Posted tagged ‘science’

Jesus Christ, the Common Core of all DIVE courses

May 7, 2014

A Brief History of University

Late in the 12th Century, a phenomenon unique to Europe appeared, the university. University is actually a combination of two words, unity and diversity. Originally, universities were schools that owned no real estate, but were instead an association of teachers or students. Although not always theologically or scholarly accurate, what under girded the university was the unification of all subjects by an all-encompassing worldview. Christianity provided the unity that connected the diversity of courses offered.*

In other words, Jesus Christ was at the core of the worldview of original universities! Unfortunately, in the 21st Century, Christianity is no longer at the core of most educational systems. In the United States, the government’s new Common Core program has a godless, purposeless, evolutionary worldview at its core.

Who Interprets the Facts Matters

Cornelius Van Til (1895-1987), author of Essays on Christian Education, made the wise statement that, in this world, there exists a whole collection of facts. Would you rather have those facts interpreted to your child through a Christian or a non-Christian worldview?

For Christians, the answer should be simple. Jesus Christ is, or should be, the common core of all the subjects we teach our children. To the extent that we are able to, we should try to use curriculum taught from a Christian worldview. But that also doesn’t mean we need to fear books and courses that are taught from a non-Christian, or even anti-Christian worldview. We just need to train our children how to think critically about these things. If we teach them the Truth, they will be more capable of detecting false “philosophy and empty deceit.” (Colossians 2:8)

Pray that more Christian families will realize the problems of sending their children day after day to be taught in schools where Jesus Christ is not the common core. Pray that we can find new and creative ways to help those who, for various reasons, it would be extremely difficult or impossible to home school or attend a private Christian school. Pray for Christian families in countries where homeschooling and Christian schooling is illegal, that they will be able to help their children test everything they are learning, holding onto the good (I Thessalonians 5:21).

If you are interested in learning more about DIVE Math and Science courses, where Jesus Christ is the common core, click here.

*Paraphrased from Mathematics, is God Silent?, by James Nickel.

Build a Better Engine

April 17, 2014

Over the last few years, I have talked to a lot of people who spew propaganda claiming Bible-believing Christians are “anti-science.” Because people like me are skeptical of the history claims of evolutionists and futurology claims of global warming alarmists, we are labeled “anti-science.” Fortunately, discerning between what is and is not a scientific claim is as easy as understanding a chocolate chip cookie recipe. Unfortunately, some refuse to acknowledge the differences, using the “Christians are anti-science” fallacy to create political division. For others,  it’s just another excuse to hate their neighbor.

One pattern I’ve noticed among the “Christians are anti-science” crowd is that the most outspoken individuals tend to have little or no background in science or engineering. When God gives me an opportunity to talk to unbelievers that promote this agenda, I have learned to 1) let them know Christians like me are most assuredly pro-science, 2) present the Gospel, and 3) encourage them to stop doing what they are doing and get into a science and engineering field.

Something I have encouraged more than one unbeliever to do is “build me a better engine.” Promoting the idea that fossil fuels are causing catastrophic global warming is foolish. In spite of increased atmospheric CO2 levels, there has been no warming for 17 years and 8 months now. If, instead of promoting unscientific future climate ideas and labeling those who disagree as “anti-science,” why not do something meaningful?  Why not be actively involved in designing less expensive, more fuel efficient engines, ones that could reduce air pollution and provide better lives for the poor? Wouldn’t a pro-science, love-your-neighbor mindset be better than an unscientific, hate-your-neighbor one? Well, of course it would, but the former is a difficult concept for those who don’t believe the foolishness of God is wiser than men (I Corinthians 1:25).

Unless God changes their hearts and they repent and turn to Christ, foolish actions are to be expected from unbelievers (Psalm 14:1). Fortunately, there are young Christian men and women out there who love God and His creation, and want to “build a better engine” for His glory. Listen to this testimony from David K., a homeschooling senior that is currently using our DIVE Calculus course (bold emphasis mine):

“Thank you also for all the work you have put into the DIVE CDs. Your teaching is clear, easy to understand, and you explain everything really well. Your lectures have helped me immensely, and I don’t know where I would be in math with out them. I definitely agree with you, in that God has allowed us to understand math so that we can get to know Him better. I love looking in Creation and seeing God Himself! I am a senior in high-school, and I plan to go to college to study Engineering Physics, with mechanical emphasis. I want to eventually perform engine research to produce a more financially feasible engine. I would do this by creating a new energy conversion process that does more work per unit of fuel than engines today. I have always had a love for science and math, and I really look up to people like you who know so much and use it for the glory of God. Thank you for being a great example for me to follow.” 

While David K’s words are incredibly kind and humbling to me, I hope they are an encouragement to you! A lot of people are surrounded by hopelessness and despair, but there’s also a lot of hope out there, too!

Are you a young person like David K who loves the Lord and wants to take what God has made and use it to design things that will serve others? Are you currently an unbeliever? Whoever you are, it is important to be intellectually honest and spread the word that Christians are pro-science. History proclaims this truth, as do present actions of humans all over the world.  So, enough of this blog post, get out there and build a better engine!

Journey to Novarupta Audio Adventure

January 25, 2014

Journey to Novarupta

By God’s grace, we are in the production phase for the new audio adventure, Journey to Novarupta! We thought a film by this title would be produced first, but Providence is guiding us in a different direction right now. We are so grateful to have Pat and Sandy Roy at the helm, with their 15+ years of experience producing radio dramas (Jonathan Park).

The audio adventure is based on the true stories of Dr. Robert Griggs 1915-1919 expeditions to the Novarupta volcano, coupled with two expeditions I led in 2009 and 2011.

Listen to the intro, as Dr. Griggs and his time are caught in the middle of a pumice storm, at night, while surrounded by thousands of steaming, toxic fumaroles: Journey To Novarupta Opening Scene

A Profound Theological Statement

December 30, 2013

In his new book, Rocks Aren’t Clocks, PhD geologist John K. Reed writes:

“Today’s geology assumes the truth of secular naturalism as a matter of course. That emphasizes the need to examine the philosophical and theological issues. For example, people ask if the Bible is a reliable historical source. That’s not a question of science, but it is a question that has profound implications for geology. If we answer in the negative, we have made a profound theological statement; if we answer in the affirmative, then prehistory is precluded and the atheistic geological history that most of us learned in school is false.”

So here is one man who says that we are making a profound theological statement when we ask if the Bible is a reliable historical source.  But then other Christians answer the question in a more agnostic, “I don’t know” fashion.  And still other Christians agree with the atheists, thinking that answering in the affirmative is “embarrassing.”  But, do the agnostic or “embarrassed” believers, as well as the unbelievers realize what a profound theological statement they are making? And do they realize, as Dr. Reed points out, that the earth age question is not primarily a question of science, but of history?

Should any Christian be agnostic or embarrassed about whether the Bible is a reliable historical source? Well, no. Think about the detailed genealogical records in Scripture. Those are in the Bible to remind us of God’s unbroken covenant of grace with mankind throughout history.  Beginning with Adam and Eve in Genesis 3:15, God’s covenant of grace unfolds through history, going from Adam to Noah, to Abraham, to Moses, to David, and finally to Christ.

Also, looking at Scriptures like Romans 1:20, or Matthew 19:4, or Mark 10:6, there is no good reason to interpret those any other way except that mankind was present from Day 6 on.  Personally, I don’t know exactly how old the earth is, but it is reasonable to conclude from Scripture that it is around 6,000 years old, and mankind has been there since the beginning.

If you are a Christian who is currently “agnostic” or “embarrassed” about the earth age question, I encourage you to read Rocks Aren’t Clocks. You will quickly understand that there isn’t a science vs. Scripture battle, but there is most definitely a battle between the worldviews of Christianity and naturalism. The battle is over how to interpret history, not whether Christians are debating the existence of gravity, DNA, etc. If, on the other hand, you are an unbeliever who thinks Christianity is foolishness, then I pray that God will change your heart, because all the evidence in the world won’t save you. Jesus saves.

What does EVOLUTION really mean?

September 30, 2013
This AP Biology laboratory activity works just fine without the controversial word

This AP Biology laboratory activity works just fine without the controversial word “evolution” included. “Population Genetics and Inheritance” would be a better title.

The Evolution of “evolution”

The word “evolution” can mean a lot of things, which in turn leads to a lot of confusion! A brief look at the etymology reveals that “evolution” was originally a Latin word for “an opening of what was rolled up,” as in the growth of a plant from a seed. Charles Darwin actually used the word only once in Origin of Species, as he preferred “descent with modification.”

Today though, “evolution” is not so easily defined. Now, evolution might refer to anything from Darwin’s idea of descent with modification, to the idea that the whole universe is a progression of interrelated phenomena. Or, it may just mean “change,” which is the way I used it to describe how the term “evolved,” or changed over the years. The many faces of the modern definition have obvious scientific, historic, and religious implications. Let’s briefly explore these implications, and see how they may or may not relate to the creationism/evolutionism battle.

Evolution and Science

Evolution does indeed have a scientific component to it. For example, there are creationists who have PhD’s in evolutionary biology and actively work in this field. Some of you are probably thinking “how can a creationist be an evolutionist?!” Well, think about it. Darwin’s idea of “descent with modification” does occur, right? We are not all clones, right?

You look similar, yet also different, from your parents. You are walking proof that limited descent with modification is real. There is some obvious “phenotypic plasticity”, or more simply, built-in flexibility, that, within limits, allows organisms to adapt and change. So, a creationist can be an “evolutionist” in the sense that he/she is conducting research on mechanisms of inheritance. The problem is not that the creationist is being a heretic and rejecting the Genesis account, where God clearly says He created different kinds of organisms. The problem is the many faces of the word “evolution,” and applying the “universal progression” idea of evolution in this instance is improper.

The photo above is from my DIVE Biology curriculum. Lab activities designated “AP” are recommended by the College Board, creators of the AP exams that high schoolers can take to receive college credit for high school work. However, because of the confusion over what “evolution” means, tagging on that word alongside “population genetics” is unnecessary. If, by evolution you mean the “universal progression” idea, then it is laughable if you think this lab activity is going to prove that. The lab is actually just a card-type game that uses multiple forms of the same gene, called alleles, to show the effects of a lethal mutation on a population. It also teaches students about the inheritance mechanism known as genetic drift.  However, if by “evolution” you mean the self-evident truth that limited “descent with modification” occurs, then this lab does a pretty good job of showing how some genetic mechanisms of inheritance work. Because of confusion over the word evolution though, it would be more appropriate for the College Board to title the lab simply “Population Genetics”, or “Population Genetics and Inheritance.”

But what happens when an evolutionary biologist, who is not a creationist, finds out creationists oppose the teaching of “evolution” in schools? Well, they may end up saying pretty crazy things! For example, take evolutionary biologist Dr. Justin Bahl, who in a recent opinion article in the Houston Chronicle, claimed that creationists opposed research on pathogenic viruses!   Obviously, his confusion is over the word “evolution.” Creationists object to the naturalistic “universal progression” idea of evolution. However, I have yet to hear of a creationist who opposed research on how diseases develop resistance! Instead, a creationist who is also a scientist would use every inheritance mechanism currently known in an effort to discover disease cures.

Viruses, bacteria, etc. develop drug resistance. This is self-evident. It is also self-evident that viruses and bacteria almost never show the “universal progression” idea, which would require they create new, functional information, and lots of it. They have never displayed anything more than a limited “descent with modification.”

Rapid evolution” is another growing area of “evolution” research that interests creationists. A Google search of the phrase “rapid evolution” produced 130,000 results! So what is “rapid evolution,” and how is that different from just normal evolution? Well, the difference lies in Darwin’s idea that evolution requires millions of years of “numerous, successive, slight modifications” (Darwin’s own words in Origin of Species). But Darwin’s “gradualism” is really part of the unscientific “universal progression” idea.

Darwin said his theory would “absolutely break down” if it could be demonstrated that a complex organ formed without involving gradualism. Well, that’s exactly what happened in a transplanted population of wall lizards, who developed a “brand new structure”, without any known genetic changes! But, they are still just wall lizards, with no change of kind.

So what is “rapid evolution”? Well, it is exactly what scientists like Dr. Bahl study! “Rapid evolution” is about studying fairly significant changes in populations that occur in just a few generations. It occurs in everything from the viral pathogens Dr. Bahl researches, to plants, to trout and more. To a creationist though, “rapid evolution” is mainly just adaptation, and the more we learn about it, the more it confirms what creationists already knew, that life was designed to adapt! Also, “rapid evolution” is what creationists sometimes refer to as “microevolution.”

Evolution and History

Creationists have no objections to testable, repeatable science. So what is this creationism/evolutionism battle about then? Well, it is a battle over how to interpret history. Scientific research is about conducting experiments and verifying the results with further experimentation. Natural history research is ultimately about interpretation, not verification. It really boils down to storytelling. In fact, a common phrase geologists like to use is “every rock has a story.” Under what conditions was it formed? What is it composed of? When was it formed? Geologists and other naturalists can perform a variety of scientific tests that can then be used to help them write a story about the past. However, any story they come up with, creationist or otherwise, is still an interpretation, not a verification, of the past.

But if history is about interpretation and storytelling, while scientific endeavors are about repeatability and verification, then why is history part of a supposedly scientific course like biology? Well, history does matter, so you cannot completely exclude it. However, when a biology textbook writer inserts the unscientific “universal progression” idea of common descent from single-celled organisms, to the exculsion of ideas related to uncommon descent, then that’s a problem. In a biology textbook, the natural history component should be very minor, and should not dogmatically assert the “universal progression” idea, using descriptions like “animals arose from bacteria,” etc. One focus of any historic component in a biology course should be on using the body of past scientific research to further unlock the mysteries of the various mechanisms of inheritance.

Evolution and Religion

Ironically, while confused scientists like Dr. Bahl are making false claims that creationists are “anti-science,” it is actually the evolutionists who are stifling scientific progress! A glaring example is Eugenie Scott, the soon-to-retire director of the evolutionist propaganda mill known as the National Center for Science Education (NCSE). Behaving like a villain of science, Scott recently proclaimed that the 21st Century Science of epigenetics was too hard for high school students  to learn! This is completely false. Epigenetics relates to the set of biological information that directs the genes, switching them on and off at certain times and places. Epigenetics is like the captain that directs the “ship” known as the genome. This is an analogy a 5-year old could understand! Epigenetics is also another mechanism of inheritance that is contributing to our understanding of human health-related topics like those Dr. Bahl studies.

But why would an organization like NCSE, whose purpose is supposedly to defend the teaching of evolution, be opposed to teaching evolution? Once again, it depends on what you mean by “evolution”. The evolution NCSE is defending is the “universal progression”, naturalistic form, and they make this abundantly clear. As dogmatic Darwinists, they presuppose a simple cell filled with one-dimensional (linear) DNA that randomly mutates and magically generates new information.

But 21st Century science reveals that the cell is anything but simple, and DNA actually works in 3-dimensions (4 if you include time), not one! To say a cell is “simple” is as false as saying the infrastructure running New York City is “simple.” Since dogmatic naturalistic beliefs also presuppose gradualism, they often feel a need to suppress new discoveries related to cell complexity.

And yes, naturalism is a religious belief system. As a recent lawsuit filed in a federal court states, naturalism directs one to ask “ultimate religious questions” such as “where do we come from?” Ultimate questions like this are not scientific questions, because we can’t use scientific methods to answer them. There really is no conflict between science and religion. The “battle” is about religious belief systems, like naturalism and Christianity. And it is a battle, not a war, because the war has been won through Christ!

While secular humanists and atheists almost always have naturalism and its related components like evolutionism as core tenets of their religion, many other religious people view God as using evolutionism to bring about life. So, it is not just atheist/humanist folks who incorporate the “universal progression” form of evolution into their religious beliefs. Many theists do as well, which is why it is right to say that it is a violation of the 1st and 14th amendments when a public school uses naturalism in an effort to address origins questions.

Should scientists drop the word “evolution?”

Journalists, who are typically not scientists, are almost always confused about evolution, to the point that some even think Texas has banned the teaching of evolution! Of course, that is as false as Dr. Bahl’s claims that creationists are against the study of diseases. But, because so many are so confused about evolution, mainly because it can mean so many different things, wouldn’t it be better to just stop using the word in scientific circles? Instead of “evolutionary biology”, we could have “hereditary biology.” This wouldn’t change Dr. Bahl’s job a bit, as he would still be studying how pathogens use different mechanisms of inheritance to develop drug resistance. And instead of studying “rapid evolution”, scientists could study “adaptation” instead, as this is mainly what is happening. Environmental conditions change, and organisms adapt.

So yes, scientists should drop the word “evolution,” and put the “universal progress” form of it in a philosophy, history, or religion class. In America, the time is past due to take the religious, “universal progress” form of evolution out of the public school science classroom where legally, it doesn’t belong.

Will TFN Stand Up for Science?

September 12, 2013

TFN range rider dino photo

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

Probably not.  Next Tuesday (Sep. 17, 2013), the Texas State Board of Education will hear public testimony regarding new textbooks for Texas’ state-run schools. Unfortunately for some, promoting quality science materials for all children will take a back seat to TFN-sponsored anti-creationism and global warming hysteria. TFN will lead the charge, with yet another irrational dinosaur history protest scheduled for noon outside the William B. Travis building in Austin, TX.

Anti-creationism hysteria

Many people do not know that a basic principle of the scientific method is repeatability. If you can verify a claim through repeated experimentation, then it is a scientific claim. But think about the “battles”. The creation/evolution battle is not over scientifically verifiable claims, it is a battle over how to interpret unrecorded history. The last time I checked, most thinking people define the study of the past as history, not science! People have different interpretations of the past, but so what? Why do we need to protest that? Can’t we just discuss it? All indications are that TFN and their allies are not interested in standing up for science, they are interested in defending their dogmatic interpretation of history, at all costs. How irrational and misleading!

Global warming hysteria

And think about global warming hysteria. Meteorologists can still barely produce a decent 10-day weather forecast, yet many have been suckered into “believing” long-term climate models that are not easily verifiable. Global warming hysteria is really fueled more by “futurology” than anything scientific. Fortunately, now that the hysteria has been around for a while, we have real observations to compare to speculative models. The verdict is in: the models overwhelmingly predicted higher-than-actual temperatures over the last 30 years.

A disregard for real science

But what about testable repeatable science? What about the study of epigenetics, a field that is revolutionizing all of the biological sciences? If you think of the genome (set of all your DNA) as the “ship”, it doesn’t do anything without a captain. And what is the “captain”? It’s the epigenome, a separate set of information stored in a variety of forms inside cells. Epigenetics has implications for everything from cancer to the effects of diet on human health.

Recently, I reviewed some of the Texas biology textbooks up for adoption. Amazingly, not one of the textbooks I reviewed contained information on epigenetics! In 2011, when I reviewed online materials for Texas schools, I had to go against my entire review team just to get one lousy paragraph on the epigenome into the curriculum!

Why the disregard for teaching 21st Century Science? Well, it doesn’t come from scientists, but from dinosaur history protesters. You see, epigenetics has been proposed as “an outright counterpoint to purely Mendelian inheritance” and as “the study of heritable changes in cellular phenotype, or gene expression that is initiated by factors other than changes in the DNA sequence.” (from The Epigenetic Landsape, an article in the Spring 2012 issue of In Vivo, published by the University of Texas Department of Biological Sciences). For close-minded Darwinists, “change” comes from DNA mutations alone, which is why epigenetics “raises hackles” for the irrational, unscientific horde.

Will 21st Century science be suppressed in Texas textbooks? Time will tell. All scientists would agree that 21st Century biology students should learn about epigenetics. But what about political activists, shouldn’t they agree, too? Yesterday, I called and emailed Texas Freedom Network (TFN), asking them to support teaching epigenetics in Texas textbooks. I have not heard back from them, and am not too optimistic that I will. I think they would rather spend time photoshopping dinosaurs riding horseback than pushing for better math and science education in Texas.

Pray for TFN and their allies, that they would see their folly and turn from it.  Pray that they would repent and promote liberty through Christ alone, the Author of all knowledge, and the #1 Advocate of good education for all children!

Is theistic evolution a disease of learning?

March 26, 2011

Add to FacebookAdd to DiggAdd to Del.icio.usAdd to StumbleuponAdd to RedditAdd to BlinklistAdd to TwitterAdd to TechnoratiAdd to Yahoo BuzzAdd to Newsvine

Francis Bacon, the founder of the modern scientific method, believed that if we were to truly advance learning, Christians should study what God said in His word, and study what God made in Creation. But,  he also cautioned that we should avoid unwisely mingling or confounding these learnings together. Confusion exists regarding Francis Bacon and his beliefs, but everything I have read by him leads me to conclude that he believed God’s word was the ultimate authority. According to Bacon, humans err when their pride inclines them to “leave the oracle of God’s word and to vanish in the mixture of their own inventions.”

Bacon called problems like this “diseases of learning”. In Bacon’s time, a major disease of learning was that at institutions of higher learning, students’ minds were open to the ideas of only a handful of authors who were treated more like dictators whose words must stand, rather than counselors to give advice. Four centuries later, Christians are still making the same mistakes about learning. Instead of setting God and His word as the immovable foundation that directs our learning, we constantly feel like the foundation will be stronger if we add some of man’s ideas to it or if we try to change the Bible’s story to fit the latest, greatest, goofiest idea we can come up with.

Instead of making the creativity of God the foundation and focus of a Christian education, the creativity of man is often overemphasized. Currently, I think one of the biggest hurdles to advancing learning is the idea of “theistic evolution.” Proponents of theistic evolution believe this is the proper answer to reconciling “science” and the Bible. I see two problems with this view. First, the theory of evolution is not real science. Second, science is man’s interpretation of God’s works, and we should never set man’s interpretations as equal or superior to His Word. A hierarchy exists, and Francis Bacon nails it again when he says to study “first the Scriptures, revealing the will of God, and then the creatures expressing His power.” Bacon believed in a hierarchy because he believed God’s word, and His word says in John 1:1 that “In the beginning was the Word.” His word should direct our study of His works. There is nowhere in His word that suggests we should equate the study of His word and His works, or let the study of His works direct our study of His word.

The theory of evolution is not real science. It is an idea used to explain unverifiable events from natural history. Real science follows the scientific method, where questions are asked, hypotheses made and tested, data collected and analyzed, and conclusions drawn. Then, the hypothesis may be  tested by another scientist in order to verify the claims made by the original researcher. It is unreasonable to call bacteria-to-biology teacher evolution a purely scientific endeavor. We cannot observe this process occurring, so we cannot verify any claims made about it, and that is not real science.

Another part of real science is that data is collected and models are made, which are then used to make future predictions. Of course, the accuracy of those predictions can be verified. This is impossible with claims made about past events, and this is why evolution is about researching natural history, instead of being a real scientific endeavor.

An honest evolutionist will tell you that evolution theory cannot predict how things will evolve in the future, only that they will evolve. What they may not tell you is that this would be like a weather forecaster saying “I can’t predict how the weather is going to change tomorrow. All I can tell you is that it will be different than it was today.” Or it might be like NASA saying to some astronauts “We cannot predict how you will land on the moon. All we can tell you is that you will land on the moon.” I hope you are starting to see what I mean when I say evolution is not real science, but instead is an unnecessary idea used by some Christians and others to explain natural history. Evolution is not needed to explain gravity, understand chemistry, find better cures for diseases, or manage wild salmon populations in the Pacific Northwest. If anything, it interferes with the advancement of learning about God’s creation.

There is evidence for evolution though, and you can be a Christian and believe in evolution. If all life evolved from a common ancestor, we would expect all life to have some things in common, and it does. All life needs water, and all life has DNA.  However, if all life were created by the same Designer, we would also expect all life to have some things in common. In fact, we would expect more than just life to have some things in common. Take visible light for example. All visible light can be classified as electromagnetic radiation. All visible light has a magnetic field perpendicular to an electric field. Our best understanding of light tells us that all light behaves as both a wave and a particle. But red light is not blue light, yellow light is not green light, etc. All colors of light share similar physical characteristics, but there are definite differences. This does not mean that red light evolved from blue light, etc. All forms of electromagnetic radiation do seem to be designed using the same pattern. In Genesis 1:3, God said “Let there be light, and there was light.” I don’t know anyone, theistic evolutionist or otherwise, who argues against this verse. There is no “millions of years theory for the evolution of light”. So, when God says He created in 6 days, and He created different kinds of living organisms, why not just believe that, too? Everybody has the same set of evidence, the differences come in the interpretations, and some interpretations are better than others.

Theistic evolution is a compromise

We should never set man’s interpretation of God’s works on an equal footing with His word. However, this is the goal of theistic evolution. In the movie The Genesis Code, theistic evolution was promoted as the “answer” to the supposed battle between science and religion. A good critique of the movie can be found here.

Biologos, an organization whose sole purpose is to promote theistic evolution, provides many opportunities to see how this idea results in setting aside the oracle of God’s word, replacing it with “a mixture of their own inventions.” In a lecture at Westmont College, Biologos Senior Fellow of Biblical Studies, Dr. Peter Enns, presented the following slide:

This graph is wrong. God's word and man's word (science) are not on the same plane, nor do they share a common origin. "In the beginning was the Word (John 1:1)," then came man, then came man's flawed interpretation of God's works (science).

I have some real concerns about the “Biologos version” of Scripture. And I’m not the only one. Theologian John Frame said a recent book by Dr. Enns “says nothing to promote confidence in the truth of the biblical text.” Others, like Answers in Genesis President Ken Ham, believe Enns is compromising Biblical truth. Creation Ministries International says Biologos has a “low, really low view of Scripture.” The Institute for Creation Research warns parents to “beware” of Biologos and Enns’ teachings. The Westminster Theological Seminary “parted ways” with Dr. Enns back in 2008 over concerns about his writings.

I also think Dr. Enns’ (and Biologos’) understanding of Paul, Adam, and many other things has a lot to be desired. There is no man and no church that has a perfect interpretation of Scripture, but some interpretations are definitely better than others. Atheists have the worst interpretations of Scripture. I think the best way to interpret Scripture is to apply Sola Scriptura, that is, to let Scripture interpret Scripture. If we really believe II Timothy 3:16, that God inspired men to write His word, then we should believe that the words of men like Paul, Peter, John, Moses, etc., have more authority than the words of other men, even (and especially) deep thinkers like St. Augustine, St. Basil, or C.S. Lewis. Men like these should be thought of like “counselors to give advice”.

The concerns I have about the teachings of Biologos are too numerous to go into here, but I will give one example. In Dr. Enns’ lecture mentioned earlier, he showed how Paul described Adam as the first man, and if you read Romans 5:12-21, it is easy to come to the same conclusion. Paul thought Adam, like Jesus, was a historical figure. Paul even calls Adam a “type” of Christ, a head over all humanity. Dr. Enns has a different view though, and he thinks Adam was a symbolic figure who represented Israel. He also stresses that Paul was an “ancient man”, and in this Biologos video, states that he doesn’t expect Paul to have conversed with Francis Collins about the Human Genome Project and how “common descent is essentially assured scientifically.” Dr. Enns goes on to explain that in “Paul’s mind”, there may be a connection between the real man, Adam, and the real Christ, but that we don’t have to make the same connection in our minds.  He also says Paul does not determine modern scientific discoveries of humanity for us.

Truth doesn’t change

Certainly, Paul was writing to first century Christians, and no, he didn’t have a conversation with Francis Collins. However, here is the big mistake I think Dr. Enns and other theistic evolutionists make. Paul’s words in Romans were not his alone, they were inspired by God. When Paul writes about the man, Adam, he is writing God’s words, not his own. He is writing Truth, and Truth doesn’t change. When we read books penned by Paul’s hand, we should be more concerned about “why did God have him write that?” than “what was Paul thinking?” The story of Adam and Paul promoted by Dr. Enns is twisted because God’s authority and inspiration is at the very least, minimized, and at worst, removed from the conversation. Instead, it is replaced by a mixture of Dr. Enns’ own invention.

So why would theistic evolutionists be so interested in tearing down what God says about Adam in the book of Romans? The main reason is because evolution is supposed to work on populations, not individuals, and evolution is a philosophy of death. Through the deaths of billions of animals over long periods of time, a population of humans finally came into being. If Adam wasn’t a real man, but instead a symbolic population of people known as Israel, then evolution is compatible with Scripture. But that’s not what God’s word said happened, and it’s not what His works say happened, either.

Theistic evolution is a disease of learning

So is theistic evolution a disease of learning? I would say yes. I would also say anyone who believes it is deceived. Colossians 2:8 says “Beware lest anyone cheat you through philosophy and empty deceit, according to the tradition of men, according to the basic principles of the world, and not according to Christ (NKJV).” In Genesis, God said He made everything in 6 days and rested on the 7th. This is confirmed in Exodus 20:11. In Genesis, God said he created different kinds of living organisms. Charles Darwin thought God was lying about this, and set out to develop a theory that claimed all life descended from a common ancestor. Darwin knew this would take a really long time, so he used Charles Lyell’s idea of uniformitarianism to justify the long ages. Charles Lyell also thought God was lying about Noah’s flood, and that there was no such thing as a global cataclysm.

Without putting much thought to it, many scientists jumped on the bandwagon of evolutionism and its crutch, uniformitarianism. These speculative beliefs about the past reached their peaks in the 2oth century. However, we are in a new century now, and some of this century’s scientists are showing us how these two ideas, based on the premise that God was lying, are becoming less accepted. 21st century science is showing us time and again how genetic mutations, the supposed “engines that drive evolution,” mostly result in death or cancer! It is obvious that animals adapt to their environment and change some with time, otherwise we would all be clones. But this is not evolution. For evolution to be true, new information must be created, and this has never been observed in the wild or in the laboratory. And there are no longer any real uniformitarians, because the obviousness of catastrophism is accepted by virtually all scientists. Most still reject the historical account of a worldwide global cataclysm that killed all the land animals, even though dead animals are buried under tens, hundreds, and thousands of feet of sedimentary rock all over the world, and the Earth is still mostly covered with water. I think it is very interesting that evolutionism and its crutch, uniformitarianism, both ideas based on the premise that God’s word is wrong, have caused so many setbacks in the advancement of learning.

If you are a Christian and you want to believe in theistic evolution, you are certainly free to do so, but I think you are being deceived and you are letting manmade speculations direct your reading of some Scriptures instead of letting Scripture help you interpret the scientific and historic claims made by fallible men. And because evolution is not real science, there is no reason to believe any sort of “tension” exists between science and Christianity. Science and Christianity are not at odds, but evolutionism and Christianity are. If you are ready to get on a road that will lead you to rejecting the damaging theology of theistic evolution, get out your Bible, click here and start researching. Feel free to leave a comment if you want to continue the conversation.