Comment on Science, Methodological Naturalism, and Faith by Bob Helm.
@Jared: Jared, I’ve been thinking over what you posted, and I believe I need to add another response to clarify what I intended to say. I honestly had no desire to hurt anyone’s feelings or to insult anyone’s intelligence. I am sorry if I left that perception! Please understand that I was not intending to imply that theistic evolutionists are stupid. On the contrary, there are some very intelligent theistic evolutionists who are moral Christian people, and as such, I fully respect them. For example, Francis Collins has my greatest respect as a person. However, I also think that people have other reasons for being Christians than logic regarding the question of origins. And I can understand that. There are certainly other reasons for me to be a Christian also. In fact, while I can derive a revelation of an intelligent designer from nature, I cannot derive a revelation of the gospel from nature. But here’s my problem – I don’t think that theistic evolutionists are really grappling with the incongruity of their views regarding origins and the gospel – because I perceive a flat-out contradiction there, and so do many other people, including many of their fellow Darwinists. I am very thankful that some theistic evolutionists seem to have a genuine walk with Jesus Christ. However, when I spoke about intelligent people seeing theistic evolution for the farce that it is, I had in mind intelligent seekers, particularly young people in college, who may be attracted to the gospel, but repelled by the incongruity of TE. I don’t think it is possible to practice effective evangelism while promoting theistic evolution, because intelligent seekers recognize that TE is full of holes. It isn’t at all what the Bible says, and it undermines the cross of Christ.
Table of Contents
Bob Helm Also Commented
Science, Methodological Naturalism, and Faith
@Sean Pitman: Sean, it’s interesting and ironic how churches repeatedly try to become more relevant by accepting Darwinism and other forms of liberalism, but in the end, they always die, while churches that maintain their creationist stance and conservative values continue to grow.
Science, Methodological Naturalism, and Faith
@pauluc: I wondered if you would bring up alchemy. Just because Newton was wrong about alchemy, why try to slur him over it? Even though he was a great physicist, he was human, and he did make mistakes!
Science, Methodological Naturalism, and Faith
@Pauluc: Actually, there is one extrabiblical reference to Jesus’ Resurrection. In his “Antiquities of the Jews,” we have this from Flavius Josephus: “When the principal men among us had condemned Him [Jesus] to the cross, those who loved Him at first did not forsake Him. For He appeared to them alive again the third day. . .” This so-called “Testimonium Flavianum” has provoked fierce debate, with critics calling it an interpolation. However, it is written in the style of Josephus and appears in all the extant Greek manuscripts of “The Antiquities of the Jews.”
Recent Comments by Bob Helm
Gary Gilbert, Spectrum, and Pseudogenes
What is wrong with conceding that many claims of scripture can only be accepted on faith?
I fully realize that 21st century scientists cannot perform X rays of Mary’s womb or insert instruments into her womb to determine exactly what took place when the Holy Spirit overshadowed her. Of course, I accept the virgin birth on faith! My point was that we now have examples of virgin births occuring as a result of modern scientific technology, and since science has now produced virgin births in mammals, if God is real, we have an analogy for how He could have done the same thing. @Professor Kent:
Gary Gilbert, Spectrum, and Pseudogenes
Darwinist is just short for Neo-Darwinist. While the majority of biologists subscribe to Neo-Darwinism, I would contest your statement that Darwinist=biologist. I prefer “Darwinist” to “evolutionist” because the latter is a slippery term. Even creationists believe in micro-evolution.@pauluc:
Avondale College Arguing in Favor of Darwinian Evolution?
@Mike Manea: Mike, the problem is not a lack of evidence for the creationist model. The problem is the hold that the Lyell/Darwin model has on the scientific community, including all the psychological baggage that goes with it. This is not just a theory; this is a way of viewing all of reality (much like a religion), and for many people, it has great psychological appeal. For this reason, it is naive to think that it can be overthrown in a few years. However, the evidence for the creationist/catastrophist model continues to mount, and those with open minds are willing to at least examine it.
Southern Adventist University opens Origins Exhibit
Dear Professor Kent,
Two thoughts – although it appears in the NIV, your pluperfect – “the water had gone down” – is really unwarranted, because Hebrew does not have a pluperfect tense. Gen 8:3 in the NASB simply states: “At the end of the one hundred and fifty days, the water decreased.” There is no reason to make it any more complicated than that, and this statement accords perfectly with the idea that the flood crested on the 150th day. By the way, this is not “Bob Helm’s suggestion,” as many expositors hold this position.
Secondly, where in the world did you get the idea that every bird species was on the ark and that those ancient birds had identical diets to modern birds? Please don’t fall for the hoary falsehood that creationists believe in a fixity of species. Modern creationists agree with Darwin that new species emerge via natural selection. We do not equate baramins or “created kinds” with species, and we believe that micro-evolution occurs within the baramins.
An apology to PUC
This was a good move on the part of Educate Truth. Their posting of the video was wrong, but it also takes courage to admit to doing wrong, and I commend them for that.
