Monday, July 25, 2011

Portraits of Christ

“Jesus is the Savior”, Ken offered.  Tony had asked Ken which portrait of Christ describes Him best:  Poet, prophet, 2nd Adam, Living Word, politician, Son of God, Creator or teacher.

“Savior?  What do you mean by that?”, Tony probed. “What did he save us from?”

“He has redeemed us.  He saved us from sin.” Ken replied.

“What about death?”  Tony continued.

“Yes, He saved us from sin and death.”  Ken answered.

Then Tony asked, “In what way did He save you from death.  How do you know that he will?”

Ken replied, “Well, Jesus rose from the dead, so I believe I will too.  The Bible says we are seated in heaven places with Christ.” 

“Well, that’s true in a spiritual sense, but what about the physical?  What is the connection between His resurrection and yours?”  asked Tony, drilling down deep.

Tony continued, “What I’m getting at is the significance of a historical Adam.  This is actually a big debate right now at seminaries and Christian Colleges.  You see, when Adam sinned, he brought spiritual death and physical death into the world.  All of creation was affected.  But Jesus completely reversed all of what Adam brought when He died on the cross for our sins and then rose from the dead.  That is why the apostle Paul called Jesus the 2nd Adam.  Those who trust Him have spiritual life, and when Christ returns, His followers will be raised from the dead and given immortal bodies.  Right now we experience spiritual life but not the physical.”

Speaking in the context of resurrection, the Bible says, “For as in Adam all die, so in Christ all will be made alive.” (1 Cor. 15:22).  How can this be?  Adam is the federal head of mankind, so his sinned affected all men.  Jesus is the spiritual head of mankind, so His righteousness restores all who trust Him.  The same is true of the physical.




As it turns out, most Christians, like Ken, see Jesus as their spiritual redeemer, but not their physical savior.  Jesus, as the “Lamb of God”, another portrait, saved us from sin and hell, paying the price for our sin.  Jesus, the “Lion of Judah”, will come one day to destroy all His enemies, reversing the physical curse of The Fall.  There will be no more mourning, crying or pain.  No more disease.  And, “The last enemy to be destroyed is death” (1 Cor. 15:26). 


“For the trumpet will sound, the dead will be raised imperishable, and we will be changed. 53 For the perishable must clothe itself with the imperishable, and the mortal with immortality. 54 When the perishable has been clothed with the imperishable, and the mortal with immortality, then the saying that is written will come true: “Death has been swallowed up in victory.” (1 Cor. 15:52-54).  Now that is good news!

Sunday, June 26, 2011

Debate over Adam Rises to the Top

It has been a big year for faith and science.  While some Christians in secular colleges deny any tension between faith and science (they mean Christianity and Evolution), at the seminaries and Christian colleges a debate is raging.  In the past the debate may have been over the age of the earth or intelligent design, but today it centers on the historicity of Adam. 

The debate has caught the attention of at least two prominent Christian magazines:  Christianity Today and World Magazine. 


World Magazine Announces Books of the Year




















A very nice feature of the World Magazine co-Book of the Year, Should Christians Embrace Evolution? , is that it contains the most up to date thoughts and theories in both the theological and the scientific realms.

The other World Magazine co-book of the Year, God and Evolution, according to Evolution News and Views, "features essays by Protestant, Catholic and Jewish scholars critical of the growing effort by advocates of theistic evolution such as Francis Collins to persuade leaders of the faith community to change their theology without hearing from scientists who are skeptical of the claims of unguided Darwinian evolution."

The June 2011 issue of Christianity Today offered a major cover story, The Search for the Historical Adam



The CT article gives a variety of viewpoints from various players in the debate, from secular academia to seminaries to pastors.

One reason for all the commotion is the well funded Biologos organization, and it's founder, Francis Collins, director of the National Institutes of Health and former Human Genome project director.  Also a born again Christian, Collins is promoting Theistic Evolution, the idea that God used evolution to create over long periods of time.  His position has given him a powerful platform to spread his views. 

World Magazine cites Bill Dembski, Intelligent Design promoter, as saying, "Theistic Evolution akes the Darwinian picture of the biological world and baptizes it".

The promoters of Theistic Evolution feel they have overwhelming scientific evidence for the common descent of all life on earth from an early, simple life form.  Others are not convinced, and offer an interpretation that points to special creation.  Many further contend that evolution is favored in academia only because of philosophical bias against supernatural intervention.

The problem, as stated well in the World Magazine article, is that, "Most theistic evolutionists have no room in their Darwinist theory for the special creation of Adam and Eve."

The idea of Theistic Evolution has also received significant push back from prominent pastors and theologians. 
 
The Christianity Today article, quotes Tim Keller as writing,

"[Paul] most definitely wanted to teach us that Adam and Eve were real historical figures. When you refuse to take a biblical author literally when he clearly wants you to do so, you have moved away from the traditional understanding of the biblical authority," Keller wrote. "If Adam doesn't exist, Paul's whole argument—that both sin and grace work 'covenantally'—falls apart. You can't say that 'Paul was a man of his time' but we can accept his basic teaching about Adam. If you don't believe what he believes about Adam, you are denying the core of Paul's teaching."

If you read liberal commentaries on this topic you find that even the liberal theologions believe that Paul thought Adam was a real historical figure, they just believe he was ill informed - wrong.  So much for divine inspiration!

CT also says, "...physicist John A. Bloom, director of Biola University's science and religion program, wrote that if there was merely a population of pre-Adamic hominids that "collectively evolved into modern man, then the theological foundation for the nuclear family, sin and death appears to be eroded. The credibility of the Bible when it speaks on these issues seems to be damaged: If it does not correctly explain the origin of a problem, why should one trust its solutions?"

Bloom highlights the core of the problem.  Eliminating a real Adam destroys the foundational Christian doctrine of salvation. 

To end the article Christianity Today stuns us with,
"South Carolina pastor Richard Phillips, a blogger with the Alliance of Confessing Evangelicals and chair of the Philadelphia Conference on Reformed Theology, sees serious doctrinal danger if the historical Adam disappears. 'Can the Bible's theology be true if the historical events on which the theology is based are false?' he asks. If science trumps Scripture, what does this mean for the virgin birth of Jesus, or his miracles, or his resurrection? 'The hermeneutics behind theistic evolution are a Trojan horse that, once inside our gates, must cause the entire fortress of Christian belief to fall.'"

It is foolish to change theology based on so called "modern science".  The prevailing philosophy of science assumes there is no intervention of God.  Science, thus defined, will never accept special creation, or intelligent design, no matter what the evidence shows.  This is exactly why intelligent design was rejected in the Dover, PA trial five years ago.  It was rejected by definition, not by it's evidence.  Why should the church bow to such tyranny? 

The most sustained case for a historical Adam comes from chapter 3 of the World Magazine co-Book of the Year, Should Christians Embrace Evolution?  That article, "Adam and Eve", authored by Michael Reeves, gives a detailed theological rebuke of Adam as a figure or group or awakened chimpanzee. 

World Magazine summarizes the debate this way:

"The battle is between biblical Christianity and theological liberalism, which views Adam as mythical and Jesus as symbolic. For that reason Reeves, leaving himself open to condemnation from those who would fudge the issues, points out that debates about Adam and Eve are 'inescapably foundational in that they really represent a debate between the Christian gospel and an entirely different approach to God and salvation.'"

Meanwhile, many Christian students where I work don't think that evolution has any significant bearing on theology, and they look to the academic elite Christians in secular positions, like Francis Collins, as their heroes.  Others would say the evolution - creation debate is a non-issue or a side issue or a fabricated conflict.  As you can see, these viewpoints are out of touch with reality.

As a campus minister at an influential secular academic institution, I have a lot of work to do, not only among the unbelievers, but also among the believers!  Please pray for me.

Monday, February 14, 2011

A Sermon on The Problem with Theistic Evolution

Standing for the Word of God at Dartmouth College –
I am here from Dartmouth College, a college founded to train missionaries and Pastors to reach the Indians.  Unfortunately, the College has lost her way, adopting humanist philosophies. 
We believe…
2 Tim. 3:16 – “All scripture is God breathed…”
We believe in the Authority of the Scripture:

“The authority of the Scripture means that all the words in Scripture are God’s word in such a way that to disbelieve or disobey any word of Scripture is to disbelieve or disobey God.” 
(from Grudem, Wayne A. Systematic Theology. Grand Rapids, MI: Zondervan, 2000, p. 73)

One of the chief ways that the authority of the scripture is undermined today, especially in academia, is through the dogma of common descent evolution.

I went to Dartmouth four years ago with both guns blazing for Intelligent Design, the idea that the best explanation for certain features of our universe and biology is an intelligent designer.  I was ready to go, to help change the prevailing philosophies there. Of course I expected opposition from the secular humanists. 
I had lunch with a religion and philosophy professor who specializes in the creation/evolution dialog, hoping to work with her on some projects, even though she accepts evolution.  She wanted to know what programs I offered.  When I mentioned I was leading a book study on apologetics, she wanted to know how I resolved the problem of evil:  If God is all powerful and all good, why is there evil and suffering in the world?  I spoke of free will as the reason for moral evil and of the fall of man as the reason for natural evil. 
She responded, “Surely you accept evolution!”  When I told her I didn’t accept common descent, in the most condescending tone she replied, “You won’t find anyone who believes that way around here!
Needless to say, lunch wasn’t very pleasant after that.

But what surprised me was apathy and opposition from believers.

Early on I learned from a Christian Professor and friend, “We (Christian Professors) have decided as a group not to support anything having to do with Intelligent Design.”  I was surprised and discouraged but kept looking for a partner to help start an origins discussions group. 
I talked to a Dartmouth grad student who wrote an apologetic article on beauty to see if she had ideas on who to talk to.  She recommended I talk to a certain Christian professor who was especially good at starting new ventures.  Unfortunately, he belittled me and absolutely refused to help start group.  He gave me audio disks on the history of faith and science – endorsing theistic evolution and referencing creationists as “na├»ve literalists”.  I later learned that he was distributing copies of the disk set to our student leaders!
You might ask, “ How can this be?”  You have to understand that Dartmouth students and professors get into this prestigious school by trusting their educators.  There is tremendous academic peer pressure to conform to the prevailing philosophies.  Naturalism rules the day and evolution is the cornerstone of a liberal education.  These students and professors want to be respected and thought of as well educated.  They may fear of loss of reputation and career opportunities if they do not conform.  Christians are not exempt from these pressures.
Another factor is the influential Francis Collins, head of the National Institutes of Health, former head of the human genome project and author of The Language of God.  He is an elite scientist turned Christian, yet he is stuck on evolution.  Our faculty and students admire him.   Unfortunately, his theology is a mess.  Among other things, he suggests that Adam brought spiritual death, but not physical death.   More on that later.

Why does it Matter?
How many of you are Protestant?  What does that mean?  There are five pillars, the five Solas.  I’m going to talk about two of them which are in limbo today.  The first is Sola Scriputra – only through the Scripture do we know truth.   The second is Solo Christo, we have salvation only through Christ and His sacrifice on the cross.
                Now, how many of you accept common descent, the idea that humans developed slowly over time from animals?  As I talk with Christian students at Dartmouth I find that about half fully accept common descent.  Does that make it alright?  I hear, “Francis Collins is a Christian and he accepts common descent”.  I hear, “The Catholic Church and the mainline protestant churches accept common descent.”  I ask, “Does that mean it is theologically sound?”
               
                Ladies and gentleman, I’m here to tell you that common descent is not theologically sound.  In fact, it completely undermines orthodox Christian doctrine and the reformation.   It destroys the authority of scripture and diminishes the need for Christ.  First let’s look at what common descent does to Solo Christo, Salvation only through Christ. 
                Can anybody tell me why Christ had to die, according to the Bible?  I mean, how could one man die for all of us?  Theologically, how does that work?  Can anyone tell me what Paul wrote about this?

                A big Question is, “Is Genesis Literal or Figurative?” 
                The principle of hermeneutics, that scripture interprets scripture, resolves this question.  Let’s look at what Paul wrote about Genesis.

Rom 5:19
 19For just as through the disobedience of the one man the many were made sinners, so also through the obedience of the one man the many will be made righteous.
                So, here is the deal.  Adam, like Christ is a Federal head – they both represent all of mankind.  Christ makes us righteous just the way Adam made us sinners.  The problem is, Common Descent, the idea that man arose gradually from lower animals, destroys Adam.  If Adam didn’t bring sin, why do we need Jesus?
                Let’s take a closer look.  First, you cannot reconcile the Adam and Eve of the Bible with common descent evolution.   The Bible says Adam was the first man, formed from the dust of the ground.   Common descent says no, the first man came from other animals.  The Bible says Sin and Death entered the world through Adam.  Common descent says no, there was death all along, and sin too.  The Bible says that Eve was formed from Adam’s rib, that she was the first woman.  Common descent says woman evolved just like man.
Christians who accept common descent, known as Theistic Evolutionists, have tried to reconcile with the Bible in various, but unsettling ways.  First, some claim that there was not one Adam, but more of a group, and that Adam is just an example, or type of early man.  Others claim that God took an apelike creature and recreated it into a man.
                The problems with these theories basically fall into two groups.  First, they always regard the Bible as less authoritative than science, and second, they put sin and death before Adam.  Let’s look at these.
First, the modern scientific method, operates under what is called methodological naturalism, which assumes from the start that God does not intervene with the world.  When the Bible and “science”  seem to disagree, why are we surprised?   Science, operating with those constraints, will never posit creation.  It is ruled out from the start.  Why should the church submit to the premise that God does not intervene?   What about Sola Scriptura, Truth coming only from scripture?  I submit to you today, that science is changing constantly and God’s Word never changes.  So why should the church submit to “science”?  No way.
And it’s not just a matter of how you interpret Genesis.  Special creation is endorsed throughout the Old Testament and the New.  Moses, Job, Isaiah, Jesus, Peter and Paul all support it.  By the principle of hermeneutics, special creation is established truth.
God Himself wrote in stone with His own finger, in the Tablets of Ten Commandments, “"Remember the Sabbath day by keeping it holy.  Six days you shall labor and do all your work, but the seventh day is a Sabbath to the LORD your God. On it you shall not do any work, neither you, nor your son or daughter, nor your manservant or maidservant, nor your animals, nor the alien within your gates.   For in six days the LORD made the heavens and the earth, the sea, and all that is in them, but he rested on the seventh day.”   This passage alone should settle the matter, “Sola Scriptura”.  The Bible says that God wrote that with His finger!  
If science seems to point to another age or origin of mankind, then there must be a problem with the assumptions of that estimate, not with the scripture.  Again, if science seems to tell us something other than what scripture clearly tells us, there must be a problem with the science.  “Sola Scriptura”.  Only through the Scripture do we know truth.  Common descent makes a mess of that.

So, the second issue is the entry of sin and death into the world.  The Bible says sin and death came through Adam. 
Rom 5:12 “Therefore, just as sin entered the world through one man, and death through sin, and in this way death came to all men

This passage also refers to “...Adam, who was a pattern of the one to come.”  That is Jesus.  The passage continues,
 15But the gift is not like the trespass. For if the many died by the trespass of the one man, how much more did God's grace and the gift that came by the grace of the one man, Jesus Christ, overflow to the many! 16Again, the gift of God is not like the result of the one man's sin: The judgment followed one sin and brought condemnation, but the gift followed many trespasses and brought justification. 17For if, by the trespass of the one man, death reigned through that one man, how much more will those who receive God's abundant provision of grace and of the gift of righteousness reign in life through the one man, Jesus Christ.
 18Consequently, just as the result of one trespass was condemnation for all men, so also the result of one act of righteousness was justification that brings life for all men. 19For just as through the disobedience of the one man the many were made sinners, so also through the obedience of the one man the many will be made righteous.
So, here is the deal.  Christ makes us righteous just the way Adam made us sinners.  But if Adam was not a real person, what does that say of Christ?  I mean, if Paul thought Adam was just a symbol, why would he make this analogy?  His whole argument falls apart if Adam is not a real person.
Furthermore, the Bible tells us that previous to Adam’s sin, the Earth was a paradise.  There was no sin or death.  The sin of Adam affected all of creation, according to the Apostle Paul.  In Romans 8:20-21 we read, “Against its will, all creation was subjected to God’s curse. But with eager hope, the creation looks forward to the day when it will join God’s children in glorious freedom from death and decay.”   
This is how we know Francis Collins has it wrong.  Adam brought physical death and decay to all of creation, not just spiritual death.  Also, in
                1 cor. 15:22 “For as in Adam all die, so in Christ all will be made alive.
So, Adam brought the curse and death, Jesus will bring eternal life and a new paradise.  Jesus reversed what Adam did.  This is God’s story.

So, if, according to common descent, Adam didn’t bring sin and death, I ask, why do we need Christ?  For a good example?  No!  That is not what the Bible says!  Christ saves us from sin and death.  One pillar of the reformation is Solo Christo, Only Christ Saves.  He is the only mediator between God and man.  We cannot save ourselves.
The problem is, Common Descent, the idea that man arose gradually from lower animals, is not compatible with a real Adam and what the Bible says about him. 
Look, in Gen. 2:17, God told Adam that if He ate from the tree, they would die.  Was God’s threat of death empty?  After all, if common descent were true, and Adam had seen parents or grandparents had died, be they apes or men, what was the big deal?  Was God’s threat of death empty?   No, God’s threat was not empty.   Adam was the first man.  He had no parents, be they apes or men.  Death was something new after God gave the curse after Adam and Eve ate fruit from the forbidden tree.
Common descent does not fit orthodox theology.  You have to ignore and twist the scripture to make it fit.

*******************************************************************
Let me explain how God allowed me to address the Dartmouth professors, many of whom accept evolution.  The Christian professors had a meeting on The Essence of the Gospel.  One man opened, “Why should we put stumbling blocks in front of unbelievers like requiring them to take a certain stance on science before they some to faith?”  I knew he was talking about evolution.  I struggled to speak because of all the leaders in the room who I know disagree with me about evolution and not wanting to look stupid.  But God gave me words.  I said, “I would never want to give up the historical Adam and Eve”, then offered some of the reasons outlined above.  I explained how diminishing Adam diminishes the need for Christ.  I warned about damaging the integrity and authority of the scriptures and how this throws doubt on the moral teachings.
God is good.  He allowed me the chance to speak that day and gave me the words I needed.  I hope I can help students and professors trust the word of God.  Thank you for making that possible.

Common descent is scientifically bankrupt.
I.  The millions of transitional forms predicted by Darwin have not materialized
II.  Genetics studies are not telling the story predicted by common descent
                A.  When  scientists try to trace the evolutionary history of various genes, they get a different history depending on the gene they study
                B.  More interestingly, population genetics shows that the human genome is becoming less fit with each generation (Micheal Lynch, [2010] Rate, molecular spectrum, and consequences
of human mutation.  Periodical of the National Academy of Sciences 107:961-968) and (John Sanford,  Genetic Entropy, Elim Publishing, New York, 2005)

I hope I can help students and professors trust the word of God, that they would know that they should live by it.  Again, thank you for making that possible, through your support of our ministry.

See my website at www.tonyandkaylene.com

Sunday, January 2, 2011

Sustainability, The Human Genome and Immortality

            Sustainability is a huge buzz word on campus.  Sustainability goals and progress are posted in various campus buildings.  This fall Dartmouth freshmen were greeted with posters promoting the idea.  By now you might be wondering, “What is sustainability and what does it have to do with the human genome and immortality?”
            Sustainability is a goal to live in such a way that can be continued indefinitely, or to live without destroying the environment for future generations.  It’s a noble goal.  It is best to live in a way which does not destroy or deplete the environment. However, the idea is based on a not so certain assumption that humanity will continue indefinitely given a habitable environment.  I have two problems with that assumption.
            First, the Bible says that God will one day bring a new, glorious earth and the old will pass away.  Of course, we don’t know how soon that will be, so I raise a second issue that has come to my attention – genetic entropy.

Genetic Entropy
            Like any U.S. student, I have been told that evolution progresses over time, adding new creatures and features as it advances by means of random mutation and natural selection.  Humans are supposed to be at the pinnacle of evolution, endowed with the most advanced systems and intelligence.  Since I was a young boy I have wondered where evolution would take humanity.  Surely we were destined to be stronger, smarter and better looking.
            Since becoming a Christian in college I began having doubts about the common descent aspect of evolution (that all species have descended from one simple initial life form) .  First, the Bible seemed to tell a different story, and second, I began to notice various rebuttals to common descent.  Most recently I’ve become convinced that the biology of humanity is actually heading downhill.  That’s right, downhill.  I’ll tell you how I’ve come to that conclusion.

Genetic Entropy
               About two years ago I read a book called Genetic Entropy by Dr. John Sanford, a Cornell University genetics associate professor, researcher and inventor.  I was immediately shocked by the thesis of the book: The human genome is deteriorating from one generation to the next.  If true, this means that we pass on to our children a more corrupt set of genes than we inherited from our parents.  I, nor anyone I think, wants to believe that is true.  It totally flies in the face of human evolutionary progress and the rosy thoughts of my youth. 
 
            However dismal the thought of it, the basic theory made sense to me.  Dr. Sanford basically says that most mutations of the genome which are passed on are either neutral or harmful, but over generations, even the neutral mutations accumulate, eventually resulting in disease or infertility.  Bleak indeed, but was it true, I wondered.  Sanford explains that helpful mutations are exceedingly rare and that humans don’t reproduce nearly fast enough to allow natural selection to work.  This means that there are so many new harmful or neutral mutations in the genome of each offspring that “nature” can’t select a better one because a “better” one is not available.  Some offspring may seem “better” based on an outward characteristic, but genetically, overall, none are more “fit” than their parents.  Fitness, here, means having a robust genome, well able to reproduce healthy offspring.
            Interestingly, Sanford compares generational genetic entropy to the aging process.  He points out that the reason we get old is that cells are copied and replaced periodically throughout the body, and the copies are not the same as the original.  They contain mutations and do not perform as well.  After multiple copied copies the cells hardly work at all, and death inevitably ensues. 
            He also points out that the early people in the book of Genesis had very long lives because they were starting with a “more perfect” genome.  Today we start with copies of the copies of the copies, etc., resulting in a less robust genome at birth.  Sanford suggests extinction at about 300 generations from creation.  This is sobering and interesting, but…

Is this Real?

            Of course, Sanford’s thesis depends on his assumptions (mutation rate, population growth rate, etc.) and the equations of a science known as population genetics.  His book made sense to me, but I’m not a biologist, let alone a population geneticist.  Besides, his Christian faith may have influenced his science.  I didn’t want to embrace or promote the idea until I learned more about it from other sources.  I began to ask people closer to the science what they thought but nobody seemed able to confirm or deny genetic entropy.  In the summer of 2008, I searched the web for more information on genetic entropy but found virtually nothing.  Unable to verify the idea, I decided to just leave the idea alone for awhile.
Before the Dawn
            Then, the next school year, I discovered secular writing which seemed to confirm the idea.  After talking some about creation/evolution, a student suggested I read a book from one of his classes.  I found the book, Before the Dawn, by Nicholas Wade, fascinating.  In one of the final chapters he writes on the future of evolution.  The following words leapt off the page: 
“…it follows that human genomes will become more diverse as neutral mutations accumulate.  Too much diversity, according to theoretical calculations, could eventually make people infertile unless they mated only with people whose genomes were similar to their own.”  Wham!  This sentence, coming from an evolutionist, seems to confirm what Sanford wrote, that the accumulation of neutral mutations will eventually result in infertility problems.  Wade suggests that people could resolve this by mating with people of similar genetics, yet we have known for a long time that if people mate with others with too similar a genome (our siblings or cousins) genetic defects result. 
            Excited that I found a secular writer indirectly confirming Sanford’s ideas, I went back to the web to see if there was anything new.  That’s when I found a second confirmation, this time in a prestigious scientific journal, the Periodical of the National Academy of Sciences!

   In the January 2010 abstract of his article Rate, molecular spectrum and consequences of human mutation, NAS member Michael Lynch wrote,
“Finally, a consideration of the long-term consequences of current human behavior for deleterious-mutation accumulation leads to the conclusion that a substantial reduction in human fitness can be expected over the next few centuries in industrialized societies unless novel means of genetic intervention are developed.”  Wow!   Basically, what Dr. Lynch is saying is that genetic problems are accumulating in the genome, and unless we do something about it, in two or three hundred years we will have very serious disease and infertility problems.  He limits his appraisal to industrialized societies, because they were the focus of his study and because they tend to have lower reproduction rates and all members tend to reproduce, regardless of fitness, but basically he indirectly affirms Sanford’s account. 

The Solution

            Both Wade and Lynch express hope that technology will rescue the human genome.  It seems clear to both, agreeing with Sanford, that evolution can’t and won’t.  Wade conjectures of a solution involving in vitro fertilization and introducing a new chromosome with genes able to correct genetic diseases of the parents.  I shudder to think of the implications of this sort of activity. 
            Interestingly, Lynch comments that the time scale for genetic trouble is roughly the same as doomsday scenarios for global warming.  So, why don’t we hear about genetic entropy in the daily news, as we do global warming?  Why isn’t this billboard material at our colleges and universities, like sustainability?  Because genetic entropy flies in the face of evolutionary dogma, and evolution must be true, because it is the only ideological hope for a culture that denies a creator.
            As Christians, we place our hope completely on the Lord Jesus Christ and His ability to deliver us from ultimate death.  At the end of 1 Corinthians 15 we find these words of hope:
 50 I declare to you, brothers and sisters, that flesh and blood cannot inherit the kingdom of God, nor does the perishable inherit the imperishable. 51 Listen, I tell you a mystery: We will not all sleep, but we will all be changed— 52 in a flash, in the twinkling of an eye, at the last trumpet. For the trumpet will sound, the dead will be raised imperishable, and we will be changed. 53 For the perishable must clothe itself with the imperishable, and the mortal with immortality. 54 When the perishable has been clothed with the imperishable, and the mortal with immortality, then the saying that is written will come true: “Death has been swallowed up in victory.”
 55 “Where, O death, is your victory?
   Where, O death, is your sting?”
 56 The sting of death is sin, and the power of sin is the law. 57 But thanks be to God! He gives us the victory through our Lord Jesus Christ.
 58 Therefore, my dear brothers and sisters, stand firm. Let nothing move you. Always give yourselves fully to the work of the Lord, because you know that your labor in the Lord is not in vain.

*********************

Check out our website at http://www.tonyandkaylene.com/