Re: Evolution's Imperative

Kevin O'Brien (
Tue, 23 Mar 1999 18:09:22 -0700

>To the Forum:
>I appear to have stirred up a hornets' nest with my assertion that
>theistic evolutionists are both complacent and ill-informed in believing
>they can have both evolution and Christ.

You've "asserted" more than that. You have in fact stated or implied that
evolutionists are cheats, liars, deceivers, blasphemers and idolaters; in a
word, evil. People do not object to you because you say they are wrong for
accepting both evolution and Christ; they object to you because you say that
they are evil for accepting both evolution and Christ. And for saying it in
an arrogant manner that suggests that you alone know the truth. I will be
criticized by others on this list for saying this, but I see no other
choice. Despite your claim to the contrary, your attitude has in my opinion
been very un-Christian and I am deeply ashamed to have you as a Brother in
Christ. On top of that, you have not shown the least bit of repentence for
this attitude, not even in so far as being sorry for the pain and
consternation you have caused in your fellow Christians. Indeed, with this
post you have simply chosen to dig in your heels and even try to dredge up
support from the very people you believe are in league with Satan. How you
can call yourself a Christian and yet claim the support of people you
believe are the enemy is beyond me.

>It is clear from the exchanges
>I have had with a number of members that evolution is being accepted 'by
>faith' rather than 'by sight'; the doctrine is based on the
>interpretation of historica data, is untestable, and - as I have
>attempted to demonstrate - because of its peculiar nature,

Which only convinces me that you are extremely self-deluded. Those who have
taken the time to address your claims -- whether politely as in the case of
Brian or belligerently as in my case -- have provided you with plenty of
reasons that demonstrate the falseness of your position, yet not only do you
refuse to examine these reasons, you pretend they were never even provided!
I agree with Jonathon: as long as you maintain your self-delusion, this
debate will only go around in circles.

>While the atheist and agnostic recognize well enough that the theory
>must be true, it is hard to understand - at least, on the human level -
>why those claiming allegiance to Christ are prepared to allow it to
>dictate the terms of their acceptance of God's word.

The reason is very simple: though inspired, the Bible was not written by
God, nor is it entirely literal history. It was written by men, who added
far more than what was simply God's message of salvation. You are simply
confusing the words of men for the Word of God (Christ Himself), because the
words of men say what you want to believe.

>It is clear to me
>that what the TE understands by 'the gospel' is a matter of 'pick 'n'

The Gospels say nothing about natural history, so I for one at least do not
"pick and choose" on the basis of evolution, and the fact of evolution has
not impact on the truth of salvation.

>Let me explain: any biblical passage (including even the words of
>Christ) that appears to endanger their committment to evolution is
>questioned, and thereafter excluded from further consideration.

Neither Christ nor the New Testament says anything that would "endanger" any
committment to evolutionary science. As for the Old Testament, only the
first eleven chapters of Genesis challenge evolutionary science, but these
chapters do not add anything significant to the concept of salvation. In
the final analysis, there simply is no conflict between the Bible and
evolutionary science.

>In such
>circumstances what remains can hardly be seriously claimed to be the
>inspired, inerrant, word of God!

Here are several examples of God's "inerrancy", but only if you assume that
God wrote the Bible Himself word for word:

So I guess that when God says that the moon is a "light" like the sun, the
moon must really be a miniature star. How can you possibly question this?

So I guess that when God says that Joshua commanded the moon and the sun to
stand still, both actually move around the earth. How can you possibly
question this?

So I guess that when God says He holds all things together, gravity, the
strong nuclear force and electromagnetism must be false sciences. How can
you possibly question this?

So I guess that when God says He is the source for all illness and the
source for all curing, the germ theory of disease and immunology must be
false sciences as well. How can you possibly question this?

So I guess that when God says that Solomon had a circular tub built that was
thirty cubits in circumference and 10 cubits in diameter, the value of pi
must really be 3 (otherwise the circumference of a 10 cubit-diameter circle
would have been 31.5 cubits, or the diameter of a 30 cubit-circumference
circle would have been 9.5 cubits). How can you possibly question this?

So I guess that rabbits must chew the cud, insects must have only four legs
and bats must be birds, since God said so. How can you possibly question

>A few years ago, John Stear, an atheist skeptic, wrote to the editor of
>'The Skeptic' (the journal of the Australian Skeptics). The following
>are excerpts from his letter:


>Jonathan has suggested that our discussions of late have been somewhat
>circular and has suggested that the time has come to move forward. I
>agree. May I therefore hear how TEs respond to John Stear's thinly-
>veiled suggestion that their views are intellectually bankrupt?

I can see no difference between you and Stear, except how each of you label
yourselves. You both make the same mistakes, you both believe the same
fanatical dogmatism, you both come to the same wrong conclusions. In fact,
had I not known you were the Christian and he was the atheist, I would have
not been able to guess who was what (either that or I would have assumed you
were both atheists). You are both dead wrong; that's all there is to it.

Kevin L. O'Brien