Ecclesiastes 2-3 Published on Sep 19, 2012 Calvary Chapel Spring Valley | Sunday Evening | September 16, 2012 | Derek Neider _____________________________ I have written on the Book of Ecclesiastes and the subject of the meaning of our lives on several occasions on this blog. In this series on Ecclesiastes I hope to show how secular […] By Everette Hatcher III | Posted in Current Events | Edit | Comments (0)
Is Love All You Need? Jesus v. Lennon Posted on January 19, 2011 by Jovan Payes 0 On June 25, 1967, the Beatles participated in the first worldwide TV special called “Our World”. During this special, the Beatles introduced “All You Need is Love”; one of their most famous and recognizable songs. In it, John Lennon […] By Everette Hatcher III | Posted in Francis Schaeffer | Edit | Comments (0)
(Editors’ note: The October issue of First Things featured Phillip Johnson’s essay, “Evolution as Dogma: The Establishment of Naturalism,” along with responses to the essay by William B. Provine, Gareth Nelson, Irving Kristol, Thomas H. Jukes, and Matthew Berke. Herewith Professor Johnson’s reply.)
Readers of my article and the responses may have noticed that where I attacked Darwinism and the establishment of naturalism, Thomas Jukes and William Provine responded with a spirited defense of evolution. The choice of words is important, because “evolution” is a vague term with immense power to confuse.
The important claim of “evolution” is that life developed gradually from nonliving matter to its present state of diverse complexity through purposeless natural mechanisms that are known to science. Evolution in this sense is a grand metaphysical system that contradicts any meaningful notion of creation, because it leaves the Creator with nothing to do. Contemporary neo-Darwinism rules out theistic or “guided” evolution just as firmly as it rejects direct creation ex nihilo.
It is this universal, naturalistic version of evolution that Darwinists are preaching (the word is appropriate) in the schools and colleges, with more or less clarity depending on the circumstances. As Provine rightly says, liberal theologians and Darwinists share a common interest in obscuring the anti-theistic implications of Darwinism. The vagueness of “evolution” permits Darwinists to hold open the possibility of a theistic interpretation for a time, and then to slam that door shut when it is safe to do so.
“Evolution” also designates some relatively modest modifications in biological populations that result from environmental pressures. Bacterial populations evolve resistance to antibiotics: evolution causes dark moths to preponderate over light moths when the background trees are darkened by smoke. These examples have nothing to do with whatever creative process formed bacteria and insects in the first place, but since the same word is used to designate both limited adaptive modification with fixed boundaries and the whole naturalistic metaphysical system, it is easy to give the impression that naturalistic evolution (all the way from microorganism to man) is a “fact.”
I am glad to see Jukes stating explicitly that the peppered-moth case is notan example of evolution, because that example has been cited in texts and popular treatments for decades as proof of “Darwin’s theory.” Currently, the Darwinists are trumpeting some research on guppies as providing the elusive proof. The breeding practices of guppy populations vary according to the kind of predators they face. When predators attack adults guppies tend to produce more offspring earlier in life, and when predators attack primarily juveniles the adults tend to bear their offspring later in life.
Variability like this does not show guppies on the way towards turning into something else. On the contrary, it shows flexibility within limits. Like peppered moths, guppies avoid extinction by retaining the genetic capacity for back-and-forth modification as circumstances change. Nonetheless, reports of the guppy observations are being presented to the public as proof of “evolution.” The misunderstanding is not the fault of journalists, but of a science that is working too hard to support a creaky paradigm.
Once they exist, populations of organisms can change within limits. Hence “evolution” produces offshore species that closely resemble mainland species, and so on. These modifications are an interesting subject in themselves, but what we really want to know is how complex organisms and major groups like animals came to exist in the first place. Capacities like photosynthesis, vision, and intelligence involve immensely complex processes that are still only dimly understood. Are these capacities the work of a Designer, or were they produced by mindless, purposeless natural forces?
Ask that question and you will get heavy-handed ridicule from the likes of Jukes and Provine. People who resort to ridicule are often covering up something. In this case they are hoping to prevent reasoned examination of a vulnerable assumption. The assumption is that science knows of a mechanism for evolution (grand system) that can produce eyes, brains, and even plant cells without the application of massive amounts of preexisting intelligence.
If you assume a priori that science must have discovered such a mechanism then Darwinist natural selection is the winner, because nobody has another theory that meets the philosophical requirements. If you are willing to consider the possibility that something beyond what our science understands might have been at work, then you will want to ask for proof that the mutation-selection mechanism has the fantastic creative power that has been claimed for it. The proof won’t be forthcoming. All you will get are arguments that one way or another assume the point in question.
It isn’t merely that grand-scale Darwinism can’t be confirmed. The evidence is positively against the theory. For example, if Darwinism is true then the bat, monkey, pig, seal, and whale all evolved in gradual adaptive stages from a primitive rodent-like predecessor. This hypothetical common ancestor must have been connected to its diverse descendants by long linking chains of transitional intermediates,* which in turn put out innumerable side branches. The intermediate links would have to be adaptively superior to their predecessors, and be in the process of developing the complex integrated organs required for aquatic life, flight, and so on. Fossil evidence that anything of the sort happened is thoroughly missing, and in addition it is extremely difficult to imagine how the hypothetical intermediate steps could have been adaptive.
One can’t make problems of this magnitude go away simply by announcing that there must be gaps in the fossil record. According to Steven Stanley, the Bighorn Basin in Wyoming contains a continuous local record of fossil deposits for about five million years during an early period in the age of mammals. Because this record is so complete, paleontologists assumed that certain populations of the basin could be linked together to illustrate continuous evolution. What they discovered was that species that were once thought to have turned into others turn out to overlap in time with their alleged descendants, and “the fossil record does not convincingly document a single transition from one species to another.” New species seem to appear from time to time, and they are more or less related to what came before, but nobody knows how it happens.
From time to time something is found that can be interpreted to support the Darwinian scenario. The importance of such a find is then exaggerated, and the mountains of negative evidence are quite unscientifically brushed aside. An example is Provine’s purported “fossil ancestors of whales having small but still functioning legs.”
Provine evidently has in mind the Basilosaurus fossils recently reported inScience. Basilosaurus is not an ancestor of modern whales. This oddity was a kind of serpentine sea monster that has important affinities with whales but looks sufficiently different that it was at first thought to be a reptile. (The name means “King Lizard.”) Paleontologists report finding fossil leg and foot bones “in direct association with articulated skeletons of Basilosauras.” Upon reconstruction these are deemed to show vestigial hind limbs, which were too small to be used for swimming and which could not conceivably have supported the body on land. Possibly the limbs were used as guides for copulation, but that is only a guess.
There is additional circumstantial evidence which suggests a relationship between whales and land mammals. For example, modern whales have what appear to be rod-like vestiges of pelvic bones. You can call this relationship “evolution” if you like, but all you have done is to put a label on a mystery. What Darwinists want us to believe (and want to believe themselves) is that they know how mindless natural forces could have produced all those diverse mammals from an unknown common ancestor, and ultimately from a microorganism. The problem is that their theory doesn’t fit the evidence, which is why they have to protect it with bluster.
Darwinists have turned to the molecular evidence in recent years to validate “evolution.” The molecular clock hypothesis upon which Jukes relies is embroiled in complex controversy, but for present purposes a single point will suffice. Whatever else the molecular comparisons may or may not prove, they tell us nothing about how one kind of creature (e.g., a rodent) can change into another (e.g., a whale). The theory is based on the premise that molecular changes are mainly neutral, meaning that they have no substantial effect upon features important for adaptation.
The point of Darwinism is not to describe molecular relationships but to get rid of the Designer and substitute the Blind Watchmaker. As a consequence the science education organizations are engaged in a campaign of indoctrination against the concept of creation. By that I donot mean biblical literalism, but the much broader notion that a purposeful intelligence is responsible for our existence. I regret that Irving Kristol misunderstood me on this point. No doubt that is my fault for not avoiding the word “creation,” but it is just too good a word for me to allow either the scientific naturalists or the biblical literalists to capture it for their own purposes.
The science educators are not staying away from the topic of creation, but rather are campaigning against the idea. When accused of this they prevaricate, hiding within the vagueness of terms like “evolution” and “religion.” The President of the august National Academy of Sciences resorted to the following classic of Newspeak: “A great many religious leaders accept evolution on scientific grounds without relinquishing their belief in religious principles.” He wouldn’t have signed his name to that statement if he had expected to be questioned closely about what he meant by “evolution,” “religious principles,” and “scientific grounds.”
Gareth Nelson refers briefly to the many points on which we agree, but then moves quickly to the safer ground of comparing today’s science-education establishment favorably to the Sorbonne theologians of 1751. I concede that the Darwinists do not show heretics the implements of torture, but they do use all their institutional power to ensure that critics do not get a fair hearing. That is what Jukes and Provine have in mind when they suggest that responsible editors know better than to publish essays like mine. Darwinists also pursue a steady campaign of disinformation, slandering dissenters as “creationists” (i.e., biblical literalists) who deny “evolution” (observable adaptive modifications or relationships) because they just can’t bear to face the facts.
If I could have one wish, it would be for a fair opportunity to persuade the real scientists that the Darwinists are taking advantage of them. The scientific community need not panic just because somebody wants to show that Darwinism has been grossly oversold to the public. If evolutionary biology is having trouble with its mechanism, and is in danger of having its philosophical undergarments exposed to public view, why not enjoy the spectacle?
The real danger to science is that it is being linked to a dogma that can’t stand close examination in order to further an ideological agenda that goes way beyond the proper concerns of science. The worst kind of science education is the kind that tells students it is wrong to question the pronouncements of authority. The corrective doesn’t require giving a place in science class to the biblical literalists. To borrow Irving Kristol’s prescription, “Our goal should be to have biology and evolution taught in a way that points to what we don’t know as well as what we do.” I would only add that it would help if we could get the science educators to define that word “evolution” precisely and use it consistently.
* Like “evolution,” “intermediates” is a term which can be used with different meanings. What Darwinism requires is not fossils that are in some vague sense intermediate between major groups, but fossils that can establish common ancestry and direct liries of descent from ancestor to descendant. According to University of Chicago paleontologist David M. Raup, “If Darwin were writing today, he would probably still have to cite a disturbing lack of missing links or transitional forms between the major groups of organisms.” This is after 130 years of very determined efforts to confirm the theory.
Phillip E. Johnson is Professor of Law at the University of California, Berkeley. He is the author of a forthcoming book on Darwinism.
Ecclesiastes 2-3 Published on Sep 19, 2012 Calvary Chapel Spring Valley | Sunday Evening | September 16, 2012 | Derek Neider _____________________________ I have written on the Book of Ecclesiastes and the subject of the meaning of our lives on several occasions on this blog. In this series on Ecclesiastes I hope to show how secular […] By Everette Hatcher III | Posted in Current Events | Edit | Comments (0)
Is Love All You Need? Jesus v. Lennon Posted on January 19, 2011 by Jovan Payes 0 On June 25, 1967, the Beatles participated in the first worldwide TV special called “Our World”. During this special, the Beatles introduced “All You Need is Love”; one of their most famous and recognizable songs. In it, John Lennon […] By Everette Hatcher III | Posted in Francis Schaeffer | Edit | Comments (0)
Are you ready for the media frenzy that will surround Darwin’s 200thbirthday and the 150th anniversary of the publication of The Origin of Speciesin 2009? The hype is already building and the guardians of Darwin’s legacy are pulling out all the stops. Their efforts include a very interesting series of articles and letters in Nature magazine over the past several months. Here, the shortcomings of Darwinism are openly admitted, but blithely ignored. As this series has progressed, the main arguments against Darwin, including the scientific evidence and claims for priority by competing scientists, have been aired and, they assume, answered.
The Darwin “puff piece” that started it all
256 × 256Images may be subject to copyright. Learn More
Kevin Padian, of the atheist founded and operated National Center for Science Education, is a name that shows up frequently on our website (Search CMI website for “Padian”). Last February, one year before the 200thanniversary of Darwin’s birth, he published an article titled, ‘Darwin’s enduring legacy.’1 With a combination of bombast, bravado, transference, and intolerance, Padian boldly tries to salvage Darwin’s reputation and to deflect future criticism. He failed miserably.
Photo Wikipedia
The essay starts off by comparing Darwin to what he claims are the two other great thinkers of the 19th century, Marx and Freud! He readily admits that Freud’s approach no ‘longer merits scientific recognition’ (in other words, he was a fraud), but tries to salvage Marx by saying that his ideas have been ‘distorted beyond recognition’. Why can he not come out and say that these two men were shysters, ignoring the obvious and good in lieu of their pet theories? And what a strange way to back up the ‘legacy’ of Darwin! If the two other ‘greatest thinkers’ of his age were such poor examples of good thinkers, this throws open the door to a reanalysis of Darwin.
Padian tries to rebuff anticipated criticisms by claiming that Darwin has been distorted as well, with people falsely blaming a range of societal ills on Darwinism, ‘including atheism, Nazism, communism, abortion, homosexuality, stem-cell research, same-sex marriage, and the abridgment of all our natural freedoms’. He of course gave no reason why these after-effects of evolutionary thought are not consistent with the theory (see Communism and Nazism Questions and Answers).
In order to stave off some of the mounting numerical arguments against natural selection, Padian states that Darwin was less emphatic about natural selection being the driving force behind evolution than Wallace (more on him below). Is he really saying that if natural selection turns out not to be the engine of evolution, Darwin’s reputation will be secure and only Wallace’s reputation will be sullied? He mentions that Darwin introduced other ideas that might drive evolution, specifically sexual selection (Peacock tail tale failure), but he did not discuss the difficulties with sexual selection theory (Problems in sexual selection theory and neo-Darwinism), the controversy that has been raging about it for the past 125 years or so, nor how it directly contradicts the main thesis of Origin of Species! He briefly outlines the history of the near death of Darwinism at the hands of mathematicians, and how Fisher, Haldane, and Wright resurrected it in the 1930s. In this section, it sounds like he is trying to head off the conclusions of a new book, Genetic Entropy and the Mystery of the Genome, which is an arrow aimed at the heart of the neo-Darwinian synthesis.
In order to stave off some of the geological arguments against Darwinian gradualism—such as the profound lack of transitional fossils—Padian tries to redefine the word ‘gradual’. While it might be true that the Latin word gradus means ‘step’, the usage of this word throughout the history of Darwinism clearly indicates that it is used to mean ‘gradation’. Therefore, he claims, if punctuated equilibrium turns out to be the rule of thumb for the fossil record, Darwin will be vindicated. But we are not going to let them off the hook that easily (Gould grumbles about creationist hijacking).
Padian’s grand stretching of facts begs all credulity. He frequently sets up straw man arguments, distorting what creationists believe in order to knock down what then seem like (and are) silly arguments. Sadly, this seems to be the rule for creation opponents. Here are some examples of his faulty argumentation:
‘ … the distributions of plants and animals are not serendipitous patterns or whims of a Creator.’
Darwin was 22 years old when he set off in 1831 to spend four years on The Beagle. Contrary to a common misconception, Darwin was not the ship’s naturalist—that was the ship’s surgeon, called McCormack. Darwin was employed as the gentleman companion to the captain (with scientific work as an accepted sideline) because he was of sufficient social standing for the aristocratic Fitzroy, who would otherwise have had to eat alone and suffer great solitude, according to the conventions of the time.
This was a matter people were wrestling with in the years leading up to the 19th century. Even the Captain of the Beagle, Fitzroy, said some things like this in his reports on the expedition.2 However, this does not mean that all people of the time thought like this and it does not mean that all creationists thought this way either. I would point the reader to the creationist Edward Blyth, who came up with an excellent theory of natural selection and change 25 years prior to the publication of The Origin of Species, and others (see Darwin’s illegitimate brainchild). Also, the statement above directly ignores clear biblical teaching. The air-breathing land animals and birds spread out across the earth from a single point, the resting place of the Ark after the Flood. By corollary, the plants would have been distributed across the world by the Flood waters, except for the domesticated varieties carried on board for food. This is the basis for biogeography under which modern creationists operate, not some naïve view that God created all species in place.
‘Darwin moved intellectual thought from a paradigm of untestable wonder at special creation to an ability to examine the workings of that natural world, however ultimately formed, in terms of natural mechanistic and historical patterns.’
Because Darwinism depends upon ‘deep time’ (billion of years) and mechanistic naturalism, the presence of an active God is excluded from the start.
This statement fails on several levels. First, notice the word ‘paradigm’. He is essentially claiming that Darwin moved intellectual thought from one untestable worldview to another! Also, while ‘wonder’ might not be a subject for scientific measurement, the ability to examine the workings of the natural world was well developed under the creationist scientists, who were in the majority prior to Darwin. They did not need Darwinism to discover how the universe works (Scientists of the past who believed in a Creator). He alludes to the idea that there might be a diversity of opinion about how the universe was ultimately formed, but historically this is not the case, for Darwinists have always closed ranks around atheism/agnosticism. Because Darwinism depends upon ‘deep time’ (billion of years) and mechanistic naturalism, the presence of an active God is excluded from the start. This is hardly grounds for claiming a diversity of opinion about origins.
‘It is dismaying, then, to note the rise of anti-evolutionism in recent decades. This is a direct result of the rise of religious fundamentalism, whose proponents feel it necessary to reject modern science on the basis of highly questionable (from mainstream historical and theological viewpoints) readings of sacred texts.’
Here he assumes that there was a time when ‘anti-evolutionism’ did not exist. Rather, creationists have always been in the world and in recent decades have only learned how to better raise their voices in protest. Also, the proponents of creationism do not reject modern science, only the naturalistic philosophy that underlies evolutionary theory. And the ‘questionable’ readings actually do not exist. When one considers the biblical text in its proper grammatical-historical context—as creationists do—there is little room for claiming that a ‘reading’ is questionable (see The Bible and hermeneutics). So-called ‘mainstream’ historical and theological viewpoints ignore the plain meaning of words. It is their ‘readings’ that are highly questionable.
‘One might ask how such people can accept the benefits of medical research, inoculations, pharmacology, crop improvement and so much more that depends on an understanding of evolution.’
Here he fails to realize that there is a vast gulf between operational and historical science (see It’s not science), and he fails to demonstrate how any of these technologies depend upon evolution. Sure, ‘One might ask’, but only if they were ignorant of such things! (Is evolution really essential for biology?)
In another place, he claims that groups of plants and their insect predators, vertebrates and their parasites, the combination of fungus and alga to make a lichen, etc, ‘can only reasonably be explained by co-evolution … over millions of years.’ Actually, these fit perfectly into biblical creation, with an initial perfect creation subject to degradation and the effects of natural selection (see Diseases on the Ark). The only answer that seems reasonable to him is the single possibility that his narrow worldview permits.Surely the ultimate ‘conceit’ is to ignore our Creator, attribute His works to ‘chance’ and live our lives as if we are in control?
‘ … the changes in species wrought by natural selection and other processes would eventually lead to new kinds of organisms with new adaptations–a premise violently rejected by fundamentalists and other anti-evolutionists.’
Again, Padian sets up a straw man. Creationists do not believe in species stasis, and informed creationists did not even back in Darwin’s day (e.g., Blyth). I can only conclude that he wants creationists to react ‘violently’, for that would perhaps give him justification for his hatred of us. It must be very disconcerting for someone who believes in the ‘the autocatalytic war of nature’ (as opposed to the ‘divinely ordained balance of nature’) to be faced with staunch foes. But, he does not understand the heart of the Christian and transfers his own heart into theirs.
‘It is for this reason, one that liberates humans from the conceit of special creation, that Darwin was interred in Westminster Abbey.’
Oh, the sadness of this statement! We are ‘liberated’ from knowing that God created us in his own image? Surely the ultimate ‘conceit’ is to ignore our Creator, attribute His works to ‘chance’ and live our lives as if we are in control? And Darwin’s burial place mocks God more than that of any other Englishman.
Trying to add Wallace to the picture
Alfred Russel Wallace.
In order to show how Darwin’s reputation is being propped up, we will examine two short letters that appeared in Nature after Padian’s longer article. These letters deal with the status of a potential rival claimant to the evolutionary throne, Alfred Russel Wallace.
In a letter responding directly to Padian’s article, ‘Celebrations for Darwin downplay Wallace’s role’, authors Beccaloni and Smith make the case that Darwin should share the glory with Wallace:3
‘This lack of interest in the 2008 anniversary [of the discovery of natural selection by Wallace] is indicative of how Wallace’s achievements have been overshadowed by Darwin’s since Wallace’s death in 1913, a process certainly not helped by the Darwin ‘industry’ of recent decades … Isn’t it perhaps time for the current darwinocentric view of the history of biology to be revised?’
Note that the authors are calling for a revision to the standard historical byline. This is not an easy thing to accomplish and it is somewhat surprising that Naturepublished such a call to arms. However, given the tenor of Padian’s longer article, perhaps it is in their best interest to air this bit of dirty laundry in an attempt to steal some of the major talking points the creationists are sure to use over the coming year.
Cutting the legs out from under Wallace
In a third letter to Nature, this one in response to Beccaloni and Smith, Kutschera makes the case that there are reasons why Darwin should outshine Wallace:4
Darwin provided more detail in his book than Wallace did in his earlier paper.
Wallace acknowledged the priority of Darwin.
Wallace was involved in spiritualism, which undermined his credibility as a scientist and cast a shadow over his entire career.
First, a critical level of detail is not needed to establish priority in science. One must give credit to anyone with priority over your own ideas, no matter how detailed your later writings. Second, perhaps Wallace was demurring to Darwin’s higher social status in the class-conscious Victorian society in which both men lived. Third, here we see the religious bigotry of naturalism raising its ugly head. While I certainly do not believe in the tenets of spiritualism, I find it interesting that naturalism excludes any non-physical realities a priori and then claims that anyone who believes in such things is not scientific. It is as if they are saying, ‘things that cannot be seen must not exist.’
Kutschera writes:
‘The “Darwin–Wallace principle of natural selection” could be substituted for the old-fashioned “darwinism”, which smacks more of a political ideology than a modern scientific theory.’
Here is another call for a revision of the historical evolutionary byline. This is the second that Nature has published in the past several months. Perhaps there is more here than meets the eye. Or, perhaps, with Wallace brushed aside, they can give lip service to Wallace’s role and then quietly forget him, just like they did over 100 years ago.keep your eyes open for further desperate attempts to prop up Darwin’s failing legacy
Conclusion: Things to Look for in 2008-2009
As Darwin’s 200th birthday and the 150th anniversary of the publication of The Origin of Species approaches, there are several things for which we should be watching. First, anticipate full-out frontal attacks on anything non-Darwinian, including Intelligent Design and biblical creation. Second, be prepared for ramped-up media coverage of Darwin, his life, and his contributions to science. And lastly, keep your eyes open for further desperate attempts to prop up Darwin’s failing legacy.
A major CMI initiative
To take advantage of the inevitable hype surrounding Darwin in 2009, CMI has commissioned a major documentary film project—a huge project for a Christian ministry. This film retraces the steps of Darwin on his famous voyage on The Beagle, and takes a calm, rational look at how he developed his ideas. It asks the question, ‘If Darwin knew what we know about science today, would he have ever dreamt up his theory?’ We have a dedicated website for this landmark project with photos from the shoot in South America and other locations. You can also assist this project by donating to help see the project finished. Visit Darwin Film Project.
References:
Padian, K., Darwin’s enduring legacy. Nature451:632-634, 2008. Return to text.
FitzRoy, R., Narrative of the surveying voyages of His Majesty’s Ships Adventure and Beagle between the years 1826 and 1836, describing their examination of the southern shores of South America, and the Beagle’s circumnavigation of the globe. Proceedings of the second expedition, 1831-36, under the command of Captain Robert Fitz-Roy, R.N.,London: Henry Colburn, 1839. Available at http://darwin-online.org.uk. Return to text.
Beccaloni, G.W., and Smith, V.S., Celebrations for Darwin downplay Wallace’s role. Nature451:1050, 2008. Return to text.
Kutchera, U., Darwin–Wallace principle of natural selection. Nature453:27, 2008. Return to text.
Ecclesiastes 2-3 Published on Sep 19, 2012 Calvary Chapel Spring Valley | Sunday Evening | September 16, 2012 | Derek Neider _____________________________ I have written on the Book of Ecclesiastes and the subject of the meaning of our lives on several occasions on this blog. In this series on Ecclesiastes I hope to show how secular […] By Everette Hatcher III | Posted in Current Events | Edit | Comments (0)
Is Love All You Need? Jesus v. Lennon Posted on January 19, 2011 by Jovan Payes 0 On June 25, 1967, the Beatles participated in the first worldwide TV special called “Our World”. During this special, the Beatles introduced “All You Need is Love”; one of their most famous and recognizable songs. In it, John Lennon […] By Everette Hatcher III | Posted in Francis Schaeffer | Edit | Comments (0)
Recently a generation has arisen that has taken these theories out of the lab and classroom and into the streets. Its members have carried the reduction of the value of human beings into everyday life. Suddenly we find ourselves in a more consistent but uglier world– more consistent because people are taking their low view of man to its natural conclusion, and uglier because humanity is drastically dehumanized.
To illustrate what it means to practice this low view of man, let us consider some present realities that only a few years ago would have been unthinkable– even on the base provided by a memory of the Christian consensus, let alone within the Christian consensus itself. The Christian consensus gave a basis and a framework for our society to have freedoms without those freedoms leading to chaos. There was an emphasis on the value of the individual person– whose moral choices proceed from judgments about man and society on the basis of the existence of the infinite-personal God and His teaching in the Bible.
The Bible teaches that man is made in the image of God and therefore is unique. Remove that teaching, as humanism has done on both sides of the Iron Curtain, and there is no adequate basis for treating people well. Let us now look at some of those related unthinkable realities. The loss of the Christian consensus has led to a long list of inhuman actions and attitudes which may seem unrelated but actually are not. They are the direct result of the loss of the Christian consensus.
First, the whole concept of law has changed. When a Christian consensus existed, it gave a base for law. Instead of this, we now live under arbitrary, or sociological, law. Supreme Court Justice Oliver Wendell Holmes took a big step in the change toward sociological law. Holmes said, “Truth is the majority vote of that nation that could lick all others.” In other words, law is only what most of the people think at that moment of history, and there is no higher law. It follows, of course, that the law can be changed at any moment to reflect what the majority currently thinks.
More accurately, the law becomes what a few people in some branch of the government think will promote the present sociological and economic good. In reality the will and moral judgments of the majority are now influenced by or even overruled by the opinions of a small group of men and women. This means that vast changes can be made in the whole concept of what should and what should not be done. Values can be altered overnight and at almost unbelievable speed.
Consider the influence of the United States Supreme Court. Ralph Winter, reviewing _The Memoirs of Earl Warren_, said in the _Wall Street Journal_ of July 27, 1977, that a large body of academic criticism has argued that the Warren Court was essentially antidemocratic because it paid little heed to traditional legal criteria and procedures and rewrote law according to the personal values of its
members. Winter summed up Supreme Court Justice Douglas’s concept as, “If the Supreme Court does it, it’s all right.” The late Alexander M. Bickel of Yale said that the Supreme Court was undertaking “to bespeak the people’s general will when the vote comes out wrong.” And Bickel caustically summed the matter up by saying, “In effect, we must now amend the Constitution to make it mean what the Supreme Court says it means.”4
The shift to _sociological law_ can affect everything in life, including who should live and who should die.
Those taking the lead in the changes involving who should live and who should die increasingly rely on litigation (the courts) rather than legislation and the election process. They do this because they can often accomplish through the courts changes they could not achieve by the will of the majority, using the more representative institutions of government.
The Christian consensus held that neither the majority nor an elite is absolute. God gives the standards of value, and His absolutes are binding on both the ordinary person and those in all places of authority.
Second, because the Christian consensus has been put aside, we are faced today with a flood of personal cruelty. As we have noted, the Christian consensus gave great freedoms without leading to chaos– because society in general functioned within the values given in the Bible, especially the unique value of human life. Now that humanism has taken over, the former freedoms run riot, and individuals,
acting on what they are taught, increasingly practice their cruelties without restraint. And why shouldn’t they? If the modern humanistic view of man is correct and man is only a product of chance in a universe that has no ultimate values, why should an individual refrain from being cruel to another person, if that person seems to be standing in his or her way?
_________________________
Abusing Genetic Knowledge
Beyond the individual’s cruelty to other individuals, why should society not make over humanity into something different if it can do so– even if it results in the loss of those factors which make human life worth living? New genetic knowledge could be used in a helpful way and undoubtedly will bring forth many things which are beneficial, but– once the uniqueness of people as created by God is removed and mankind is viewed as only one of the gene patterns which came forth on the earth by chance– there is no reason not to treat people as
things to be experimented on and to make over the whole of humanity according to the decisions of a relatively few individuals. If people are not unique, as made in the image of God, the barrier is gone. Once this barrier is gone there is no reason not to experiment genetically with humanity to make it into what someone thinks to be an improvement socially and economically. The cost here is overwhelming. Should the genetic changes once be made in the individual, these changes will be passed down to his or her children, and they cannot ever [too strong -df] be reversed.
Modern humanism has an inherent need to manipulate and tinker with the natural processes, including human nature, because humanism:
1. Rejects the doctrine of Creation. 2. Therefore rejects the idea that there is anything stable or “given” about human nature. 3. Sees human nature as part of a long, unfolding process of development in which everything is changing. 4. Casts around for some solution to the problem of despair that this determinist-evolutionist vision induces. 5. Can only find a solution in the activity of the human will, which– in opposition to its own system– it hopes can transcend the inexorable flow of nature and act upon nature. 6. Therefore encourages manipulation of nature, including tinkering with people, as the only way of escaping from nature’s bondage. But this manipulation cannot have any certain criteria to guide it because, with God abolished, the only remaining criterion is Nature (which is precisely what humanist man wants to escape from) and Nature is both noncruel and cruel.
This explains why humanism is fascinated with the manipulation of human nature.
It is not only Christians who are opposed to the forms of genetic engineering which tinker with the structure of humanity. Others such as Theodore Roszak and Jeremy Rifkin of the People’s Business Commission rightly see this genetic engineering as incompatible with democracy. Christians and other such people can raise their voices together against this threat. That does not, however, change the realization that the democracy such people are trying to save is a product of Reformation Christianity, and without Reformation Christianity the base for that democracy and its freedom is gone.
_____________________________________
6. Edward O. Wilson pages 289-291 (ft note 6 0n page 504)
In sociological law, with the Christian consensus gone, the courts or some other part of government arbitrarily make the law. In the concept of genetic engineering, with the uniqueness of people as made in the image of God thrown away, mankind itself is in danger of being made over arbitrarily into the image of what some people think mankind ought to be. This will overwhelmingly be the case if such concepts as what has been called “sociobiology” are widely accepted.
According to these concepts, people do what they do because of the makeup of the genes, and the genes (in some mysterious way) know what is best for keeping the gene pool of the species flourishing. Regardless of what you think your reasons are for unselfishness, say the sociobiologists, in reality you are only doing what your genes know is best to keep your gene configuration alive and flourishing into
the future. This happens because evolution has produced organisms that automatically follow a mathematical logic: they calculate the genetic costs or benefits of helping those who bear many of the same genes and act to preserve their own image. Thus, the reason why parents help their children live is that the genes of the parents make them act to preserve the future existence of like genetic forms.5
No one tells us how the genes got started doing this. The how is not known. And even if the _how_ were demonstrated, the _why_ would still be in total darkness. Yet with neither the _how_ nor the _why_ known, everything human is abandoned. Maternal love, friendships, law, and morals are all explained away. Those who hold the sociobiological view believe that conflict both in the family and with outsiders is the essence of life. This serves as a chilling reminder of Hitler’s Germany, which was built on the social conclusions logically drawn from the Darwinian concept of the survival of the fittest.
220 × 311Images may be subject to copyright. Learn More
Harvard zoologist Edward O. Wilson, who wrote _Sociobiology: The New Synthesis_, says on page 562: “We may find that there is an overestimation of the nature of our deepest yearnings.” He calls for “ethics to be removed temporarily from the hands of the philosophers and biologized.”6
The humanistic philosophers tried to make ethics independent of biblical teaching; the present tragic result is the loss of humanness on every level. Now, Wilson argues, ethics and behavior patterns should be made independent of these humanistic philosophers and put into the realm of the purely mechanical, where ethics reflect only genes fighting for survival. This makes ethics equal no ethics.
Time said of sociobiology, “Indeed, few academic theories have spread so fast with so little hard proof.” Why has it spread so fast with no hard proof? That is easy to explain: We have been prepared for it by all the humanistic materialism of past years. A constant barrage of authoritative, though unproven, statements comes from every side, and gradually people accept themselves and others as only machinelike things. If man is only a product of chance in an impersonal universe, and that is all there is, this teaching is a logical extension of that fact.7
To summarize: On the one hand, the idea that mankind is only a collection of the genes which make up the DNA patterns has naturally led to the concept of remaking all of humanity with the use of genetic engineering. On the other hand, it has led to the crime and cruelty that now disturb the very people whose teaching produces the crime and cruelty in the first place. Many of these people do
not face the conclusion of their own teaching. With nothing higher than human opinion upon which to base judgments and with ethics equaling no ethics, the justification for seeing crime and cruelty as disturbing is destroyed. The very word _crime_ and even the word _cruelty_ lose meaning. There is no final reason on which to forbid anything– “If nothing is forbidden, then anything is possible.”
If man is not made in the image of God, nothing then stands in the way of inhumanity. There is no good reason why mankind should be perceived as special. Human life is cheapened. We can see this in many of the major issues being debated in our society today: abortion, infanticide, euthanasia, the increase of child abuse and violence of all kinds, pornography (and its particular kinds of violence as evidenced in sadomasochism), the routine torture of political prisoners in many parts of the world, the crime explosion, and the random violence which surrounds us.
In Communist countries, where materialism and humanistic thinking have been dominant for over several generations, a low view of people has been standard for years. This is apparent not only in the early legislation about abortion but also in the thousands of political prisoners who have been systematically oppressed, tortured, and killed as part of the very fabric of Communism. Now, however, as humanism dominates the West, we have a low view of mankind in the West as well.
Ecclesiastes 2-3 Published on Sep 19, 2012 Calvary Chapel Spring Valley | Sunday Evening | September 16, 2012 | Derek Neider _____________________________ I have written on the Book of Ecclesiastes and the subject of the meaning of our lives on several occasions on this blog. In this series on Ecclesiastes I hope to show how secular […] By Everette Hatcher III | Posted in Current Events | Edit | Comments (0)
Is Love All You Need? Jesus v. Lennon Posted on January 19, 2011 by Jovan Payes 0 On June 25, 1967, the Beatles participated in the first worldwide TV special called “Our World”. During this special, the Beatles introduced “All You Need is Love”; one of their most famous and recognizable songs. In it, John Lennon […] By Everette Hatcher III | Posted in Francis Schaeffer | Edit | Comments (0)
Biology textbooks teach that mutations added the high-quality genetic information needed to transmutate a fish into a monkey—even though experiments have shown that mutations merely corrupt the information that is already present. In a new experiment, microbiologists from Uppsala University in Sweden induced mutations in two bacterial genes to observe the effects. The results led them to admonish scientists to change how they think about the role mutations play.
The study’s authors cited a lack of experimentally derived data amid the flood of molecular comparison studies of mutational differences between various creatures. They therefore put mutations to the test, measuring how 126 different random single mutations affected the fitness of growing bacterial populations.1 They were able to directly correlate growth rate to “fitness” because they knew that the three-dimensional structure of the two non-essential proteins produced from the two genes they mutated directly affect how fast the bacteria can grow.
In theory, each mutation could have a negative, neutral, or positive effect on growth rate. What they found was that all the mutations had a negative effect. While a few were dangerous, most had very little negative effect. Could such a small negative effect even be detected, let alone culled, by natural selection? And how could a fish transmutate into a monkey by losing “fitness” each generation?
It can’t, according to biophysicist Lee Spetner. Though a believer in evolution, Spetner criticized the idea that mutations contribute anything positive, and wrote, “Information cannot be built up by mutations that lose it. A business cannot make money by losing it a little at a time.”2
140 × 200Images may be subject to copyright. Learn More
The preponderance of mutations with nearly neutral effect, as observed in the Swedish bacteria study, is consistent with prior studies, including a classic model by biologist Motoo Kimura.3 These all point in one direction: downhill. Cornell University geneticist John Sanford summarized the problem: “Therefore, the very strong predominance of deleterious mutations in this box [of near-neutrals] absolutely guarantees net loss of information.”4
The Uppsala scientists mentioned that their study would add understanding to “the degradation of genetic information due to Muller’s ratchet.”1 First described by geneticist Hermann Muller in 1964, populations that do not undergo “recombination” are subject to an “irreversible ratchet mechanism” whereby mutations steadily accumulate.5 It is highly likely that the same ratchet applies to all organisms.
The detailed mutations measured in this bacterial experiment add more confirmation to an intractable problem for any evolution-by-mutation scenario. However, the data makes sense from a biblical perspective, which holds that this present world is in “bondage of corruption,” waiting for “the glorious liberty of the children of God.”6 In such a world, the degradation of the genome through accumulating mutations would be expected.
References
Lind, P. A., O. G. Berg and D. I. Anderson. 2010. Mutational Robustness of Ribosomal Protein Genes. Science. 330 (6005): 825-827.
Spetner, L. 1997. Not By Chance! Shattering the Modern Theory of Evolution. Brooklyn, NY: Judaica Press, 143.
Kimura, M. 1979. Model of effectively neutral mutations in which selective constraint is incorporated. Proceedings of the National Academy of Sciences. 76 (7): 3440-3444.
Sanford, J. C. 2005. Genetic Entropy and the Mystery of the Genome. Lima, NY: Ivan Press, 24.
Muller, H. J. 1964. The relation of recombination to mutational advance. Mutation Research/Fundamental and Molecular Mechanisms of Mutagenesis. 1 (1): 2-9.
Ecclesiastes 2-3 Published on Sep 19, 2012 Calvary Chapel Spring Valley | Sunday Evening | September 16, 2012 | Derek Neider _____________________________ I have written on the Book of Ecclesiastes and the subject of the meaning of our lives on several occasions on this blog. In this series on Ecclesiastes I hope to show how secular […] By Everette Hatcher III | Posted in Current Events | Edit | Comments (0)
Is Love All You Need? Jesus v. Lennon Posted on January 19, 2011 by Jovan Payes 0 On June 25, 1967, the Beatles participated in the first worldwide TV special called “Our World”. During this special, the Beatles introduced “All You Need is Love”; one of their most famous and recognizable songs. In it, John Lennon […] By Everette Hatcher III | Posted in Francis Schaeffer | Edit | Comments (0)
I started this series on my letters and postcards to Hugh Hefner back in September when I read of the passing of Mr. Hefner. There are many more to come. It is my view that he may have taken time to look at glance at one or two of them since these postcards were short and from one of Hef’s favorite cities!!!!
Feb 7, 2017 letter B Proverbs 7
February 7 letter B
Hugh Hefner
Playboy Mansion
16236 Charing Cross RoadLos Angeles, CA 90024
Dear Hugh,
Second letter for today!!!
Today is Feb 7 so I want to quote from Proverbs 7. Good advice today from anyone in New Orleans like me.
This chapter 7 of Proverbs is so sad and it plays out everyday here in New Orleans when a young man is seduced.
12 As I stood at the window of my house looking out through the shutters, Watching the mindless crowd stroll by, I spotted a young man without any sense Arriving at the corner of the street where she lived, then turning up the path to her house. It was dusk, the evening coming on, the darkness thickening into night. Just then, a woman met him— she’d been lying in wait for him, dressed to seduce him. Brazen and brash she was, restless and roaming, never at home, Walking the streets, loitering in the mall, hanging out at every corner in town.
13-20 She threw her arms around him and kissed him, boldly took his arm and said, “I’ve got all the makings for a feast— today I made my offerings, my vows are all paid, So now I’ve come to find you, hoping to catch sight of your face—and here you are! I’ve spread fresh, clean sheets on my bed, colorful imported linens. My bed is aromatic with spices and exotic fragrances. Come, let’s make love all night, spend the night in ecstatic lovemaking! My husband’s not home; he’s away on business, and he won’t be back for a month.”
With much seductive speech she persuades him; with her smooth talk she compels him. 22 All at once he follows her, as an ox goes to the slaughter, or as a stag is caught fast[e] 23 till an arrow pierces its liver; as a bird rushes into a snare; he does not know that it will cost him his life.
—-
How many homes have been wrecked by young men’s trips to New Orleans?
There is hope!!! Check out John 3:16!!!
Best wishes,
Everette Hatcher
Xxx
___________
I wrote to Hefner in an earlier letter these words:
Don’t you see that Solomon was right when he observed life UNDER THE SUN without God in the picture and he then concluded in Ecclesiastes 2:11:
“All was vanity and a striving after wind, and there was nothing to be gained UNDER THE SUN.”
Notice this phrase UNDER THE SUN since it appears about 30 times in Ecclesiastes. Francis Schaeffer noted that Solomon took a look at the meaning of life on the basis of human life standing alone between birth and death “under the sun.” This phrase UNDER THE SUN appears over and over in Ecclesiastes. The Christian Scholar Ravi Zacharias 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.”
My name is Tom Beaman. When I was 38, as a confirmed skeptic of all things religious, I had a life-changing encounter with Jesus. Within a couple of years I sold my concert sound company and enrolled in Denver Seminary, preparing for a new career as a pastor and preacher. One of the biggest surprises for me was how rich and fascinating the study of the Bible can be when you strip away all the stuffiness and formality. It is astonishing that this collection of – individual writings, written by dozens of authors from differing cultural situations, over a span of hundreds of years, fits together with such precision. Recently retired, I’ve begun this blog as a way of continuing to share my love and amazement for God’s Word.
I live in Longmont, Colorado, am recently single, after the death of my wife of 47 years in 2015. We raised two kids and now have four grand-kids. My hobbies include camping, playing guitar, woodworking and baking bread.
PS – When I quote from the Bible, most of the time it will be from: The Holy Bible : New International Version. 1996, c1984, Grand Rapids: Zondervan.
Being Elvis was not enough. He needed more. Why? You might think singing for a living would be satisfying. Throw in vast wealth, Graceland, being known as “the King” and worshiped around the world would pretty much cover all your needs. But all that was not enough. Why not? Solomon (introduced in Part 1) never met Elvis (so far as we know…. wink, wink…) but he applied himself to figure it out. There must be a reason we humans work so hard to achieve money, fame, power, pleasure, success – you name it – and when we do, we discover those things don’t satisfy.
He didn’t just read up on the topic; Solomon held his nose and cannon-balled into the quest. But nothing he tried was enough. Wisdom didn’t satisfy:
I said to myself, “Look, I have increased in wisdom more than anyone who has ruled over Jerusalem before me; I have experienced much of wisdom and knowledge.” 17 Then I applied myself to the understanding of wisdom, and also of madness and folly, but I learned that this, too, is a chasing after the wind. 18 For with much wisdom comes much sorrow; the more knowledge, the more grief (Ecclesiastes 1:16-18)
Carnal pleasure didn’t satisfy. His life that would have been the envy of Donald Trump, HUGH HEFNER and Bill Gates:
1 I said to myself, “Come now, I will test you with pleasure to find out what is good.” But that also proved to be meaningless. 2 “Laughter,” I said, “is madness. And what does pleasure accomplish?” 3 I tried cheering myself with wine, and embracing folly—my mind still guiding me with wisdom. I wanted to see what was good for people to do under the heavens during the few days of their lives. 4 I undertook great projects: I built houses for myself and planted vineyards. 5 I made gardens and parks and planted all kinds of fruit trees in them. 6 I made reservoirs to water groves of flourishing trees. 7 I bought male and female slaves and had other slaves who were born in my house. I also owned more herds and flocks than anyone in Jerusalem before me. 8 I amassed silver and gold for myself, and the treasure of kings and provinces. I acquired male and female singers, and a harem as well—the delights of a man’s heart. 9 I became greater by far than anyone in Jerusalem before me. In all this my wisdom stayed with me. 10 I denied myself nothing my eyes desired; I refused my heart no pleasure. My heart took delight in all my labor, and this was the reward for all my toil. (Ecclesiastes 2:1-10)
And yet, none of that was enough:
11 Yet when I surveyed all that my hands had done and what I had toiled to achieve, everything was meaningless, a chasing after the wind; nothing was gained under the sun. (Ecclesiastes 2:11)
Why is it that none of these things we strive for pay off in a lasting, satisfying way? You can read ahead in Ecclesiastes to discover what Solomon concluded. Hint: One is the “D word,” the great equalizer that awaits us all. The second thing is a matter of having the wrong perspective. There is a solution.
Wolfgang Laib was born in 1950 in Metzingen, Germany. Inspired by the teachings of the ancient Taoist philosopher Laozi, by the modern artist Brancusi, and the legacy of formative life experiences with his family in Germany and India, Laib creates sculptures that seem to connect that past and present, the ephemeral and the eternal. Working with perishable organic materials (pollen, milk, wood, and rice) as well as durable ones that include granite, marble, and brass, he grounds his work by his choice of forms—squares, ziggurats, and ships, among others.
His painstaking collection of pollen from the wildflowers and bushes that grow in the fields near his home is integral to the process of creating work in which pollen is his medium. This he has done each year over the course of three decades. Laib’s attention to human scale, duration of time, and his choice of materials give his work the power to transport us to expected realms of memory, sensory pleasure, and contemplation.
Wolfgang Laib studied medicine at the University of Tübingen (1974). Major exhibitions of his work have appeared at the Phillips Collection (2013); Museum of Modern Art, New York (2013); Museum für Moderne Kunst, Frankfurt (2010); Museo Nacional de Arte, La Paz (2010); Fondazione Merz (2009); Museo Universitario Arte Contemporáneo, Mexico City (2009); Nelson-Atkins Museum (2009); Museo Nacional Centro de Arte Reina Sofia (2007); Kunstmuseum Bonn (2005); Australian Centre for Contemporary Art (2005); Museum of Contemporary Art, Rome (2005); Guangdong Museum of Art (2004); National Museum of Modern Art, Tokyo (2003); National Museum of Contemporary Art, Seoul (2003); Haus der Kunst, Munich (2002); Henry Art Gallery (2001); Dallas Museum of Art (2001); Hirshhorn Museum (2000); Kunsthaus Bregenz (1999); , and the Venice Biennale (1999, 1997, 1982), among many others. Wolfgang Laib lives and works in Hochdorf, Germany and Tamil Nadu, India.
Ecclesiastes 2-3 Published on Sep 19, 2012 Calvary Chapel Spring Valley | Sunday Evening | September 16, 2012 | Derek Neider _____________________________ I have written on the Book of Ecclesiastes and the subject of the meaning of our lives on several occasions on this blog. In this series on Ecclesiastes I hope to show how secular […]
By Everette Hatcher III | Posted in Current Events | Edit | Comments (0)
Is Love All You Need? Jesus v. Lennon Posted on January 19, 2011 by Jovan Payes 0 On June 25, 1967, the Beatles participated in the first worldwide TV special called “Our World”. During this special, the Beatles introduced “All You Need is Love”; one of their most famous and recognizable songs. In it, John Lennon […]
By Everette Hatcher III | Posted in Francis Schaeffer | Edit | Comments (0)
___________________ Something happened to the Beatles in their journey through the 1960’s and although they started off wanting only to hold their girlfriend’s hand it later evolved into wanting to smash all previous sexual standards. The Beatles: Why Don’t We Do It in the Road? _______ Beatle Ringo Starr, and his girlfriend, later his wife, […]
By Everette Hatcher III | Posted in Current Events | Edit | Comments (0)
__________ Marvin Minsky __ I was sorry recently to learn of the passing of one of the great scholars of our generation. I have written about Marvin Minsky several times before in this series and today I again look at a letter I wrote to him in the last couple of years. It is my […]
By Everette Hatcher III | Posted in Adrian Rogers, Francis Schaeffer | Edit | Comments (0)
Why was Tony Curtis on the cover of SGT PEPPERS? I have no idea but if I had to hazard a guess I would say that probably it was because he was in the smash hit SOME LIKE IT HOT. Above from the movie SOME LIKE IT HOT __ __ Jojo was a man who […]
By Everette Hatcher III | Posted in Current Events | Edit | Comments (0)
__ Francis Schaeffer did not shy away from appreciating the Beatles. In fact, SERGEANT PEPPER’S LONELY HEARTS CLUB BAND album was his favorite and he listened to it over and over. I am a big fan of Francis Schaeffer but there are detractors that attack him because he did not have all the degrees that they […]
By Everette Hatcher III | Posted in Atheists Confronted, Francis Schaeffer | Edit | Comments (0)
The Royal Society Featuring: Professor Sir Harry Kroto, Alexei Leonov, Dr Richard Dawkins, Dr Brian May, Professor Stephen Hawking, Professor Garik Israelian
640 × 422Images may be subject to copyright. Learn More
In the first video below in the 15th clip in this series are Hawking’s words and my response is was given in an earlier post.
In the popular You Tube video “Renowned Academics Speaking About God” Professor Hawking made the following statement:
“M-Theory doesn’t disprove God, but it does make him unnecessary. It predicts that the universe will be spontaneously created out of nothing without the need for a creator.” –Stephen Hawking, Cambridge theoretical physicist
and you will hear what far smarter people than I have to say on this matter. I agree with them.
Harry Kroto
__
(Harry Kroto pictured below)
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)
__
_
This is the second portion of my 5-15-94 letter to Stephen Hawking and last week I posted the first portion and next week I will post the third portion.
SECTION #1 Evolution is discussed by these scholars: H.G.Wells, Antony Flew, Neal Gillespie, Carl Sagan, Richard Dawkins, Joseph McCabe, Louis Russell, Leo Hickey, Francis Crick, Michael Ruse, Norman D. Newell, Robert C. Cowen, Jeremy Rifkin, Francis Schaeffer, H.J.Blackham, Paul Churchland, J.W.Burrow, Douglas Futuyma, William Provine, and Bertrand Russell!!!!______________________ I am trying in this letter to show that the following statements are true and can not be refuted logically.1. Theistic evolution is not rational.2. Evolution has been considered a fact by the vast majority of leading scholars worldwide for many years now.3. There has been a drift from belief to agnosticism caused by science in recent years.4. The vast majority of leading scientists today do not consider creationism scientific.5. There are philosophical implications of Darwinism.—————— 1. Theistic evolution is not rational.http://creation.mobi/hg-wells-evolution-and-the-gospelH G Wells
‘If all the animals and man had been evolved in this ascendant manner, then there had been no first parents, no Eden, and no Fall. And if there had been no fall, then the entire historical fabric of Christianity, the story of the first sin and the reason for an atonement, upon which the current teaching based Christian emotion and morality, collapsed like a house of cards.’—-Antony Flew
It is obviously impossible to square any evolutionary account of the origin of the species with a substantially literal reading of the first chapters of Genesis.—- 2.Evolution has been considered a fact by the vast majority of leading scholars worldwide for many years now.—- Humanist Manifesto II (1973): Science affirms that the human species is an emergence from natural evolutionary forces.—Neal Gillespie Darwin’s rejection of special creation was part of the transformation of biology into a positive science, one committed to thoroughly naturalistic explanations based on material causes and the uniformity of nature…——Carl Sagan
Evolution is fact, not a theory—-Lee Dembart of the Los Angeles Times commenting on the book by Richard Dawkins called “The Blind Watchmaker”:The book cuts through the nonsense about the origin of life and leaves it for dead….He demonstrates beyond a shadow of a doubt that evolution is the only possible explanation for the world we see around us. In this work Dawkins refutes the argument that the complexity of life cannot be random, this implying a designer or creator.—- Joseph McCabe in a debate with George Mccready Price: Something over 50 years ago a great man of science launched the doctrine of evolution upon the world. Generation by generation , decade by decade, scientific men have fought out that issue. I say that there is not an university professor in the world today who does not emphatically endorse the doctrine of evolution ….100 years ago, in the days of Lamarck and Darwin, men looked across that broad river and there was nothing between (man and ape)….Now we men of the Stone Age carrying us nearer to the ape; the pilot down man, and one or two others, going as far again in the direction of the ape.—-Louis S Russell, director, Royal Ontario Museum, It’s completely false to say that there’s a lacking of transitional forms. We have plenty of them —-more than sometimes we can deal with.—-Leo Hickey, former director, Yale Peabody Museum, There are myriad transitional forms. There’s really no problem finding them.—-
250 × 275Images may be subject to copyright. Learn More
Francis Crick: The ultimate aim of the modern movement in biology is, in fact, to explain all biology in terms of physics and chemistry.—- 3. There has been a drift from belief to agnosticism caused by science in recent years———————- Dr Huston Smith: One reason education undoes belief (in God) is it’s teaching of evolution; Darwin’s own drift from orthodoxy to agnosticism was symptomatic.—-Asa Gray (1810-1888), a Harvard professor of botony was a supporter of theistic evolution. He tried to persuade Darwin to adopt the position of theistic evolution. Darwin quickly struck down Gray’s argument, “The view that each variation has been providentially arranged seems to me to make natural selection entirely superfluous, and indeed takes the whole case of the appearance of new species out of the range of science. ——Michael Denton “ today it is perhaps the Darwinian view of nature more than any other that is responsible for the agnostic and sceptical outlook of the twentieth century…(It is) a theory that literally changed the world.”
PAGE 2
Vincent Sarich in a debate with Mr Gish said, “As far as I am concerned it was not God that created man, but quite clearly and obviously man that in ultimate example of his overwhelming pride created an omnipotent God in his own idealized image of himself and in doing so thought to make himself all powerful and independent of any laws but those of his own making.”—-4. Leading scientists worldwide today do not believe creationism is scientific.Michael Ruse – “And, I learnt what a hollow sham modern day creationism really is : crude, dogmatic, biblical literal-ism masquerading as genuine science.” Norman D. Newell – “Finally I should like to define the word science, and explain why scientific creationism cannot be included in its definition. Science is characterized by the willingness of an investigator to follow evidence wherever it leads.”Robert C. Cowen– It is this many-faceted on-going science story that should be told in public school biology courses. Creationists want those courses to include the possibility of – and the “scientific” evidence for – a creator as well. There is no such “scientific” evidence. The concept of a supernatural creator is inherently religious. It has no place in a science class.
Jeremy Rifkin – “Evolutionary theory has been enshrined as the centerpiece of our educational system, and elaborate walls have been erected around it to protect it from unnecessary abuse.”5.There are philosophical implications of Darwinism.Francis Schaeffer in his book WHATEVER HAPPENED TO THE HUMAN RACE? co-authored by C. Everett Koop in 1979 said this, “Humanism: 1. Rejects the doctrine of creation. 2. Therefore rejects the idea that there is anything stable or ‘given’ about human nature. 3. Sees human nature as part of a long, unfolding process of development in which everything is changing. 4. Casts around for some solution to the problem of despair that this determinist-evolutionist vision induces…
The humanist H. J. Blackham has expressed this with a dramatic illustration: “On humanist assumptions, life leads to nothing, and every pretense that it does not is a deceit. If there is a bridge over a gorge which spans only half the distance and ends in mid-air, and if the bridge is crowded with human beings pressing on, one after the other they fall into the abyss. The bridge leads nowhere, and those who are pressing forward to cross it are going nowhere….It does not matter where they think they are going, what preparations for the journey they may have made, how much they may be enjoying it all. The objection merely points out objectively that such a situation is a model of futility“( H. J. Blackham, et al., Objections to Humanism (Riverside, Connecticut: Greenwood Press, 1967). Mr. Schaeffer comments, “One does not have to be highly educated to understand this. It follows directly from the starting point of the humanists’ position, namely, that everything is just matter. That is, that which has exited forever and in ever is only some form of matter or energy, and everything in our world now is this and only this in a more or less complex form.”Paul Churchland – “The important point about the standard evolutionary story is that the human species and all of its features are the wholly physical outcome of a purely physical process. If this is the correct account of our origin, then there seems neither need nor room to fit any nonphysical substances or properties into our theoretical accounts of ourselves. We are creatures of matter.”J.W.Burrow – “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.”
200 × 284Images may be subject to copyright. Learn More
Douglas Futuyma – “Whether people are explicitly religious or not they tend to imagine that humans are in some sense the center of the universe. And what evolution does is to remove humans from the center of the universe. We are just one product of a very long historical process that has given rise to an enormous amount of organisms, and we are just one of them. So in one sense there is nothing special about us.”William B. Provine in “The End of Ethics?” article in HARD CHOICES (a magazine companion to the television series HARD CHOICES) wrote:Even though it is often asserted that science is fully compatible with our Judeo-Christian tradition, in fact it is not… To be sure, even in antiquity, the mechanistic view of life–that chance was responsible for the shape of the world– had a few adherents. But belief in overarching order was dominant; it can be seen as easily in such scientists as Newton, Harvey, and Einstein as in the theologians Augustine, Luther, and Tillich. But beginning with Darwin, biology has undermined that tradition. Darwin in effect asserted that all living organisms had been created by a combination of chance and necessity–natural selection.In the twentieth century, this view of life has been reinforced by a whole series of discoveries…Mind is the only remaining frontier, but it would be shortsighted to doubt that it can, one day, be duplicated in the form of thinking robots or analyzed in terms of the chemistry and electricity of the brain. The extreme mechanic view of life, which every new discovery in biology tends to confirm, has certain implications. First, God has no role in the physical world…Second, except for the laws of probability and cause and effect, there is no organizing principle in the world, and no purpose.
Bertrand Russell – “That Man is the product of causes which had no prevision of the end they were achieving; that his origin, his growth, his hopes and fears, his loves and his beliefs, are but the outcome of accidental collocations of atoms; that no fire, no heroism, no intensity of thought and feeling, can preserve an individual life beyond the grave; that all the labours of the ages, all the devotion, all the inspiration, all the noonday brightness of human genius, are destined to extinction in the vast death of the solar system, and that the whole temple of Man’s achievement must inevitably be buried beneath the débris of a universe in ruins—all these things, if not quite beyond dispute, are yet so nearly certain, that no philosophy which rejects them can hope to stand. Only within the scaffolding of these truths, only on the firm foundation of unyielding despair, can the soul’s habitation henceforth be safely built.”(Bertrand Russell, Free Man’s Worship)
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 […] By Everette Hatcher III | Posted in Francis Schaeffer, Prolife | Edit | Comments (0)
__________________ Beatles 1966 Last interview I have dedicated several posts to this series on the Beatles and I don’t know when this series will end because Francis Schaeffer spent a lot of time listening to the Beatles and talking and writing about them and their impact on the culture of the 1960’s. In this […]By Everette Hatcher III | Posted in Francis Schaeffer | Tagged George Harrison, John Lennon, Paul MacCartney, Peter Blake, Ringo Starr | Edit | Comments (1)
_______________ The Beatles documentary || A Long and Winding Road || Episode 5 (This video discusses Stg. Pepper’s creation I have dedicated several posts to this series on the Beatles and I don’t know when this series will end because Francis Schaeffer spent a lot of time listening to the Beatles and talking and writing about […]By Everette Hatcher III | Posted in Francis Schaeffer | Tagged Beatles, Mika Tajima | Edit|Comments (0)
_______________ 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 […]By Everette Hatcher III | Posted in Francis Schaeffer | Tagged Blow Up, David Hemmings,Michelangelo Antonioni, Nancy Holt, Sarah Miles., Vanessa Redgrave | Edit |Comments (0)
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 […]By Everette Hatcher III | Posted in Francis Schaeffer, Woody Allen | Tagged alan alda, Anjelica Huston, mia farrow, Sam Waterston | Edit | Comments (0)
I have read over 40 autobiographies by ROCKERS and it seems to me that almost every one of those books can be reduced to 4 points. Once fame hit me then I became hooked on drugs. Next I became an alcoholic (or may have been hooked on both at same time). Thirdly, I chased the skirts and thought happiness would be found through more sex with more women. Finally, in my old age I have found being faithful to my wife and getting over addictions has led to happiness like I never knew before. (Almost every autobiography I have read from rockers has these points in it although Steven Tyler is still chasing the skirts!!).
Ringo did not write an autobiography but I enjoyed reading an extensive biography written about him (ironically written by a guy with the last name Starr).
Francis Schaeffer pictured below)
Painting of King Solomon below:
__
‘
Lawrence of Arabia on a Brough Superior he called George V. Lawrence owned eight Broughs: 1922: Boa (short for Boanerges)
The driver of the Facel-Vega FV3B car, Michel Gallimard, who was Camus’ publisher and close friend, also died in the accident.
(Is it a world of time and chance? Tara Browne is killed and his girlfriend walks away with minor bruises)
Brian Jones, Suki Poitier (centre) and Tara Browne (right), 1966
Ringo and Mick
__
March 11, 2016
Ringo Starr
Dear Ringo,
I have been a big fan of yours for a long time and have been blogging about the Beatles for over two years now on my blog THEDAILYHATCH.ORG and I have now gone over the 1,000,000 mark in views. Let me share a short post that I have just scheduled.
According to Elvis Costello and many others A DAY IN THE LIFE was the greatest song from the greatest album. It was drug induced song about a drug induced crash that included the solution of escaping into drug trips.
Francis Schaeffer noted that King Solomon took a long look at life UNDER THE SUN without God in the picture and Solomon notes that death can arrive unexpectedly at anytime in Ecclesiastes 9:11-13:
11 Again I saw that under the sun the race is not to the swift, nor the battle to the strong, nor bread to the wise, nor riches to the intelligent, nor favor to those with knowledge, but time and chance happen to them all.12 For man does not know his time. Like fish that are taken in an evil net, and like birds that are caught in a snare, so the children of man are snared at an evil time, when it suddenly falls upon them. 13 I have also seen this example of wisdom under the sun, and it seemed great to me.
______
Death can come at anytime. Albert Camus in a speeding car with a pretty girl, then Camus dead. Lawrence of Arabia coming over the crest of a hill at 100 mph on his motorcycle and some boy stands in the road and Lawrence turns aside and dies.
According to the article, “100 Greatest Beatles Songs,” September 19, 2011, By Elvis Costello, the greatest Beatles song is A DAY IN THE LIFE. Here is a portion of that article:
Writers: Lennon-McCartney Recorded: January 19 and 20, February 3, 10 and 22, 1967 Released: June 2, 1967 Not released as a single
“A Day in the Life” is the sound of the Beatles on a historic roll. “It was a peak,” John Lennon told Rolling Stone in 1970, recalling the Sgt. Pepper period. It’s also the ultimate Lennon-McCartney collaboration: “Paul and I were definitely working together, especially on ‘A Day in the Life,'” said Lennon.
After their August 29th, 1966, concert in San Francisco, the Beatles left live performing for good. Rumors of tension within the group spread as the Beatles released no new music for months. “People in the media sensed that there was too much of a lull,” Paul McCartney said later, “which created a vacuum, so they could bitch about us now. They’d say, ‘Oh, they’ve dried up,’ but we knew we hadn’t.”
With Sgt. Pepper, the Beatles created an album of psychedelic visions; coming at the end, “A Day in the Life” sounds like the whole world falling apart. Lennon sings about death and dread in his most spectral vocal, treated with what he called his “Elvis echo” — a voice, as producer George Martin said in 1992, “which sends shivers down the spine.”
In April, two months before Sgt. Pepper came out, McCartney visited San Francisco, carrying a tape with an unfinished version of “A Day in the Life.” He gave it to members of the Jefferson Airplane, and the tape ended up at a local free-form rock station, KMPX, which put it into rotation, blowing minds all over the Haight-Ashbury community. The BBC banned the song for the druggy line “I’d love to turn you on.” They weren’t so far off base: “When [Martin] was doing his TV program on Pepper,” McCartney recalled later, “he asked me, ‘Do you know what caused Pepper?’ I said, ‘In one word, George, drugs. Pot.’ And George said, ‘No, no. But you weren’t on it all the time.’ ‘Yes, we were.’ Sgt. Pepper was a drug album.”
__
Francis Schaeffer in his film series HOW SHOULD WE THEN LIVE? Episode 7 (which can be found on You Tube) noted:
The drug culture and the mentality that went with it had it’s own vehicle that crossed the frontiers of the world which were otherwise almost impassible by other means of communication. This record, Sergeant Pepper’s Lonely Hearts Club Band,became the rallying cry for young people throughout the world. It expressed the essence of their lives, thoughts and their feelings. Later came psychedelic rock an attempt to find this experience without drugs. The younger people and the older ones tried drug taking but then turned to the eastern religions. Both drugs and the eastern religions seek truth inside one’s own head, a negation of reason. The central reason of the popularity of eastern religions in the west is a hope for a non-rational meaning to life and values.
Francis Schaeffer is holding the album Beatles’ album SGT PEP in the film series HOW SHOULD WE THEN LIVE? episode 7 “The Age of Non-Reason” in which he discusses the Beatles’ 1960’s generation and their search for meanings and values!
It is reported that John Lennon wrote the major part of A DAY IN THE LIFE and John believed that we live in materialistic universe of time and chance and in this song he tells the sad story of his friend Tara Browne. “I read the news today, oh boy, About a lucky man who made the grade, And though the news was rather sad, Well I just had to laugh, I saw the photograph. He blew his mind out in a car, He didn’t notice that the red lights had changed.”
How do people cope if there is no purpose for our lives in this secular world of time and chance? They do it by trying to by escaping into the area of NON-REASON. Francis Schaeffer wrote about this in his 1968 book ESCAPE FROM REASON and Schaeffer pointed out that one of the way that is done is through drugs. Look at the drug references below in A DAY IN THE LIFE.
I read the news today, oh boy About a lucky man who made the grade And though the news was rather sad Well I just had to laugh I saw the photograph.
He blew his mind out in a car He didn’t notice that the red lights had changed A crowd of people stood and stared They’d seen his face before Nobody was really sure If he was from the House of Lords.
I saw a film today, oh boy The English army had just won the war A crowd of people turned away But I just had to look Having read the book I’d love to turn you on.
Woke up, fell out of bed, Dragged a comb across my head Found my way downstairs and drank a cup, And looking up I noticed I was late.
Found my coat and grabbed my hat Made the bus in seconds flat Found my way upstairs and had a smoke, Somebody spoke and I went into a dream.
I read the news today oh boy Four thousand holes in Blackburn, Lancashire And though the holes were rather small They had to count them all Now they know how many holes it takes to fill the Albert Hall. I’d love to turn you on.
WHY IS SOLOMON CAUGHT IN DESPAIR IN THE BOOK OF 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.
By the way, the final chapter of Ecclesiastes finishes with Solomon emphasizing that serving God is the only proper response of man. Solomon LOOKS ABOVE THE SUN AND BRINGS GOD BACK INTO THE PICTURE in the final chapter of the book in Ecclesiastes 12:13-14, “ Now all has been heard; here is the conclusion of the matter: Fear God and keep his commandments, for this is the whole duty of man. For God will bring every deed into judgment, including every hidden thing, whether it is good or evil.”
Little One – From the Film, “Sarah’s Choice” Rebecca St James on faith and values – theDove.us Sarah’s Choice Trailer Sarah’s Choice – Behind the Scenes Rebecca St. James on Sarah’s Choice – CBN.com Rebecca St James Interview on Real Videos Sarah’s Choice – The Proposal Sarahs Choice Pregnancy Test Sarahs Choice Crossroad Sarah’s Choice […]By Everette Hatcher III | Posted in Current Events | Edit | Comments (0)
Lion – Rebecca St. James I will praise You – Rebecca St James Rebecca St James 1995 TBN – Everything I Do Rebecca St. James & Rachel Scott “Blessed Be Your Name” Rebecca St. James From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia Rebecca St. James St. James in 2007 Background information Birth name Rebecca Jean Smallbone Also […]By Everette Hatcher III | Posted in Current Events | Edit | Comments (0)
Foster The People – Pumped up Kicks Foster the People From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia Foster the People Foster the People at the 2011 MuchMusic Video Awards, from left to right: Pontius, Foster, and Fink Background information Origin Los Angeles, California, U.S. Genres Indie pop alternative rock indietronica alternative dance neo-psychedelia[1] Years active 2009–present Labels […]By Everette Hatcher III | Posted in Current Events | Edit | Comments (0)
‘Apple gave me advice’: Coldplay’s Chris Martin turned to 11-year-old daughter for words of wisdom ahead of Superbowl 50 By DAILYMAIL.COM REPORTER PUBLISHED: 00:58 EST, 2 February 2016 | UPDATED: 17:20 EST, 2 February 2016 n Facebook They’ve sold 80 million records and been around for 20 years. But Coldplay’s lead singer Chris Martin, 38, […]By Everette Hatcher III | Posted in Current Events | Edit | Comments (0)
__________ Chris Martin, Lead Singer of Coldplay: 5 Fast Facts You Need to Know Published 3:44 pm EDT, February 7, 2016 Updated 3:44 pm EDT, February 7, 2016 Comment By Lauren Weigle 17.6k (Getty) Chris Martin has been the front-man of the band Coldplay for about 20 years, though the band changed its name a […]By Everette Hatcher III | Posted in Current Events | Edit | Comments (0)
Christian Rock Pioneer Larry Norman’s Songs Part 14 I posted a lot in the past about my favorite Christian musicians such as Keith Green (I enjoyed reading Green’s monthly publications too), and 2nd Chapter of Acts and others. Today I wanted to talk about one of Larry Norman’s songs. David Rogers introduced me to Larry […]By Everette Hatcher III | Posted in Current Events | Edit | Comments (0)
Christian Rock Pioneer Larry Norman’s Songs Part 13 I posted a lot in the past about my favorite Christian musicians such as Keith Green (I enjoyed reading Green’s monthly publications too), and 2nd Chapter of Acts and others. Today I wanted to talk about one of Larry Norman’s songs. David Rogers introduced me to Larry […]By Everette Hatcher III | Posted in Current Events | Edit | Comments (0)
Christian Rock Pioneer Larry Norman’s Songs Part 12 I posted a lot in the past about my favorite Christian musicians such as Keith Green (I enjoyed reading Green’s monthly publications too), and 2nd Chapter of Acts and others. Today I wanted to talk about one of Larry Norman’s songs. David Rogers introduced me to Larry […]By Everette Hatcher III | Posted in Current Events | Edit | Comments (0)
Christian Rock Pioneer Larry Norman’s Songs Part 11 I posted a lot in the past about my favorite Christian musicians such as Keith Green (I enjoyed reading Green’s monthly publications too), and 2nd Chapter of Acts and others. Today I wanted to talk about one of Larry Norman’s songs. David Rogers introduced me to Larry […]By Everette Hatcher III | Posted in Current Events | Edit | Comments (0)
Christian Rock Pioneer Larry Norman’s Songs Part 10 more on Album “Only Visiting This Planet” I posted a lot in the past about my favorite Christian musicians such as Keith Green (I enjoyed reading Green’s monthly publications too), and 2nd Chapter of Acts and others. Today I wanted to talk about one of Larry Norman’s […]By Everette Hatcher III | Posted in Current Events | Edit | Comments (0)
“What a Christian portrays in his art is the totality of life. Art is not to be solely a vehicle for some sort of self-conscious evangelism.” ― Francis A. Schaeffer, Art and the Bible
Sometimes I am asked by other actors, mostly Christians, but not all, how do I go about deciding whether I should act in a certain play. “How can you play certain characters?” ”What about plays that have ‘questionable’ content?” Some will ask because of their own personal scruples; perhaps they find a certain subject matter taboo. Others ask because they believe the very idea of acting in a play to be in and of itself a frivolous, even sinful thing to do. There are also those who enjoy theatre and film, and are sincerely curious about the process; how we thespians reconcile our faith with our art, especially when there’s the potential for compromise. And then there are those who are themselves actors who are serious about the creative work they do. They want to live in the freedom God has granted them as artists, but still remain faithful witnesses in the marketplace. So they’re looking for principles they believe will help them in their decision making process.
“If one good deed in all my life I did, I do repent it from my very soul.” – Aaron (fromTitus Andronicus by William Shakespeare)
I recently started rehearsals for a stage production of William Shakespeare’s Titus Andronicus, Shakespeare’s first attempt at writing a tragedy. Andronicus is a “Revenge Play” – a very bloody revenge play. In it’s time it was one of the Bards most popular plays, probably because of all of the bloody vengeance, but during the Victorian era the play was maligned as too gory and violent. In the past, critics have often been divided as to its value as a tragedy, especially when compared to the later and greater tragedies like Hamlet and King Lear. Nevertheless, most agree that it is definitely Shakespeare’s darkest, bloodiest, and most disturbing play. With knowledge of this, a friend asked me, ”Can you do this play? As a Christian, how can you play this character?” I asked myself the same thing, so I wasn’t put off by the question. About twenty-five years ago I read a small booklet written by Frances A. Schaeffer called Art and the Bible.
“Christian art is the expression of the whole life of the whole person as a Christian. What a Christian portrays in his art is the totality of life. Art is not to be solely a vehicle for some sort of self-conscious evangelism.” ― Francis A. Schaeffer, Art and the Bible
In section two of the book he offers four standards of judgment for Christian Art (art consistent with a Christian world view). I’ve been using these standards as guidlines for over twenty years; they’ve been quite helpful and I’ve internalized them as my own, incorporating them in my decision making process when judging whether or not to take on a role or be a part of any stage production. I would like to review the standards with you, applying them to Titus Andronicus to give readers an idea of my process in choosing a role. I’m not a scholar; I’m writing as a practitioner who has shared this same info with other professional artists who have found it to be of some help. Since I’m not giving a review of this book, I’m only going to focus on section two, and briefly refer to his four standards of judging art:
1. Technical excellence
2. Validity
3. World View
4. Suitability of form to content
These principles must be seen as a unit, not one in isolation from the other. It must also be applied to one’s own situation and discipline. So, using Shakespeare’s Titus Andronicus and my own creative discipline of acting, lets see how these principles work for me in the situation I find myself in.
Technical Excellence: This refers to the quality of the material, the skill to which the artist is able to realize his vision, and the ability that they’re able to bring to the medium, the tools used, and how the various elements are used. This one is easy. William Shakespeare easily passes muster. He’s considered the greatest english speaking playwright to ever live. Period. So I don’t even wonder whether or not his material will be technically proficient or excellently crafted; I’ve read them all and know they are. And excellence is important! I try not do perform in bad plays (and a play having a Christian message is no exception). I stay away from religious material that is poorly crafted because its a bad witness, but I will do a non-religious play that is well crafted if it meets these four standards.
Regarding technical excellence, my own skill (or lack thereof) must be taken into account. Just as a musician must be able to read a score, interpret a song, and be technically proficient enough on his instrument in order to bring a certain piece of music to life, so must I as the actor portraying a character. I too must know how to “score” my script, understand it, interpret it, less I perform ”off key”. But I myself, am my own instrument, and I must have the technical ability – vocally, physically, emotionally – to bring the role to life. I’m a trained actor who has also been trained in the classics, so the role that was offered to me was one that I felt I could handle reasonably well, with some skill and emotional depth. Though I’m not afraid to take a risk and “stretch”, I try not to accept a role if I do not feel I am right for the part. As I once heard a legendary jazz musician say, “I try to play within myself”.
Validity: This refers to motives; the reason behind doing the work. Is it a work of authenticity, consistent with one’s purpose and world view? Or is it taken on for purely commercial success. I do not act in plays, or take on roles I don’t believe in. I refuse to pander, nor do I enjoy being used in propaganda, or pander to sentimentality. And by “believe in”, I do not mean that I must personally agree with what the character says and does, but rather, I must agree with the purpose he serves in the life of the play and it’s overall message.
I had to give this one some thought when choosing whether or not to do this play. Andonicus has often been accused of pandering to audiences thirst for blood, and depending on the vision of the director of any given production, the blood, and violence contained in this play could be handled in such a fashion that does indeed pander rather than reveal; heightening the blood, sex, and violence in a gratuitous fashion, instead of than revealing something about the nature of evil and revenge.
And then there is the issue of ego. The character I’m playing is problematic for me because most actors will tell you that they would love to play a villain because they’re so much “fun” to play, and the character I’m playing, Aaron, is one of the greatest villains Shakespeare ever wrote. So, when deciding whether to take the role, I had to take care that my desire for a meaty role did not cloud my discernment, or cause me to overlook problems with the role and the play simply because my ego was being stroked. That’s a poor motivation for taking a role and it doesn’t pass the validity test.
“Our highest purpose in theatre is to represent culture’s need to address the question, ‘How can I live in a world in which I am doomed to die?’” – David Mamet
World View: Don’t be fooled. If it’s “Art”, it reflects a world view – Biblical or otherwise. As a Christian, I seek to create work that reflect themes consistent with a Christian world view (as I understand it), AND reality. Schaeffer says that art can be Biblical or not, it can reflect truth or not. The Pulitzer winning playwright David Mamet (Glengarry Glen Ross, The Untouchables) has said: “The theatre is the place where we go to hear the truth.” The work of an artist can be judged, just as we’re called to judge anything else. I do not believe that art must be used only for utilitarian purposes; it can indeed exist simply for the sake of beauty. And yet, art that reflects a Christian world view is also art that corresponds with reality, even if the work of art never uses Biblical or Christian symbolsor words in it’s portrayal.
“We should realize that if something untrue or immoral is stated in great art, it can be far more devastating than if it is expressed in poor art. The greater the artistic expression, the more important it is to consciously bring it and it’s worldview under the judgment of Christ and the Bible. The common reaction among many however, is just the opposite. Ordinarily, many seem to feel that the greater the art, the less we ought to be critical of its worldview. This we must reverse.”― Francis A. Schaeffer, Art & the Bible
However, Schaeffer points out that for the artist’s art and world view to be Christian and correspond to reality, it must also portray the reality of both the Major and Minor themes of life. The Minor Theme expresses the brokenness of our world and our humanity. We have all gone astray and cant find our way back to Eden. Having lost sight of God’s ultimate intention for our lives, lives that are wounded, sinful, and bent toward evil. It is a reality that this world is darkened, filled with violence, wickedness, abuse, and bloodshed. Even the best of us, Christian or otherwise, experience sorrow, loss, and defeat, and we will never experience total victory this side of eternity. We want to return to Eden, because things are not the way they’re supposed to be; God’s creation has been vandalized. This is the Minor Theme of the Bible. Art that is rooted in reality will be honest about this truth. Too often “Christian” art fails to honestly address minor themes, and as a result is dismissed as sentimental propaganda. Non-Christians reject it as out of touch, and not corresponding to reality.
Then there is the Major Theme of the Bible. The major theme reminds us that God has not left us alone. It is a Christian belief that God came and lived among us. He now lives within the believer continuing his work among those who were also created in His image. Things are dark, but we live in the already/not yet, Kingdom of God, so there is also light, and the world is full of faith, hope, and love.
Also remember that one play can’t always explore both major and minor themes adequately; artists can’t always give “equal air time”. But a body of work will portray both minor and major themes, sometimes in the same work, but not out of necessity. Just as we do not judge a pastor based on one sermon, or the Holy Bible based on one book, say the book of Lamentations (or the rape, mutilation, and other atrocities portrayed in the Book of Judges); in the same way we do not judge the world view of an artist, be they actor, musician, or a playwright such as Shakespeare, based on the treatment of one play.
In my opinion, a work of art is not truly “Christian” in an authentic sense, no matter how hopeful, if it has no room for minor themes. It is merely sentimental – not reflecting our true condition. Just as the Christian Bible portrays man acting out all manner of atrocities, so can an artist with a “Christian” world view explore some of these same minor themes. But ultimately the body of the artist’s creative work will hopefully reveal a world view that reflects faith, hope, and love, or the longing for such, after all, “The law was brought in so that the trespass might increase. But where sin increased, grace increased all the more.” – Romans 5:20
Suitability of form to content: Is the medium used appropriate; does it do a good job at communicating the message or vision of the artist? This is the final standard of judgment, and I think history has shown the impact drama has in communicating truth. Themes in action, whether on stage or in film are powerful. I also believe that the form to content question has to do with taste. There is much in art and it’s presentation that some Christians believe to be sin issues, that are often times a matter of taste or personal scruples, i.e., “Don’t eat, don’t touch”. I’m fortunate to be working with a director who seems concerned about balancing risk with “Good Taste” (for those of you who know the play, I hope you appreciated that pun). I also believe that there is no better artistic medium than theatre to address the question, “How can I live in a world in which I am doomed to die?” We get a chance to live vicariously through the characters as we watch theologies (questions about God, the nature of good and evil, etc.) and world views put to the test in action onstage, albeit vicariously:
“There is no more searching test of a theology than to submit it to dramatic handling; nothing so glaringly exposes inconsistencies in a character, a story, or a philosophy as to put it upon the stage and allow it to speak for itself. Any theology that will stand the rigorous pulling and hauling of the dramatist is pretty tough in its texture…I can only affirm that at no point have I yet found artistic truth and theological truth at variance.” – Dorothy Sayers
So for me, TitusAndronicus passes muster on these four guidelines. Yes, it is a dark play. I’ve always felt that for good to be seen as truly good, then evil must be seen as truly evil, not merely “disordered”. What makes the play and the character portrayals consistent with a Christian worldview is that the play says the same thing about sin and evil that scripture says about sin and evil. Evil isn’t portrayed as noble or heroic. Revenge, though easy to justify from a merely human point of view, is shown for what it is, an evil that motivates others to greater acts of evil.
Though dark, Titus does reflect a Biblical perspective regarding the minor theme of life, no matter how disruptive. The wicked are punished, and the one leader left standing is the one who happens to have a conscience. As rehearsals progress, I’ll continue to share my thoughts and experiences. Who knows? Maybe my views will change or I’ll gain some new insights on the nature of evil. Keep me in your prayers.
_____
Review | Art And The Bible By Francis Schaeffer
The Story of Francis and Edith Schaeffer and Swiss L’Abri
Francis Schaeffer: Art and the Bible
_
How Should We Then Live – Episode 8 – The Age of Fragmentation
Book Summary of Art in the Bible by Francis Schaeffer
_
How Should We Then Live – Episode Seven – 07 – Portuguese Subtitles
_
Francis Schaeffer – How Should We Then Live – 03.The Renaissance
Lonnie Holley was born in 1950 in Birmingham, Alabama. One of the South’s preeminent self-taught artists, Holley lives and works in Atlanta, Georgia. His practice extends from assemblage and sculpture to music. He made his debut as a recording artist in 2012, at sixty-two years old; he has since worked with such figures as Bon Iver, the Dirty Projectors, and Animal Collective.
After a wild and unsettled youth, Holley started making sand sculptures at age twenty-nine and in time began working with found objects and painting. His assemblages, which bring together recycled and natural materials, remain his most widely known works. Holley was included in the 2006 book, The Last Folk Hero: A True Story of Race and Art, Power and Profit, about the collector Bill Arnett, and was featured in the landmark 1981 exhibition, More than Land and Sky: Art From Appalachia, at the National Museum of American Art.
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 […]
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 […]
STARMUS panel announces ground-breaking Stephen Hawking Medals for Science Communication at the The Royal Society Featuring: Professor Sir Harry Kroto, Alexei Leonov, Dr Richard Dawkins, Dr Brian May, Professor Stephen Hawking, Professor Garik Israelian
–
_
451 × 266Images may be subject to copyright.Learn More
and you will hear what far smarter people than I have to say on this matter. I agree with them.
Harry Kroto
__
(Harry Kroto pictured below)
I have attempted to respond to all of Dr. Kroto’s friends arguments and I have posted my responses one per week for over a year now. Here are some of my earlier posts:
In the first video below in the 15th clip in this series are Hawking’s words and my response is was given in an earlier post.
In the popular You Tube video “Renowned Academics Speaking About God” Professor Hawking made the following statement:
“M-Theory doesn’t disprove God, but it does make him unnecessary. It predicts that the universe will be spontaneously created out of nothing without the need for a creator.” –Stephen Hawking, Cambridge theoretical physicist
Stephen Jay Gould is the scholar I will look at today.In the third video below in the 147th clip in this series are his words “If I were a bacteria I would be quite satisfied that I was dominating the planet…I don’t know why consciousness should be seen as any state of higher being especially if you use the evolutionist primary criterion of success measured by duration” and I have responded directly to this quote in any earlier post.
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)
__
_
This is the first portion of my 5-15-94 letter to Stephen Hawking and next week I will have the second part.
On May 15, 1994 on the 10th anniversary of the passing of Francis Schaeffer I mailed the following letter to Stephen Hawking.
Could you take 3 minutes and attempt to refute the nihilistic message of the song which appears at the beginning of the enclosed tape? Back in 1980 I watched the series COSMOS and on May 5, 1994 I again sat down to watch it again. In this letter today I will tell you of 3 GENTLEMEN who contemplated the world around them. The first one is an evolutionist by the name of Carl Sagan. Mr. Sagan is what I would call a humanist full of optimism.
The second man also sought to contemplate the world around him and this man was King Solomon of Israel. In the Book of Ecclesiastes, Solomon limits himself to the question of human life lived “under the sun” between birth and death and what answers this would give (that is exactly what Mr. Sagan has done in COSMOS).It is this belief that life is only between birth and death that eventually causes Solomon to embrace nihilism. In the first few words of Ecclesiastes he observes the continual cycles of the earth and makes some very interesting conclusions”…to search for understanding about everything in the universe.”
The third man I want to mention is Francis Schaeffer who I believe was the greatest Christian philosopher of the 20th century. However, when he was a young agnostic many years ago he also had an experience similar to King Solomon’s when he contemplated the world and universe around him.contemplated the world and the universe around him.CARL SAGAN:”Our contemplations of the Cosmos stir us. There is a tingling in the spine, a catch in the voice, a faint sensation as if a distant memory of falling from a great height. We know we are approaching the grandest of mysteries.”KING SOLOMON: Ecclesiastes 1:2-11;3:18-19 (Living Bible): 2 In my opinion, nothing is worthwhile; everything is futile. 3-7 For what does a man get for all his hard work?Generations come and go, but it makes no difference.[b] The sun rises and sets and hurries around to rise again. The wind blows south and north, here and there, twisting back and forth, getting nowhere.* The rivers run into the sea, but the sea is never full, and the water returns again to the rivers and flows again to the sea . .everything is unutterably weary and tiresome. No matter how much we see, we are never satisfied; no matter how much we hear, we are not content. History merely repeats itself…For men and animals both breathe the same air, and both die. So mankind has no real advantage over the beasts; what an absurdity!—-What Solomon said ties into this following statement by evolutionist Douglas Futuyma – “Whether people are explicitly religious or not they tend to imagine that humans are in some sense the center of the universe. And what evolution does is to remove humans from the center of the universe. We are just one product of a very long historical process that has given rise to an enormous amount of organisms, and we are just one of them. So in one sense there is nothing special about us.”
———-FRANCIS SCHAEFFER: There is no doubt in my mind that Solomon had the same experience in his life that I had as a younger man (at the age of 18 in 1930). I remember standing by the sea and the moon arose and it was copper and beauty. Then the moon did not look like a flat dish but a globe or a sphere since it was close to the horizon. One could feel the global shape of the earth too. Then it occurred to me that I could contemplate the interplay of the spheres and I was exalted because I thought I can look upon them with all their power, might, and size, but they could contempt nothing. Then came upon me a horror of great darkness because it suddenly occurred to me that although I could contemplate them and they could contemplate nothing yet they would continue to turn in ongoing cycles when I saw no more forever and I was crushed.
__________________PAGE 1 B
Solomon died 3000 years ago and Francis Schaeffer passed away on May 15, 1984 exactly 10 years ago.I firmly believe Solomon was correct when he said in Ecclesiastes 7:2 “It is better to spend your time at funerals than at festivals. For you are going to die, and it is a good thing to think about it while there is time.”Suppose that you to learn that you only had just one year to live—the number of your days would be 365. What would you do with the precious few days that remained to you? With death stalking you, you would have little interest in trivial subjects and would instead be concerned with essentials. I know that is what I did when I was bed ridden in a hospital in Memphis at age 15. I was told that I may not live. My thoughts turned to spiritual things. Thank you for your time.Sincerely,Everette Hatcher III, P.O. Box 23426, Little Rock, AR 72221TIME MAGAZINE May 28, 1984:DIED, Francis Schaeffer, 72. Christian theologian and a leading scholar of evangelical Protestantism; of cancer; in Rochester, Minn. Schaeffer, a Philadelphia-born Presbyterian, and his wife in 1955 founded L’Abri (French for ‘the shelter’), a chalet in the Swiss Alps known among students and intellectuals for a reasoned rather than emotional approach to religious counseling. His 23 philosophical books include the bestseller How Should We Then Live? (1976).” (January 30, 1912-May 15, 1985)
Adrian Rogers is pictured below and Francis Schaeffer above.
Watching the film HOW SHOULD WE THEN LIVE? in 1979 impacted my life greatly
Francis Schaeffer in the film WHATEVER HAPPENED TO THE HUMAN RACE?
Francis and Edith Schaeffer
_____
Kerry Livgren/Dave Hope: 700 Club Interview (Kansas) Part 2
__________________ Beatles 1966 Last interview I have dedicated several posts to this series on the Beatles and I don’t know when this series will end because Francis Schaeffer spent a lot of time listening to the Beatles and talking and writing about them and their impact on the culture of the 1960’s. In this […]By Everette Hatcher III | Posted in Francis Schaeffer | Tagged George Harrison, John Lennon, Paul MacCartney, Peter Blake, Ringo Starr | Edit | Comments (1)
_______________ The Beatles documentary || A Long and Winding Road || Episode 5 (This video discusses Stg. Pepper’s creation I have dedicated several posts to this series on the Beatles and I don’t know when this series will end because Francis Schaeffer spent a lot of time listening to the Beatles and talking and writing about […]By Everette Hatcher III | Posted in Francis Schaeffer | Tagged Beatles, Mika Tajima | Edit|Comments (0)
_______________ 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 […]By Everette Hatcher III | Posted in Francis Schaeffer | Tagged Blow Up, David Hemmings,Michelangelo Antonioni, Nancy Holt, Sarah Miles., Vanessa Redgrave | Edit |Comments (0)
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 […]By Everette Hatcher III | Posted in Francis Schaeffer, Woody Allen | Tagged alan alda, Anjelica Huston, mia farrow, Sam Waterston | Edit | Comments (0)
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 Schaeffer […]By Everette Hatcher III | Posted in Francis Schaeffer, Woody Allen | Tagged Allora & Calzadilla |Edit| Comments (0)
___________________________________ 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 […]By Everette Hatcher III | Posted in Francis Schaeffer | Tagged Trey McCarley | Edit | Comments (0)
The Daily Hatch 