You are quite correct in implying that the “origins” question …

Comment on Angry Scientists: Publishing on Intelligent Design by Kenneth Christman, M.D..

You are quite correct in implying that the “origins” question is NOT one to be solved by science. As you say, you cannot “interview the designer”. Furthermore, one cannot subject any of the 3 theories (ID, Biblical Creationism, or Darwinian Evolution) to any scientific test of any type. One must rely completely on the written record, which is the Bible. One either chooses to accept this record, or does not.

Similarly, science cannot even prove or disprove the American Revolution. Sure, one can perhaps unearth some spent shells and find other evidence of skirmishes, but in order to understand what really happened, one must either rely on the written record, or dismiss the written record as fallacious.

Darwinians quite obviously reject the written record (Bible), and postulate an elaborate scheme that denies God and assumes incorrectly that natural processes are responsible for the development of life on this planet.

The Intelligent Design Camp dispute the “science” (or lack thereof) and promote the idea that Darwinian Evolution is faulty, and, from a scientific perspective, could NOT have occurred for a variety of reasons. Their science is quite helpful in proving, or at least provoking the thought that it is extremely unlikely for Darwinian Evolution to have accounted for the changes in the natural world, because such changes could not have occured without certain necessary preconditions that are extremely unlikely.

Even though the ID camp utilizes some pretty strong arguments to disprove Darwinian Evolution, many, and perhaps most of the ID community deny the Genesis account of Creation. This is NOT because they do not have enough information. It is simply that they deny that God created the earth and postulate some other entity–perhaps an “alien” being, a starship somewhere, etc. As Christians, we should not subscribe to that notion at all, as it is in complete discord with the Bible. As Christians, if there was any other entity which created life on earth, it was Satan. That would be the only other choice.

The third category in the “origins debate” represent those who fully accept the Genesis account as stated. Although some would argue that this is a sub-category of ID, I recoil to think of the consequences. Given the choice of accepting either Darwinian Evolution or that Satan created the world, I’m not quite sure which is worse!!

Thus, if the highly educated and brilliant group of scientists in the ID community reject the Biblical acccount of Creation, it is NOT because they do not know about it, or are likely to be persuaded. It is because they REJECT it.

We should be very, very cautious about the ID community. Although utilizing its science disproving Darwinian Evolution would be quite acceptable, I would not consider myself a member of the ID community. Ken Ham uses the terminology “NOT ASHAMED OF THE GOSPEL”, and is also quite troubled by the ID community. We should stand firmly with him on this issue. I do not wish to condemn any of those Christians who align themselves with the ID community, as I once did myself. I’m simply alerting you of the dangers involved. I happen to know some of these folk.

As far as the Albigenses are concerned, we should likewise recognize that they also had choices in believing who created the world. They chose to believe it was Satan’s work. I do not wish to condemn any of you for attempting to find elements of the Albigenses which can be supported, because I once did this myself.

It would be improper to say that the bulk of criticism against the Albigenses comes from their “torturors”. It is true that Bernard Gui was a member of the Inquisition, and, in the 1320’s published his “Inquisitor’s Guide”, which I have a copy of. It is a manual of heretics, which includes the Beguins, False Apostles, Jews, and Manichaeans, which he considers to be the Albigenses. There is no discord between this Inquisitor’s Manual and other histories of the Albigenses (Cathars). “The Great Heresy”, written by Arthur Guirdham, is perhaps a good place to start. Guirdham considers himself to be a reincarnation of a long-dead Cathar!! Yes, the Albigenses believed in reincarnation. Guirdham describes how some of the book was written via mystical revelations, but some of it came from historical sources, and he meticulously details these sources. All of this happens to correspond with Bernard Gui’s work.

It is not possible to come to the defense of the Albigenses to the extent of labeling them as Christians. There is much, much more information about these people that places them in the camp of Satan, whom they believe created the world–yes, the same camp the ID community is in.

As for EGW, she says some awfully nice things about the Albigenses, and I cannot agree with her assertions about these people. I’ve tried. Either she is totally wrong about this, or the visions she received were in total error. The Albigenses were involved in the worst heresies imaginable. Although they were persecuted ruthlessly by the Roman Catholic Church, that does not mean their teachings were congruous with the teachings of Genesis, the teachings of Jesus, or anything else. They did NOT believe in the doctrine of transubstantiation. Neither do we. Nevertheless, their heretical teachings went much, much deeper than that.

Again, your efforts against the teaching of Darwinism at LSU are commendable, and I fervently pray they will be successful. I merely point out some of the difficulties with competing theories which we should be aware of. I will NOT take my stand with the ID camp, but will proudly stand with those carrying the banner “I SHALL NOT BE ASHAMED OF THE GOSPEL.”

Kenneth Christman, M.D. Also Commented

Angry Scientists: Publishing on Intelligent Design
You are to be commended for the tenaciousness of your investigation.

1. P. Allix (Scholar and Historian in the Church of England, refers to “the ancient Churches of the Valley of the Piedmont” in the reference quoted. Ellen White uses this terminology to refer to the Waldenses, not the Albigenses. It should be noted that there is a VAST difference in the teachings of the Waldenses vs. the doctrines of the Albigenses. No comparison whatsoever should be made as to their respective beliefs, even though they were both martyred by the RCC, and even though both could be viewed as heretics. It would not be proper for Allix to come to the defense of the Albigenses via the Waldensians.

2. Yes, even the Blavatsky/Theosophists web site concurs with the application of the heresy label to the Albigenses. Helena Petrovna Blavatsky, as you know, is held by many as the founder of the New Age. She published “Isis Unveiled” in 1875, and developed a significant following which persists today in the form of Anthroposophy, Theosophy, and the Lucis Trust (originally Lucipher Publishing), which is now involved with the United Nations! Yes, even the Blavatsky folk consider this a “heresy”.

3. The Encyclopedia of Occultism and Parapsychology is a huge two-volume work edited by Dr. J. Gordon Melton, who also authored reference works such as The New Age Encyclopedia and the New Age Almanac. Blavatsky has earned a long description in this encyclopedia, and the Waldenses and Albigenses are also listed!! There is a clear distinction made, however, between their respective beliefs.

4. The Inquisitor’s Guide (A Medieval Manual on Heretics) was written by Bernardo Gui in the 1320’s, at a time when the Inquisition was in full force. It is simply a manual that describes how to deal and root out various heresies. There is much value in reading the descriptions and accounts of the various heretical groups which he was stamping out, in spite of the fact that Gui himself should be condemned for violating the instructions of Jesus to allow the wheat and the tares to flourish together, and allow the Master to deal with the tares at the time of the harvest. Likewise, we can learn from accounts of Michael Servetus, the physician who was burned alive at the stake in Geneva at the hands of John Calvin. His last cry as the flames were extinguishing his life, was a cry to Jesus. Was it the same Jesus Calvin claimed to represent? Did Calvin also ignore the clear instructions of Jesus in how to deal with “heresy”?
Simply because people are martyred by an evil agency does not, in and of itself, however, mean that these people did not hold beliefs contrary to God, Jesus, and the Bible. A thorough investigation should be done.

5. Arthur Guirdham, who believes himself to be reincarnated, should not be entirely dismissed either, since he actually titles his book The Great Heresy. Furthermore, as stated previously, the first portion of the book is devoted to an evaluation of the extant historical material. The second part of the book is mystical, i.e., represents direct revelation from Satan. Even this information, however, can be instructive in understanding what this heresy was all about. Guirdham says this about the English writers:
“English writers make two major errors depending on the period in
which they live. The earlier authorities persist in regarding
Catharism as a forerunner of Protestantism. This is based on the
hundred per cent erroneous view that the Inquisition was established
primarily to combat the Protestant heresy. This is simply untenable.
No Protestant Church had, as its basic tenets, belief in reincarna-
tion, in the creation of the world by Satan, and in the existence of
forces of good and evil in the universe. . .

Peter Allix, writing in 1692, is interesting in that he recognises
how for long before the advent of Catharism the southwest of France
had been a centre of heresy. His book, “Remarks Upon the Ecclesias-
tical History of the Ancient Churches of the Albigenses” has two
cardinal errors. It lumps the Cathars with the Vaudois who were cer-
tainly precursors of the Reformation. As a good Protestant, Perrin
exercises himself vainly in defending the Cathars against the horrible
charge of being Manichaeans.”

Guirdham himself is applying the label “heresy” to what he is intimately involved with, and steadfastly adheres to the labels applied by virtually everybody else!

6. Fox’s Book of Martyrs is more interested in describing martyrdom of all different stripes. Another book, a very, very large one, entitled Martyrs’ Mirror, has been published extensively by certain groups. Early in this country, it was published by Conrad Beisel at Ephrata, Pennsylvania. Beisel was a Sabbatarian celibate, with origins in Lutheran Pietism, as well as being a devout follower of the occultist Jacob Boehme. He and his monastic group were very much involved in mystical activities and promoted this book heavily. It is true that this book portrays them (Albigensian martyrs) in as positive a light as possible.

7. As far as the various toe lengths, I am not in a position to render any judgment on this. I would suggest some sort of measuring device; perhaps a ruler would be a good start.

8. Another useful ruler would be ANYTHNG AND EVERYTHING that is found between the pages of Genesis and Revelation. There is no other measuring device. Although one can be quite concerned about some aspects of Martin Luther, we should all help carry his banner of SOLA SCRIPTURA. That is where we will discover unadulterated truth.


Angry Scientists: Publishing on Intelligent Design
There are some very thoughtful questions, and I will attempt to respond to them.

1. It is not at all surprising that the RCC would attempt to label Martin Luther as a Manichaean. After all, getting an accusation of this sort to stick would facilitate and quick trip to the stake. It would have dispensed with RCC’s problem quickly and easily. Why didn’t this accusation stick? Luther did not deny, as far as I know, that God created this world. To my knowledge, he did not subscribe to the doctrine of reincarnation. Most importantly, perhaps, he did not deviate much, if any, from the RCC’s doctrine of transubstantiation. This was, as you are aware, the method generally used to test the Albigenses. If they did not concur with transubstantiation, they were burned. To this day, the various Lutheran synods adhere to something very near to the RCC’s doctrine of transubstantiation, with some degree of variation in teaching as well as terminology. One can only wonder why Luther did not challenge that very problematic doctrine? Was it because he fully realized that this kind of aberration would seal his fate?

On the other hand, one could find a charge of mysticism to be a valid one. Luther was described as a Rhineland mystic. Furthermore, he stated that aside from the works of the Bible and St. Augustine, it was the Theologia Germanica which helped him the most to understand God and the human condition. What was Theologia Germanica? It was primarily a compilation of medieval mystics such as Meister Eckhardt and Johannes Tauler–very scary stuff, since one often finds New Agers turning to these folk. It should also be noted that RCC was not the only entity persecuting its theological foes. Martin Luther encouraged and condoned the slaughtering of the poor peasants in 1525. John Calvin was directly responsible for sending Michael Servetus to the flames. Servetus was a physician (the first to accurately described the pulmonary circulation), and was burned alive because he published something about the Trinity.

2. Yes, the Albigenses’ doctrines did originate in the early Christian era, and could be said to have originated with Mani, the father of the Manichaeans, who lived in the 3rd century. Albigenses are also linked to the Bogomils. Very few link them to the Paulicians.

3. Other “objective” writers other than Guidham regarding the Albigenses. Yes, there are many, many other writers, and they uniformly describe the Albigenses to have characteristics we have already considered–placing them firmly in the camp of heresy. I did find a Baptist author who completely disregarded all the other authors regarding the Albigenses heretical views, simply because he wanted to “prove” apostolic succession. Other Baptist authors, such as McGoldrick, however, warn against trying to prove apostolic succession via this route. Guirdham is worthy of consideration because part of his book is very scholarly and evaluates the extant literature about the Albigenses. The other part is mystical, and contains information regarding the spirit world, since he believes himself to be reincarnated!! So, part of his work is very scholarly, and certainly cannot be dismissed as pure nonsense.

4. Are there others besides Crick who believe aliens seeded the world? I don’t know. The ID folk seem to NOT want to respond to any question regareding WHO created the world. They do not want to say. Some quite clearly DENY creationism. Others do not. I consider an “alien” to be synomymous with Satan. Thus, I would lump Crick into the camp of the Albigenses. As a matter of fact, ANYBODY who holds to ID while denying Biblical Creationism must hold that some other entity created this world. There is only one other contender for that designation–the same one the Albigenses believed in.

5. Upon what basis does one choose from competing options? This is a very good question. No, we do NOT choose based upon “feeling”, or simply what we want to believe in. We evaluate the evidence. If we are meticulous and devoted to searching for evidence OUTSIDE of mystical techniques, God will honor our efforts. We search for the evidence within the pages of Genesis to Revelation. In those pages we will find irrefutable evidence of a God who predicted the future repeatedly. An accurate understanding of the prophets (especially Daniel) reveals a God who was amazingly accurate in depicting future events. So accurate, in fact, that subsequent philosophers/theologians even dare to deny that Daniel lived when he said he lived!! In other words, they felt and feel that Daniel could not have known what was to take place that accurately. Porphyry, a Greek philosopher, was perhaps the earliest to advance this false notion, but it persists today!! The whole picture fits perfectly. As a matter of fact, Daniel foretells the coming of Jesus, and Jesus confirms Daniel in Matthew 24, Mark 13, and Luke 21. So, if you’re going to trash Daniel, you also have to trash Jesus. But, one finds an alarming accuracy that simply cannot be denied. Furthermore, solid proof that these revelations came from the God of the Bible is clearly evident in Daniel 2. After Satan’s agents (the magi, astrologers, wise men, etc.) in Nebuchadnezzar’s court were clearly unable to relate the dream and its significance to the king. Daniel could only do so after it was revealed to him from the God of the Bible. In short, THERE IS NO OTHER SACRED BOOK WHICH FORETELLS THE FUTURE like the Bible does. There are, however, some differences in interpretation of some of Daniel’s prophetic chapters which differ from what I was taught. So, if the Scriptures are so amazingly accurate, one cannot avoid believing in the Creation account as well. After all, if God did not create this world in the first place, why would he redeem it? He certainly would not send Jesus to die in my stead if He did not create me in the first place, would He?

6. If one could “interview the designer”, one wouldn’t need science? Now then, this is dangerous territory. To “interview the designer” in this day and age places us squarely in the camp of mysticism. We should not depend on the supernatural or extra-Biblical revelations in order to come to any conclusions. We have the Bible, and we do not need nor should we seek any such interview with the designer. It could and would get us an interview with an entity we should wish to avoid.

Science is the practice of observation, hypothesizing, experimentation, and forming proofs, or conclusions. We cannot experiment with any of the 3 options (evolution, ID, Biblical Creationism), since nobody was around when these events took place and there is no experiment that could be devised to observe any proof. But, solid evidence is abundant, and it is all in the Bible, which we should all be exploring OUTSIDE the realm of any mystic, who will invariable mislead us.


Angry Scientists: Publishing on Intelligent Design
I have seen a written report of Steve Meyers, one of the most visible in the ID community, and how he does NOT believe in Biblical Creation. That certainly could not make him a Christian, since God not creating the world would certainly not be consistent with sending His Son Jesus to redeem it!

A few years ago, while president of a national physician organization, I planned an annual meeting which included Rick Sternberg as banquet speaker. Sternberg has two Ph.D.’s and is very articulate. He was the one who was fired from his position as editor of a prestigious Smithsonian journal simply for publishing Steve Meyer’s paper!

Sternberg was brilliant in his analysis of why Darwinian evolution could not be successful. His sicentific analysis was flawless, in my opinion. However, he steadfastly refused to admit that the God of Genesis 1:1 created this earth. Either in public or in private.

The Albigenses were not living up to the truth available to them. They believed in the doctrine of dualism, that spirit was good and matter was bad. They held that Satan created the world. They believed and practiced all sorts of supernatural activities and the Catholic church labored extensively to get them to accept Christianity as Roman Catholocism understood Christianity. However, these people were NOT Christians at all.

Their predecessors were Manichaeans. Mani, the father of the Manichaeans, was harshly dealt with because he believed and taught that Jesus Christ was the reincarnation of Zoroaster. Those who followed Zoroaster were so upset that they martyred poor old Mani.

Ellen White received her Great Controversy vision in Bowling Green, Ohio on a Friday afternoon, seriously interrupting a funeral. If this vision came from God, was God proclaiming the Manichaeans (Albigenses) to be something they most definitely were not? Or, was Ellen White falsely claiming God told her these things? Was this the product of her own mind?
She certainly makes very favorable statements about the Albigenses in two separate places in the Great Controversy. This is all very perplexing for one who indeed believes God created the world, sent His Son to redeem us, and is coming again very soon. How does one reconcile all this?

Finally, I would strongly urge all to make a visit to the Creation Museum in the Kentucky suburbs of Cincinnati. I was there yesterday, and this is very, very well done. Ken Ham is to be strongly commended for his work, and any who are interested could perhaps investigate having him and/or his staff present speakers on the topic of Genesis 1:1. The web site is answersingenesis.org.

I also applaud the efforts of those who are choosing to adhere to Genesis 1:1 at LSU. Please continue to spread the message, whether or not LSU relinquishes teaching Darwinianism or not. Keep up the good work. Be aware however, that there are some serious problems with ID as well as the Albigenses. Very serious indeed. For me, I cannot consider anything other than Biblical Creation in Genesis 1:1. If it didn’t happen that way, the only other option is that Satan did it, and that is precisely what the Albigenses taught. In my view, they were true heretics, and I cannot follow Ellen White in singing their praises.


Recent Comments by Kenneth Christman, M.D.

Most Species the “Same Age” with No “In-Between” Species
Decay is perfectly natural in a sinful world. There was NO decay prior to the Fall. Non-decay does not require active maintenance on the part of God. His creation was perfect and did not require maintenance like human creations require. Model T’s require active maintenance as they are human creations. The human body God created would have lasted an eternity if sin (disobedience) had not interrupted such perfection. That is when decay started. That is when the genomic code started to deteriorate. It ultimately led to disease and death. God cannot be compared to a mechanic in heaven, as His perfect creation does not require repairs. While the price of sin (disobedience) has been fully paid for, the restoration to perfection has not happened yet. Once it occurs (which I believe will be soon), there will be a complete restoration that will not require a “mechanic” for active maintenance, as decay, degeneration, decay, death (all those ugly D’s) will no longer exist.

As for assuming that genetic mutations have occurred at a constant rate since the fall of Adam and Eve, we should consider the fallacies of assuming constant degradation of Carbon-14 and the problems such assumptions have created. As Creationists, we should exercise caution in making assertions we cannot prove.

As for God being bound by His own laws, let us consider Jesus bringing perfect peace and tranquility just by commanding the elements to be still during a raging storm. We cannot understand such divine power over EVERYTHING, including the power to breath life into a lump of clay which was instantly transformed into a perfectly fine human body with over 5 billion base pairs (the human genome) and able to perfectly replicate without decay or deterioration of the system. Satan also has supernatural power, but God’s power is infinitely greater. Whenever there is supernatural activity, it can come from only of two sources. We do know for a fact that postdiluvian human life spans rapidly contracted from ca. 900 years to circa 70 years in just a few generations. I’m sure most Creationists would agree that God had a hand in this, and that this was not “natural”. Whether He did this by altering the mutation rate, we have no way of knowing, as mutation rates were not measured at that time and there is no way for us to reconstruct those past mutation rates.

As for Einstein, Newton, and others, I would exercise restraint in following any of their religious or theological assumptions.


Most Species the “Same Age” with No “In-Between” Species
We may have observed mutation rates in the recent past, but how do we know what mutation rates were 100 years ago, 1,000 years ago, or 6,000 years ago? Prior to roughly 6,000 years ago, we can safely say mutation rates were ZERO, as God’s creation was perfect, and there was no sin, death, or deterioration in the genomic code!


Most Species the “Same Age” with No “In-Between” Species
While data suggesting the hand of the Creator God in the creation of all living things is always welcome, one should exercise great caution in assuming the constancy of mutation rates. After all, God shortened human lifespans from ca. 900 years to ca. 70 years in only a few generations. Do you suppose He might have done that by altering mutation rates? Do you suppose that a powerful God who breathed life into a lump of clay could easily tinker with mutation rates? Furthermore, mutation rates would have highly variable effects on life forms in different species based upon average lifespans. Let us hope and pray that more scientists will be troubled by uncovering data that will lead them to trust the Genesis creation account as the only scientifically logical explanation of how we got here.


The Sabbath and the Covenants (Old vs. New)
Your concern about mysticism within Adventism is well founded. Pastor Bill Loveless identified Ellen White in the pages of the Adventist Review as a “true mystic.” “Mysticism” is defined in the dictionary as a euphemism for the occult. Look it up.


The Sabbath and the Covenants (Old vs. New)
You are right. I am totally confused as to what distinguishes “Historical Old Covenant” from “Old Covenant Thinking”. You and Chris White maintain that Sabbath observance is not necessary for salvation. Ellen White clearly states that it is necessary. Chris and Ellen CANNOT both be correct.