The Case of the Empty Tomb

The Case of the Empty Tomb

“What’s this?!” Kaylene exclaimed, pointing at a dirty cake pan. Returning from ice skating with our family, she found a “smoking gun” of sorts. You see, we have a history of surprising each other on our birthdays, going back to before we were married. Tony had arranged for two students to come over to prepare the surprise cake while we were skating. Unfortunately, in their haste to not get caught in the act, they forgot about the dirty cake pan! We tried to brush it off, to come up with another explanation, but nothing would convince her that we weren’t up to something. She expected it, and there was a dirty cake pan to prove it.

People run into the same problem when they try to deny the resurrection of Christ. It was always God’s plan to atone for our sins by the death of Jesus Christ, and it was always His plan to raise Him from the dead, to show His victory over death, the promise of eternal life. The prophets told us what to expect!!

When He rose He left behind clear evidence: The empty tomb, many witnesses and transformed lives. Big smoking guns. Although many have offered alternate explanations for the resurrection, those scenarios aren’t believable. The following are a few of the most popular yet feeble explanations.

The Substitution Theory. This theory is advanced by Islam, which rejects the idea that Jesus died for our sins to make peace with God and trust instead in their own good deeds. In their holy book, the Koran, we read,

They said, “We killed Christ Jesus the son of Mary, the Apostle of God,” but they killed him not, nor crucified him, but so it was made to appear to them, and those who differ therein are full of doubts with no certain knowledge, but only conjecture to follow. For surety they killed him not: Nay, God raised him up unto Himself, and God is Exalted in Power, Wise. (Sura 4:157-158)

But this is not believable. First, is God deceitful? Would He trick people into thinking Jesus was crucified? Why, when the prophets foretold the event, would God trick us this way?

Secondly, could anyone really impersonate Jesus successfully? How could anyone follow the script and take the punishment? For what motive? Wouldn’t the interrogators, the high priests, Pilate and Herod know if they were talking to the right man? His answers made it clear who He was. Also, Jesus’ mother and disciple were at the foot of the cross as he was dying. Wouldn’t they have recognized Him? This would be like us trying to convince Kaylene that we made the cake for someone else. Secretly. We tried that and she saw right through it. The story just doesn’t fit the facts!

The Theft Theory. This explanation was first advanced by the Jews. In Matthew’s gospel we read, “the chief priests…gave the soldiers a large sum of money, telling them, ‘You are to say, “His disciples came during the night and stole him away while we were asleep.”’”

The story that the disciples stole the body of Jesus is not believable either. Remember two facts: First the disciples had fled Jesus. They were afraid and disillusioned, depressed and cowering. Second, armed Roman soldiers guarded the tomb. They were under threat of death if the body of Jesus was missing from the tomb. So, how could the disillusioned disciples have found the courage and strength to steal the body from the guarded tomb? If the soldiers were asleep, how did they know the body was stolen by the disciples? What would have motivated them to steal the body? What did they have to gain? Most were later killed for their testimony of the resurrection. Why would they die for a lie? It makes no sense.

The Swoon Theory.  This explanation says that Jesus was only wounded by the crucifixion. But this can’t be right. The Jews knew He was dead. That’s why they spread the lie that the disciples had stolen the body. Besides, the Romans knew how to kill people. They crucified hundreds of thousands, and they normally broke their legs to insure they would die quickly. But when the soldiers saw Jesus, he appeared dead, so instead, they thrust a spear into his side just to be sure. So, how could Jesus have recovered, escaped from the graves clothes and tomb, overpowered the guards, then journey seven miles on mangled feet and convince the Apostles of His Lordship? Again, it’s not believable.

The Hallucination Theory.  This explanation claims the eyewitnesses only hallucinated that Jesus had risen from the dead. All of them. At the same time. On multiple occasions. This would be like trying to convince Kaylene that she only thought she saw a dirty cake pan. Good luck with that!

None of these theories explain the empty tomb and the transformed lives as well the resurrection does. Jesus paid the penalty for our sins and concurred death, just as foretold by the prophets! 

Christ is Risen!!

Pondering the Big Bang

For years I’ve quoted the work of Roger Penrose, whose calculation regarding the improbability of a natural origin of our universe have greatly emboldened creationists and proponents of a designed universe.  Penrose concluded that, of all the possible initial conditions that our universe could have had, our universe started in an extremely rare, highly ordered, low entropy state. (For those of us needing reminder of what entropy is – it is the degree of disorder in a system; a measurement of disorder, which is always increasing in the universe.) So rare in fact that the chance that our universe began with such a low entropy is just 1 in 10^{10^123}.  That is a 1 with 10¹²³ zeros behind it!  Incredible!

The number is hard to appreciate without a little more explanation.  A man couldn’t write the number out longhand even if he began writing it on the day Adam was created!  That’s a very big number, representing a very special universe.  The Penrose calculation is the mother of all arguments for a finely tuned universe.  From it, many have made the obvious inference for the existence of God.

Not only did the universe began in a very rare state, but this condition is also necessary for life to exist.  In intelligent design lingo we call this “specified complexity”.  The universe is finely tuned for life.  That’s the amazing thing.

Since I had been quoting Penrose, I decided I should learn a little more about him.  Is he just a nutty

Sir Roger Penrose

professor, out on a limb, or is he someone who knows what he is talking about?  I learned that Roger Penrose is actually Sir Roger Penrose, having been knighted for his mathematical ability.  With Steven Hawking, he worked out the implications of the General Theory of Relativity on cosmology and the “big bang”.  Penrose is no nutty professor.  He is a world class mathematician, a brilliant man.

I wondered how he calculated such a large number.  Was it just a combination of the other "fine tuning" arguments rolled into one?  Is it a mysterious formulation, decipherable by few mortal minds?  Or is it profound yet understandable?   So, I found the book where he makes the calculation, The Emperor’s New Mind, and began reading with great interest.  As it turns out, in a nutshell he is saying that out of all the possible initial entropy states of each particle in the universe, all were at an amazingly low entropy (highly ordered) state.  He arrives at the number using relatively simple formulas and justifiable assumptions.

In The Emperor’s New Mind  Penrose also argues that the known laws of physics are inadequate to explain the phenomenon of human consciousness.  He seems willing to go against the flow of materialist thought – matter is all that exists – and provides views on the human thought process that are not popular within the scientific community.  Though he wrote the book about twenty years ago even referring to a Creator in the text (without giving definition), he is still trying to figure out a natural explanation for the low entropy initial state of the universe.  Wikipedia claims he is an atheist. Online I found an intriguing interview, where it is evident that he is still wrestling with the implications of his own work.  Trying to devise a natural explanation, all he has found is what he refers to as crazy ideas.  Check out the interview at http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=pEIj9zcLzp0

Other atheist cosmologists suggest the explanation for our existence, against all odds, is the "multi-verse", an infinite number of parallel universes. Thus, we just happen to be in the universe with the right entropy, the right fundamental forces, etc. Lucky us!

There are at least a couple of big problems with this idea. First, it is a metaphysical (beyond physical) explanation which secular scientists have told us is out of bounds.  As Physicist Stephen Barr mused, “It seems that in order to abolish one unobservable God, it takes an infinite number of unobservable substitutes.”

Another problem with the multi-verse is that it can explain anything, therefore it explains nothing. In a parallel universe, a guy who looks just like you invented ice cream. That's not really an explanation, but shows the absurdity of the multiverse. Anything can happen as a result of a random quantum fluctuation, even things we normally attribute to natural law.

The obvious answer to the puzzle of "fine tuning" is that, as another knighted cosmologist, Sir Fredrick Hoyle, once put it, “A common sense interpretation of the facts suggests that a superintellect has monkeyed with the physics, as well as with chemistry and biology.”  As Christians, we know Who the Superintellect is!  Isn’t it amazing that what our God spoke into existence still confounds even the brilliant among us!!  I am reminded of  Isa. 29:14, "Therefore once more I will astound these people with wonder upon wonder; the wisdom of the wise will perish, the intelligence of the intelligent will vanish.”

On the Big Bang

As one who believes in supernatural creation, I sometimes chuckle when I read books on modern cosmology.  Einstein’s Telescope is one of those books.  Early on in the book we are assured of the veracity of the Big Bang Story.    The author claims that three strong lines of evidence give us this assurance:

1.       The Expansion of the Universe

2.       The ratios of light elements Lithium, Deuterium and Helium from early nucleosynthesis from protons and neutrons.

3.       The Cosmic Background Radiation

However, I know from other books on the subject that, in order for these three lines of evidence to be consistent with observations, new, speculative entities have been invented.  

First, the idea of “dark energy” had to be invented to explain the accelerating expansion of the universe.  According to the latest big bang calculations, 72% of the mass-energy of the universe is dark energy.  Unfortunately, nobody has found it nor are there any good candidates for what it is.  Yet, secular cosmologists believe in it because “something” is causing the universe to accelerate outward.  Hmmm.

Second, “cold dark matter” had to be invented to explain the ratios of the light elements as well as the apparent mass of galaxies.  You see, for the math to work out, the big bang requires that 23% of the mass-energy of the universe be made up of this cold dark matter, which is mass that doesn’t absorb or emit heat or light.  Extra mass, which we can’t see, is required to explain the speed at which galaxies rotate.  For many years, scientists believed this mass was normal “baryonic” matter, like black holes or burnt out stars, which couldn’t be seen by telescope.  However, if all that mass was normal matter, that extra matter would drastically change the ratios of the light elements formed according to big bang cosmology.  The observation would no longer match the theory.  So, to keep that cosmology alive, scientists infer “cold dark matter”, an exotic entity which is very common but never been detected.  Hmmm.  Cold dark matter also helps to explain how matter could begin to clump together in the early universe, which otherwise looks very smooth according to the cosmic background radiation measurements.  It’s very useful stuff.  If they could only find some. 

It is hard to see how the ratio of light elements is evidence for the big bang when “cold dark matter” has to be invented to rescue it.

The book Einstein’s Telescope is about the search for dark matter and dark energy, so I thought it would be interesting.  Indeed.

Finally, the “inflation” epoch was invented to solve the horizon problem, that is, the uniformity of the Cosmic Background Radiation.  Again, this inflation epoch is unproven but it is needed to explain why the background temperature is the same in every direction.  Not only is this “inflation” unproven and unprovable, the inflation theory actually says that, for at least a moment, the universe expanded many times faster than the speed of light.  Hmmm.  That sounds more than a little speculative.  Friends, maybe the background temperature is the same in every direction because we are near the center of the universe.  Oh, no.  That would make us special, and we can’t have that.

As you can tell, I’m more than a little skeptical about the strong lines of evidence for the “big bang”.  Yes, there is good evidence for the three lines themselves, but the observations could be caused by something, or someone, else.  As Michael Disney, a British Astrophysicist, put it,

“In its original form, an expanding Einstein model had an attractive, economic elegance. Alas, it has since run into serious difficulties, which have been cured only by sticking on some ugly bandages: inflation to cover horizon and flatness problems; overwhelming amounts of dark matter to provide internal structure; and dark energy, whatever that might be, to explain the seemingly recent acceleration. A skeptic is entitled to feel that a negative significance, after so much time, effort and trimming, is nothing more than one would expect of a folktale constantly re-edited to fit inconvenient new observations.” (from “Modern Cosmology: Science or Folktale?”, American Scientist, 2007)

And they think we have faith!

This is the kind of nonsense that makes my blood boil.

Someone, "A.J. from Vienna, Virginia", has initiated a petition to place a federal ban on teaching intelligent design or creationism in public schools.  Apparently this is in response to the "teach the controversy" movement promoted by the Discovery Institute, which several states have adopted.

As of this afternoon, the petition has 34,600 signatures.  They need 100,000 by July 15th for President Obama to address the issue.

From the petition, “[Creationism and intelligent design] have no basis in scientific fact,” the petition claims, “and have absolutely zero evidence pointing towards these conjectures. These types of loopholes in our education are partially to blame for our dangerously low student performances in math and science. Therefore, we petition the Obama Adminstration [sic] to ban the teachings of these conjectures that contradict evolution.”

This is nonsense on many levels.  First, how can this person claim that there is zero evidence of design?  We are here functioning, aren't we, along with millions of other species?  We live on a planet which seems to be perfectly designed for life, isn't it?  And don't we live in a universe with fundamental forces and constants which appear to be fine tuned for life and for discovery?  Furthermore, the best explanation for the existence of genetic information is design.  All of creation points to a designer.

There are "facts" which support common descent evolution and design.  The big question is which origins theory best explains the universe we live in.  The debate is largely about philosophy, not the facts.  It is about how we define science, which is a question of philosophy.  Many in academia are defining science as the study of natural causes and effects.  This is practical for medicine and engineering but very limiting and inadequate regarding our origins.  That is the rub.

What happened in the past cannot be proven conclusively.  You look at the data, you make assumptions and choose a theory which best explains the evidence.  What is "best" is subjective, based on philosophical preferences.  The problem with this ban is that they are essentially banning a philosophical position.  I ask, is this, or is this not a free country?

The claim about design and/or creation beliefs affecting our national math and science performance is also ludicrous.  Math and science can be learned and applied regardless of your stance on questions of origin.  Many engineers, doctors and researchers, including me, accept design origins theory, and it doesn't affect their performance in the least.  We know that natural laws do a great job explaining most current phenomena, and we accept that and apply those laws accordingly.

If anything, restricting which origins theories are taught in schools will discourage many prospective scientists from engaging in the field.  Now a campus minister, I hear students tell me they are uncertain they want to continue in science because the professors are so dogmatic and persistent about common descent evolution.  Apparently some go on and on about it with no particular purpose but indoctrination.  Objectors are shamed and silenced, which is a real problem that the "teach the controversy" movement is meant to remedy.

Another issue here is states rights.  Can ideas and philosophies be banned at a federal level?  I don't think so.  If they can, something is seriously wrong here.

 
Yours Truly,

Tony

Science and the Dogma of Common Descent

 I recently found myself involved in a lengthy facebook discussion over the ideas of the age of the earth and evolution, and I wanted to share some of my thinking on the evolution topic here as well.

As a former research and development engineer, I'm used to proving ideas in the lab with real data.  I think that's where common descent has fallen short.  Yes, evolution, defined as change over time, is a fact.  We can see it.  But there seems to be limits to the amount of change which can take place, as experienced with the "artificial" breeding of dogs, for example.   Common descent, on the other hand, seems to me to be scientific dogma, due to it's many failed predictions.  Here are a few of them:
                                                                                                                                                                                                           1.     The fossil record lacks the transitional forms expected if common descent were true.  In The origin of the Species, Darwin wrote, “[Since] innumerable transitional forms must have existed, why do we not find them imbedded in countless numbers in the crust of the earth?  Why is not every geological formation and every stratum full of such intermediate links?  Geology assuredly does not reveal any such finely graduated organic chain; and this perhaps is the most obvious and gravest objection which can be urged against my theory”.  One hundred and fifty years later the situation is much the same.    Only a handful of controversial transitional forms have been offered.  The fossil record is characterized by sudden appearance and stasis, not revealing the gradual change predicted by Darwin.

2.    Another prediction of common descent is that genomic and morphological phylogenies would agree.  In other words, “there is one ancestral tree describing how species are related” or “if species are related in a certain way then all lines of evidence should reveal that relationship”.  But this is not the case at all.  The more genetic data collected, the more relational conflicts are found.   A recent philosophical journal reported that, “Incongruence between phylogenies derived from morphological versus molecular analyses, and between trees based on different subsets of molecular sequences has become pervasive as datasets have expanded rapidly in both characters and species.” (Liliana M. Dávalos, Andrea L. Cirranello, Jonathan H. Geisler, and Nancy B. Simmons, "Understanding phylogenetic incongruence: lessons from phyllostomid bats," Biological Reviews of the Cambridge Philosophical Society, Vol. 87:991-1024 (2012).)

3.     The change over time evolution which we do observe in organisms tend to show loss of function and fitness rather than the opposite, predicted by evolution.  Where “beneficial change” is noted, it is usually the result of temporary “genetic drift” or some loss of function which happens to be beneficial in a certain environment.  Evolution seems to be headed the “wrong” direction.  In fact, mathematical models show we are headed for trouble.  In the January 2010 abstract of his article Rate, Molecular Spectrum and Consequences of Human Mutation, National Academy of Sciences 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.”  I have commented more extensively on this topic in my first blog article.

So, it seems that common descent survives not because of the data, but in spite of it.  From Wikipeda we see that:

"Dogma is the official system of belief or doctrine held by a religion, or a particular group or organization.^[1] It serves as part of the primary basis of an ideology or belief system, and it cannot be changed or discarded without affecting the very system's paradigm, or the ideology itself. Although it generally refers to religious beliefs that are accepted regardless of evidence, they can refer to acceptable opinions of philosophers or philosophical schools, public decrees, or issued decisions of political authorities."

In fact common descent holds up liberal education (learn everything because there is no truth), atheism, nihilism,and many other "-isms".  Common descent needs to go away but it won't because it's too important to too many people who run from The Truth (Please note my implied dogma here).

Tony 

www.tonyandkaylene.com

High Level "Detractors" From Evolution

I found something today that I thought I should pass along.  Apparently, lately more high profile scientists have been willing to follow the evidence where it leads, even if that means breaking with the "central dogma" of evolution.

A professor at Dartmouth is stiring things up by proposing a radically different "tree of life", based on data he feels is solid (read more here).  It turns out that depending on which protein, DNA or RNA (structural form) you choose to trace an organism's history, you get a different relationships between organisms.  If evolution were true, you would see the same relationships no matter which data subject you study.

It seems that evolution has been falsified, but this idea does not go down easy.  There is much at stake philosophically.

An ardent defender of evolution is bemoaning the "fall" of some of his colleages on his blog "Why Evolution is True".  It's an interesting look at what is happening at the top of the scientific battle over evolution, from the Darwinist perspective.  Check it out here.

My thanks to my friends at evolutionnews.org who tipped me off with this article.

Things are getting interesting!

Random means Random!

When I first saw the title of Alvin Plantinga's new book, Where the Conflict Really Lies, I immediately wanted to buy and read it, especially after reading the description at Amazon.com:

"This book is a long-awaited major statement by a pre-eminent analytic philosopher, Alvin Plantinga, on one of our biggest debates -- the compatibility of science and religion. The last twenty years has seen a cottage industry of books on this divide, but with little consensus emerging. Plantinga, as a top philosopher but also a proponent of the rationality of religious belief, has a unique contribution to make. His theme in this short book is that the conflict between science and theistic religion is actually superficial, and that at a deeper level they are in concord.

"Plantinga examines where this conflict is supposed to exist -- evolution, evolutionary psychology, analysis of scripture, scientific study of religion -- as well as claims by Dan Dennett, Richard Dawkins, and Philip Kitcher that evolution and theistic belief cannot co-exist. Plantinga makes a case that their arguments are not only inconclusive but that the supposed conflicts themselves are superficial, due to the methodological naturalism used by science. On the other hand, science can actually offer support to theistic doctrines, and Plantinga uses the notion of biological and cosmological "fine-tuning" in support of this idea. Plantinga argues that we might think about arguments in science and religion in a new way -- as different forms of discourse that try to persuade people to look at questions from a perspective such that they can see that something is true. In this way, there is a deep and massive consonance between theism and the scientific enterprise."

I have not read the book, but apparently much of it is helpful in reconciling faith and science.  But as Jay Richards of the pro intelligent design, Discovery Institute points out, perhaps he is trying too hard.  Richards claims that Plantinga uses a non-standard definition of the word "random" which allows the idea that God could intervene in the process of evolution, thus imputing purpose and meaning - something which neither Darwin nor current leading evolutionists intend to allow.  In his review, Richards says that at times this non-standard definition is used when it is politically useful, as in appeasing a school board member, but when it comes to textbooks and teaching in the classroom, philosophical naturalism, denying God any place in the process of evolution, is the standard procedure.

In short, Plantinga is defending theistic evolution, a flawed idea I've written much about in my blog.

You may read Jay Richard's review here.

Let's not fool ourselves.  Darwin and his followers do not intend to give God any role in the creation.  Today, secular historical scientists (those who try to explain how the world and humanity came to be) start by assuming He does not exist, promote theories explaining as much as possible without Him, and then say that Christians are "unscientific" if we doubt their conclusions.  What a farce!

Portraits of Christ

“Jesus is the Savior”, Ken offered.  Tony had asked Ken which portrait of Christ describes Him best:  Poet, prophet, 2^nd 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 2^nd 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!

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.

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 “naïve 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