Here is an interesting short blurb from the AP. I’ll comment below.

LA man arrested in death of his unborn child

Sunday, October 25, 2009

(10-25) 19:34 PDT Los Angeles, CA (AP) –

Authorities say a 37-year-old Los Angeles man has been arrested on suspicion of murder for the death of an unborn child believed to be his.

Police said in a press release that Joshua Woodward was arrested Sunday in Los Angeles and is being held on $2 million bail in a county jail.  Police say the arrest came after an investigation on Monday revealed “suspicious circumstances of a miscarriage.” Investigators estimate the fetus was in its 13th week.  Police released no information on the mother or the circumstances of the child’s death.

The release says Woodward is believed to have ties to Miami and Chicago and detectives are also seeking information in those cities. Investigators are set to present the case to prosecutors on Tuesday. A deputy at the jail had no information on an attorney for Woodward.

This type of thing often confuse me.  The obvious implications for the abortion debate are stark. So, let’s be clear, what are we saying as a culture?:

A. That it is O.K. to kill a baby if you are the mother but not if you are the father?

B. That it is O.K. to kill a baby if you are licensed as a doctor to do so?

C. That the personhood of the baby changes based on the intentions of the one doing the killing?

None of these is a reasonable answer, yet it seems that one of these must be the choice of reasoning if “abortion” is lawful, but “murder” is not. The end result in either case is a dead child. The semantics that some will go through to maintain the “right” of a woman to kill her own child is amazing. One comment posted on the article said:

“Good, if it means prosecuting a man for beating a pregnant woman.
Bad, if it means setting precedent that can be used against the right to abortion.”

In lines of thought such as this, the desire to maintain the legality of a woman’s choice of abortion is viewed above all discussions of reason and logic as to the nature of that which is being aborted.

See my other blog posts providing further insight on this topic:

• What is a “Botched Abortion” and Why the Outrage?
• Barack Obama and the Politics of Abortion- Part 2
• Barack Obama and the Politics of Abortion- Part 4

Introduction

Much is being said in current culture about the sacrifice we should all make for the sake of the “greater good.”  This sounds like a fine doctrine on the surface, right?  What could possibly be a higher ethic than wanting to look out for the most people possible?  But let’s take a deeper look.  Below you’ll find a great analysis by Kerby Anderson of Probe Ministries that should bring a more informed understanding of the danger of this growing ethical dogma.

You have probably heard a politician say he or she passed a piece of legislation because it did the greatest good for the greatest number of citizens. Perhaps you have heard someone justify their actions because it was for the greater good.

In this article, we are going to talk about the philosophy behind such actions. The philosophy is known as utilitarianism. Although it is a long word, it is in common usage every day. It is the belief that the sole standard of morality is determined by its usefulness.

Philosophers refer to it as a “teleological” system. The Greek word “telos” means end or goal. This means that this ethical system determines morality by the end result. Whereas Christian ethics are based on rules, utilitarianism is based on results.

Utilitarianism began with the philosophies of Jeremy Bentham (1748-1832) and John Stuart Mill (1806-1873). Utilitarianism gets its name from Bentham’s test question, “What is the use of it?” He conceived of the idea when he ran across the words “the greatest happiness of the greatest number” in Joseph Priestly’s Treatise of Government.

Jeremy Bentham developed his ethical system around the idea of pleasure. He built it on ancient hedonism which pursued physical pleasure and avoided physical pain. According to Bentham, the most moral acts are those which maximize pleasure and minimize pain. This has sometimes been called the “utilitarian calculus.” An act would be moral if it brings the greatest amount of pleasure and the least amount of pain.

John Stuart Mill modified this philosophy and developed it apart from Bentham’s hedonistic foundation. Mill used the same utilitarian calculus but instead focused on maximizing the general happiness by calculating the greatest good for the greatest number. While Bentham used the calculus in a quantitative sense, Mill used this calculus in a qualitative sense. He believed, for example, that some pleasures were of higher quality than others.

Utilitarianism has been embraced by so many simply because it seems to make a good deal of sense and seems relatively simple to apply. However, when it was first proposed, utilitarianism was a radical philosophy. It attempted to set forth a moral system apart from divine revelation and biblical morality. Utilitarianism focused on results rather than rules. Ultimately the focus on the results demolished the rules.

In other words, utilitarianism provided for a way for people to live moral lives apart from the Bible and its prescriptions. There was no need for an appeal to divine revelation. Reason rather than revelation was sufficient to determine morality.

Founders of Utilitarianism

Jeremy Bentham was a leading theorist in Anglo-American philosophy of law and one of the founders of utilitarianism. He developed this idea of a utility and a utilitarian calculus in the Introduction to the Principles of Morals and Legislation (1781).

In the beginning of that work Bentham wrote: “Nature has placed mankind under the governance of two sovereign masters, pain and pleasure. It is for them alone to point out what we ought to do, as well as to determine what we shall do. On the one hand the standard of right and wrong, on the other the chain of causes and effects, are fastened to their throne. They govern us in all we do, in all we say, in all we think: every effort we can make to throw off our subjection, will serve but to demonstrate and confirm it.”{1}

Bentham believed that pain and pleasure not only explain our actions but also help us define what is good and moral. He believed that this foundation could provide a basis for social, legal, and moral reform in society.

Key to his ethical system is the principle of utility. That is, what is the greatest good for the greatest number?

Bentham wrote: “By the principle of utility is meant that principle which approves or disapproves of every action whatsoever, according to the tendency which it appears to have to augment or diminish the happiness of the party whose interest is in question: or, what is the same thing in other words, to promote or to oppose that happiness.” {2}

John Stuart Mill was a brilliant scholar who was subjected to a rigid system of intellectual discipline and shielded from boys his own age. When Mill was a teenager, he read Bentham. Mill said the feeling rushed upon him “that all previous moralists were superseded.” He believed that the principle of utility “gave unity to my conception of things. I now had opinions: a creed, a doctrine, a philosophy; in one among the best senses of the word, a religion; the inculcation and diffusion of what could be made the principle outward purpose of a life.”{3}

Mill modified Bentham’s utilitarianism. Whereas Bentham established an act utilitarianism, Mill established a rule utilitarianism. According to Mill, one calculates what is right by comparing the consequences of all relevant agents of alternative rules for a particular circumstance. This is done by comparing all relevant similar circumstances or settings at any time.

Analysis of Utilitarianism

Why did utilitarianism become popular? There are a number of reasons for its appeal.

First, it is a relatively simple ethical system to apply. To determine whether an action is moral you merely have to calculate the good and bad consequences that will result from a particular action. If the good outweighs the bad, then the action is moral.

Second, utilitarianism avoids the need to appeal to divine revelation. Many adherents to this ethical system are looking for a way to live a moral life apart from the Bible and a belief in God. The system replaces revelation with reason. Logic rather than an adherence to biblical principles guides the ethical decision-making of a utilitarian.

Third, most people already use a form of utilitarianism in their daily decisions. We make lots of non-moral decisions every day based upon consequences. At the checkout line, we try to find the shortest line so we can get out the door more quickly. We make most of our financial decisions (writing checks, buying merchandise, etc.) on a utilitarian calculus of cost and benefits. So making moral decisions using utilitarianism seems like a natural extension of our daily decision-making procedures.

There are also a number of problems with utilitarianism. One problem with utilitarianism is that it leads to an “end justifies the means” mentality. If any worthwhile end can justify the means to attain it, a true ethical foundation is lost. But we all know that the end does not justify the means. If that were so, then Hitler could justify the Holocaust because the end was to purify the human race. Stalin could justify his slaughter of millions because he was trying to achieve a communist utopia.

The end never justifies the means. The means must justify themselves. A particular act cannot be judged as good simply because it may lead to a good consequence. The means must be judged by some objective and consistent standard of morality.

Second, utilitarianism cannot protect the rights of minorities if the goal is the greatest good for the greatest number. Americans in the eighteenth century could justify slavery on the basis that it provided a good consequence for a majority of Americans. Certainly the majority benefited from cheap slave labor even though the lives of black slaves were much worse.

A third problem with utilitarianism is predicting the consequences. If morality is based on results, then we would have to have omniscience in order to accurately predict the consequence of any action. But at best we can only guess at the future, and often these educated guesses are wrong.

A fourth problem with utilitarianism is that consequences themselves must be judged. When results occur, we must still ask whether they are good or bad results. Utilitarianism provides no objective and consistent foundation to judge results because results are the mechanism used to judge the action itself.

Situation Ethics

A popular form of utilitarianism is situation ethics first proposed by Joseph Fletcher in his book by the same name.{4} Fletcher acknowledges that situation ethics is essentially utilitarianism, but modifies the pleasure principle and calls it the agape (love) principle.

Fletcher developed his ethical system as an alternative to two extremes: legalism and antinomianism. The legalist is like the Pharisees in the time of Jesus who had all sorts of laws and regulations but no heart. They emphasized the law over love. Antinomians are like the libertines in Paul’s day who promoted their lawlessness.

The foundation of situation ethics is what Fletcher calls the law of love. Love replaces the law. Fletcher says, “We follow law, if at all, for love’s sake.”{5}

Fletcher even quotes certain biblical passages to make his case. For example, he quotes Romans 13:8 which says, “Let no debt remain outstanding, except the continuing debt to love one another, for he who loves his fellow man has fulfilled the law.”

Another passage Fletcher quotes is Matthew 22:37-40. “Christ said, Love the Lord your God with all your heart and with all your soul and with all your mind. . . . Love your neighbor as yourself.’ All the Law and the Prophets hang on these two commandments.”

Proponents of situation ethics would argue that these summary verses require only one absolute (the law of love). No other universal laws can be derived from this commandment to love. Even the Ten Commandments are subject to exceptions based upon the law of love.

Situation ethics also accepts the view that the end justifies the means. Only the ends can justify the means; the means cannot justify themselves. Fletcher believes that “no act apart from its foreseeable consequences has any ethical meaning whatsoever.”{6}

Joseph Fletcher tells the story of Lenin who had become weary of being told that he had no ethics. After all, he used a very pragmatic and utilitarian philosophy to force communism on the people. So some of those around him accused him of believing that the end justifies the means. Finally, Lenin shot back, “If the end does not justify the means, then in the name of sanity and justice, what does?”{7}

Like utilitarianism, situation ethics attempts to define morality with an “end justifies the means” philosophy. According to Fletcher, the law of love requires the greatest love for the greatest number of people in the long run. But as we will see in the next section, we do not always know how to define love, and we do not always know what will happen in the long run.

Analysis of Situation Ethics

Perhaps the biggest problem with situation ethics is that the law of love is too general. People are going to have different definitions of what love is. What some may believe is a loving act, others might feel is an unloving act.

Moreover, the context of love varies from situation to situation and certainly varies from culture to culture. So it is even difficult to derive moral principles that can be known and applied universally. In other words, it is impossible to say that to follow the law of love is to do such and such in every circumstance. Situations and circumstances change, and so the moral response may change as well.

The admonition to do the loving thing is even less specific than to do what is the greatest good for the greatest number. It has about as much moral force as to say to do the “good thing” or the “right thing.” Without a specific definition, it is nothing more than a moral platitude.

Second, situation ethics suffers from the same problem of utilitarianism in predicting consequences. In order to judge the morality of an action, we have to know the results of the action we are about to take. Often we cannot know the consequences.

Joseph Fletcher acknowledges that when he says, “We can’t always guess the future, even though we are always being forced to try.”{8} But according to his ethical system, we have to know the results in order to make a moral choice. In fact, we should be relatively certain of the consequences, otherwise our action would by definition be immoral.

Situation ethics also assumes that the situation will determine the meaning of love. Yet love is not determined by the particulars of our circumstance but merely conditioned by them. The situation does not determine what is right or wrong. The situation instead helps us determine which biblical command applies in that particular situation.

From the biblical perspective, the problem with utilitarianism and situation ethics is that they ultimately provide no consistent moral framework. Situation ethics also permits us to do evil to achieve good. This is totally contrary to the Bible.

For example, Proverbs 14:12 says that “There is a way which seems right to a man, but its end is the way of death.” The road to destruction is paved with good intentions. This is a fundamental flaw with an “ends justifies the means” ethical system.

In Romans 6:1 Paul asks, “Are we to continue sinning so that grace may increase?” His response is “May it never be!”

Utilitarianism attempts to provide a moral system apart from God’s revelation in the Bible, but in the end, it does not succeed.

Notes

1. Jeremy Bentham, An Introduction to the Principles of Morals and Legislation, printed in 1781 and published in 1789 (Batoche Books: Kitchener, ON Canada, 2000), 14.
2. Ibid.
3. John Stuart Mill, “Last Stage of Education and First of Self-Education,” Autobiography, 1873 (New York: P.F. Collier & Sons, 1909-14).
4. Joseph Fletcher, Situation Ethics: The New Morality (Philadelphia: Westminster, 1966).
5. Ibid., 70.
6. Ibid., 120.
7. Ibid., 121.
8. Ibid., 136.

© 2004 Probe Ministries

There is a phenomenon currently taking place in our country that I have yet to see or read about having ever taken place anywhere on the globe before. In the past I have documented the disturbing way many followers of Barack Obama view him and his leadership.  I know the term “followers” is an unusual one to use of a group of people who identify with the politics of a particular president.  But I chose it out of necessity in this case.  I was a bit skeptical when commentators satirically began to call Obama the “savior” implying that some view him that way. But, I’m finding it more and more difficult to laugh at the term.

Below is a video of a gathering of  the Gamaliel Foundation; a community organizing group similar to Acorn and others that follow the Obama protocol in producing specific types of “change.”  They, like Obama,  are followers of the 1960s radical Saul Alinsky and Barack Obama was once an intern for the Gamaliel Foundation in the 1980s.  Is this a prayer to Obama? You decide.  Church and state? Perhaps the state is beginning to be viewed as the church. What would that make Obama?

We are swimming in postmodern ideology. The whole “my truth/your truth” thing has become the crutch for anyone who wants to retreat from dealing with the reality of how God has ordered the universe.  When trying to diagnose how to deal with ideas like this, it’s always good to look at thier origins. Here’s a great article from Summit.org on just that. You’ll see after reading, why I recommend you subscribe to this free e-publication from Summit.

Ideas Have Histories: Where Postmodernism Came From

Postmodernism comes in all kinds of shapes and expressions. This sort of variety can make it difficult to understand. Further, postmodernism resists categories and distinctions, and this makes it more difficult to nail down as a worldview. There is a larger intellectual history that must be understood in order to grasp the uniqueness and significance of postmodernism as a worldview.

Ideas Have Histories: How We Lost Our Minds…

 

While dividing history into distinct time periods is not an exact science, there are two major historical transitions that can help us clarify the emergence of postmodernism: (1) the transition towards modernism, typically dated around the 1700s and (2) the transition away from modernism which began in the late 20th century.

The transition from what is often called the pre-modern period into the modern period corresponds with the influence of Enlightenment thinking and the scientific revolution. Prior to the Enlightenment, there was a dominant cultural belief in the existence of the supernatural. This was due in large part to the rise of Christianity and specifically the Roman Catholic church as the most powerful cultural presence in medieval times. This was a world of authority, and authority rested in the hands of traditional institutions, especially the church, since it was entrusted with interpreting and communicating this truth to the common person.

With a belief in God came a strong belief in the concept of revelation, that God not only existed but had revealed Himself and His will in the Bible. This revelation was considered the primary source of truth, and could be trusted to unlock God’s metanarrative (or, “Big Story”) for the world. Believing was the starting point of real knowledge. St. Anselm, typifies a pre-modern perspective on truth: “For I seek not to understand in order that I may believe; but I believe in order that I may understand, for I believe for this reason: that unless I believe, I cannot understand.” This view of revelation and authority did not fare well during the Enlightenment.

The Enlightenment was a movement among European intellectuals in the 17th and 18th centuries. In the decades leading up to this time, the church’s authority had been successfully challenged politically (reactions against corruption), theologically (Luther, Calvin and the Protestant Reformation), philosophically (downfall of scholasticism), and scientifically (Galileo, Copernicus, and Baconian method). There was a growing disillusionment with the traditional educational, political and religious institutions, as well as their authoritative sources.

During the Enlightenment, authority shifted from traditional institutions to human reason. A scientific approach to the world yielded tremendous advances in medicine, technology, and communications and challenged the centrality of theology and religious belief as the paradigm for learning. Free from the restrictive shackles of traditional beliefs (thus, modernism), progress seemed inevitable. Immanuel Kant described this period of time in this way: “Sapere aude! ‘Have the courage to make use of your own mind!’ is thus the slogan of the Enlightenment.” [1]

The modern period had begun. The growing skepticism in regards to anything supernatural was matched by growing faith in human ability to know the world, control it, and reap the inevitable benefits. The “Big Story” of the world was not given by revelation; rather, it was to be discovered and perhaps even determined by science, reason and technology. This major transition was at the heart of the modern period.

However, from our 21st century perspective, it is clear that the predictions of utopia guaranteed in the modern period never materialized. Instead, modernists became disillusioned as military increase brought world wars; failed development policies led to class oppression and colonialism; economic idealism resulted in communism and the Cold War; and our best science created nuclear weapons and the threat of global devastation.

Postmodern writers, beginning with Nietzsche, began to question the integrity of modernism’s metanarrative of progress. In fact, the main casualty of a postmodern perspective is the very idea of a metanarrative. Postmoderns are skeptical of any and all claims to an authoritative comprehensive worldview, absolute truth about reality, and an overarching purpose to the human story.[2] Postmoderns embrace local narratives, not metanarratives; a multitude of stories, not a “Big Story.”

In short, it could be said that religious metanarratives were dismissed by modernism. Man-made ones are dismissed by postmodernism. This is what Myron Penner and others have referred to as “the postmodern turn:”[3] postmodernism is a turn away from the certainty and optimism of modernism. As Jean Francios Lyotard wrote: “Simplifying to the extreme, I define postmodern as incredulity toward metanarratives.”[4]

Answering the Postmodern Challenge

 

Postmodernism’s impact on Western culture is hotly debated, and various thinkers and writers- including those coming from a Christian worldview- have offered diverging opinions of it. Some see it as a passing fad; others see it as long-lasting paradigm shift. Some decry it as dangerously destructive; others embrace its destruction of the oppressive structures of modernity.

The most helpful contribution of postmodernism is, first, that it has successfully challenged the reigning paradigm of the modern period, which was based largely on naturalistic humanism. Modernism, in seeking to arrive at absolute knowledge through empirical investigation, separated matters of “faith” from matters of objective knowledge about the real world. Postmodernism confronts this dichotomy in ways that are helpful for the Christian worldview.

Second, postmodernism has cast a large shadow of skepticism (and has offered a strong dose of humility) on the modern belief in the efficacy and near inerrancy of human reason. As was seen during the modern period, human reason can be quite productive, especially in the arenas of science, medicine, and technology. However, human reason can also be manipulative and destructive, especially when it produces the totalizing ideologies (e.g. communism, Nazism, colonialism, etc) that characterized the modern period.

Third, postmodernism has demonstrated that objectivity and certainty are not exclusive to the realm of science as was claimed during the modern period. In fact, science is often quite biased and agenda-driven, and is therefore in no place to claim to be the final arbiter on all matters of knowledge. This is especially helpful for Christians, who often feel the burden to play by the rules of modernism and empirically demonstrate every aspect of Christian truth.

Fourth, postmodernism rightly reminds us of the power of our culture, and especially the language of our culture, in creating our frames of reference. The modern period demonstrated that this power can be used to marginalize and oppress others at the personal and the systemic level. For the Christian, then, care should be taken to distinguish Scriptural teaching from our cultural perceptions.

Finally, the emphasis of postmodernism on story and narrative fits (to a limited extent) with the way the Bible presents God’s interaction with the world. The Bible is, on the whole, a narrative through which God gives us the Truth about Himself, humanity and the world. Of course, for the postmodernist, no story is to be considered true in this absolute sense over and above any other story, and propositions from one interpretive community are irrelevant for others.

The Bible does not present a God whose story is one among many, but a God whose story is the story above all others. So, in dealing with the postmodern mind, evangelicals face a difficult situation. For the past several centuries, modernity has relegated Christianity to the category of an unscientific, unrealistic worldview that is simply not believable for thinking people. Some Christians are tempted to settle for having Christianity accepted as a truth rather than face the prospect of being dismissed due to dogmatically claiming to be the truth, and abandoning the concept of worldview seems to be a small price to pay for having at least some claim to “truth.”

Although the dethroning of humanistic scientific reason is attractive to battle-weary Christian intellectuals, the postmodern denial of all objective truth is unacceptable. Further, it is important to note that none of the positive contributions of postmodernism originated with postmodernism! In fact, the Christian worldview has always attested to the limitations of unaided human reason, the effect of the fall on objectivity and certainty, the tendency of humans towards marginalizing others, and the role the concept of story plays in our experience.

Despite the popularity of postmodernism among many Christians, the Christian worldview and the postmodern worldview cannot co-exist without one capitulating to the other. One could argue that we are chronologically “postmodern;” but ideologically, we cannot become “postmodernists.”[5]

________________________________________________________________

 

Footnotes

1. Immanual Kant, “An Answer to the Question ‘What is Enlightenment?’” available online here.

2. David Wells, Above All Earthly Powers: Christ in a Postmodern World (Grand Rapids, MI: Eerdman’s, 2005), 74–90.

3. Myron Penner, Christianity and the Postmodern Turn: Six Views, 19–28.

4. Jean Francois Lyotard, The Postmodern Condition: A Report on Knowledge trans. Geoff Bennington and Brian Massumi, in Theory and History of Literature, vol. 10 (Minneapolis, MN: Univ. of Minnesota Press, 1984).

5. Note: This article is an adaptation and abrdigement from the second chapter of Making Sense of Your Wolrd: A Biblical Worldview by Gary Phillips, William Brown, and John Stonestreet.

 

I had planned a personal response to the recent USA Today article written by two Nazarene professors writing that they are both fulfilled Christians and evolutionists. However, before I could get around to it, the experts at AnswersInGenesis.org wrote a fine piece about it. Here’s what they said (BTW- they nailed it as usual!):

In a USA Today opinion piece titled “We Believe in Evolution—and God,” two Christian evolutionists send a broadside our way. But do they bring up anything new?

The authors of the piece are Eastern Nazarene College professor Karl Giberson (whom we wrote about last November) and Point Loma Nazarene University professor Darrel Falk. Both are co-presidents of the new BioLogos Foundation established by Christian evolutionist Francis Collins (see the May 16 edition of News to Note).

The two begin with an unsurprising assertion: “We find no contradiction between the scientific understanding of the world, and the belief that God created that world. And that includes Charles Darwin’s theory of evolution.” They add that molecules-to-man evolution “unifies the entire science of biology,” and that “evolution is as well-established within biology as heliocentricity is established within astronomy.” Then they bring out their biggest guns:

The “science” undergirding this “young earth creationism” comes from a narrow, literalistic and relatively recent interpretation of Genesis, the first book in the Bible. This “science” is on display in the Creation Museum in Kentucky, where friendly dinosaurs—one with a saddle!—cavort with humans in the Garden of Eden. . . . Science faculty at schools such as Bryan College in Tennessee and Liberty University in Virginia work on “models” to shoehorn the 15 billion year history of the universe into the past 10,000 years.

And hence the misinformation begins, which we will answer in turn. Here, we wonder if Giberson and Falk dismiss plain readings of other Bible passages as “narrow” and “literalistic” even if those passages, like Genesis 1 show the hallmarks of being plainly worded historical accounts. And the early church fathers’ supposed doubt concerning a literal Genesis has also been dramatically exaggerated (see The Early Church on Creation). Also, as we have explained before, the saddled dinosaur in the Creation Museum is not an exhibit, but rather a fun photo opportunity for young children; it is in the basement, far from the Garden of Eden display. And the authors merely beg the question when they write that our friends at Bryan College, Liberty University, and elsewhere must “shoehorn” old-earth ideas into a young-earth framework.

Challenging accepted ideas is how America churns out Nobel Prize-winning science and patents that will drive tomorrow’s technology. But challenging authority can also undermine this country’s leadership in science, when citizens reject it. . . . [We aim] to counter the voices coming from places such as the website Answers in Genesis, which touts creation scientists, and the Discovery Institute, a think tank in Seattle, that calls on Christians to essentially choose between science and faith.

First of all, the professors have conflated operational science with origins science—a common problem we point out. Also we have made clear many times that we certainly do not reject science; we just do not believe that everything labeled “science” or that everything believed by scientists actually is good, objective science.

Likewise, we regularly emphasize that the supposed dichotomy between religion (or faith) and science is false. The issue is not that we fight the encroachment of science; rather, we believe that one’s starting point is an inherently religious belief that determines how one interprets the results of the scientific method.

Darwin proposed the theory of evolution in 1859 in On the Origin of Species by Means of Natural Selection. This controversial text presented evidence that present-day life forms have descended from common ancestors via natural selection. Organisms better adapted to their environments had more offspring, and these fitness adaptations accumulated across the millennia. And this is how new species arose.

Natural selection is a readily observed, experimentally verified scientific fact that requires no historical speculation, and as such, our Creation Museum has an exhibit that explains it. We agree that natural selection can lead to new species within a kind as it reduces the genetic information in a population, resulting in sexual incompatibility where there previously was none. But Darwin and those who follow him extrapolate backward from these observations all the way to a single ancestor of all life. That assertion can never be proved right or wrong from fossils or any other present-day scientific study.

We are trained scientists who believe in God, but we also believe that science provides reliable information about nature. We don’t view evolution as sinister and atheistic. We think it is simply God’s way of creating. . . . Evolution is not a chaotic and wasteful process, as the critics charge.

We agree that the scientific method can show certain hypotheses to be more reliable than others through the process of attempted falsification. However, “science” does not provide anything—saying as much is to commit the fallacy of reification. We also would ask if the authors believe in the true, bodily resurrection of Jesus, given that such is as “scientifically” unverifiable as creation. Next, by using the word “sinister,” the authors imply that young-earth creationists are afraid of evolution. Rather, we understand the idea of evolution; it is simply that we don’t believe it is true for biblical and logical reasons. And the authors seem to be deluding themselves by writing that evolution is not “chaotic and wasteful,” given that young-earth creationists believe God created a world of life in one week without any death. The fossil record, however, is a record of death and includes evidence of violence and disease, such as cancer. Why would God call that “very good” if death is an enemy (1 Corinthians 15:26) introduced by sin, which could not have occurred before man (Romans 5:12–14)?

We understand science as a gift from God to explore the creation, a companion revelation enriching the understanding of God we get from other sources, such as the Bible. Many do not realize that making the Bible into a textbook of modern science is a recent development. What we learn from science cannot threaten our belief in God as the creator. If God created the universe in a [b]ig [b]ang 15 billion years ago, guided its development with elegant mathematical laws so that eventually there would be big-brained mammals exploring things such as beauty, morality and truth, then let us celebrate that idea, not reject it.

Again, we agree that science can help us explore creation. But the authors’ description of it as a “companion revelation” forces a question: is everything reported in a scientific journal automatically as valid as Scripture? What about when the two come into conflict—such as if an archaeologist alleges that the Bible’s history is inaccurate? Again, the church fathers overwhelmingly believed in a recent creation as the Bible taught. And of course we do not make the Bible a “textbook of modern science,” since it is a book of history. And again, the authors fallaciously reify “science.” What Richard Dawkins believes the scientific method shows certainly does threaten one’s belief in God. Finally, there is the word if: “If God created the universe in a [b]ig [b]ang 15 billion years ago . . . .” The authors seem to misunderstand our perspective entirely, again, falsely implying that our position is due to fear or unwillingness to consider what it would mean to celebrate the big bang, etc.

Sadly, the visibility of Giberson and Falk’s piece will surely misinform many who don’t actually know what we and other young-earth creationists believe. Even while lobbying tired old defenses of theistic evolution, the authors did not answer a single of our substantive problems with compromise (which are documented in the articles linked below). Still, we are thankful for the continued attention on the Creation Museum, which continues to be the best chance many have for beginning to understand the creationist’s perspective—and for meeting the Creator.

Thanks again to the folks at Answers in Genesis for your fine scholarship!Follow this link to read the Answers in Genesis article on their site. While there, be sure to check out their great resources including the “Get Answers” tab on the home page. There you will find great answers to practically any question pertaining to origins, evolution, creationism, the age of the earth, dinosaurs, the fall of man, etc.

Much debate is going on over whether or not the Obama administration is trying to move us into a single payer health care system that would leave no choice but to participate in the government system.  Perhaps now that the spotlight is being shown, the truth is not totally being told. Let’s go back to before the rhetoric was so thick. Back to when the president was being more honest about his intentions. As posted on britbart.tv and drudgereport.com, here is President Obama in his own words.

This is Part 2 of 2. For Part 1 go here.

As stated before, the great battle that underlies the major headlines we see in regards to the struggles of the Western World is the battle between theism (the idea of a Creator God over all else that exists) and monism (the idea that all is One.  Monism is found in two forms. First, materialism/naturalism which says, “All is One, all is ultimately physical, and so there is no God.  And second, spiritualism which says, “all is One, all is ultimately spiritual, and All is God.”

For a critic of these views, see my previous posts Free Will and the Theology of Naturalism, Artificial Life Likely in 3 to 10 years, A New Earth = Old Ideas.

For now though, I would simply like to take a look at the repercussions that take hold if the respective views prevail.

First, what if Naturalism prevails?  Well, we don’t have to look far. In many ways, Naturalism is winning the day.  Increasingly, evolutionary explanations for origins are taught through academic and cultural immersion, and any argumentation to the contrary of the theory is deemed “unscientific”, “uneducated”, or “unenlightened”.  In fact, one could very accurately say that “science” itself is in danger of extinction should Naturalism win out.  Already professors are loosing tenure, students are being refused acceptance into schools, and people are being threatened with lawsuits, all for raising questions about the problems with naturalism.  True science is about investigation of the phenomena and following where the evidence leads.  Today however, questioning the scientific problems with evolution is said to be “unscientific”.  Perhaps what we have on our hands in this bias is not science at all, but “scientism”.   That is, an axiomatic, and dogmatic pre-assumption that matter is all that exists, therefore any theory raised to the contrary must be rejected a priori, or prior to investigation.  So, if Naturalism holds sway, science (true science- not scientism) is in serious jeopardy.  There will follow (and already are following) tremendous repercussions politically, socially, and culturally.  Obviously, if there is no God above and man is mere molecules-in-motion, the shifts in our thinking about man would look quite different.  There exists no Creator to give us the  right to life, liberty, and pursuit of happiness.  Man would be not be in the image of God, but simply the most recent accident of blind chance; of no more value than a strain of the Swine Flu or the AIDS virus.  Sounds crazy I know, but this is only following the logic of naturalism.  Read more here.  Euthanasia, abortion, and human cloning would allow human beings to be the guinea pigs of science.  All other forms of knowing such as philosophy, and revelation are dispensed and only “science” can ever tell us the truth.  But the statement that “Only science can tell us the truth” is not a scientific statement.  Hum, maybe the answer is not in Naturalism.

What about Spiritualism? What if the idea that “All is One and all is God” wins this battle?  Well, strangely, the results would not look that different.  Man would still be stripped of any dignity as man.  A look into the east where these ideas have already played out is telling.  Population control, mass poverty and starvation as spiritual monism equates man and bovine.  Back here on our streets, the notion of truth itself is vanishing as pantheism further eradicates rationality.  Think about it, if an individual is part of the One and the One is God, then the individual is God and sets the rules for his own life regardless of the repercussions.  Follow me; if one is the determiner of his/her own morality, then it is most virtuous to follow that individual morality. Personal happiness is exalted to be the highest virtue.  So the corporate swindler is justified along with the pedophile in following “their truth”.  Again, sounds crazy I know, but it is the logical end if the individual has the right to establish his or her own morality.  This is the outworking of both Naturalism and Spiritualism.  So, the answer does not lie in Spiritualism either.  In that in these systems either there is no God to be responsible to, or the individual is some sort of god.

See, only Theism is truly livable.  This is because it is that which corresponds to reality.  Only Theism provides a framework for objective morality, the ability to utilize philosophy, science, and trustworthy revelation to inform all matters of living: Ethics, science, law, politics, etc.

These issues have been given a great treatment in Peter Jones’ book Spirit Wars.  It is a very precise, informative, timely, and approachable read.

For a more thorough defense of Theism in general and Christianity specifically download my free PDF Why Christianity. Or view the blogged version here.

     Perhaps now, as in no time ever in history, the world is a divided place.  Despite seemingly limitless technologies to keep us “connected” we are more isolated than ever.  Even while talk around the globe of “universal” this, “global” that, and “consciousness” another saturate our vocabulary, we find ourselves further apart ideologically than we ever have.  Why? Perhaps it is because we are missing the real battle that lies underneath all the headlines of the superficial battles we are caught up in.  The real battle is spiritual and it is being played out on only two major battlefronts. In the Eastern hemisphere the battle is over the identity of God.  The three major monotheistic religions of the world are waging an ideological (and too often physical) war as to whether it is the Jewish, Christian, or Muslim belief system that has it right when identifying God and how God should be approached. The war here in the West is not over the identity of God, and not necessarily over the existence of God; despite the multitude of unceasing headlines that tell us this is the battle.  The real battle in the West is theism vs. monism. 

Most of us know what “theism” is.  It is the idea that a personal, nonphysical, Creator God made all things, holds all things together, and rules over all things. This is the concept behind the ideas of all the participants in the battle that is going on in the East; but that battle is over the identity of that God.

“Monism” on the other hand may be an unfamiliar term; this is particularly strange because as you will see, we are literally swimming in ideological monism at every turn.  “Monism” is the idea that all of reality is made up of a singularity.  You will recognize monism more easily when it is broken down into its two branches, Materialistic Monism and Spiritualistic Monism For our discussion we will simply call them materialism and spiritualism. 

Materialism, which is also accurately referred to as “naturalism”, is the view that all of reality is ultimately reducible to the physical.  This has been the prevailing idea of the universe since the 1960 film “Inherit the Wind” gave a greatly slanted view of the Scopes Trial (more on the movie and the trial itself here).  Since that time, materialism has been the growing norm in terms of how we view reality.  In this view, man does not have a soul, only a brain. Man is the product of matter and is himself simply matter in motion.  Materialism says further that there certainly isn’t any God that is the creator, sustainer, and judge of man for God would not be physical in nature by definition, therefore God cannot exist.  More on the repercussions of this idea in Part 2.

Spiritualistic Monism (spiritualism), like materialism, holds that all of reality is made up of a singularity; only with the distinction that the singularity is purely spiritual and is divine.  So in materialism you have “All is one and in it there is no God at all”, and in spiritualism you have “All One and All is God”.  Spiritualism is quickly growing in the Western psyche.  It appeals to the culture in many ways: there is no God over us, we are all part of and One with the earth and the cosmos. More on the repercussions of this idea in Part 2 as well.

These two ideological starting points are at war with Christianity in the West.  But don’t think the battle is a new one.  Historically, this battle has its roots in ancient thinking. The Greek thinkers first laid it out in a simple and clear way.  They discovered that there were really only three ways to view the world and how it came to be.

1. In the beginning was Chaos. Out of Chaos (randomness) comes Cosmos (order). Out of Cosmos comes either human or divine Logos (word or mind) that explained the Cosmos.
2. Cosmos has always existed. Out of the Cosmos comes Logos.

These two options represent monism in that all is one singularity. Disagreement only exists over the nature of the one singularity.

    3.  Behind everything there is a divine Logos that created the ordered Cosmos, and out of that Cosmos came human Logos.

This third view is the way of viewing reality that was in dominance even before the time of Christ, yet it is clearly representative of theism.  However, Christianity would bring further clarification to the table that has major implications for our survey of the battle at hand.  This was the idea of the Imago Dei, that is that we are made in the image of the Creator God which we will also discuss in Part 2.

This battle of ideas (as you may be able to see already) has major implications for the way we view ourselves, others, the earth, morality, politics, science, law, and human destiny only to mention a few of the areas.  Suffice it to say that this battle is the battle behind all of the headlines and every issue in our lives.  Again, more in Part 2.

A great rescource for further study on this subject is Peter Jones’ book Spirit Wars.

I have mentioned here before the strange convergence that is taking place in our culture today.  We have a President that is thrusting us (seemingly intentionally) into Marxist governance that we once thought was only  something for countries who’s names end in “stan”.  We have a media who holds this president up as the wisest person to ever hold the office and the possessor of the panacea for the ills of the world.  All this while said President, media, and yes even mainline denominational pulpits are claiming that all religions are equally valid.  Our society is just drinking in the propaganda without reservation.  I’m not sure what to make of all this yet. but these videos are concerning to me. Just thought I’d share…

Now before I get a bunch of nasty comments; I do not think Obama is the Antichrist, but our world is clearly getting ready. We are already receptive to the spirit of Antichrist.

In an article from June 1st from USA Today, the faith of Barack Obama is said to be the perfect fit for the times in America.  Sadly, I think the article got it right.  Although he is still out of step with the majority, Obama is the embodiment of the growing sentiment across our country…but is that a goodthing?  A brief excerpt from the article which quotes the president will suffice as a summary of his views. Under the subtitle “Many Paths” the USA Today articles says this:

Perhaps most important of all, he believes in a “living word of God,” one that ever reveals and expands, that comes from unexpected sources. “When I read the Bible,” he has written, “I do so with the belief that it is not a static text but the Living Word and that I must be continually open to new revelations whether they come from a lesbian friend or a doctor opposed to abortion.”

These “new revelations” might come from a non-Christian religion as well, for Obama does not believe his Christianity is the final word. “I am rooted in the Christian tradition,” he has said. But “I believe there are many paths to the same place and that is a belief that there is a higher power, a belief that we are connected as a people.”

Already in his first months in office, then, he has hosted a Jewish Seder, attended a Baptist church, and put a Pentecostal in charge of the Office of Faith-Based Initiatives and Neighborhood Partnerships. He invited a gay Episcopal bishop to speak at an inaugural event, but he also asked the most prominent American evangelical of our time to give an opening prayer. And when he spoke at the University of Notre Dame recently, he both honored the Catholic tradition and defied that faith’s stand against abortion rights, all the while saying we must carve out a new unity on the issue of abortion.

In a nutshell, Obama is a the decider of the truth for himself (see my previous post,  The Postmodern Ethics of Barack Obama).  He merely picks a la carte the things to which he chooses to ascribe.  This is fine to do, unless those things (e.g. faith “traditions” make diametrically opposed truth claims).  Not only does Obama exude an attitude of superiority, he seems to actually believe that he has it right and that all of the other “traditions” have it wrong.  Again, this is a fine claim as far as it goes, but he does so  while saying no one can make an exclusive claim on the truth.  This is known in logic circles as the “self-defeating statement”.  He has made an absolute claim that says there can be no absolute claims.  Confusing, huh?  Even worse, he also discredits other views from one side of his mouth, while affirming them from the other. 

This is where the real smarminess of his elitist attitude smells the strongest.  It appears that Obama thinks slick rhetoric and word games can hide his false notions of tolerance.  An example from the quoted article above serves well here: “…he both honored the Catholic tradition and defied that faith’s stand against abortion rights, all the while saying we must carve out a new unity on the abortion issue.”  So in reality, the president will affirm your faith as long as it agrees with his agenda, but when you speak out against something he is for, he will label you intolerant, censure you, and ask for a “consensus” (a consensus that he dictates, that is).

So yes, Obama’s faith fits our times.  His is a self-stylized, self-aggrandizing faith.  One not based on historical events, or even theological and philosophical rigor; but rather based on self-serving capriciousness.  Obama’s faith is steered by political expediency and a “situational theology”.  I do have to say I believe he is sincere in his convictions, but we all know one can be sincere and still be sincerely wrong. 

Despite all his diverse religious experience, academic exposure, and social acumen, Obama suffers in his decision making at a foundational level.  He rejects logical analysis necessitated by the Law of Non-Contradiction (LNC).  The LNC states simply that two opposing statements cannot both be true at the same time and in the same sense.  In fact, the Stanford Encyclopedia of Philosophy states that:

“According to Aristotle, first philosophy, or metaphysics, deals with ontology and first principles, of which the principle (or law) of non-contradiction is the firmest. Aristotle says that without the principle of non-contradiction we could not know anything that we do know. Presumably, we could not demarcate the subject matter of any of the special sciences, for example, biology or mathematics, and we would not be able to distinguish between what something is, for example a human being or a rabbit, and what it is like, for example pale or white. Aristotle’s own distinction between essence and accident would be impossible to draw, and the inability to draw distinctions in general would make rational discussion impossible. According to Aristotle, the principle of non-contradiction is a principle of scientific inquiry, reasoning and communication that we cannot do without.”

So in denying this reality, Obama looses touch with all reality and cannot possible reason to logical ends. Such is the nature of our increasingly postmodern culture as well. 

Obama also possesses no critical analysis of his own self-defeating worldview.  He is a relativist. Theologically, morally, politically, and in every other way.  Ultimately, he sees himselfas the standard by which all things should be accepting or rejected.  In Obama’s world, all things are relative to Obama.