap into fantasy:

 

The Hour of the WolfBelle de JourJuliet of the Spirits,

The Last Year at Marienbad and Blow Up. 

3. Bergman’s inability to live out his philosophy (see Cage):

Silence and The Hour of the Wolf.

IV. Only on Christian Base Can Reality Be Faced Squarely

_________________________________

Featured artist is Nancy Holt

Understanding contemporary art

_____________

Nancy Holt’s work is highlighted at the 9:30 point in the film above.

Nancy Holt

From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia
Jump to: navigation, search
Nancy Holt
Born April 5, 1938 (age 75)
Worcester, Massachusetts
Nationality American
Field Sculpture, photography, film, writing
Movement Environmental art and land art

Nancy Holt visiting her work, Up and Under, in Nokia town in Finland

Nancy Holt (born April 1938) is an American artist famous for her public sculpture, installation art and land art. Throughout her career, Holt has also produced works in other mediums, including film, photography, and writing artist’s books.

Biography

Nancy Holt was born in Worchester, Massachusetts. She spent a great deal of her childhood in New Jersey.[1] She was educated at Tufts University in Medford, Massachusetts.[1] Three years after graduating, she married fellow environmental artist Robert Smithson in 1963. Holt began her artistic career as a photographer and as a video artist. This involvement with photography and camera optics are thought to have influenced her later earthworks, which are “literally seeing devices, fixed points for tracking the positions of the sun, earth and stars.”[2] Today Holt is most widely known for her large-scale environmental works, Sun Tunnels and Dark Star Park. However, she has created site and time-specific environmental works in public places all over the world. Holt has contributed to various publications, which have featured both her written articles and photographs. She has also authored several books. Holt has received five National Endowment for the Arts Fellowships, New York Creative Artist Fellowships, and a Guggenheim Fellowship.[1] Holt along with Beverly Pepper is a recipient of the International Sculpture Center‘s 2013 Lifetime Achievement in Contemporary Sculpture Award. She currently works and resides in Galisteo, New Mexico.[3]

Artistic Style

The Land Art Tradition

Holt is associated with earthworks or land art. Land art emerged in the 1960s, coinciding with a growing ecology movement in the United States, which asked people to become more aware of the negative impact they can have on the natural environment. Land art changed the way people thought of art; it took art out of the gallery or museum and into the natural landscape, the product of which were huge works engaging elements of the environment. Unlike much of the commercialized art during this time period, land art could not be bought or sold on the art market. Thus, it shifted the perspective of how people all over the world viewed art.

Land art was typically created in remote, uninhabited regions of the country, particularly the Southwest. Some attribute this popular location for land art to artists’ need to escape the turmoil in the United States during the 1960s and 70s by turning to the open, uncorrupted land of the West.[2] Holt believes this artistic movement came about in the United States due to the vastness of the American landscape.[4] As a result of earthworks not being easily accessible to the public, documentation in photographs, videos, drawings became imperative to their being seen. The first exhibit of contemporary land art was at the Virginia Dwan Gallery in New York in 1968.[5] Other earth artists who emerged during this time include Robert Smithson, James Turrell, Walter De Maria, Michael Heizer, Dennis Oppenheim and Peter Hutchinson.

Perception of Time and Space

Holt’s works of art often deal with issues of how people perceive time and space. The various monumental works she has created blend with and complement their environment. Works such as Hydra’s Head do not merely sit in their environments, but are made of the land, stand on it and are created to be harmonious with the land. The pools in this work are at the top of concrete tubes imbedded in the ground. The land already at the site surrounds these pools. They reflect the natural landscape, while not disturbing it. Holt thinks about human scale in relation to the work she creates.[6] People can interact with the works and become more aware of space, of their own visual perception, and of the order of the universe.[6] Holt’s works incorporate the passage of time and also function to keep time. For example, Annual Ring functions so that when sunlight falls through the hole in the dome and fits perfectly into a ring on the ground, it is solar noon on the summer solstice.[6] At different times, the sun falls differently on the work and other holes in the dome align with celestial occurrences. Holt has said that she is concerned with making art that not only makes an impact visually, but is also functional and necessary in society,[7] as seen in works like Sky Mound, which serves a dual function as a sculpture and park and it also generates alternative energy.

In her works, Holt creates an intimate connection to nature and the stars, saying, “I feel that the need to look at the sky-at the moon and the stars-is very basic, and it is inside all of us. So when I say my work is an exteriorization of my own inner reality, I mean I am giving back to people through art what they already have in them.”[6] In other words, Holt is saying that people have within them a basic need to observe the sky and through her works she wants to highlight and make people aware of that need.

Collaboration

Collaboration with architects, engineers, construction crews, and the like is an essential part of creating land art. Solar Rotary is a work located on the campus of the University of South Florida in Tampa, Florida. The work, consists of 20 ft (6.1 m). aluminum poles topped with a swirl of metal called a shadow caster, which casts a circle of light on a central seat when it is solar noon on the day of the summer solstice. On five days a year at different times, the shadow caster is designed to create a circle of light around plaques placed in the ground that mark important events in Florida’s history.[8] Thus, for Solar Rotary, Holt employed Dr. Jack Robinson, an archaeo-astronomer and professor to help her, among other things, to plot the sun’s coordinates for the work.[8] For almost all of Holt’s works, she has had some collaboration. For Dark Star Park, Holt coordinated with developer J.W. Kaempfer, Jr., of the Kaempfer Company, in integrating the design of his adjacent building, Park Place Office Building into her design for the park. She also worked in collaboration with an architect, landscape architect, engineers, and real estate developers on the work.[9] For Rock Rings, Holt searched far and wide to find the right masons to work on the piece and also had local stone called schist, which was 250-million-years old, quarried by hand for the work.[6] Despite all of the collaboration, Holt notes that she is always present for the construction of her artworks.[6] on June 2012, she completed Avignons Locators, her first site-specific work made in France on the basis of the Missoula Ranch Locators: Vision Encompassed (1972). This work, currently under finishing process,[10] involved a team of academics, teachers and students, but also an astrophysist, a surveyor, a metalworker and an architect.[11]

Analysis of Major Works

Sun Tunnels

Sun Tunnels in Lucin, Utah.

Sun Tunnels is located in the Great Basin Desert outside of the ghost town of Lucin, Utah. The work is a product of Holt’s interest in the great variation of intensity of the sun in the desert compared to the sun in the city.[6] Holt searched for and found a site which was remote and empty.

“It is a very desolate area, but it is totally accessible, and it can be easily visited, making Sun Tunnels more accessible really than art in museums . . . A work like Sun Tunnels is always accessible . . . Eventually, as many people will see Sun Tunnels as would see many works in a city-in a museum anyway.”[6]

The work consists of four massive concrete tunnels (18 feet long and nine feet in diameter), which are arranged in an “X” configuration to total a length of 86 feet (26 m). Each tunnel reacts differently to the sun, aligned with the sunrise, sunset, of the summer or winter solstice. Someone visiting the site would see the tunnels immediately with their contrast to the fairly undifferentiated desert landscape. Approaching the work, which can be seen one to one-and-a-half miles away, the viewer’s perception of space is questioned as the tunnels change views as a product of their landscape.[12]

The tunnels not only provide a much-needed shelter from the sweltering desert sun, but once inside the dazzling effect of the play of light within the tunnels can be seen. The top of each tunnel has small holes, forming on each, the constellations of Draco, Perseus, Columba, and Capricorn, respectively.[6] The diameters of the holes differ in relation to the magnitude of the stars represented.[6] These holes cast spots of daylight in the dark interiors of the tunnels, which appear almost like stars. Holt has said of the tunnels, “It’s an inversion of the sky/ground relationship-bringing the sky down to the earth.”[6] This is a common theme in Holt’s work. She sometimes creates this relationship with reflecting pools and shadow patterns marked on the ground, like in her work Star Crossed.[6]

Dark Star Park in Rosslyn, Virginia.

Dark Star Park

Dark Star Park was commissioned by Arlington County, Virginia in 1979, in conjunction with an urban-renewal project.[7] Construction of the work began in 1984. Holt worked with an architect, landscape architect, engineers, and real estate developers on the project.[7] The artwork is at once a park and a sculpture. Built on two-thirds of an acre of land where a run-down, old gas station and warehouse once stood, Holt transformed the space.[7] The park consists of five spheres, two pools, four steel poles, a stairway, a large tunnel for passage, a smaller tunnel for viewing only and plantings of crown vetch, winter creeper, willow oak, and earth and grass.[13]

The forms stand in stark contrast to the busy and highly developed commercial area that surrounds the space. There are places to walk and sit within the park, giving a passersby a chance to escape from the urban environment. Dark Star Park is more socially interactive than Holt’s other works. Holt paid attention to how people both inside and outside the park would see the spheres. The work alters the viewer’s perception by using curvilinear forms, such as the walkways that mimic the curving roads surrounding the site. Walking in the park or driving by it, viewers may mistake spheres of different sizes to actually be the same size or one sphere may eclipse another. The tunneled passages into the park frame certain sculptural elements, as do the reflections in the pools. However, Holt has made sure not to alienate the park entirely from its surroundings. The spheres are made of gunite (a sprayable mixture of cement and sand), asphalt, precast concrete tunnels, steel poles and stone masonry.[7] These materials relate the park to the buildings located near the artwork.

The work explores the concept of time and our relationship to the universe. When approaching one of the spheres, a visitor to the park might be reminded of the lunar surface[13] or when glancing at the quiet pools of water around the spheres, may relate them to craters.[7] This is no coincidence. Holt has a fascination with solar eclipses, as well as in the shadows cast by the sun on the surface of the earth[13] and the name of the park is a reference to the astronomical appearance of the large spheres that are its most distinct features. In speaking about the name Holt has said, “It’s called Dark Star Park because in my imagination these spheres are like stars that have fallen to the ground-they no longer shine-so I think of the park/artwork in a somewhat celestial way.”[6] By engaging the viewer with these spheres and the other elements surrounding them in the park, Holt brings the vast scale of nature and the cosmos back to human scale. Time is also a major part of this work. Once a year on August 1 at 9:32 am, the shadows cast by two of the spheres and their four adjacent poles align with permanent asphalt shadow patterns outlined on the ground.[7] This date was selected by the artist to commemorate the day in 1860 when William Ross bought the land that today is Rosslyn, Virginia, where the park is situated.[7]

Holt took on the challenging task of playing many roles in the park’s creation, becoming at once an artist, landscape designer, and committee member for approving plans for a nearby building. To take on all three roles possibly had never been done before by an artist, thus the park and its designer remain important to the history of art.

“I was the landscape designer as well as the sculptor, so the whole park became a work of art. And I was on the committee to approve the architectural design of the building adjacent to the park. I don’t think either of these situations ever happened before for an artist, so that was unusual, and it broke new ground for public art.”[6]

The work was surveyed in June 1995. At that time “treatment was needed.”.[9] Thus, seven years later, when the park was finally restored in 2002 it was long overdue.

Sky Mound

Located in Northern New Jersey, Sky Mound sits where a 57-acre (230,000 m2), 100-foot (30 m)-high landfill once stood.[14] The state’s Hackensack Meadowland Development Commission (HMDC) asked Holt to reclaim the site in an effort to provide an environmentally safe spot for plant and animal life to reside and for humans to enjoy.[15]

Still unfinished in April 2008, the landfill is to be turned into an earth sculpture and public park. The landfill has been covered with grass. Ten mounds stand upon the site, as well as steel poles, plants, and a pond, designed for the approximately 250 species of migratory birds that visit the area seasonally.[15] There will eventually be wind indicators and gravel paths. On several astronomically significant dates each year, the work will provide its viewer with unique views of the sun, moon, and several stars.

In addition, a series of arcing pipes will go down into the landfill, recovering methane from the 10 million tons of garbage below.[14] This will provide an alternative source of energy for those in the community.

Sky Mound’s location makes it visible and accessible to many people. Holt believes the work will increase awareness of the complex problem of how we dispose of our waste and trash.[14] It also raises questions about the sun, as every ecosystem depends on the sun and its energy for survival.[16] In 1991, funding on Sky Mound was stopped to perform a technological study at the site; currently construction remains postponed.[17]

Films

Holt has also made a number of films and videos since the late 1960s, including Mono Lake (1968) (also with artist Michael Heizer), East Coast, West Coast (1969), Swamp (1971) (in collaboration with her late husband Robert Smithson[18]) and Breaking ground: Broken Circle/Spiral Hill, a video “guided by Smithson’s film notes and drawings”[19] and completed forty years on. Points of View: Clocktower (1974) features conversations between Lucy Lippard and Richard Serra, Liza Bear and Klaus Kertess, Carl Andre and Ruth Kligman and Bruce Brice and Tina Girouard.[20] In 1978, she produced a 16mm color film documenting the seminal work Sun Tunnels.

Selected Artworks

  • Missoula Ranch Locators: Vision Encompassed (1972, dismantled), Missoula, Montana
  • Sun Tunnels (1973–76), Great Basin Desert, Utah
  • Hydra’s Head (1974), Artpark, Lewiston, New York
  • Rock Rings (1977–78), Western Washington University, Bellingham, Washington

    Rock Rings in Bellingham, Washington.

  • 30 Below (1979), Lake Placid, New York
  • Wild Spot (1979–1980), Wellesley, Massachusetts
  • Star-Crossed (1979–81), Miami University, Oxford, Ohio
  • Dark Star Park (1979–1984), Rosslyn, Virginia
  • Annual Ring (1980–81), Federal Building, Saginaw, Michigan
  • Time Span (1981), Laguna Gloria Art Museum, Austin, Texas
  • Catch Basin (1982), St. James Park Toronto, Canada
  • Electrical System II (1982), Bellman Circuit, Toronto, Canada
  • Sole Source (1983), Dublin, Ireland
  • End of the Line/West Rock (1985), Southern Connecticut State University, New Haven, Connecticut
  • Astral Grating (1987), Fulton Street/Broadway-Nassau Subway Station, New York. Commissioned by Metropolitan Transportation Authority Arts for Transit
  • Skymound (1988–Present), Hackensack, New Jersey
  • Ventilation IV: Hampton Air (1992), Guild Hall, East Hampton, New York
  • Solar Rotary (1995), University of South Florida, Tampa, Florida
  • Up and Under (1998), Town of Nokia, Finland
  • Avignon Locators (June 2012), Sainte-Marthe Campus, Avignon, France (international conference)

Selected Solo Exhibitions

  • 1972 Art Gallery, University of Montana, Missoula Montana
  • 1972 Art Center, University of Rhode Island, Kingston
  • 1977 “Young American Filmmakers’ Series,” Whitney Museum of American Art, New York, New York
  • 1985 Ace Gallery, Los Angeles, California
  • 1989 Montpellier Cultural Arts Center, Laurel, Maryland
  • 1993 John Weber Gallery, New York, New York
  • 2010 “Sightlines” Miriam and Ira D. Wallach Gallery, New York, New York
  • 2012 “Sightlines” Tufts University, Medford, Massachusetts (e-press release)

Selected Group Exhibitions

  • 1969 “Language III,” Dwan Gallery, New York, New York
  • 1972 “International Art Exhibition,” Pamplona, Spain
  • 1974 “Intervention in the Landscape,” Hayden Gallery, Massachusetts Institute of Technology, Cambridge
  • 1977 Whitney Biennial, Whitney Museum of American Art, New York, New York
  • 1981 “Summer Light,” The Museum of Modern Art, New York, New York
  • 1983 “Monuments and Landscapes: The New Public Art,” McIntosh/Drysdale Gallery, Houston, Texas
  • 1985 “Artist as Social Designer,” Los Angeles County Museum of Art, California
  • 1989 “Making Their Mark,” Cincinnati Art Museum, Cincinnati, Ohio; New Orleans Museum of Art, New Orleans, Louisiana; Denver Art Museum, Denver Colorado; Pennsylvania Academy of Fine Arts, Philadelphia, Pennsylvania
  • 1998 Wiener Kunstverein, Vienna, Austria
  • 1999 “After Image: Drawing Through Process,” Museum of Contemporary Art, Los Angeles, California
  • 2007 “Cosmologies” James Cohan Gallery, New York City, New York

Sources

External links

________________

Related posts:

FRANCIS SCHAEFFER ANALYZES ART AND CULTURE Part 47 Woody Allen and Professor Levy and the death of “Optimistic Humanism” from the movie CRIMES AND MISDEMEANORS Plus Charles Darwin’s comments too!!! (Feature on artist Rodney Graham)

Crimes and Misdemeanors: A Discussion: Part 1 ___________________________________ Today I will answer the simple question: IS IT POSSIBLE TO BE AN OPTIMISTIC SECULAR HUMANIST THAT DOES NOT BELIEVE IN GOD OR AN AFTERLIFE? This question has been around for a long time and you can go back to the 19th century and read this same […]

FRANCIS SCHAEFFER ANALYZES ART AND CULTURE PART 46 Friedrich Nietzsche (Featured artist is Thomas Schütte)

____________________________________ Francis Schaeffer pictured below: ______________ Francis Schaeffer has written extensively on art and culture spanning the last 2000years and here are some posts I have done on this subject before : Francis Schaeffer’s “How should we then live?” Video and outline of episode 10 “Final Choices” , episode 9 “The Age of Personal Peace and Affluence”, episode 8 […]

FRANCIS SCHAEFFER ANALYZES ART AND CULTURE Part 45 Woody Allen “Reason is Dead” (Feature on artists Allora & Calzadilla )

Love and Death [Woody Allen] – What if there is no God? [PL] ___________   _______________ How Should We then Live Episode 7 small (Age of Nonreason) #02 How Should We Then Live? (Promo Clip) Dr. Francis Schaeffer 10 Worldview and Truth Two Minute Warning: How Then Should We Live?: Francis Schaeffer at 100 Francis […]

FRANCIS SCHAEFFER ANALYZES ART AND CULTURE Part 44 The Book of Genesis (Featured artist is Trey McCarley )

___________________________________ Francis Schaeffer pictured below: ____________________________ Francis Schaeffer “BASIS FOR HUMAN DIGNITY” Whatever…HTTHR Dr. Francis schaeffer – The flow of Materialism(from Part 4 of Whatever happened to human race?) Dr. Francis Schaeffer – The Biblical flow of Truth & History (intro) Francis Schaeffer – The Biblical Flow of History & Truth (1) Dr. Francis Schaeffer […]

FRANCIS SCHAEFFER ANALYZES ART AND CULTURE Part 43 “Freedom within Form” (Featured artist is Jan Fabre)

________________ Francis Schaeffer “BASIS FOR HUMAN DIGNITY” Whatever…HTTHR Dr. Francis schaeffer – The flow of Materialism(from Part 4 of Whatever happened to human race?) Dr. Francis Schaeffer – The Biblical flow of Truth & History (intro) Francis Schaeffer – The Biblical Flow of History & Truth (1) Dr. Francis Schaeffer – The Biblical Flow of […]

FRANCIS SCHAEFFER ANALYZES ART AND CULTURE Part 42 Historical Adam and Eve (Featured artist is Banks Violette)

_______________________________________________ Francis Schaeffer “BASIS FOR HUMAN DIGNITY” Whatever…HTTHR Dr. Francis schaeffer – The flow of Materialism(from Part 4 of Whatever happened to human race?) Dr. Francis Schaeffer – The Biblical flow of Truth & History (intro) Francis Schaeffer – The Biblical Flow of History & Truth (1) Dr. Francis Schaeffer – The Biblical Flow of […]

FRANCIS SCHAEFFER ANALYZES ART AND CULTURE Part 41 Sarvepalli Radhakrishnan (Featured artist is Marina Abramović)

______________________ Francis Schaeffer pictured below:   _________ How Should We then Live Episode 7 small (Age of Nonreason) #02 How Should We Then Live? (Promo Clip) Dr. Francis Schaeffer 10 Worldview and Truth Two Minute Warning: How Then Should We Live?: Francis Schaeffer at 100 Francis Schaeffer “BASIS FOR HUMAN DIGNITY” Whatever…HTTHR Francis Schaeffer has […]

FRANCIS SCHAEFFER ANALYZES ART AND CULTURE Part 40 Timothy Leary (Featured artist is Margaret Keane)

__________ A Christian Manifesto Francis Schaeffer Published on Dec 18, 2012 A video important to today. The man was very wise in the ways of God. And of government. Hope you enjoy a good solis teaching from the past. The truth never gets old. The Roots of the Emergent Church by Francis Schaeffer How Should […]

FRANCIS SCHAEFFER ANALYZES ART AND CULTURE Part 39 Tom Wolfe (Featured artist is Richard Serra)

________________________ How Should We then Live Episode 7 small (Age of Nonreason) #02 How Should We Then Live? (Promo Clip) Dr. Francis Schaeffer 10 Worldview and Truth Two Minute Warning: How Then Should We Live?: Francis Schaeffer at 100 Francis Schaeffer “BASIS FOR HUMAN DIGNITY” Whatever…HTTHR Francis Schaeffer pictured below: ______________ Francis Schaeffer has written […]

FRANCIS SCHAEFFER ANALYZES ART AND CULTURE Part 38 Woody Allen and Albert Camus “There is but one truly serious philosophical problem, and that is suicide” (Feature on artist Hamish Fulton Photographer )

____________________________________________________________________________________________________ Francis Schaeffer below pictured on cover of World Magazine:   __________________ Francis Schaeffer has written extensively on art and culture spanning the last 2000years and here are some posts I have done on this subject before : Francis Schaeffer’s “How should we then live?” Video and outline of episode 10 “Final Choices” , episode 9 “The Age […]

_______________

John F. MacArthur – Creation – Believe it or not

_______________

John F. MacArthur – Creation – Believe it or not

Published on Apr 18, 2014

Genesis 1, 1 – Genesis 2, 25

__________________

Well tonight, as you know if you were here this morning, I’m going to begin a new series that I’ve been sort of working on for a long time, a series on origins.  And I don’t know how long this series is going to run exactly.  I do know that I’m going to spend a little time on an introduction and then we’re going to launch right into Genesis 1:1 and take the whole account ofcreation verse by verse, phrase by phrase and let the Lord unfold its significance to us.

Now I want to begin with a few sort of disclaimers, if I can, a few things that maybe you need to keep in mind.  First of all, I’m not a scientist.  I don’t claim to be a scientist.  Any teacher in my past whoever taught me science could stand up and testify to that fact.  I am a theologian, I am a Bible teacher, I am a part-time philosopher; but I am not a scientist.  And so, when it comes to those matters which are scientific, I have to basically move to somebody else and trust them as an authority where I am not an authority.  This will not largely be a scientific study; in fact that’s notour intent at all.  But it will be a study of the Scripture, a study of theology with a little bit of rationality thrown into it.

Secondly, I will not answer every question tonight.  I know that what I don’t say tonight is going to create questions.  I will get to those questions as we move through the text of Scripture.  I will deal with things like theistic evolution.  I will deal with things like day-age theory, deal with viewpoints like progressive creationism as we go along, but we’ll not be able to deal with all of that tonight.  And I really do believe that you’re going to find the answer to your questions about origins primarily from the text of Scripture.  The issues such as progressive creationism, theistic evolution are really answered by the text itself.  And so we’re going to find our way through the text of Genesis, chapter 1 into chapter 2, and therein we’re going to secure the great answers to the questions that arise about origins.

But to begin with tonight I, I want to address the concept, I want to sort of set the picture in your mind as to the debate.  This is critical for, for all of us, and it is most critical for those who are students.  If you are a junior high student, if you are a high school student, if you are a college or university student in any other than a distinctively Christian school, you are going to be given this indoctrination about evolution as if it were fact and you’re going to find that what I’m going to be saying to you is contrary to just about everything you hear.  We’ll set the stage for that contrast tonight, and then we’ll get into the text of Scripture and see how Scripture itself addresses popular evolutionary theory.

It is also important to all of us because understanding origins in the book of Genesis is foundational to the rest of the Bible.  If Genesis, chapter 1 and chapter 2 don’t tell us the truth, then why should we believe anything else in the Bible?  If it says in the New Testament that the Creator is our Redeemer, but God is not the Creator, then maybe He’s not the Redeemer either.  If it tells us in 2 Peter that God Himself will bring about an instantaneous dissolution of the entire universe as we know it, that God in a moment will uncreate everything, then that has tremendous bearing upon His power to create.  The same One who with a word can uncreate the universe is capable of creating it as quickly as He desires.

So what we believe about creation, what we believe about Genesis has implications all the way to the end of Scripture, implications with regard to the veracity and truthfulness of Scripture, implications as to the gospel, and implications as to the end of human history, all wrapped up in how we understand origins in the book of Genesis.  The matter of origins then is absolutely critical to all human thinking.  It becomes critical to how we conduct our lives as human beings.  Without an understanding of origins, without a right understanding of origins, there is no way to comprehend ourselves.  There is no way to understand humanity, as to the purpose of our existence, and as to our destiny.  If we cannot believe what Genesis says about origins, we are lost as to our purpose and our destiny.  Whether this world and its life as we know it evolved by chance, without a cause, or was created by God, has immense comprehensive implications for all of human life.

Now there basically are only two options.  You can either believe what Genesis says or not.  And that is no over simplification.  Frankly, believing in a supernatural, creative God who made everything is the only possible rational explanation for the universe, for life, for purpose and for destiny.  Now the divine equation given in the Bible, in contrast to nobody times nothing equals everything, the divine equation is found in Genesis 1:1.  “In the beginning God created the heavens and the earth.”  I don’t know how it could be said any more simply or more straightforwardly than that.  Either you believe God did create the heavens and the earth or youbelieve He did not.   Really those are the only two valid options you have.  And if you believe that God did create the heavens and the earth, then you are left with the only record of that creation, and that’s Genesis 1, and you are bound to accept the text of Genesis 1 as the only appropriate and accurate description of that creative act.

So again, I say you’re left really with two choices.  You either believe Genesis or you don’t.  You either believe the Genesis account that God created the heavens and the earth, or you believethey somehow evolved out of random chance.  Looking at the account of Genesis 1:1 for just a brief moment; the words in that first verse are quite remarkable.  They are indicative of the incredible mind of God.  God says in that first verse everything that could have been said aboutcreation and He says it in such few terms.  The statement is precise and concise almost beyond human composition.

A well-known scientist, a very decorated scientist named Herbert Spencer, died in 1903.  In his scientific career he had become noted for one great discovery; it was a categorical contribution that he made.  He discovered that all reality, all reality, all that exists in the universe can be contained in five categories: time, force, action, space and matter.  Herbert Spencer said everything that exists, exists in one of those categories: time, force, action, space and matter.  Nothing exists outside of those categories. That was a very astute discovery and didn’t come until the nineteenth century.  Now think about that.  Spencer even listed them in that order: time, force, action, space and matter.  That is a logical sequence.  And then with that in your mind, listen toGenesis 1:1.  “In the beginning,” that’s time.  “God,” that’s force. “Created,” that’s action.  “The heavens,” that’s space. “And the earth,” that’s matter.  In the first verse of the Bible God said plainly what man didn’t catalog until the nineteenth century.  Everything that could be said about everything that exists is said in that first verse.  Now either you believe that or you don’t.  You either believe that that verse is accurate and God is the force or you believe that God is not the force that created everything.  And then you’re left with chance or randomness or coincidence.

This is more than just a secondary issue.  Someone wrote a letter to the president of the Promise Keepers, and I’m not particularly singling them out except that the illustration is so clear because of the response they wrote, asking them about their stand on the creation issue.  The assistant to the president responded with this statement, quote: “You need to know that the ministry of Promise Keepers takes no stand on issues like this.  In fact we specifically try to avoid such debates.  Our efforts are designed to bring men together based on the historically essential doctrines of orthodox Christianity as represented by our Statement of Faith, or to focus on things that unite the Body of Christ, instead of those which tend to divide it.  Since different churches and individual Christians hold varying views about creation, it is one of those things we believe falls under the category of secondary doctrines, secondary doctrines such as spiritual gifts, eternal security and the rapture, etc.  In short, when it comes to subjects like creation, we believeChristians need to extend grace to each other as summed up in the statement, ‘In essentials unity and non-essentials liberty and all things charity,’” end quote.

Now that’s a pretty aggressive statement about the secondary nature of a belief in the Genesis account, isn’t it?  It doesn’t address the issue that if you don’t believe the book of Genesis, you’renot believing the Bible.  I’m not trying to throw aspersions on that organization but simply to say that this is what is generally the view of the majority of Christian people.  Whether the world was created by God or evolved by chance without cause has been debated a long time.  It’s been debated since Darwin.  But the debate comes down to this, either you believe the Bible or you don’t.  Either you believe the book of Genesis or you don’t.  And if you don’t believe the book of Genesis, then what do you believe?  Well in most cases you believe in naturalistic evolution.  There would be some who would be theistic evolutionists who would say well God sort of launched it all, but then evolution took over and they would deny that the Genesis account is accurate in saying that God created in six, twenty-four-hour days.  Progressive creationists would essentially say the same thing, that creation is not, did not occur as Genesis says, but rather it was over long ages and God sort of progressively injecting Himself into the process did some creative work alongside the evolutionary process.

Those views, theistic evolution, progressive creationism, also deny the straightforward text of the book of Genesis.  So I say again, you either believe Genesis or you don’t.  If you don’t, you have some options.  You can be a theistic evolutionist or you can be a naturalistic evolutionist.  Among Christians there are some who are theistic evolutionists but among those who make up the unbelieving world they are naturalistic evolutionists.  And so they are left with the incredible notion that nobody times nothing equals everything.

Douglas Kelly, who has written on this subject with great insight says, “There is no doubt that the biblical vision of man as God’s creature whom He made in His own image has had the most powerful effect on human dignity, on liberty, on the expansion of the rights of the individual, on political systems, on the development of medicine, on every other area of culture.  How different,” he writes, “from the humanistic viewpoint of man as merely an evolved creature, not made in God’s image because there is no God.  Such a premise has enabled the Marxist totalitarian states conveniently to liquidate millions of their citizens because of the assumption that there is no transcendent person in whose image those citizens are created, no being to give those citizens a dignity and a right to exist beyond what the state determines,” end quote.

This point has been explored at length by Baron Erik Von Kuehnelt-Leddihn of Austria, who may be the century’s greatest scholar on questions of liberty and totalitarianism.  He has written a very important book called Leftism Revisited: From De Sade and Marx to Hitler and Pol Pot, which deals with those issues.  And in it he shows that apart from the belief that mankind is created in the image of a transcendent God, the divinely derived dignity and liberty of human beings completely disappears.  He says, “For the genuine materialists there is no fundamental, only a gradual evolutionary difference between a man and a pest, a noxious insect,” end quote.  And his conclusion is: The issue is between man created in the image of God and the termite in human form.  He’s right.  We have two options.  Either we evolved out of the slime and can be explained only in a materialistic sense, meaning that we are made of nothing but the material, or we have been created by God and made in His image in a heavenly pattern.  And the debate is not just biological, that’s what I’m trying to say, it’s not just biological, it’s moral and it’s spiritual.  The debate gets to questions about man’s dignity, about man’s nature in the image of the heavenly pattern, the image of God.  It asks questions about the issue of control, who is sovereign in the universe, who is in control.  It asks: Is there a universal judge?  Is there a universal moral law?  Is there a lawgiver?  Are people to live according to God’s standard?  Will there be a final assessment of how men and women live?  Is there a final judgment?

You see, these are the questions that evolution was invented to avoid.  Evolution was invented to kill the God of the Bible, not because evolutionists and materialists and naturalists didn’t like God as creator, but because they didn’t want God as judge.  Evolution was invented in order to kill the God of the Bible, to eliminate the lawgiver, to eliminate the inviolability of His law, the binding standard for human thought and conduct.  Evolution was invented to do away from universal morality and universal guilt and universal accountability.  Evolution was invented to eliminate the judge and leave people free to do whatever they want without guilt and without consequences.

I mean, if we just kind of summed up these two alternatives, the materialistic view would say: Ultimate reality is impersonal matter.  No God exists.

The Christian view says: Ultimate reality is an infinite, personal, loving God.

The materialistic view says: The universe is created by chance, without any ultimate purpose.

The Christian view says: The universe was lovingly created by God for a specific purpose.

The materialistic view says: Man is the product of impersonal time, plus chance, plus matter.  As a result, no man has eternal value or dignity or any meaning other than that which is subjectively derived.

The Christian view says: Man was created by God in His image and is loved by God.  Because of this all men are endowed with eternal value and dignity.  Their value is not derived ultimately from themselves, but from the source transcending themselves; God Himself.

The materialistic view of morality says:  Morality is defined by every individual according to his own views and interests.  Morality is ultimately relative because every person is the final authority for his own views.

The Christian view says: Morality is defined by God and immutable because it is based on God’s unchanging, holy character.

The materialistic view says about the afterlife: The afterlife brings eternal annihilation, or personal extinction, for everyone.

The Christian view says: The afterlife involves either eternal life with God or eternal separation from Him; either the glories of heaven, or the terrors of hell.

Now, folks, let me tell you something.  Which of those views you take is not a secondary issue; it is a primary issue, not only for science but for theology.  How in the world can Christianity view those as secondary issues?  This is the foundation of all truth.  Francis Schaeffer, the apologist, said if he had an hour to spend with a person on an airplane, a person who didn’t know the Lord, he would spend the first fifty-five minutes talking about man being created in the image of God, and the last five minutes on the presentation of the gospel of salvation that could restore man to that original intended image.  Christianity does not begin with accepting Jesus Christ as Savior.  Christianity begins in Genesis 1:1.  God created the heavens and the earth for a purpose and destiny which He Himself had determined.  Understanding and believing the doctrine of creation in the book of Genesis is foundational in accepting, listen carefully, that the Holy Bible is to be taken seriously when it speaks to the real world.

People say, “Well, the book of Genesis is myth and legend and fantasy and allegory and tradition, doesn’t really speak about real facts to the real world.”  Yes it does.  The Word of God is to be taken seriously when it speaks to the real world on any and every subject.  If we avoid dealing with what the Bible says about the creation of the material universe, then there is a tendency for our religion to be disconnected from the real world.  There’s a tendency to put Scripture into some mystical category, to put Christianity into some stained glass closet, as Douglas Kelly puts it, that doesn’t impact the space-time world.

You start out with the book of Genesis, tampering with the literal nature of that text and you have created a mystical approach to Scripture at the very launch point.  The Scottish theologian James Denney made this point in the late 1890s. I quote, “The separation of the religious and the scientific means, in the end, the separation of the religious and the true, and this means religion dies among true men.”  You can’t pick up the book of Genesis, take chapter 1 and say this is a fairy story, this is not real history, this is not reality, this does not reflect a real understanding of the real world in real space and real time, without severe implications to the rest of the message of Scripture.  The doctrine of creation as identified in the book of Genesis is foundational.  It is where God starts His story.  And you can’t change the beginning without impacting the rest of the story and the ending.  In the Bible, God speaks, and He speaks in Genesis 1:1 and says He created the heavens and the earth.  He is the one who spoke in Genesis 1:1 and who speaks right through Scripture till its very end.

When you tamper with Genesis 1 you are tampering with the Word of the living God and you are taking the divine account of real creation in real space and real time and you’re saying, it is notaccurate, it is not legitimate, it is not the truth.  That is a serious assault.  And it loosens up the Scripture from reality and divorces religion, the true religion, from reality.  That is severe.  So evolution would love to do that.  It would love to ungod God, it would love to strip Scripture of its veracity.  It wants to reject God as lawgiver, judge, Savior.  It wants to destroy the dignity of man as created in the image of God.  And it gets pretty ridiculous, doesn’t it?  According to evolution man is quantitatively better than the animals.  That is, he has some features that animals don’t have, but qualitatively he’s not better.  He has a bigger brain quantitatively but qualitatively he wasnot created in God’s image.  Therefore it is ethically wrong to violate the rights of other animals who are our literal brothers, evolutionarily speaking.

And we hear all that today, don’t we, all the time?  That infamous organization called PETA, People for the Ethical Treatment of Animals, their national director, Ingrid Newkirk, made this famous statement, “A rat is a pig is a boy,” “A rat is a pig is a dog is a boy.”  No difference.  All higher forms of life (a rat being a higher form of life in her view) are to be considered equal.  We have a funny organization called The Church of Euthanasia, believes that animal rights are superior to human rights.  A representative from that organization, he told a TV audience, a national audience, and I quote: “If we’re going to kill off species, let’s kill humanity first because humans are only a minor species with a minor role to play in the overall diversity of nature,” end quote.

And you’ve read it all.  I’ve read animal rights groups that maintain eating meat is murder.  Man is the tyrant species. Killing cows is murder.  And there was one who said that killing chickens is equal to the Holocaust perpetrated by the Nazis on the Jews.  This kind of idiocy comes because these people really do believe that man is simply the end of an evolutionary series of chance occurrences that has no purpose and has no destiny and is not made in the image of God.  He isnot bearing any dignity beyond any other along the line in that evolutionary process.

And you know what?  If evolution is true, you can’t argue with them.  We’re just animals.  We have just evolved.  And their argument may be pretty valid.  All of these animal rights advocates, writes Marvin Lubenow, who have expressed themselves publicly on the subject, are evolutionists.  According to evolution it’s merely the luck of the draw that man has evolved the big brain.  Had certain mutations not happened in our ancestors and instead happened in the ancestors of the chimpanzees we might be where they are, in the zoo, and they might be where we are.  Hence, he writes, “I have no ethical right to use my superiority, achieved purely by chance, to violate the rights of other animals, who through no fault of their own didn’t evolve the same abilities.”  If man, as he said, is only an animal, an accident of nature, a collection of chance mutations, then where is his meaning?  Where is his dignity?  Where is his absolute value?  What is his purpose?  Obviously he has none.

Now what evolution basically says is that over time, by chance, matter evolved into the entire universe.  Jacques Monod won the, this is unthinkable, the Nobel Prize and in his book Chance and Necessity he says this, “Man is alone in the universe’s unfeeling immensity out of which he emerged by chance.”  That’s the Nobel-winning biologist.  Chance alone is the source of every innovation.  Chance alone is the source of all creation in the biosphere.  He writes, “Pure chance, absolutely free but blind, is at the very root of the stupendous edifice of evolution.”  So Monod says it’s just chance.

Noted evolutionist J.W. Burrow writes in his introduction to The Origin of Species, “Nature, according to Darwin, was the product of blind chance and a blind struggle and man, a lonely intelligent mutation, scrambling with the brutes for his sustenance.  To some the sense of loss was irrevocable.  It was as if an umbilical cord had been cut and men found themselves part of a cold, passionless universe.  Unlike nature as conceived by the Greeks, the enlightenment, and the rationalist Christian tradition, Darwinian nature held no clues for human conduct and no answers to human moral dilemmas,” end quote.  I mean, man was just cut loose from any meaning whatsoever.  He is a lonely, intelligent mutation, produced out of chance.  He is protoplasm waiting to become manure.  Now, that is a far cry from being created in the image of God.  This evolutionary idea not only strips man of his dignity and his meaning; this is more than just stupid, it is more than irrational, it is more than depressing, it is more than humiliating, it is more even than immoral.  This evolutionary idea is deadly.  And in our history, our recent history in western civilization, no one demonstrated the deadly character of this evolutionary idea better than Adolf Hitler and he was followed up by Joseph Stalin and all of those who massacred masses of people, millions of people, and committed genocide.  At the bottom, at the base of their belief system and philosophy, was evolution.

For example, Hitler saw in evolutionary theory the scientific justification for his personal view just the same as social Darwinists of the nineteenth century did for their terrible abuses.  There’s no question that evolution was behind all Nazi thought from beginning to the end.  And yet few people were aware of that, and Hitler even sucked up a quasi-Christian commitment from the church of the state of his day.  Erich Fromm wrote, “The religion of social Darwinism belongs to the most dangerous elements within the thoughts of the last century.  It aids the propagation of ruthless national and racial egoism by establishing it as a moral norm.  If Hitler believed in anything at all, then it was in the laws of evolution, which justified and sanctified his actions and especially his cruelties.”  How does that work?  Evolution is the survival of—what?—the fittest.  Hitler was just playing out the evolutionary role.  He was the fittest and so he massacred everybody else, under the evolutionary thesis that he was perpetuating the strongest and he was aiding in the development of the super race.  That was all borne out of evolutionary theory.  In the biological theory of Darwin, Hitler found his most powerful weapon against traditional, against religious and Christian values.  He singled out the idea of biological evolution as the greatest weapon he had against traditional religion, and he repeatedly condemned Christianity for its opposition to evolution.  He hated Christianity.  In fact he said, and I quote Hitler, “I regard Christianity as the most fatal, seductive lie that ever existed.”  And Mein Kampf, My Struggle, was basically Hitler’s evolutionary theory working its way out politically, and was the justification for the destruction of the masses who threatened the continued evolution of the super race.  In Mein Kampf, Hitler wrote, “He who would live must fight.  He who does not wish to fight in this world, where permanent struggle is the law of life, has not the right to exist.  I do not see why man should not be just as cruel as nature.  Nature likes bastards only a little.”  And finally he said, “All that is not of pure race in this world is trash.”  And so he destroyed the Jews, he destroyed the blacks, he destroyed the Gypsies and he was aiding natural selection and fulfilling the evolutionary biological dream.  The head of the Nazi Labor Front said that Hitler’s massacres expressed, and I quote, “The highest and best in manhood.”  Julian Huxley, a biologist and evolutionist, wrote Essays of a Humanist in 1964, said, “Evolution is the most powerful, most comprehensive idea that has ever arisen on earth.”  And you know what?  He’s right.  It is the single, greatest, satanic lie the world has ever known because it eliminates the need for a creator.  People can avoid God altogether, particularly the biblical God.

Darwin didn’t care if you wanted to worship another god.  I don’t think Hitler cared if you wanted to worship another god, just not the God of the Bible, just not the God who created.  When Darwin first published his Origin of Species it was largely rejected by the scientific world of his day because they universally held to a belief in divine creation.  There was no other rational explanation: You have effect; you have to have a cause.  When he wrote Origin of Species, of course it had critical reviews from the very outset.  The scientific world was almost wholly against it.  In later years, Thomas Huxley, speaking of the year 1860, described the situation by saying, and I quote, “The supporters of Mr. Darwin’s views were numerically extremely insignificant.  There is not the slightest doubt that if a general council of the church scientific had been held at that time, we should have been condemned by an overwhelming majority.”

It was a hard sell.  Even Darwin had a hard time with it.  If you read anything of Darwin’s you find he’s continually filling all his writings with tremendous doubts.  For example, he says in the sixth chapter of his Origin of Species, “Long before having arrived at this part of my work, a crowd of difficulties will have occurred to the reader.  Some of them are so grave that to this day I can never reflect on them without being staggered.”  In his chapter on instinct he conceded, “Such simple instincts as bees making a beehive could be sufficient to overthrow my whole theory.”  And to think, he said, that the eye could evolve “by natural selection, seems, I freely confess, absurd in the highest possible degree.”  In his chapter on imperfections in the geological record he complained that the complete lack of fossil intermediates in all geological records was perhaps, quote, “the most obvious and gravest objection which can be urged against my theory.”  In other words, he was at least honest enough to admit that the thing didn’t make any sense.

Darwin wrote that he was deeply conscious of his own ignorance.  In his personal letters he wrote about having awful misgivings of having “deluded myself and devoted myself to a fantasy.”  But Darwin was determined to escape from a personal God at all costs.  He said that, “I am determined to escape from design and a personal God at all costs.”  To the end of his life he was in that war, trying as he would to escape from God, he never really could.  And finally his emotional life atrophied under the strain of the battle, religious feelings disappeared and with it everything else; the world became cold and dead.  And in the end Darwin apparently received a taste of his own medicine.  He had deprived the universe of God and all meaning and so he had deprived himself of all meaning.

James Moore wrote a biography of Darwin called The Life of a Tormented Evolutionist.  In some of his letters Darwin referred to his theory, quote, as “the devil’s gospel.”  And even after he had sort of won the day because he did liberate men from the God of the Bible, he did free people to enjoy their sin without the thought of a judge, he had begun to win the battle, but his psychological suffering was so profound, his physical symptoms continued.  He was literally not only killing God for himself but killing God for everybody else.  One writer says, “His life was one long attempt to escape from the church and to escape from God.  It is this that explains so much that would otherwise be incongruous in his life and character.”

No, let’s just get the record straight here.  This is all about getting rid of God, the God of the Bible, the authority of Scripture with its moral implications.  And even Christian people who want to go to Genesis, I don’t believe have the liberty to tell us that Genesis 1 doesn’t mean what it says.  Why would we want to join forces with those whose effort is directly against the authority of the God of Scripture?  Just, I just need to put that in perspective.

Now, for a few minutes I want to get a little philosophical.  I think you’ll enjoy this.  In the end the evolutionist, the naturalistic evolutionist says, and even the theistic evolutionist says, that things happen by chance, chance.  We get rid of the God of the Bible, we get rid of the God of Genesis, we get rid of the Creator and then we’ve got chance.  Now this is a pretty interesting thing to think about.  I have read this word chance over and over and over again in reading the writings of these people.  And the myth that drives the whole evolutionary process, this entire unbiblical, irrational, immoral idea of evolution, the myth that drives it is the myth of chance, chance.  Chance is the cause.  In contemporary science, chance takes on new meaning.  They don’t want God to be the cause, but something has to be the cause so the cause is chance.

Now when I say the word chance we take it back to its etymology; it once was largely restricted to describing mathematical probability.  Where we could say, “Well, if I go over there there’s a chance I might see her because she may be coming this way.”  Or, “If I put this money in this account there’s a chance this might happen and I’ll make this amount of money.”  “If I, if I move into that community and begin to meet some people there’s a chance there that I might develop some interest in my business.”  There’s a mathematical probability.  That’s what chance basically used to mean.  And then it kind of got broadened a little bit and it took on broader application to include any unpredictable event, any sort of probability no matter how remote or any coincidence no matter how seemingly impossible.  But let me tell you about chance.  Chance doesn’t exist.  It’s nothing, it’s nothing.  Chance is a word used to explain something else.  But chance isn’t anything.  It’s not a force.  Chance doesn’t make anything happen.  Chance doesn’t exist.  It’s only a way to explain something else.  Chance didn’t make you meet that person; you were going there when she was going there, that’s why you met her.  Chance didn’t have anything to do with it because chance doesn’t exist.  It’s nothing.  But in modern evolution, it’s been transformed into a force of causal power.  It’s been elevated from being nothing to being everything.  Chance makes things happen.  Chance is the myth that serves to undergird the chaos view of reality.

I mean, this is so fraught with problems from a rational or philosophical viewpoint you hardly know where to begin.  How do you get the initial matter upon which chance operates?  Where does that come?  You would have to say, “Well, chance made it appear.”  You know what?  This sounds so ridiculous and yet this is the undergirding philosophy behind evolution.  It is completely incoherent and irrational.  But the new evolutionary paradigm is chance.  And it’s the opposite of logic.  You see, when you abandon logic and logic says, “Oh, there’s a universe.  Hmm. Somebody made it.”  What else would logic say?  “There’s a building, somebody made it.  There’s a piano, somebody made it.  There’s a universe, more complex than a building, infinitely more complex than a piano, somebody, somebody who is very, very powerful and very, very intelligent made it.”  You say, “No, no, chance made it.”  Listen folks, that’s rational suicide, that’s not logical.  Logic abandoned leaves you with myth.

And the enemies of mythology, the enemies of mythology are empirical data and God-given reason.  So in order to be an evolutionist and believe that chance makes things happen, you have to do two things: reject the empirical data, and be irrational.  But if you love your sin enough, you’ll do it.  You see, if you can just eliminate the empirical data, the evidence, and get rid of God-given logic, and those two things are the essence of pure science, if you can get rid of those things then mythology runs wild.  And as one writer said, “Chance is the new soft pillow for science to lie down on.”  Arthur Koestler said, “As long as chance rules, God is an anachronism.”  If chance rules, God can’t rule.  Chance deposes God.  The very existence of chance rips God from His sovereign throne.  If chance as a force exists even in the frailest form, God is ungoded…if there’s such a word.  The two are mutually exclusive. Either there is a God who created the universe, who sovereignly rules and sovereignly controls, or there’s not.  If chance exists, it destroys God’s sovereignty.  If God is not sovereign, then He’s not God.  If He’s not God, then there is no God and chance rules.  That’s frightening.

But chance is not a force.  Chance can’t make anything happen.  Chance isn’t anything, it doesn’t exist.  It has no power to do anything because it isn’t anything.  It’s impotent because it’s nothing.  It has no power because it doesn’t exist.  Are you getting it?  Since chance doesn’t exist, it can’t produce anything.  It can’t be the cause of any effect.  Yet modern evolutionists talk about chance all the time.  It’s just nothing but hocus-pocus.  It’s the oldest and most inviolable law of science, logic and reason.  Any of you who ever took debate or studied any of the rational philosophers remember the statement: Ex nihilo, nihil fit; out of nothing, nothing comes.  And chance is nothing.  This is rational suicide.

So when scientists attribute instrumental power to chance, listen carefully, they have left the domain of reason, they have left the domain of science.  They have turned to pulling rabbits out of hats.  They have turned to fantasy.  And then all scientific investigation becomes chaotic and absurd because it can’t really yield what it should yield because they won’t allow it to.  Today the absurdity of evolution goes largely unchallenged and all these universities and colleges, they keep pounding on this stuff.  Every time I pick up a Newsweek or a Time magazine, I get another one of these wild kind of evolutionary articles, particularly because I read National Geographic I’m exposed to that as well, and they keep trying to make us believe that chance exists as a force.  That everything by chance spontaneously generated.  Nobel laureate George Wald, brilliant man, I quote him, “One has only to wait, time itself performs the miracles.  Given so much time the impossible becomes possible, the possible probable, and the probable actually certain,” end quote.  What in the world is that?  That is just double talk.  That is absolutely meaningless.  Self-creation is absurd no matter how much time because chance does not exist.  It doesn’t exist.

There’s no explanation of the universe without God.  I’ll give you one little scientific illustration.  Have you ever heard of quantum theory?  Well, you’ve heard about a quantum leap.  People say, “Somebody made a quantum leap.”  Let me tell you where that comes from.  Quantum theory goes back to a scientist, Max Planck, who in 1900 presented the theory that energy comes in discreet units called quanta.  I’m not going to take you too deep here because I can’t go too deep myself.  But energy can be broken down into units and he said these units, these units, identifiable units, are called quanta.  In 1927 Werner Heisenberg, a German physicist, found that when a photon strikes an atom it boosts an electron into a higher orbit.  And when that occurs, the electron moves from the lower to the upper orbit, listen to this, simultaneously, without having traversed the intervening space.  That’s a quantum leap.  Let me say that again.  When a photon hits an atom it boosts an electron to a higher orbit from the lower orbit simultaneously, but it never traverses the space in between.  What happens is the electron ceases to exist at one point and simultaneously comes into existence at the other point.  This is the famous quantum leap.  It goes out of existence and comes into existence simultaneously.  All the time, all the time, in all the atoms, all the time, through all of created history it keeps doing that.  By chance?  To say it’s a quantum leap doesn’t explain it.  There’s only one thing that explains it and that is the ongoing creative power of God.  He sustains the universe and its creation by keeping up all the necessary creative acts, even down to the level of an electron in an atom.  He upholds all things, Hebrews 1, by the Word of His power.

I’m going to give you one more closing thought here.  Well, I’ll tell you what, I’ll save it till next time.  I’ll save it till next time because I don’t want to get into it and then leave you somewhere between the lower and the upper.  Now, I mean, I realize that some of this stuff is stretching your brain, and that’s good, that’s okay.  We’re going to do this one more time next Sunday night and then I’m going to explain how this has implications in the gospel and then we’ll get into the actual text of the book of Genesis.  Join me in prayer.

Father, as we contemplate these thoughts, as we endeavor to use the minds that You’ve given us, which are evidence of the image of God in which we were made, we, we just pray that You would guide us so that we might understand just exactly how we are to think, by using the Scripture and the reason that You’ve given to us.  Protect us from any thought or any belief that would equivocate with Scripture, that would deny its straightforward statements.  Protect us from any absurdity, any irrationality, any failure to use the minds that You’ve given us.  And by Your Holy Spirit, prompt us so that we might think as we ought to think.  We grieve, O God, that man has sought to destroy you, sought to eliminate You as the Creator.  Such a dishonor to You is tragic, such a disgrace; to those who do it is tragic and has eternal consequences and we grieve over the lostness of those who believe in evolution.  We grieve over the meaninglessness, the emptiness of life that belongs to those who want to live any way they would like to live without guilt, without responsibility, without having to answer to a judge, without having a standard established for them.  We grieve, Lord, because the consequence of such life, the consequence of such sin is eternal damnation.  We would have no part with those who deny the Word, we would have no part with those who equivocate on Scripture.  But we want to take Your Word as You have given it to us, believing that what You said is exactly what You meant to say.  And so, lead us, Father, as we contemplate these things, to have a strong and a firm foundation in Your Word, to know You as our great Creator as well as our Redeemer.  We’ll thank You for the opportunity to know You better as our Creator and thus worship You as You should be worshiped.  And we pray in Christ’s name.  Amen.

Related posts:

RESPONDING TO HARRY KROTO’S BRILLIANT RENOWNED ACADEMICS!! (Part 10 Dr. Stuart Kauffman, Evolutionary Optimistic Humanism)

This is the fourth post I have done on Stuart Kaufman recently. The first post I did on Stuart Kauffman used the Fine Tuning Argument of Antony Flew against him among other things. In the second post, I put an article by Kauffman on the question Does science make belief in God obsolete?, and his article asserted, […]

“Schaeffer Sunday” Taking on Ark Times Bloggers on the “Absurdity of Life without God!!” Part 11(Conversation between Evolutionist Michael Ruse and William Lane Craig)

The Fruits of Atheism (Part 1) Uploaded on Apr 10, 2009 Examining the Creation/Evolution Controversy in Light of Reason and Revelation The Bible and Science (Part 03) There Is A Difference Between Absolute and Objective Moral Values Published on Dec 6, 2012 For more resources visit:http://www.reasonablefaith.org The Bethinking National Apologetics Day Conference: “Countering the New […]

“Schaeffer Sunday” Taking on Ark Times Bloggers on the “Absurdity of Life without God!!” Part 10 (Evolution’s time and chance impersonal universe is purposeless, but the alternative is God)

_________________ The Existence of God (Part 5) The Bible and Science (Part 02) How Can We Demonstrate that Objective Moral Values Exist to a Nihilist Who Holds Published on Dec 17, 2012 For more resources visit: http://www.reasonablefaith.org The Bethinking National Apologetics Day Conference: “Countering the New Atheism” took place during the UK Reasonable Faith Tour in October […]

INTERESTING QUOTES on evolution, science and God

__________________ INTERESTING QUOTES: Note:   Although we believe these quotes are authentic, we have not specifically verified the authenticity of each and every one.  If you find that any quote is in error, please let us know and we will correct it. CATEGORIES: A)                EVOLUTION AND ATHEISM B)                 INTELLIGENT DESIGN C)                PROBLEMS ABOUT FOSSIL EVIDENCE OF EVOLUTION D)                DISTORTIONS USED BY DOGMATIC […]

Examples of Adrian Rogers and Francis Schaeffer Confronting Modern Culture With The Bible! Part 2 Evolutionist William Provine

_______________________________ Adrian Rogers pictured below: __________________ I sent William Provine a letter several months ago with a CD of the following message by Adrian Rogers and in the letter were several arguments from Schaeffer. Adrian Rogers – How you can be certain the Bible is the word of God Today I am sending out another […]

Scientific evidence against evolution (short and concise) July 5, 2009

________________ Scientific evidence against evolution (short and concise) July 5, 2009verloreseun   Definition The word ‘evolution’ is used in the following contexts: Stellar / Planetary Evolution – An explosion (the ‘Big Bang’) supplied non-living material and over billions of years, supposedly this material became organized into planets and stars Cellular Evolution – At some point, non-living […]

My correspondence with the famous evolutionist Ernst Mayr!!!

________ Ernst Mayr 1904-2005 Bill Gates, John Grisham, James Michener, E. O. Wilson, Ernst Mayr, George Lucas… Published on May 19, 2012 Bill Gates, John Grisham, James Michener, E. O. Wilson, Ernst Mayr, George Lucas, James Cameron, Larry King, Ian Wilmut, Jane Goodall, Stephen Jay Gould, Tim D. White, Leon Lederman, Timothy Berners-Lee and Bill […]

How do Evolutionists answer the question: If there is no free-will, then what of morality?

______________ How do Evolutionists answer the question: If there is no free-will, then what of morality? June 24, 2009 Worldview and Evangelism Posted by jasondulle under Apologetics, Worldview [6] Comments Nancy Pearcey described a worldview as a mental map that helps us effectively navigate our world.  The better our worldview, the more effectively we ought […]

Former Atheist Antony Flew noted that Evolutionists failed to show “Where did a living, self-reproducing organism come from in the first place?”

____   Does God Exist? Thomas Warren vs. Antony Flew Published on Jan 2, 2014 Date: September 20-23, 1976 Location: North Texas State University Christian debater: Thomas B. Warren Atheist debater: Antony G.N. Flew For Thomas Warren: http://www.warrenapologeticscenter.org/ ______________________ Antony Flew and his conversion to theism Uploaded on Aug 12, 2011 Antony Flew, a well known […]

Evolutionary dogma with the biblical message are doomed to undermine faith

The Scientific Age Published on Jul 24, 2012 Dr. Schaeffer’s sweeping epic on the rise and decline of Western thought and Culture Francis Schaeffer rightly noted, “These two world views stand as totals in complete antithesis in content and also in their natural results….It is not just that they happen to bring forth different results, […]

 

________________

WOODY WEDNESDAY Discussing Woody Allen’s new movie IRRATIONAL MAN

___________

Sony Acquires Woody Allen’s IRRATIONAL MAN – AMCi

Published on Feb 5, 2015

Sony Pictures Classics has acquired the North American rights to Woody Allen’s next film “Irrational Man”. This marks the eight collaboration between Allen and the studio. Few details are known about the film to date but it is said that it may focus around a University Professor and his student, whose entanglement may turn deadly. The film stars Joaquin Phoenix, Emma Stone and Parker Posey.

Irrational Man (film)

From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia
Irrational Man
Directed by Woody Allen
Produced by Woody Allen
Letty Aronson
Stephen Tenenbaum
Written by Woody Allen
Starring Jamie Blackley
Joaquin Phoenix
Parker Posey
Emma Stone
Cinematography Darius Khondji
Production
company
Gravier Productions
Perdido Productions
Distributed by Sony Pictures Classics
Country United States
Language English

Irrational Man[1] is an upcoming mystery comedy-drama film directed and written by Woody Allen. The film stars Jamie Blackley, Joaquin Phoenix, Parker Posey, and Emma Stone.

Principal photography of the film began on July 7, 2014 in Newport, Rhode Island.

Plot[edit]

On a small town college campus, a philosophy professor (Joaquin Phoenix) in existential crisis gives his life new purpose when he enters into a relationship with his student (Emma Stone).

Cast[edit]

Production[edit]

On May 2, 2014, it was announced that Woody Allen would write and direct his upcoming film, in which Joaquin Phoenix had joined the cast.[3] Later on May 6, Emma Stone joined the cast, marking her second film collaboration with Allen as she previously co-starred in Allen’s romantic comedy Magic in the Moonlight in 2014.[4] On July 24, Parker Posey and Jamie Blackley also joined the cast, which Allen would produce along Letty Aronson and Stephen Tenenbaum.[2] On January 29, 2015, Sony Pictures Classics acquired the distribution rights to the film and revealed the title to be Irrational Man.[5]

Filming[edit]

The principal photography of the film began on July 7, 2014 in Newport, Rhode Island and it lasted through the end of August.[6] The crews were spotted filming outside at The Fastnet Pub in Newport.[7][8] Posey was also spotted on the set.[9]

References[edit]

  1. Jump up^ Ford, Rebecca (29 January 2015). “Woody Allen’s Next Movie ‘Irrational Man’ Goes to Sony Pictures Classics”. The Hollywood Reporter. Retrieved 29 January 2015.
  2. ^ Jump up to:a b c Kroll, Justin (July 24, 2014). “Parker Posey and Jamie Blackley Join Woody Allen’s Next Film”. variety.com. Retrieved July 28, 2014.
  3. ^ Jump up to:a b Fleming Jr, Mike (May 2, 2014). “Joaquin Phoenix Set For Starring Role In Next Woody Allen Movie”. deadline.com. Retrieved July 8, 2014.
  4. ^ Jump up to:a b Kroll, Justin (May 6, 2014). “Emma Stone Joins Joaquin Phoenix in Woody Allen’s Next Film”. variety.com. Retrieved July 8, 2014.
  5. Jump up^ McNary, Dave (January 29, 2015). “Sony Classics Buys Woody Allen’s ‘Irrational Man’ for North America”. variety.com. Retrieved January 30, 2015.
  6. Jump up^ “Woody Allen Film in RI Begins Production”. golocalprov.com. July 7, 2014. Retrieved July 8, 2014.
  7. Jump up^ Squires, Frieda (July 7, 2014). “Woody Allen project filming in Newport”. providencejournal.com. Retrieved July 8, 2014.
  8. Jump up^ Goldstein, Meredith; Shanahan, Mark (July 8, 2014). “Emma Stone stays in Rhode Island for Woody Allen film”. bostonglobe.com. Retrieved July 8, 2014.
  9. Jump up^ Siobhan (July 14, 2014). “Woody Allen and Emma Stone spotted filming in Rhode Island”. onlocationvacations.com. Retrieved July 16, 2014.

External links[edit]

Related posts:

WOODY WEDNESDAY “after a while, you start to realise that – I’m talking the big picture here – eventually you die, and eventually the sun burns out and the earth is gone”

Woody Allen about meaning and truth of life on Earth Transcript: You start to think, when you’re younger, how important everything is and how things have to go right—your job, your career, your life, your choices, and all of that. Then, after a while, you start to realise that – I’m talking the big picture […]

WOODY WEDNESDAY Video Review of the movie “Blue Jasmine”

Woody Allen Interview on NPR About the movie “Whatever works!!!” _________________________ Two Jews On Blue Jasmine Published on Jul 24, 2013 ‘Blue Jasmine’ Movie Review By Joan Alperin Schwartz There are many reasons to see ‘Blue Jasmine’ written and directed by Woody Allen, but the main one is…the stunning, complex, Oscar worthy performance by, Miss Cate […]

WOODY WEDNESDAY Woody Allen: “the whole thing is tragic” July 20, 2012

______________________ Woody Allen: “the whole thing is tragic” July 20, 2012 Mr. Allen, do you truly believe that happiness in life is impossible? This is my perspective and has always been my perspective on life. I have a very grim, pessimistic view of it. I always have since I was a little boy; it hasn’t […]

WOODY WEDNESDAY Francis Schaeffer’s term the “Mannishness of Man” and how it relates to Woody Allen and Charles Darwin!!!

___________ Dr. Francis Schaeffer – The Naturalistic, Materialistic, World View Francis Schaeffer and  Gospel of Christ in the pages of the Bible   Francis Schaeffer’s term the “Mannishness of Man” and how it relates to Woody Allen and Charles Darwin!!! Schaeffer noted that everyone has these two things constantly pulling at them. First, it is […]

WOODY WEDNESDAY Woody Allen’s past movies and the subject of the Meaning of Life examined by Kyle Turner

____ Woody Allen’s past movies and the subject of the Meaning of Life examined!!! Out of the Past: Woody Allen, Nostalgia, the Meaning of Life, and Radio Days Kyle Turner Jul 25, 2014 Film, Twilight Time 1 Comment “I firmly believe, and I don’t say this as a criticism, that life is meaningless.” – Woody […]

WOODY WEDNESDAY Woody Allen said that “80% of success is showing up,” By that standard, President Obama is a failure when it comes to fighting jihadists!!!!

__________ I wrote on this yesterday and will continue to write on it for a while. Below is a very fine article by Mike Huckabee on the subject. American people have to take up the slack for absentee president. (Photo: Philippe Wojazer, AFP/Getty Images) 3237CONNECT 21TWEETLINKEDIN 35COMMENTEMAILMORE Woody Allen said that “80% of success is […]

WOODY WEDNESDAY 40 songs from Past Woody Films plus song I suggested for Woody Allen’s new film from Pee Wee Spitelera (Clarinetist at Al Hirts’ Club, New Orleans)

40 songs from Past Woody Films plus song I suggested for Woody Allen’s new film from Pee Wee Spitelera (Clarinetist at Al Hirts’ Club, New Orleans) ___________ Woody Allen – Songs from Woody Allen’s Films Published on Oct 7, 2013 Woody Allen – Songs from Woody Allen’s Films Upload the album here :http://bit.ly/17BenPD iTunes […]

WOODY WEDNESDAY Everything You Always Wanted To Know About Woody Allen’s 2015 Film September 26, 2014 · by William Miller

____________ Everything You Always Wanted To Know About Woody Allen’s 2015 Film September 26, 2014 · by William Miller · in Actors, Everything You Always Wanted To Know, Films In keeping with his decades old habit of a film a year, there will be a 2015 Film written and directed by Woody Allen. With production […]

WOODY WEDNESDAY Woody Allen’s recent films have done very well!!!

_______ Woody Allen’s recent films have done very well!!! Below Allen discusses them. 12 Questions for Woody Allen Woody Allen: American Master The reluctant auteur opens up By Roger Friedman | 07/30/14 11:13am Would it kill you to know that Woody Allen is just like us? He’s got two teenage girls who listen to pop […]

WOODY WEDNESDAY God and Carpeting: The Theology of Woody Allen Details Written by David M. of the group “Jews for Jesus”

______________________ God and Carpeting: The Theology of Woody Allen Details Written by David M. of the group “Jews for Jesus” Woody Allen about meaning and truth of life on Earth Dick & Woody get semi-metaphysical Woody Allen interview 1971 PART 2/4 Woody Allen interview 1971 PART 1/4 God and Carpeting: The Theology of Woody Allen […]

RESPONDING TO HARRY KROTO’S BRILLIANT RENOWNED ACADEMICS!! PART 14 ( Dr.Theodor W. Hänsch, Nobel Laureate, Professor of experimental physics and laser spectroscopy, Ludwig-Maximilians University, Quoting Darwin’s doubts to Dr. Hänsch concerning origin of universe)

________________

Dr.Theodor W. Hänsch pictured below:

 

_____________

On November 21, 2014 I received a letter from Nobel Laureate Harry Kroto and it said:

…Please click on this URL http://vimeo.com/26991975

and you will hear what far smarter people than I have to say on this matter. I agree with them.

Harry Kroto

__________________________

There are 3 videos in this series and they have statements by 150 academics and scientists and I hope to respond to all of them. Wikipedia notes Theodor Wolfgang Hänsch (born 30 October 1941) is a German physicist. He received one fourth of the 2005 Nobel Prize in Physics for “contributions to the development of laser-based precisionspectroscopy, including the optical frequency comb technique”, sharing the prize with John L. Hall and Roy J. Glauber.

Hänsch is Director of the Max-Planck-Institut für Quantenoptik (quantum optics) and Professor of experimental physics and laser spectroscopy at the Ludwig-Maximilians University in Munich,Bavaria, Germany.

Hänsch gained his Diplom and doctoral degree from Ruprecht-Karls-Universität Heidelberg in 1960s. Subsequently, he became a professor at Stanford University, California from 1975 to 1986. He was awarded the Comstock Prize in Physics from the National Academy of Sciences in 1983.[1] In 1986, he received the Albert A. Michelson Medal from the Franklin Institute.[2] In the same year Hänsch returned to Germany to head the Max-Planck-Institut für Quantenoptik. In 1989, he received the Gottfried Wilhelm Leibniz Prize of the Deutsche Forschungsgemeinschaft, which is the highest honour awarded in German research. In 2005, he also received the Otto Hahn Award of the City of Frankfurt am Main, the Society of German Chemists and the German Physical Society. In that same year, the Optical Society of America awarded him the Frederic Ives Medal and the status of honorary member in 2008.

One of his students, Carl E. Wieman, received the Nobel Prize in Physics in 2001.

______________

His comments can be found on the first video and the 37th clip in this series. Below the videos you will find his words.

50 Renowned Academics Speaking About God (Part 1)

Another 50 Renowned Academics Speaking About God (Part 2)

A Further 50 Renowned Academics Speaking About God (Part 3)

______________________________

I grew up at Bellevue Baptist Church under the leadership of our pastor Adrian Rogers and I read many books by the Evangelical Philosopher Francis Schaeffer and have had the opportunity to contact many of the evolutionists or humanistic academics that they have mentioned in their works. Many of these scholars have taken the time to respond back to me in the last 20 years and some of the names  included are  Ernest Mayr (1904-2005), George Wald (1906-1997), Carl Sagan (1934-1996),  Robert Shapiro (1935-2011), Nicolaas Bloembergen (1920-),  Brian Charlesworth (1945-),  Francisco J. Ayala (1934-) Elliott Sober (1948-), Kevin Padian (1951-), Matt Cartmill (1943-) , Milton Fingerman (1928-), John J. Shea (1969-), , Michael A. Crawford (1938-), Paul Kurtz (1925-2012), Sol Gordon (1923-2008), Albert Ellis (1913-2007), Barbara Marie Tabler (1915-1996), Renate Vambery (1916-2005), Archie J. Bahm (1907-1996), Aron S “Gil” Martin ( 1910-1997), Matthew I. Spetter (1921-2012), H. J. Eysenck (1916-1997), Robert L. Erdmann (1929-2006), Mary Morain (1911-1999), Lloyd Morain (1917-2010),  Warren Allen Smith (1921-), Bette Chambers (1930-),  Gordon Stein (1941-1996) , Milton Friedman (1912-2006), John Hospers (1918-2011), Michael Martin (1932-).Harry Kroto (1939-), Marty E. Martin (1928-), Richard Rubenstein (1924-), James Terry McCollum (1936-), Edward O. WIlson (1929-), Lewis Wolpert (1929), Gerald Holton (1922-), Martin Rees (1942-), Alan Macfarlane (1941-),  Roald Hoffmann (1937-), Herbert Kroemer (1928-), Thomas H. Jukes (1906-1999), Glenn BranchGeoff Harcourt (1931-) and  Ray T. Cragun (1976-).

__________

Quote:

DO YOU THINK THERE IS LIFE AFTER DEATH? ” I can’t see that for an individual.”  OR THAT THERE IS HEAVEN OR HELL? “No.” WHEN YOU SEE THE PRECISION OF THE ATOM DOES THAT RELATE TO INTELLIGENT DESIGN OR TO A RELIGIOUS APPROACH TO THE WORLD? “Naturally all things around us look like they have been designed intelligently. So the principles that led to their being of course in some ways implies some intelligence but it may not be the intelligence in a person like being, but intelligence is it’s own. In it’s own mechanism, how nature evolves.”

Theodor Hansch

________________

My response to Dr. Hansch’s statement is very similar to my earlier responses to Roy Glauber, Leonard Susskind, and Alan Guth.

 

Below is a letter I wrote recently to Dr. Hansch:

February 11, 2015

Dear Dr. Theodor Hansch,

I just finished reading the online addition of the book Darwin, Francis ed. 1892. Charles Darwin: his life told in an autobiographical chapter, and in a selected series of his published letters [abridged edition]. London: John Murray. There are several points that Charles Darwin makes in this book that were very wise, honest, logical, shocking and some that were not so wise. The Christian Philosopher Francis Schaeffer once said of Darwin’s writings, “Darwin in his autobiography and in his letters showed that all through his life he never really came to a quietness concerning the possibility that chance really explained the situation of the biological world. You will find there is much material on this [from Darwin] extended over many many years that constantly he was wrestling with this problem.”

Recently I noticed this comment by you Dr. Hansch:

DO YOU THINK THERE IS LIFE AFTER DEATH? ” I can’t see that for an individual.”  OR THAT THERE IS HEAVEN OR HELL? “No.” WHEN YOU SEE THE PRECISION OF THE ATOM DOES THAT RELATE TO INTELLIGENT DESIGN OR TO A RELIGIOUS APPROACH TO THE WORLD? “Naturally all things around us look like they have been designed intelligently. So the principles that led to their being of course in some ways implies some intelligence but it may not be the intelligence in a person like being, but intelligence is it’s own. In it’s own mechanism, how nature evolves.”

This exact quote “Naturally all things around us look like they have been designed intelligently. So the principles that led to their being of course in some ways implies some intelligence but it may not be the intelligence in a person like being, but intelligence is it’s own. In it’s own mechanism, how nature evolves…” made me think of you when I read the book Charles Darwin: his life told in an autobiographical chapter, and in a selected series of his published letters because of what Darwin said on this same issue of intelligent design. I am going to quote some of Charles Darwin’s own words and then include the comments of Francis Schaeffer on those words. I have also enclosed a CD with two messages from Adrian Rogers and Bill Elliff concerning Darwinism.

Darwin, C. R. to Doedes, N. D.2 Apr 1873

“It is impossible to answer your question briefly; and I am not sure that I could do so, even if I wrote at some length. But I may say that the impossibility of conceiving that this grand and wondrous universe, with our conscious selves, arose through chance, seems to me the chief argument for the existence of God; but whether this is an argument of real value, I have never been able to decide…Nor can I overlook the difficulty from the immense amount of suffering through the world. I am aware that if we admit a First Cause, the mind still craves to know whence it came, and how it arose.”

Francis Schaeffer noted:

What he is saying is if you say there is a first cause, then the mind says, “Where did this come from?” I think this is a bit old fashioned, with some of the modern thinkers, this would not have carry as much weight today as it did when Darwin expressed it. Jean Paul Sartre said it as well as anyone could possibly say it. The philosophic problem is that something is there and not nothing being there. No one has the luxury of beginning with nothing. Nobody I have ever read has put forth that everything came from nothing. I have never met such a person in all my reading,or all my discussion. If you are going to begin with nothing being there, it has to be nothing nothing, and it can’t be something nothing. When someone says they believe nothing is there, in reality they have already built in something there. The only question is do you begin with an impersonal something or a personal something. All human thought is shut up to these two possibilities. Either you begin with an impersonal and then have Darwin’s own dilemma which impersonal plus chance, now he didn’t bring in the amount of time that modern man would though. Modern man has brought in huge amounts of time into the equation as though that would make a difference because I have said many times that time can’t make a qualitative difference but only a quantitative difference. The dilemma is it is either God or chance. Now you find this intriguing thing in Darwin’s own situation, he can’t understand how chance could have produced these two great factors of the universe and its form and the mannishness of man.

From Charles Darwin, Autobiography (1876), in The Life and Letters of Charles Darwin, ed. Francis Darwin, vol. 1 (London: John Murray, 1888), pp. 307 to 313.

“Another source of conviction in the existence of God, connected with the reason and not with the feelings, impresses me as having much more weight. This follows from the extreme difficulty or rather impossibility of conceiving this immense and wonderful universe, including man with his capacity of looking far backwards and far into futurity, as the result of blind chance or necessity. When thus reflecting, I feel compelled to look to a First Cause having an intelligent mind in some degree analogous to that of man; and I deserve to be called a Theist. This conclusion was strong in my mind about the time, as far as I can remember, when I wrote the Origin of Species, and it is since that time that it has very gradually, with many fluctuations, become weaker. But then arises the doubt…”

Francis Schaeffer commented:

On the basis of his reason he has to say there must be an intelligent mind, someone analogous to man. You couldn’t describe the God of the Bible better. That is man is made in God’s image  and therefore, you know a great deal about God when you know something about man. What he is really saying here is that everything in my experience tells me it must be so, and my mind demands it is so. Not just these feelings he talked about earlier but his MIND demands it is so, but now how does he counter this? How does he escape this? Here is how he does it!!!

Charles Darwin went on to observe:  —can the mind of man, which has, as I fully believe, been developed from a mind as low as that possessed by the lowest animals, be trusted when it draws such grand conclusions?”

Francis Schaeffer asserted:

So he says my mind can only come to one conclusion, and that is there is a mind behind it all. However, the doubt comes because his mind has come from the lowest form of earthworm, so how can I trust my mind. But this is a joker isn’t it?  Then how can you trust his mind to support such a theory as this? He proved too much. The fact that Darwin found it necessary to take such an escape shows the tremendous weight of Romans 1, that the only escape he can make is to say how can I trust my mind when I come from the lowest animal the earthworm? Obviously think of the grandeur of his concept, I don’t think it is true, but the grandeur of his concept, so what you find is that Darwin is presenting something here that is wrong I feel, but it is not nothing. It is a tremendously grand concept that he has put forward. So he is accepting the dictates of his mind to put forth a grand concept which he later can’t accept in this basic area with his reason, but he rejects what he could accept with his reason on this escape. It really doesn’t make sense. This is a tremendous demonstration of the weakness of his own position.

Darwin also noted, “I cannot pretend to throw the least light on such abstruse problems. The mystery of the beginning of all things is insoluble by us, and I for one must be content to remain an Agnostic.”

Francis Schaeffer remarked:

What a stupid reply and I didn’t say wicked. It just seems to me that here is 2 plus 2 equals 36 at this particular place.

Darwin, C. R. to Graham, William 3 July 1881

Nevertheless you have expressed my inward conviction, though far more vividly and clearly than I could have done, that the Universe is not the result of chance.* But then with me the horrid doubt always arises whether the convictions of man’s mind, which has been developed from the mind of the lower animals, are of any value or at all trustworthy. Would any one trust in the convictions of a monkey’s mind, if there are any convictions in such a mind?

Francis Schaeffer observed:

Can you feel this man? He is in real agony. You can feel the whole of modern man in this tension with Darwin. My mind can’t accept that ultimate of chance, that the universe is a result of chance. He has said 3 or 4 times now that he can’t accept that it all happened by chance and then he will write someone else and say something different. How does he say this (about the mind of a monkey) and then put forth this grand theory? Wrong theory I feel but great just the same. Grand in the same way as when I look at many of the paintings today and I differ with their message but you must say the mark of the mannishness of man are one those paintings titanic-ally even though the message is wrong and this is the same with Darwin.  But how can he say you can’t think, you come from a monkey’s mind, and you can’t trust a monkey’s mind, and you can’t trust a monkey’s conviction, so how can you trust me? Trust me here, but not there is what Darwin is saying. In other words it is very selective. 

Now we are down to the last year of Darwin’s life.

* The Duke of Argyll (Good Words, April 1885, p. 244) has recorded a few words on this subject, spoken by my father in the last year of his life. “. . . in the course of that conversation I said to Mr. Darwin, with reference to some of his own remarkable works on the Fertilisation of Orchids, and upon The Earthworms,and various other observations he made of the wonderful contrivances for certain purposes in nature—I said it was impossible to look at these without seeing that they were the effect and the expression of mind. I shall never forget Mr. Darwin’s answer. He looked at me very hard and said, ‘Well, that often comes over me with overwhelming force; but at other times,’ and he shook his head vaguely, adding, ‘it seems to go away.'”

Francis Schaeffer summarized :

And this is the great Darwin, and it makes you cry inside. This is the great Darwin and he ends as a man in total tension.

Francis Schaeffer noted that in Darwin’s 1876 Autobiography that Darwin he is going to set forth two arguments for God in this and again you will find when he comes to the end of this that he is in tremendous tension. Darwin wrote, 

At the present day the most usual argument for the existence of an intelligent God is drawn from the deep inward conviction and feelings which are experienced by most persons.Formerly I was led by feelings such as those just referred to (although I do not think that the religious sentiment was ever strongly developed in me), to the firm conviction of the existence of God and of the immortality of the soul. In my Journal I wrote that whilst standing in the midst of the grandeur of a Brazilian forest, ‘it is not possible to give an adequate idea of the higher feelings of wonder, admiration, and devotion which fill and elevate the mind.’ I well remember my conviction that there is more in man than the mere breath of his body; but now the grandest scenes would not cause any such convictions and feelings to rise in my mind. It may be truly said that I am like a man who has become colour-blind.

Francis Schaeffer remarked:

Now Darwin says when I look back and when I look at nature I came to the conclusion that man can not be just a fly! But now Darwin has moved from being a younger man to an older man and he has allowed his presuppositions to enter in to block his logic. These things at the end of his life he had no intellectual answer for. To block them out in favor of his theory. Remember the letter of his that said he had lost all aesthetic senses when he had got older and he had become a clod himself. Now interesting he says just the same thing, but not in relation to the arts, namely music, pictures, etc, but to nature itself. Darwin said, “But now the grandest scenes would not cause any such convictions  and feelings to rise in my mind. It may be truly said that I am like a man who has become colour-blind…” So now you see that Darwin’s presuppositions have not only robbed him of the beauty of man’s creation in art, but now the universe. He can’t look at it now and see the beauty. The reason he can’t see the beauty is for a very, very , very simple reason: THE BEAUTY DRIVES HIM TO DISTRACTION. THIS IS WHERE MODERN MAN IS AND IT IS HELL. The art is hell because it reminds him of man and how great man is, and where does it fit in his system? It doesn’t. When he looks at nature and it’s beauty he is driven to the same distraction and so consequently you find what has built up inside him is a real death, not  only the beauty of the artistic but the beauty of nature. He has no answer in his logic and he is left in tension.  He dies and has become less than human because these two great things (such as any kind of art and the beauty of  nature) that would make him human  stand against his theory.

________________________

Dr. Hansch can you still look at God’s beautiful creation and say that it just appears to be the work of an intellect? If so then you like Darwin  can say, “I am like a man who has become colour-blind.”

_______________________________________

IF WE ARE LEFT WITH JUST THE MACHINE THEN WHAT IS THE FINAL CONCLUSION IF THERE WAS NO PERSONAL GOD THAT CREATED US? I sent you a CD that starts off with the song DUST IN THE WIND by Kerry Livgren of the group KANSAS which was a hit song in 1978 when it rose to #6 on the charts because so many people connected with the message of the song. It included these words, “All we do, crumbles to the ground though we refuse to see, Dust in the Wind, All we are is dust in the wind, Don’t hang on, Nothing lasts forever but the Earth and Sky, It slips away, And all your money won’t another minute buy.”

Kerry Livgren himself said that he wrote the song because he saw where man was without a personal God in the picture. Solomon pointed out in the Book of Ecclesiastes that those who believe that God doesn’t exist must accept three things. FIRST, death is the end and SECOND, chance and time are the only guiding forces in this life.  FINALLY, power reigns in this life and the scales are never balanced. The Christian can  face death and also confront the world knowing that it is not determined by chance and time alone and finally there is a judge who will balance the scales.

Both Kerry Livgren and the bass player Dave Hope of Kansas became Christians eventually. Kerry Livgren first tried Eastern Religions and Dave Hope had to come out of a heavy drug addiction. I was shocked and elated to see their personal testimony on The 700 Club in 1981 and that same  interview can be seen on You Tube today. Livgren lives in Topeka, Kansas today where he teaches “Diggers,” a Sunday school class at Topeka Bible ChurchDAVE HOPE is the head of Worship, Evangelism and Outreach at Immanuel Anglican Church in Destin, Florida.

The answer to find meaning in life is found in putting your faith and trust in Jesus Christ. The Bible is true from cover to cover and can be trusted.

Thank you again for your time and I know how busy you are.

Everette Hatcher, everettehatcher@gmail.com, http://www.thedailyhatch.org, cell ph 501-920-5733, Box 23416, LittleRock, AR 72221, United States

Is the Bible historically accurate? Here are some of the posts I have done in the past on the subject: 1. The Babylonian Chronicleof Nebuchadnezzars Siege of Jerusalem2. Hezekiah’s Siloam Tunnel Inscription. 3. Taylor Prism (Sennacherib Hexagonal Prism)4. Biblical Cities Attested Archaeologically. 5. The Discovery of the Hittites6.Shishak Smiting His Captives7. Moabite Stone8Black Obelisk of Shalmaneser III9A Verification of places in Gospel of John and Book of Acts., 9B Discovery of Ebla Tablets10. Cyrus Cylinder11. Puru “The lot of Yahali” 9th Century B.C.E.12. The Uzziah Tablet Inscription13. The Pilate Inscription14. Caiaphas Ossuary14 B Pontius Pilate Part 214c. Three greatest American Archaeologists moved to accept Bible’s accuracy through archaeology.

You can hear DAVE HOPE and Kerry Livgren’s stories from this youtube link:

(part 1 ten minutes)

(part 2 ten minutes)

Kansas – Dust in the Wind (Official Video)

Uploaded on Nov 7, 2009

Pre-Order Miracles Out of Nowhere now at http://www.miraclesoutofnowhere.com

About the film:
In 1973, six guys in a local band from America’s heartland began a journey that surpassed even their own wildest expectations, by achieving worldwide superstardom… watch the story unfold as the incredible story of the band KANSAS is told for the first time in the DVD Miracles Out of Nowhere.

_____________________________

Adrian Rogers on Darwinism

________________

 

Related posts:

Taking on Ark Times Bloggers on various issues Part F “Carl Sagan’s views on how God should try and contact us” includes film “The Basis for Human Dignity”

I have gone back and forth and back and forth with many liberals on the Arkansas Times Blog on many issues such as abortion, human rights, welfare, poverty, gun control  and issues dealing with popular culture. Here is another exchange I had with them a while back. My username at the Ark Times Blog is Saline […]

Carl Sagan v. Nancy Pearcey

On March 17, 2013 at our worship service at Fellowship Bible Church, Ben Parkinson who is one of our teaching pastors spoke on Genesis 1. He spoke about an issue that I was very interested in. Ben started the sermon by reading the following scripture: Genesis 1-2:3 English Standard Version (ESV) The Creation of the […]

Review of Carl Sagan book (Part 4 of series on Evolution)

Review of Carl Sagan book (Part 4 of series on Evolution) The Long War against God-Henry Morris, part 5 of 6 Uploaded by FLIPWORLDUPSIDEDOWN3 on Aug 30, 2010 http://www.icr.org/ http://store.icr.org/prodinfo.asp?number=BLOWA2http://store.icr.org/prodinfo.asp?number=BLOWASGhttp://www.fliptheworldupsidedown.com/blog _______________________ I got this from a blogger in April of 2008 concerning candidate Obama’s view on evolution: Q: York County was recently in the news […]

Review of Carl Sagan book (Part 3 of series on Evolution)

Review of Carl Sagan book (Part 3 of series on Evolution) The Long War against God-Henry Morris, part 4 of 6 Uploaded by FLIPWORLDUPSIDEDOWN3 on Aug 30, 2010 http://www.icr.org/ http://store.icr.org/prodinfo.asp?number=BLOWA2http://store.icr.org/prodinfo.asp?number=BLOWASGhttp://www.fliptheworldupsidedown.com/blog______________________________________ I got this from a blogger in April of 2008 concerning candidate Obama’s view on evolution: Q: York County was recently in the news […]

Carl Sagan versus RC Sproul

At the end of this post is a message by RC Sproul in which he discusses Sagan. Over the years I have confronted many atheists. Here is one story below: I really believe Hebrews 4:12 when it asserts: For the word of God is living and active and sharper than any two-edged sword, and piercing as far as the […]

Review of Carl Sagan book (Part 4 of series on Evolution)jh68

Review of Carl Sagan book (Part 4 of series on Evolution) The Long War against God-Henry Morris, part 5 of 6 Uploaded by FLIPWORLDUPSIDEDOWN3 on Aug 30, 2010 http://www.icr.org/ http://store.icr.org/prodinfo.asp?number=BLOWA2http://store.icr.org/prodinfo.asp?number=BLOWASGhttp://www.fliptheworldupsidedown.com/blog _______________________ This is a review I did a few years ago. THE DEMON-HAUNTED WORLD: Science as a Candle in the Dark by Carl […]

Review of Carl Sagan book (Part 3 of series on Evolution)

Review of Carl Sagan book (Part 3 of series on Evolution) The Long War against God-Henry Morris, part 4 of 6 Uploaded by FLIPWORLDUPSIDEDOWN3 on Aug 30, 2010 http://www.icr.org/ http://store.icr.org/prodinfo.asp?number=BLOWA2http://store.icr.org/prodinfo.asp?number=BLOWASGhttp://www.fliptheworldupsidedown.com/blog______________________________________ I was really enjoyed this review of Carl Sagan’s book “Pale Blue Dot.” Carl Sagan’s Pale Blue Dot by Larry Vardiman, Ph.D. […]

Atheists confronted: How I confronted Carl Sagan the year before he died jh47

In today’s news you will read about Kirk Cameron taking on the atheist Stephen Hawking over some recent assertions he made concerning the existence of heaven. Back in December of 1995 I had the opportunity to correspond with Carl Sagan about a year before his untimely death. Sarah Anne Hughes in her article,”Kirk Cameron criticizes […]

My correspondence with George Wald and Antony Flew!!!

FRANCIS SCHAEFFER ANALYZES ART AND CULTURE Part 41 Sarvepalli Radhakrishnan (Featured artist is Marina Abramović)

FRANCIS SCHAEFFER ANALYZES ART AND CULTURE Part 40 Timothy Leary (Featured artist is Margaret Keane)

FRANCIS SCHAEFFER ANALYZES ART AND CULTURE Part 39 Tom Wolfe (Featured artist is Richard Serra)

FRANCIS SCHAEFFER ANALYZES ART AND CULTURE Part 38 Woody Allen and Albert Camus “There is but one truly serious philosophical problem, and that is suicide” (Feature on artist Hamish Fulton Photographer )

FRANCIS SCHAEFFER ANALYZES ART AND CULTURE Part 37 Mahatma Gandhi and “Relieving the Tension in the East” (Feature on artist Luc Tuymans)

FRANCIS SCHAEFFER ANALYZES ART AND CULTURE Part 36 Julian Huxley:”God does not in fact exist, but act as if He does!” (Feature on artist Barry McGee)

FRANCIS SCHAEFFER ANALYZES ART AND CULTURE Part 35 Robert M. Pirsig (Feature on artist Kerry James Marshall)

FRANCIS SCHAEFFER ANALYZES ART AND CULTURE Part 34 Aleksandr Solzhenitsyn (Feature on artist Shahzia Sikander)

FRANCIS SCHAEFFER ANALYZES ART AND CULTURE Part 33 Aldous Huxley (Feature on artist Matthew Barney )

FRANCIS SCHAEFFER ANALYZES ART AND CULTURE Part 32 Steven Weinberg and Woody Allen and “The Meaningless of All Things” (Feature on photographer Martin Karplus )

FRANCIS SCHAEFFER ANALYZES ART AND CULTURE Part 31 David Hume and “How do we know we know?” (Feature on artist William Pope L. )

FRANCIS SCHAEFFER ANALYZES ART AND CULTURE Part 30 Rene Descartes and “How do we know we know?” (Feature on artist Olafur Eliasson)

FRANCIS SCHAEFFER ANALYZES ART AND CULTURE Part 29 W.H. Thorpe and “The Search for an Adequate World-View: A Question of Method” (Feature on artist Jeff Koons)

FRANCIS SCHAEFFER ANALYZES ART AND CULTURE Part 28 Woody Allen and “The Mannishness of Man” (Feature on artist Ryan Gander)

FRANCIS SCHAEFFER ANALYZES ART AND CULTURE Part 27 Jurgen Habermas (Featured artist is Hiroshi Sugimoto)

FRANCIS SCHAEFFER ANALYZES ART AND CULTURE Part 26 Bettina Aptheker (Featured artist is Krzysztof Wodiczko)

FRANCIS SCHAEFFER ANALYZES ART AND CULTURE Part 25 BOB DYLAN (Part C) Francis Schaeffer comments on Bob Dylan’s song “Ballad of a Thin Man” and the disconnect between the young generation of the 60’s and their parents’ generation (Feature on artist Fred Wilson)

FRANCIS SCHAEFFER ANALYZES ART AND CULTURE Part 24 BOB DYLAN (Part B) Francis Schaeffer comments on Bob Dylan’s words from HIGHWAY 61 REVISITED!! (Feature on artist Susan Rothenberg)

FRANCIS SCHAEFFER ANALYZES ART AND CULTURE Part 23 BOB DYLAN (Part A) (Feature on artist Josiah McElheny)Francis Schaeffer on the proper place of rebellion with comments by Bob Dylan and Samuel Rutherford

FRANCIS SCHAEFFER ANALYZES ART AND CULTURE Part 22 “The School of Athens by Raphael” (Feature on the artist Sally Mann)

FRANCIS SCHAEFFER ANALYZES ART AND CULTURE Part 21 William B. Provine (Feature on artist Andrea Zittel)

FRANCIS SCHAEFFER ANALYZES ART AND CULTURE Part 20 Woody Allen and Materialistic Humanism: The World-View of Our Era (Feature on artist Ida Applebroog)

FRANCIS SCHAEFFER ANALYZES ART AND CULTURE Part 19 Movie Director Luis Bunuel (Feature on artist Oliver Herring)

FRANCIS SCHAEFFER ANALYZES ART AND CULTURE Part 18 “Michelangelo’s DAVID is the statement of what humanistic man saw himself as being tomorrow” (Feature on artist Paul McCarthy)

FRANCIS SCHAEFFER ANALYZES ART AND CULTURE Part 17 Francis Schaeffer discusses quotes of Andy Warhol from “The Observer June 12, 1966″ Part C (Feature on artist David Hockney plus many pictures of Warhol with famous friends)

FRANCIS SCHAEFFER ANALYZES ART AND CULTURE Part 16 Francis Schaeffer discusses quotes of Andy Warhol from “The Observer June 12, 1966″ Part B (Feature on artist James Rosenquist plus many pictures of Warhol with famous friends)

FRANCIS SCHAEFFER ANALYZES ART AND CULTURE Part 15 Francis Schaeffer discusses quotes of Andy Warhol from “The Observer June 12, 1966″ Part A (Feature on artist Robert Indiana plus many pictures of Warhol with famous friends)

FRANCIS SCHAEFFER ANALYZES ART AND CULTURE Part 14 David Friedrich Strauss (Feature on artist Roni Horn )

FRANCIS SCHAEFFER ANALYZES ART AND CULTURE Part 13 Jacob Bronowski and Materialistic Humanism: The World-View of Our Era (Feature on artist Ellen Gallagher )

FRANCIS SCHAEFFER ANALYZES ART AND CULTURE Part 12 H.J.Blackham and Materialistic Humanism: The World-View of Our Era (Feature on artist Arturo Herrera)

FRANCIS SCHAEFFER ANALYZES ART AND CULTURE Part 11 Thomas Aquinas and his Effect on Art and HOW SHOULD WE THEN LIVE? Episode 2: THE MIDDLES AGES (Feature on artist Tony Oursler )

FRANCIS SCHAEFFER ANALYZES ART AND CULTURE Part 10 David Douglas Duncan (Feature on artist Georges Rouault )

FRANCIS SCHAEFFER ANALYZES ART AND CULTURE Part 9 Jasper Johns (Feature on artist Cai Guo-Qiang )

FRANCIS SCHAEFFER ANALYZES ART AND CULTURE Part 8 “The Last Year at Marienbad” by Alain Resnais (Feature on artist Richard Tuttle and his return to the faith of his youth)

FRANCIS SCHAEFFER ANALYZES ART AND CULTURE Part 7 Jean Paul Sartre (Feature on artist David Hooker )

FRANCIS SCHAEFFER ANALYZES ART AND CULTURE Part 6 The Adoration of the Lamb by Jan Van Eyck which was saved by MONUMENT MEN IN WW2 (Feature on artist Makoto Fujimura)

FRANCIS SCHAEFFER ANALYZES ART AND CULTURE Part 5 John Cage (Feature on artist Gerhard Richter)

FRANCIS SCHAEFFER ANALYZES ART AND CULTURE Part 4 ( Schaeffer and H.R. Rookmaaker worked together well!!! (Feature on artist Mike Kelley Part B )

FRANCIS SCHAEFFER ANALYZES ART AND CULTURE Part 3 PAUL GAUGUIN’S 3 QUESTIONS: “Where do we come from? What art we? Where are we going? and his conclusion was a suicide attempt” (Feature on artist Mike Kelley Part A)

FRANCIS SCHAEFFER ANALYZES ART AND CULTURE Part 2 “A look at how modern art was born by discussing Monet, Renoir, Pissaro, Sisley, Degas,Cezanne, Van Gogh, Gauguin, Seurat, and Picasso” (Feature on artist Peter Howson)

FRANCIS SCHAEFFER ANALYZES ART AND CULTURE Part 1 HOW SHOULD WE THEN LIVE? “The Roman Age” (Feature on artist Tracey Emin)

Visiting with Coptic Christians at Orlando First Baptist on 2-21-15!!!!

_________

On February 21, 2015 I walked into the First Baptist Church Orlando Saturday evening service and wanted to get a seat up close. I saw that the third row was practically empty but once I got up front I realized that most of that row had been taped off and reserved but there was a few seats open at the end of the row. I sat down and then I noticed a few moments after the service started there were some people being escorted into the service and they sat next to me on this row. Little did I know that these were Coptic Christians who had recently moved from Egypt to Orlando. I got to visit with some of them after the service and told them I would praying for them and for their relatives back in Egypt.

David Uth delivered a wonderful message on I John 4 and he spent on extra time at the close of the service on verse 18, “There is no fear in love. But perfect love drives out fear, because fear has to do with punishment. The one who fears is not made perfect in love.” Then he put on this picture below:

A video released Sunday showed the beheading of 21 Egyptian Coptic Christians in Libya by ISIS militants.

Then Dr. Uth quoted from this passage below:

Acts 7:50-60English Standard Version (ESV)

50 Did not my hand make all these things?’

51 “You stiff-necked people, uncircumcised in heart and ears, you always resist the Holy Spirit. As your fathers did, so do you. 52 Which of the prophets did your fathers not persecute? And they killed those who announced beforehand the coming of the Righteous One, whom you have now betrayed and murdered,53 you who received the law as delivered by angels and did not keep it.”

The Stoning of Stephen

54 Now when they heard these things they were enraged, and they ground their teeth at him. 55 But he, full of the Holy Spirit, gazed into heaven and saw the glory of God, and Jesus standing at the right hand of God. 56 And he said, “Behold, I see the heavens opened, and the Son of Man standing at the right hand of God.” 57 But they cried out with a loud voice and stopped their ears and rushed together[a] at him. 58 Then they cast him out of the city and stoned him. And the witnesses laid down their garments at the feet of a young man named Saul. 59 And as they were stoning Stephen, he called out, “Lord Jesus, receive my spirit.” 60 And falling to his knees he cried out with a loud voice, “Lord, do not hold this sin against them.” And when he had said this, he fell asleep.

___________

Dr. Uth pointed out that Jesus stood up at the right hand of God to greet Stephen to heaven and Dr. Uth imagined that Jesus stood up to greet these 21 Coptic Christians home and then we all sang the song ALWAYS which is below and there was not a dry eye in the place!!!!

One Sonic Society – Always – Lyrics

My foes are many, they rise against me
But I will hold my ground
I will not fear the war, I will not fear the storm
My help is on the way, my help is on the way

Oh, my God, He will not delay
My refuge and strength always
I will not fear, His promise is true
My God will come through always, always

Trouble surrounds me, chaos abounding
My soul will rest in You
I will not fear the war, I will not fear the storm
My help is on the way, my help is on the way

Oh, my God, He will not delay
My refuge and strength always
I will not fear, His promise is true
My God will come through always, always

I lift my eyes up, my help comes from the Lord
I lift my eyes up, my help comes from the Lord
I lift my eyes up, my help comes from the Lord
I lift my eyes up, my help comes from the Lord
From You Lord, from You Lord

Oh, my God, He will not delay
My refuge and strength always
I will not fear, His promise is true
My God will come through always, always

Oh, my God, He will not delay
My refuge and strength always, always

1 John 4:1-21New International Version (NIV)

On Denying the Incarnation

Dear friends, do not believe every spirit, but test the spirits to see whether they are from God, because many false prophets have gone out into the world.This is how you can recognize the Spirit of God: Every spirit that acknowledges that Jesus Christ has come in the flesh is from God, but every spirit that does not acknowledge Jesus is not from God. This is the spirit of the antichrist, which you have heard is coming and even now is already in the world.

You, dear children, are from God and have overcome them, because the one who is in you is greater than the one who is in the world. They are from the world and therefore speak from the viewpoint of the world, and the world listens to them. We are from God, and whoever knows God listens to us; but whoever is not from God does not listen to us. This is how we recognize the Spirit[a] of truth and the spirit of falsehood.

God’s Love and Ours

Dear friends, let us love one another, for love comes from God. Everyone who loves has been born of God and knows God. Whoever does not love does not know God, because God is love. This is how God showed his love among us: He sent his one and only Son into the world that we might live through him.10 This is love: not that we loved God, but that he loved us and sent his Son as an atoning sacrifice for our sins. 11 Dear friends, since God so loved us, we also ought to love one another. 12 No one has ever seen God; but if we love one another, God lives in us and his love is made complete in us.

13 This is how we know that we live in him and he in us: He has given us of his Spirit. 14 And we have seen and testify that the Father has sent his Son to be the Savior of the world. 15 If anyone acknowledges that Jesus is the Son of God,God lives in them and they in God. 16 And so we know and rely on the love God has for us.

God is love. Whoever lives in love lives in God, and God in them. 17 This is how love is made complete among us so that we will have confidence on the day of judgment: In this world we are like Jesus. 18 There is no fear in love. But perfect love drives out fear, because fear has to do with punishment. The one who fears is not made perfect in love.

19 We love because he first loved us. 20 Whoever claims to love God yet hates a brother or sister is a liar. For whoever does not love their brother and sister, whom they have seen, cannot love God, whom they have not seen. 21 And he has given us this command: Anyone who loves God must also love their brother and sister.

Footnotes:

  1. 1 John 4:6 Or spirit

Whom Shall I Fear /Oceans – First Baptist Church Orlando 04-27-1014

Published on Apr 27, 2014

This video is about Uina Project

2/18/2014 – Dr. David Uth, Senior Pastor; First Baptist Church, Orlando, Florida

Dr. David Uth pictured below:

Arise My Love, First Baptist Orlando, 24-7

Related posts:

Evangelicals Worship (Part 13, Deep Creek Baptist, Chesapeake,VA)

Uploaded by IBWIV on May 18, 2010 Two scenes from the annual Easter production by Deep Creek Baptist where I serve as Tech Director and video editor. Equipment used: Canon HD cameras, Panasonic switcher, Blackmagic Decklink capture, Final Cut Express editing. Live singers and orchestra recorded through a Yamaha DM2000 digital console. _________________ I got […]

Evangelicals Worship (Part 12,Hickory Grove Baptist, Charlotte, NC)

Below is some info I got off of their website: About Year of the Bible During all of 2012, Hickory Grove Baptist Church is embarking on a journey through all of God’s Word, bringing clarity to the Bible – one book, one chapter, one word at a time – in order to understand how it relates […]

Evangelicals Worship (Part 11, South Biscayne Church, North Port, FL)

  John Cross “Are you blessed or stressed?” I got this info from the church website: About South Biscayne Church We invite you to experience “The best hour of your week.” Come enjoy great up-lifting music, creative videos, and relevant, life-changing messages from our pastor, Dr. John Cross. His talks are designed to help you […]

Evangelicals Worship (Part 10, Immanuel Baptist Church, Highland, CA)

This below from the pastor blog (Rob Zinn): 03-12-12 A Right View of Repentance “And we know that the judgment of God rightly falls upon those who practice such things. 3 But do you suppose this, O man, when you pass judgment on those who practice such things and do the same yourself, that you […]

Evangelicals worship (Part 9, Clovis Hills Community Church, Clovis, CA)

Uploaded by clovishills on May 13, 2010 Ever notice the church today looks more like the people that hated Jesus than the ones He spent time with? Pastor Steve will begin digging under the surface in our new series Stop Acting Like a Christian. ____________________ I got this info off their website: What We Believe […]

Evangelicals worship (Part 8, Hyde Park Baptist, Austin, TX)

I got this info from their website: Dr. J. Kie Bowman has served as Senior Pastor since joining the Hyde Park Baptist Church staff in 1997. In this position, he serves as the pastoral leader of all ministries of the church. Born in Fairbanks, Alaska in 1956, Dr. Bowman accepted Jesus Christ as a teenager […]

Evangelicals worship (Part 7, Cascade Hills Church, Columbus, GA)

Pastor Bill Purvis Testimony – Part 1 Uploaded by MissouriMauler on Mar 7, 2010 Bill Purvis’ personal testimony of how his life was dramatically changed after he was brutally attacked and nearly killed in 1974. _____________ Here is some info from the church website: Our Pastor Bill Purvis was born on May 16, 1956 in […]

Evangelicals worship (Part 6, Castle Hills First Baptist Church, San Antonio)

I grew up at Bellevue Baptist in Memphis where Adrian Rogers was the pastor and he used to have Jack Taylor the pastor of Castle Hills First Baptist Church in to speak and the message was always very practical and helpful. Also our youth director, Dan Carter, came from Castle Hills First Baptist Church and […]

Evangelicals worship (Part 5, NorthPointe Community Church, Fresno, CA)

Great pro-life message on the healing after an abortion that Christ offers: Here is some info from the church’s website: We are all on a spiritual journey. And on this journey, if we look into the Bible we can learn about what God has to say about what it means to have an ongoing relationship […]

Evangelicals worship (Part 4, Valley Baptist Church of Bakersfield, California)

Uploaded by ProLifeOnCampus on Jan 29, 2011 The Miracle of Life by Valley Baptist Church of Bakersfield, California _______ Here is some info from their website: What We Believe Valley Baptist Church is affiliated with the Southern Baptist Convention.  Valley Baptist, as a church, remains autonomous from the convention.  Each church directs its own affairs apart from […]