9.
You don’t like Pokémon because you think it “promotes”
evolution.
I
haven’t encountered this sentiment in my dealings on this site,
thankfully, but I was reminded of this “controversy” after the
recent release of the latest entries in the Pokémon franchise.
Perhaps
the reason Francke never encountered this sentiment on his website is
because no creationist has ever seriously espoused it. Francke has
made the embarrassing mistake of believing a parody is real!
There
was a Wired
article several years back that stated, “The
Kansas State School Board has banned all things Pokemon from its
schools–not because it's keeping kids from doing their schoolwork,
but because they claim it promotes evolution.... The hullaballoo
started when a local religious group discovered that evolution is a
core element of Pokemon gameplay and started distributing pamphlets
warning about the game's "subversive content."”
Hilarious.
Anyway, the Wired article was updated on 4/23/07 with this
amendment: “As pointed out in the wake of
the Square Enix parody story, this Game|Life post is drawn from the
same parody web site and is untrue. Game|Life deeply regrets the
error.”
Francke
wrote his article in November of 2013. It's sad that he believed
this parody for 6 years! Of course, I'm reading his article in 2018
and the error is still there so maybe he still believes it
after 11 years! Or maybe he knows it's debunked yet continues to
repeat it for people who will also be gullible enough to believe it.
10.
You think it’s inherently opposed to Christianity or the Bible.
Evolution,
as defined by Helena Curtis and N. Sue Barnes in their textbook,
“Biology,” is “any change in the frequency of alleles within a
gene pool from one generation to the next.” It is beyond me how
accepting this fact of science could possibly undermine one’s faith
in Jesus.
If
a population of moths is 90% dark colored in one generation, then 85%
dark colored in the next, technically, it has “evolved.” Such a
trivial event couldn't undermine anyone's faith in Jesus.
Indeed, if that was all there was to evolution, there wouldn't be any
controversy. Francke is obviously reducing the theory to a benign
sounding, “change in the frequency of alleles,” to make it sound
less threatening. However, he knows that's not all there is to
it so he is being blatantly equivocal in what he is calling
evolution.
Evolution practically demands that there was no Adam or Eve. Evolution is absolutely incompatible with the recent, global flood described in Genesis. Evolution makes a mockery of the genealogies given in both the Old and New Testaments. Evolution renders an ordinary reading of the plain words of the Bible impossible. Evolution would make our perfect God a liar!
Frank
Zindler, an outspoken atheist, once said, The
most devastating thing though that biology did to Christianity was
the discovery of biological evolution. Now that we know that Adam and
Eve never were real people the central myth of Christianity is
destroyed. If there never was an Adam and Eve there never was an
original sin. If there never was an original sin there is no need of
salvation. If there is no need of salvation there is no need of a
Savior. And I submit that puts Jesus, historical or otherwise, into
the ranks of the unemployed. I think that evolution is absolutely the
death knell of Christianity.
So
we have a testimony straight from the horse's mouth, as it were.
Here is an atheist saying why he thinks evolution is the “death
knell” of Christianity. He's not alone in this attitude. Consider
this quote from that notorious critic, Richard
Dawkins:
The total amount of suffering per year in the natural world is beyond all decent contemplation. During the minute that it takes me to compose this sentence, thousands of animals are being eaten alive, many others are running for their lives, whimpering with fear, others are slowly being devoured from within by rasping parasites, thousands of all kinds are dying of starvation, thirst, and disease. It must be so. If there ever is a time of plenty, this very fact will automatically lead to an increase in the population until the natural state of starvation and misery is restored. In a universe of electrons and selfish genes, blind physical forces and genetic replication, some people are going to get hurt, other people are going to get lucky, and you won't find any rhyme or reason in it, nor any justice. The universe that we observe has precisely the properties we should expect if there is, at bottom, no design, no purpose, no evil, no good, nothing but pitiless indifference.
The total amount of suffering per year in the natural world is beyond all decent contemplation. During the minute that it takes me to compose this sentence, thousands of animals are being eaten alive, many others are running for their lives, whimpering with fear, others are slowly being devoured from within by rasping parasites, thousands of all kinds are dying of starvation, thirst, and disease. It must be so. If there ever is a time of plenty, this very fact will automatically lead to an increase in the population until the natural state of starvation and misery is restored. In a universe of electrons and selfish genes, blind physical forces and genetic replication, some people are going to get hurt, other people are going to get lucky, and you won't find any rhyme or reason in it, nor any justice. The universe that we observe has precisely the properties we should expect if there is, at bottom, no design, no purpose, no evil, no good, nothing but pitiless indifference.
Still
not enough? How about this gem from Talk
Origins:
Many
organisms show features of appallingly bad design. This is because
evolution via natural selection cannot construct traits from scratch;
new traits must be modifications of previously existing traits. This
is called historical constraint. A few examples of bad design imposed
by historical constraint:...
In
human males, the urethra passes right through the prostate gland, a
gland very prone to infection and subsequent enlargement. This blocks
the urethra and is a very common medical problem in males. Putting a
collapsible tube through an organ that is very likely to expand and
block flow in this tube is not good design. Any moron with half a
brain (or less) could design male "plumbing" better.
Do
you get it, Francke? Are you starting to see now, Francke, how
evolution could possibly undermine a person's faith in Christ?
Perhaps you think trying to make Christianity compatible with
evolution will make it more appealing to the world. Maybe it does.
But you're replacing the God of the Bible with a lying, lazy,
incompetent, moron of a god who is indistinguishable from dumb luck.
There is no salvation in the god of theistic evolution.
In
His conversation with Nicodemus, Jesus said, If
I have told you earthly things, and ye believe not, how shall ye
believe, if I tell you of heavenly things?
(John 3:12). You're telling people that the Bible is wrong about
things like the creation and the flood but that it's right about the
after life. Does that make any sense? Evolution is not just another, harmless myth like Big Foot or pro wrestling. It’s a poison that destroys the gospel. You're preaching
a false gospel, Francke. Shame on you.
4 comments:
Perhaps the reason Francke never encountered this sentiment on his website is because no creationist has ever seriously espoused it.
I winced a bit myself reading that one; probably some creationist has seriously espoused it (there are a lot of crazy people out there), but I've never encountered this argument either.
Evolution is absolutely incompatible with the recent, global flood described in Genesis. Evolution makes a mockery of the genealogies given in both the Old and New Testaments. Evolution renders an ordinary reading of the plain words of the Bible impossible. Evolution would make our perfect God a liar!
Strictly speaking, evolution is a theory in biology, not geology. It is geology, paleontology, and archaeology (plus physics, of course) that are incompatible with a recent global flood, which is why old-Earth creationists, while rejecting evolution, also insist on a purely local Flood which is not responsible for any great part of the geological column. I'm not at all sure that "humans share ancestors with monkeys and muskellunges, with adaptions by natural selection of random mutations," by itself, makes a global flood impossible, or that evidence for such common ancestry would not survive such a flood. There is genetic evidence that our ancestors were never reduced to an effective population of six, but that is merely part (and a late-discovered part) of the evidence that no global flood ever occurred.
Frank Zindler ...said, ... If there never was an Adam and Eve there never was an original sin. If there never was an original sin there is no need of salvation.
I was going to point out that it seems mildly odd that you would take theological advice from atheists, but the reminder seems self-defeating in this case. Perhaps the real oddity is that you could surely find some Christian making the same argument. The obvious rejoinder is that if sin exists and you need forgiveness for and salvation from it, arguments over how it first came into existence are a side issue. Do you stop being a sinner merely because you didn't inherit the guilt of Adam and Eve?
Consider this quote from that notorious critic, Richard Dawkins:
The total amount of suffering per year in the natural world is beyond all decent contemplation. ... The universe that we observe has precisely the properties we should expect if there is, at bottom, no design, no purpose, no evil, no good, nothing but pitiless indifference.
I don't think that the above is an extrapolation of evolutionary theory; it is an conclusion from the observed state of the world. It is offered not as a conclusion from evolutionary theory but as evidence for it, and it is, on your account, the result of God's deliberate and righteous judgment. This has, indeed, been offered as a justification of theistic evolution: the prey animal being devoured alive by a Komodo dragon isn't being punished for Adam's sin; this is simply a world left to develop freely according to its own created nature. I suppose you find that argument unconvincing, but Dawkins is offering a critique of creationist dogma (the child suffering from eye-eating parasites is a reasonable and just response to the sins of some distant, forgotten ancestor) that is not diminished in the tiniest degree if you reject evolutionary theory as a contrary explanation for those eye-eating parasites.
Putting a collapsible tube through an organ that is very likely to expand and block flow in this tube is not good design. Any moron with half a brain (or less) could design male "plumbing" better.
Again, is the prostate gland better designed and positioned if you reject evolution as an explanation for its odd features? "The Fall" must be blamed or credited with some truly bizarre and comprehensive modifications of the original perfect design (and Genesis credits the Fall with weeds, toil, and difficulty in childbirth, not with, e.g. choking hazards or prostate problems or other instances of alleged dysteleology).
You're telling people that the Bible is wrong about things like the creation and the flood but that it's right about the after life.
And you're telling people that the Bible is wrong about such things as windows in the sky to let the rain fall through from a supercelestial ocean. Well, okay, you're arguing that such passages are figurative, although "opening the windows of the sky" is part of the explanation for the global flood you insist on. You and Franke both insist that parts of the Bible are figurative and need to be understood non-literally, even when it's obviously possible to read them quite literally; you merely differ on how far to go in this.
Steven J,
Thanks for your comments. Today, they mostly seem like quibbles.
Perhaps there are some people who believe Pokeman promotes evolution – just there are people who believe Harry Potter promotes witchcraft. My daughter used to watch Barney when she was little and I recall an episode where Barney was celebrating his 65 millionth birthday so I could say that Barney promotes evolution. What I can't understand is why Francke included this in his list as a sign someone doesn't understand evolution? It's non sequitur.
You said, “Strictly speaking, evolution is a theory in biology, not geology. It is geology, paleontology, and archaeology (plus physics, of course) that are incompatible with a recent global flood,”
No, I meant evolution. The canard usually cited by evolutionists is that 4,500 or so years since the flood is not enough time for all modern species to have descended from the kinds of animals Noah had on the Ark. Bill Nye even used this argument in his debate with Ken Ham.
You said, “I was going to point out that it seems mildly odd that you would take theological advice from atheists, but the reminder seems self-defeating in this case. Perhaps the real oddity is that you could surely find some Christian making the same argument.”
Indeed I could. I believe I've made a similar argument before. My point in citing Zindler is that, here is an atheist who is using evolution to justify his atheism. I could have also included Dawkins saying that evolution made it possible for him to be an intellectually fulfilled atheist.
You said, “I don't think that the above is an extrapolation of evolutionary theory; it is an conclusion from the observed state of the world. It is offered not as a conclusion from evolutionary theory but as evidence for it, and it is, on your account, the result of God's deliberate and righteous judgment.”
Richard Dawkins used the phrase, “red in tooth and claw” in his book, The Selfish Gene, to describe all creatures' struggle in “the survival of the fittest.” To believe in evolution is to believe that God not only intended there to be death but used it to create the “very good” world He described in Genesis 1. According to theistic evolution, death is as old as the earth and not the judgment for sin. That just doesn't work.
continued
You said, “Again, is the prostate gland better designed and positioned if you reject evolution as an explanation for its odd features? "The Fall" must be blamed or credited with some truly bizarre and comprehensive modifications of the original perfect design (and Genesis credits the Fall with weeds, toil, and difficulty in childbirth, not with, e.g. choking hazards or prostate problems or other instances of alleged dysteleology).”
Yes, in the pre-Fall world, the prostate gland would not be at risk of becoming diseased or enlarging. All the claims I hear from skeptics about the “poor design” of the human body (or of any living creature) sounds to me like an overweight couch potato screaming at the TV, telling an NFL quarter back how he should have run the play. I did write a post mentioning this several years ago but I should probably explore it again in more detail sometime. My point in citing this, though, is more about the attitudes of the evolutionists at Talk Origin, namely that the Designer is a moron. That's what evolutionists think about the god of TE.
You said, “And you're telling people that the Bible is wrong about such things as windows in the sky to let the rain fall through from a supercelestial ocean. Well, okay, you're arguing that such passages are figurative, although "opening the windows of the sky" is part of the explanation for the global flood you insist on. You and Franke both insist that parts of the Bible are figurative and need to be understood non-literally, even when it's obviously possible to read them quite literally; you merely differ on how far to go in this.”
The Bible uses literary devices just like any other written work. When Jesus' heart was stirred with compassion, His literal heart wasn't touched by anything. Why is it so hard to understand the plain meaning of words? We just have to read the Book understanding what the words are plainly saying.
Exodus 20:8-11 says, “Remember the sabbath day, to keep it holy. Six days shalt thou labour, and do all thy work: But the seventh day is the sabbath of the Lord thy God: in it thou shalt not do any work, thou, nor thy son, nor thy daughter, thy manservant, nor thy maidservant, nor thy cattle, nor thy stranger that is within thy gates: For in six days the Lord made heaven and earth, the sea, and all that in them is, and rested the seventh day: wherefore the Lord blessed the sabbath day, and hallowed it.”
Do you think the ancient Jews had any trouble at all determing what “6 days” meant in this context? Do you think they paused for even a second to deliberate if it might mean “millions of years”?
Thanks for your comments. God bless!!
RKBentley
Post a Comment