I couldn’t resist posting this one, friends. There was no name on the front of this card. Probably a good thing too! Anybody want to venture an answer?

Question:
“Since Eve was created from Adam’s rib, can micro-biology be used to explain why adam’s rib evolved into an all knowing, never wrong, force with power to get man to do stupid things?”

There are a number of things wrong here…but it did give the message planning team a good laugh this morning!

Well, I did say send me your creative ideas for publicity. We fed our Gorilla very well after he’d worked up a sweat passing out nearly 800 adverts. Way to go Jarred and Mark!

I was talking with a group of parents at a homeschooling event yesterday about the issue of Creation vrs Evolution. “Why are there so many options and which one is right?” blurted out one mom. I explained it this way. There are really only 2 or 3 choices to make that lead to the possibility of four big options. Deciding where to land can depend on your answer to three foundational questions:

One of the questions essentially asks “Did God create the universe, everything and everyone in it, or not?” The answer sorts the options this way: Three pro-God choices on the one side, one anti-God option on the other. Young Earth Creationism, Old Earth Creationism and Theistic Evolution all represent pro-God choices. Naturalistic Evolution is the odd-man out when looked at that way.

Question number two asks “What’s the best way to explain how God brought things into existence?” When God made everything, did he leave any fingerprints that point to how he did it? Looked at this way, one must decide how sound the case for evolution as an explanation is. Some are convinced God used a process very much like evolution to bring things into being, yet do not believe the assumptions Naturalism makes that God does not exist. These are Theistic Evolutionists. Pro-God, Pro-Science, Pro-Evolution … to a point. Young Earth and Old Earth Creationists agree against evolution as the best way to explain how God did it and point out its many weaknesses.

The third question puts a finer point on the two Creationist views by asking “How long did it take?” Young Earth Creationists put forward an age of the earth somewhere between 6 and 10 thousand years based primarily on biblical genealogies. Old Earth Creationists attempt to answer the question by comparing scientific data with the Bible asking “How much of what science seems to tell us can we integrate with scripture?” The Old Earth view holds to as much science as possible in agreeing with the apparent age of things as we observe them. Both views in fact must do this. Both views believe the information we have in the bible, but interpret it differently.

God or No God?
Evolution or No Evolution?
Billions or Thousands?

If you’re unfamiliar with the views, I encourage you to ask these three big questions with an open mind as you explore the options. Non-believers who run into Christians typically are seeking credibility for the God question with science as a given authority base. It’s generally not helpful for Christians to show little understanding of the options while forcefully pushing their view.

Christian believers often look at the issue the other way around wondering how much science to believe with God as our starting point. If we’re aware of the possible clash of interests we can have much more helpful and respectful conversations about it.

I have better things to do than blog about this, but I can’t resist a comment or two about Richard Dawkins’ lecture the other night, “The Purpose of Purpose”. Speaking to a not quite full house at the Holland, Dawkins began his presentation with a generous helping of ridicule for Ben Stein and stirring applause for the recent reversal of the ban on stem-cell research.

As a non-believer in Dawkins and his gospel, I couldn’t help but feel I was in attendance at a worship service. Dawkins himself, the great high-priest of his own brand of atheistic naturalism. The crowd, an eager choir of God-denying naturalists. I had actually feared worse. Some intricate argument demonstrating an evolutionary explanation of purpose… or perhaps a well crafted refutation of the existence of God. But I found myself … “in church” instead. With Dawkins working his audience like a pastor preaching to his choir.

As an outreach coordinator of an evangelical church, I couldn’t help but empathize with non-believers who attend churches and find themselves in an uncomfortable minority. “If this is all the better we are at actually engaging people’s minds and bringing change, we’d better hang it up.”

Dawkins scored his cheap laughter from people eager to mimic his views. His best response to Ben Stein’s embarrassing Expelled, was a tacky sexual joke that had nothing to do with academic freedom. In essence, Dawkins told the choir that since naturalism has won the power struggle in the academy, no sound reply needs to be given those who question evolution. The boast that “evidence is everywhere proving evolution a fact” was followed by absolutely no argument showing that the very same evidence shouldn’t point equally well to a Creator. As a preacher of naturalism, Dawkins is at the top of the charts – not needing to answer to anyone. So why try…as long as your audience is nothing more than a choir who’s paid you to preach what they want to hear.

I felt sorry for Richard Dawkins. In awe of his incredible gifts – yes. Grateful for his positive contributions to science – yes. But sadly sorry for his inability to tell his audience anything new. Like a preacher who never feels the need to explain things to non-believers, Dawkins occupied our time with eloquently circular verbiage and power-point slides. The choir seemed happy to do little more than have him comfort them with their familiar doctrines and ridicule their shared enemies! Probably exactly what Mr. Holland paid him to do.

Christians… let’s do better at opening and changing minds and stop preaching to our choirs! Churches, pay your pastors to lead you into engagement with the world. Win people with the love and truth of Jesus. That’s our mission!

Contrary to Dawkins, not all intelligent, sane people believe evolution is a firmly established scientific fact (sorry Rich, even when I quote you I can’t stoop to your level of vitriol). Hugh Ross would be one such gifted, informed Christian mind. Hugh’s story is a fascinating journey from science to God. As a high school student with an insatiable curiosity about the ordered universe, Hugh searched the options of mankind’s origin and landed in the hands of an all powerful, personal designer!

Here’s a quote from Hugh’s web-page you can find at:
Hugh Ross’ Testimony — My Search for Truth

“Prompted by curiosity, he studied the world’s religions and “holy books” and found only one that proved scientifically and historically accurate: the Bible. Hugh started at religious “ground zero” and through scientific and historical reality-testing became convinced that the Bible is truly the Word of God! He then observed, with amazement, the impact of describing for people the process by which he came to personal faith in Jesus Christ.”

Some may be wondering “How can science actually lead people to Christ?” Isn’t it the aim of science to disprove God or at least “cure humanity of the disease of believing in him” (Dawkins)? But Hugh himself a perfect example of how people can be drawn to faith in Christ through their seeking minds. If we can boldly venture into the public conversation about origins we’ll have a hearing with thinking people everwhere who are curious about dimensions of life and meaning that science points to beyond itself.

Make sure you visit our Cosmic Fingerprints page. Come check out what we’ve got going on later in March.

Richard Dawkins makes quite a statement in Ben Stein’s documentary Expelled when he says “Evolution is a fact…a fact that’s established as securely as any other fact we have in science. It is completely right to say that since the evidence for evolution is so absolutely, totally, overwhelming, nobody who looks at it could possibly doubt that it if they were sane… and not stupid. So the only remaining possibility is that they are ignorant and most people who don’t believe in Evolution are indeed ignorant!”

It’s amazing how someone with such incredible intellectual gifts can be so entirely dismissive of anyone who would dare question the scientific monopoly of Darwinism. Dawkins, author of The God Delusion, contends that the masses who believe in God suffer from a delusive lie. Belief in God, according to Dawkins, is like a virus he hopes his atheistic preaching can heal. If we’ll just listen to Rich long enough, we’ll get this God-thing out of our system and get on with the evolutionary good life!

If you get the chance to catch the movie Expelled, you can get a feel for how contentious belief in God in the academy can get. Stein interviews numerous highly credentialed scientists who question evolution’s reign in science and education. One evidently doesn’t have to be insane or stupid to believe something different about the purpose and origin of human life.

Speaking of purpose… Citizens of Omaha, tomorrow night we’ve got the opportunity tune into Dawkins himself as he comes to the Holland for a lecture entitled
“The Purpose of Purpose.” Here’s a taste of his naturalistic gospel from the official event website. See if you can follow this:

“I shall develop two meanings of “purpose.” Archeo-purpose is the ancient illusion of purpose, a pseudo-purpose fashioned by natural selection over billions of years. Neo-purpose is true, deliberate, intentional purpose, which is a product of brains. My thesis is that neo-purpose, or the capacity to set up deliberate purposes or goals, is itself a Darwinian adaptation with an archeo-purpose.”

Right! I actually hope to attend tomorrow night’s gripping lecture. I’ll give you my spin on it in Thursday’s blog. I’ll find out if my brain is neo-capable . . . or just filled with archeo. I kind of got a feeling about this one. IF you happen to attend, drop me a note!