Drifting Towards Darwin
Transcription
Drifting Towards Darwin
s ta n d t o r eas o n top 1 Solid Ground A Fou n dation for Building Ambas s adors March / April 2013 Print Friendly Version Quick Summary t h i s m o n t h • What’s in a Name?–”Evolution” • Darwin’s Dangerous Idea Greg’s video introduction to this Solid Ground’s topic • What’s in a Name?–”Theistic” • An Idle God? • Stacking the Deck - 1 • Stacking the Deck - 2 • God in the Shadows • WWJD • Catching the Gingerbread Man • STR Resources • STR Speaker Calendar Clear Thinking Christianity: There Are Apps for That! Learn At: www.str.org Str Weekly Broadcast Live Sundays, 2-5 P.M. Pt Listen Live on the Radio (Check Affiliates at STR’s Radio Page) Listen Live Online www.kbrt740.com Listen Live On Your Smartphone Using Wunderradio (Search for KBRT) or Smartphone Apps Listen To The Podcasts STR’s Podcast Page social media Read: Solid Ground Archives 1 Enha n c e d S ol i d Gro un d Drifting towards Darwin Some Christians believe theistic evolution is the solution to the conflict of faith and science. Considering the details, though, can Darwin be baptized this way? Or can biblical Christianity be Darwinized? And why think theistic evolution will cause atheists to reconsider Christianity, when evolution is causing Christians to reconsider atheism? These are the questions I tackle in this month’s Solid Ground. It’s a challenging topic, but I’ve worked hard to make it clear and concise. I hope you find it helpful. You Can Help Stand to Reason If what STR does is helpful to you, please let us know. Drop us a note or an email. You might even consider a gift. Your generous support would be a great help to us. Gifts from friends like you are the only way STR continues working hard to make the hard issues more simple and understandable for you. Clear-thinking Christianity top 2 Clear-thinking Christianity March 1, 2013 Dear Friend, New Atheist Daniel Dennett called evolution “Darwin’s dangerous idea,” because like a “universal acid” it eats through every traditional religious concept. William Provine declared evolution “the greatest engine of atheism ever invented.” Richard Dawkins said, “Darwin made it possible to be an intellectually fulfilled atheist.” With atheists around the globe cheering evolution’s victory over God, why then are increasing numbers of notable Christian leaders drifting towards Darwin? Two reasons. One, they are theologically committed to the Bible and Christian orthodoxy. Two, they are fully convinced the materialistic program of Neo-Darwinism is adequate to explain the biodiversity of the planet. And there’s a practical concern. The scientific establishment simply will not take seriously any spiritual message that denies Darwin. The result: theistic evolution. God “used” Darwinian mechanisms to “create” life in all its forms. Sounds reasonable enough, at first blush: Stay scientifically mainstream and still hang on to classical Christianity and the God of the Bible. Considering the details, though, can Darwin be baptized this way? Or can biblical Christianity be Darwinized? And why think theistic evolution will cause atheists to reconsider Christianity, when evolution is causing Christians to reconsider atheism? These are the questions I tackle in this month’s Solid Ground. It’s a challenging topic, but I’ve worked hard to make it clear and concise. I hope you find it helpful. Issues like these are not easy for most people to thread through, but at STR we are trained to untangle difficult topics for you in a way you can follow and pass on to others. Our goal is to provide you with resources on relevant issues. If what STR does is helpful to you, please let us know. Drop us a note or an email. You might even consider a gift. Your generous support would be a great help to us. Gifts from friends like you are the only way STR continues working hard to make the hard issues more simple and understandable for you. By His grace, Greg Koukl STR on Video 2 Enha n c e d S ol i d Gro un d Dynamic, thought-provoking training ON VIDEO. AND IT’S FREE! Check out the STR Video Resource Library. A Foundation for Building Ambassadors top 3 By Greg Koukl It seems like every time I turn around I hear of another prominent Christian thinker or theologian who has embraced Darwinism. the Gospel to be credible. The goal: make peace with the reigning paradigm and still maintain a meaningful hold on orthodox Christian religion. It’s deeply disconcerting. In light of the stature of these Evangelical leaders, some people are going to ask,“What do they know that I don’t know? I thought this was a done deal. It’s either Darwin or God.”1 Indeed, a host of committed evolutionists see the equation that way, incorporating the notion of randomness into the very definition of Darwinism.2 Others are convinced of just the opposite: Evolution and God are not at odds, and they’re making an issue of it. A full court press led by Francis Collins3—the driving force of the Human Genome Project—and his colleagues at BioLogos—an advocacy group attempting to broker peace between science and religion—pressures Christian stragglers to wake up and join the 21st century, all for the sake of the Gospel. On their view, a spiritual message out of step with scientific facts holds no appeal for the scientific establishment. Evangelicals like Tremper Longman of Westmont College, and Peter Enns, formerly of Westminster, have endorsed some form of theistic evolution. And the discussion is heating up. Indeed, the situation has gotten so tense that Dr. Craig Hazen of Biola University has asked whether it’s still safe in Evangelical circles to doubt Darwin at all. Commitment to theistic evolution is driven by two impulses. The first is fidelity to Scripture and Christian orthodoxy. The second is a growing conviction that evidence for Darwinism is so overwhelming, Christians must accommodate it for 3 Enha n c e d S ol i d Gro un d Can that be done? The answer depends entirely upon the meaning of two words:“theistic” and “evolution.” What’s in a Name?—“Evolution” Before Darwin, conventional wisdom held that God was responsible for designing the biological world. Darwin argued for an alternative: Nature was capable of accomplishing this on its own. Changes in organisms happened “naturally” through an unguided process, and an equally unguided process (natural selection) safeguarded whatever novel traits aided survival and reproduction. Refinements of Darwin’s ideas followed, notably the addition of genetic mutation as the agent of change that, coupled with natural selection, is called Neo-Darwinism. Thus, life descended with modification from simple beginnings, branching out with increasing complexity and diversity to form Darwin’s evolutionary tree of life. Though the word “evolution” has itself evolved over time into a variety of permutations (limited common descent, punctuated equilibrium, etc.), what I’ve described above is bare-bones Darwinism, Clear-thinking Christianity top 4 at least according to current assessment.4 Two details are central. One, the neo-Darwinian synthesis necessarily entails a particular mechanism— natural selection—that determines (an important word) what biological novelty gets passed on to future generations. Without it there is no evolution in the Darwinian sense. Two, the creative capabilities of the mutation/natural selection duo make God superfluous to the process. Darwin’s Dangerous Idea Natural selection is the “blind watchmaker”—a term Richard Dawkins coined in his now-famous book of that title.This was “Darwin’s dangerous idea.” It seized the day not because of scientific data. The fossil record was virtually untouched in 1859 when Darwin published The Origin of Species. Living cells were just “black boxes” of protoplasm and nothing was known about genetics. Darwin shook the world because he offered a plausible, non-theistic explanation for the existence and development of life. Darwinism is a Designer substitute. Note evolutionary biologist Francisco Ayala: It was Darwin’s greatest accomplishment to show that the directive organization of living beings can be explained as the result of a natural process, natural selection, without any need to resort to a Creator.5 Lest the significance of these two points escape you—that the evolution we’re enjoined to embrace 1) entails the blind watchmaker thesis, and 2) makes God superfluous—listen carefully to these pillars of Darwinism: • Ernst Mayr: “Natural selection …is so important for the Darwinian because it permits the explanation of adaptation… by natural means instead of by divine intervention.”6 4 Enha n c e d S ol i d Gro un d • Douglas Futuyma:“Some shrink from the conclusion that the human species was not designed, has no purpose, and is the product of mere mechanical mechanisms--but this seems to be the message of evolution.”7 • Harvard’s Stephen Jay Gould:“No ‘vital forces’ propel evolutionary change, and whatever we think of God, His existence is not manifest in the products of nature.”8 • George Gaylord Simpson:“All the objective phenomena of the history of life can be explained by purely naturalistic or materialistic factors....Therefore, mankind is the result of a purposeless and natural process that did not have him in mind.”9 Clearly, if these notables are taken seriously (and quotes like these are legion—even Darwin understood his theory this way), then Darwinism cannot easily be baptized. Indeed, the world’s foremost popular apologist for evolution, Richard Dawkins, famously remarked, “Darwin made it possible to be an intellectually fulfilled atheist.” “Evolution,”William Provine cheers,“is the greatest engine of atheism ever invented.”10 “Evolution is the greatest engine of atheism ever invented.” These are no idle words. If evolution in the sense that is meaningful to the scientific establishment can coherently co-exist with Christian theism, why are Darwinists so buoyed by atheism’s prospects because of it? This is the Darwinism Christians are being asked to make peace with. And make no mistake, this is the only kind of “evolution” that will purchase the respect of the scientific nobility. Never forget the candid admission of Harvard geneticist Richard Lewontin: “We cannot allow a Divine Foot in the door.”11 A Foundation for Building Ambassadors top 5 B i o l a A p o l o g e t i c s H o s t s Stand to Reason’s 20th Anniversary Conference May 10-11 @ Biola University Speakers Include: Greg Koukl, Brett Kunkle, Alan Shlemon and NEW TO STR J. Warner Wallace. Also, other invited guests. | Register Today And this is precisely how some theistic evolutionists understand it. Anglican John Polkinghorne writes, “An evolutionary universe is theologically understood as a creation allowed to make itself.” Biologist Kenneth Miller insists that “mankind’s appearance on this planet was not preordained….We are here…as an afterthought, a minor detail, a happenstance in a history.”12 [emphasis added] John West points out,“According to many new theistic evolutionists, God chose to ‘create’ the world by setting up an undirected process over which he had no specific control and about which he did not even have foreknowledge of its particular outcomes.”13 In what sense can an undirected process be considered “theistic”? Again, the answer depends on definitions. What’s in a Name?—“Theistic” The Christian account starts this way: “In the beginning, God created the heavens and the earth” (Gen. 1:1). What follows in the next three chapters is a characterization, of some sort, of the details. Genesis is the book of beginnings: the beginning of the world, the beginning of mankind, and the beginning of a problem. Adam and Eve acted in a way that caused a problem for all mankind descending from them. The rest of the story records what God has done to repair the breech. However one understands the beginning chapters of the narrative—as a straightforward chronological description of events or something else14 (Genesis 1), with an historical chronology following (Genesis 2-3)—some details seem theologically inescapable. First, God made everything. Second, God deliberately organized everything in a very particular way. He made the raw materials, then He (somehow) made particular things from the raw materials—Adam, for instance. Third, though humans are biologically diverse, certain nonbiological things remained the same for all. 5 Enha n c e d S ol i d Gro un d Humans are distinct from every other kind of creature in that they bear the image of their Creator passed on from that first pair. They also share equally in the guilt resulting from the couple’s freely-chosen rebellion against their Sovereign (“… by nature, children of wrath” Eph. 2:3), an act of sedition that corrupted their original moral purity. ? f o e g a m I Standard Christian theology dictates that all human beings are both transcendently valuable and morally culpable before God as a group in virtue of their common descent from their first parents. This summary strikes me as absolute, bare minimum, initial Christian theology. If these claims are not to be understood as facts of history, it’s hard to imagine how anything in the narrative that follows from Genesis to Revelation makes any sense. So, in what way are both theism and evolution true? My question at this point is not whether the Darwinian model as commonly characterized is true (I don’t think so, but that is a separate matter). Rather, is the model Christians are being asked to embrace as scientifically certain consistent with classical Christianity? Can that kind of evolution be squared with this kind of theism? An Idle God? Darwinism offers a description of how biological diversity came about. If “theistic evolution” is a meaningful phrase, it’s appropriate to ask the question,“What did God do?” It’s clear what Darwinists think evolution did (pretty much everything). But for theistic evolutionists, what was God’s role? Clear-thinking Christianity top 6 What would you say? Our new biweekly challenge on the blog is a chance for you to practice using what you learn from STR. Every other week on the STR Blog, we offer a challenge to readers: Tuesday we post an objection to Christianity that you might hear from friends or family, then it’s your turn to try your best to answer that question in the comment section. Check back on Thursday to see how Brett, Alan, or Greg answer it. Stand to Reason Resources...Be Prepared God and Evolution Jay Richards, Ed., 388 pages (BK373) $24.95 What does it mean to say that God “used evolution” to create the world? Is Darwin’s theory of evolution compatible with belief in God? And even if Darwin’s theory could be reconciled with religious belief, do we need to do so? Is the theory well established scientifically? Is it true? In the century and a half since Charles Darwin first proposed his theory of evolution, some religious believers have rejected it outright; others, often called “theistic evolutionists,” have sought to reconcile Darwin’s theory with their religious beliefs, but often at the cost of clarity, orthodoxy, or both. With contributions from Jay Richards, Stephen Meyer, William Dembski, and more, this timely anthology of essays will carefully tease out the various scientific, philosophical, and theological claims at stake, and separate the chaff from the wheat. In the Beginning… We Misunderstood: Interpreting Genesis 1 in Its Original Context *NEW* Johnny V. Miller & John M. Soden, 224 pages with companion audio CD (BK374) $13.99 Includes free CD interview with author John Soden For years, the evangelical church and its members have debated whether the Bible should be interpreted literally or symbolically in regards to the age of the earth. In their groundbreaking new book, In the Beginning… We Misunderstood, authors Johnny Miller and John Soden say these arguments have missed the point. Rather, what Christians really need to know is how to interpret the Bible in its original context. Exposing the fallacies of trying to make the biblical text fit a specific scientific presupposition, Miller and Soden offer a new approach to interpreting Genesis 1 that explores the creation account based on how the original audience would have understood its teaching. Answering the Challenge of Evolution Gregory Koukl and Phillip Johnson, Four Audio CDs with PDF Study Notes (CD250) $16.95 Also available as an MP3 download Science and Faith: Are They Compatible? – Gregory Koukl (2 CDs): Greg reveals that, rather than being hostile to science, biblical Christianity was the seedbed that gave modern science its start. He also shows that the present controversy is not about the facts of science vs. the faith of religion; it’s about two competing definitions of science. Why I’m Not an Evolutionist – Gregory Koukl: The weakness of the two essential pillars of Darwinism is exposed in a way anyone can follow. Greg also gives three empirical reasons to take Intelligent Design seriously. The Grand Metaphysical Story of Science – Phillip Johnson: In this vigorous, lucid, and captivating address, the author of Darwin on Trial carefully shows that the evolution story has prevailed not because of facts, but because of philosophy. 6 Enha n c e d S ol i d Gro un d A Foundation for Building Ambassadors top 7 Imagine I was untutored in culinary basics and asked for directions on boiling water. You tell me to heat water to 212º, add a leprechaun, and water will boil. I ask if water will boil at 212º without the leprechaun.Yes, you say, it will. Heat can do the job all on its own. I decide to leave the leprechaun out; he’s superfluous. Either God designs the details, or nature shuffles the deck and natural selection chooses the winning hand. When theists affirm the standard Darwinian model, then try to insert God, it sounds like invoking a leprechaun to boil water—maybe out of religious habit or theological necessity, but not to make a difference in the outcome. God, like the leprechaun, seems superfluous. How do theistic evolutionists escape this problem? If Darwinism is true, in what specific way did God use it? “If you tell an attentive child that evolution is just God’s way of creating,” Jay Richards observes,“she’s going to ask you what you mean.”15 That’s my question. I’ve been offered three possible answers. Stacking the Deck - 1 First, if biological development is a result of genetic mutations sifted out by natural selection, God might have directly manipulated those mutations in just the right way at just the right time to accomplish His goal. This is certainly a plausible option. The problem is, when DNA no longer randomly mutates and natural selection no longer blindly selects, then the process is no longer Darwinian. It’s intelligent design, hardly the kind of “evolution” to satisfy the critics. Suppose I wanted a straight flush for a hand of poker. I could either use sleight of INTERVIEW hand to stack the deck while Greg talks with Stephen I deal, or I could shuffle the Meyer on theistic cards randomly and see if the evolution flush is dealt me. It wouldn’t make any sense, though, to “design” the hand by shuffling the deck and dealing. There’s no way to ensure the results. There’s no telos; no ultimate goal I’m shooting for. LIVE In the same way, either God designs the details, or nature shuffles the deck and natural selection chooses the winning hand. The mechanism is either conscious and intentional (design), or unconscious and unintentional (natural selection). Creation is teleological; it has a purpose, a goal, an end. Evolution is accidental, like a straight flush dealt to a poker rookie. Stacking the Deck - 2 There’s a second option. Maybe the deck was “stacked” from the beginning with God either frontloading all the information in the initial conditions or endowing nature with a self-organizing principle that could manufacture information along the way.16 One version, called “fully gifted creation,” was formerly advanced by Calvin College’s Howard Van Till (I say “formerly” because Professor Van Till apparently is no longer a Christian). According to Van Till, God “generously gifted the creation with the capabilities for self-organization and transformation” resulting in “an unbroken line of evolutionary Contact STR today to schedule Jim, Greg, Brett or Alan for your conference, church service or special event. 7 Enha n c e d S ol i d Gro un d Clear-thinking Christianity top 8 development from non-living matter to…existing life-forms.”17 While a possibility, strictly speaking, Collins’s alternative strikes me as worse than God of the gaps; here God is filling gaps no one even knows about. Like John Wisdom’s “invisible gardener,”21 this is a classic leap-of-faith move that is impossible to verify or falsify. It simply saves the paradigm. Plus, even Dawkins admits biology doesn’t “appear driven by chance” at all, but just the opposite: It gives “the appearance of having been designed for a purpose.”22 There are two problems with this approach that seem insurmountable. First, there is no empirical reason to believe that colossal amounts of information were “deposited” at the beginning of the universe, then unwrapped at just the right moments by mechanistic means to propel the progress of living organisms. Second, no such inherent “self-organizing principle” (i.e.,“chemical necessity”) is evident in chemistry.18 Stephen Meyer has shown conclusively that no mechanistic process can ever produce information, since a law-like process can only generate rigidly ordered redundancy that is biologically meaningless.19 The results will be more like mantras than intelligible “sentences” of information (compare BABBA BABBA BABBA to “I do not like green eggs and ham”). If there is no evidence the information necessary for life was bundled up in the initial conditions of the Big Bang, and no self-organizing principle in chemistry that can produce that information “on the fly,” then this option is off the table, too. 3. God in the Shadows There remains one alternative for God “using” evolution: All appearances to the contrary, God is working behind the scenes in ways we cannot detect. Collins writes: Evolution could appear to us to be driven by chance, but from God’s perspective the outcome would be entirely specified. Thus, God could be completely and intimately involved in the creation of all species, while from our perspective, limited as it is by the tyranny of linear time this would appear a random and undirected process. 20 Stand to Reason SOCIAL 8 Enha n c e d S ol i d Gro un d [ One might invoke God as the primary cause of all things, using secondary causes to accomplish His aims—a completely legitimate option in principle. However, secondary physical causes leave trails leading back to their initial causes. Today’s rainfall can, theoretically, be traced back through a multitude of secondary causes to a primary cause at the big beginning. Yet that is precisely the trail missing here. Do not forget what problem needs solving: the infusion of enormous amounts of information at various stages of biological history. As we’ve seen, no naturalistic secondary cause is capable of explaining that. It seems ad hoc to appeal to God as primary cause of a physical process when there is no trail of secondary causes that lead to the final result. I guess theistic A Piece of My Mind evolutionists could just Listen to Greg talk shrug and say, as an article about this edition of faith, though materialistic of Solid Ground. processes are completely or subscribe for later adequate for evolution, God somehow did it all since “the Bible tells me so.” But that same Bible has a lot to say about details that are not at all friendly to Darwinism. WWJD For many, the largest obstacle to theistic evolution is theological. Certain features of Christian orthodoxy seem impossible to reconcile with the Darwinian model. Is it true, for example, that Adam and Eve might not have been our first parents, as some suggest?23 If so, it’s hard to see how the redemptive story in the Bible holds together. If the human race has multiple evolutionary origins, then mankind is not related physically in ] MEDIA GET CONNECTED A Foundation for Building Ambassadors top 9 one fallen family. In what sense is Jesus “made like His brethren in all things” (Heb. 2:17) if we’re not all brethren? If Adam or the Fall are figures of some sort, when did the moral wound occur in history that would actually be healed in history at Golgotha? If the first Adam is a fiction, why need a second Adam to repair the breech? Read Rom. 5:12-19 carefully and ask if anything Paul says there about salvation makes sense if Adam wasn’t our first father.24 Gingerbread Man. For Peter Enns, Paul was a first-century man employing the limited (and ultimately inaccurate) conventions of his day (like a literal Adam).25 Could the same be said of Jesus? In Matt. 19:4-6, Jesus grounds an argument against divorce in God’s natural order established “from the beginning” with the first human beings. It’s hard to see how His point has any force were there no historical Adam and Eve actually united by God. Every concession brings us closer to the fox’s mouth. Luke declares Jesus “…the son of David…the son of Abraham…the son of Adam, the son of God” (Luke 3:23-38). At what juncture does this record cease to be actual history and fade into myth? And how far does this go? How is Genesis an account of any historical beginnings? Was there no Satan? No original temptation? No primeval lie? No original sin? No proto-evangel promising the seed of woman would crush the serpent’s head? If the Darwinian model advanced by theistic evolutionists like those at BioLogos is sound, it becomes very difficult to imagine how core elements of redemptive history have any meaning at all. Genesis 2-3, Francis Schaeffer observes, ceases then to explain either man’s wonder or his flaw.26 Catching the Gingerbread Man Problems like these are precisely why Daniel Dennett declared Darwinism a “universal acid” cutting right through traditional religion—why, as Casey Luskin laments, “Many atheists believe Neo-Darwinian science guts theism to its core.”27 Ironically, rather than making Christianity more credible, Darwinism undermines the Gospel, negating everything that makes the Good News good. Adopting Darwinism “for the sake of the Gospel” is counterproductive. The only evolution acceptable to the scientific establishment is not the kind that makes the Gospel more attractive. Rather, it undermines it. Therefore, it is unlikely theistic evolution will have any persuasive effect on those we’re trying to reach. The fabled Gingerbread Man thought himself safe crossing the river first on the fox’s tail, then on his back, and finally on his snout. In an instant, though, he was eaten with one big gulp. That was the end of the 9 Enha n c e d S ol i d Gro un d In the final analysis, Christian theism contains necessary elements that Darwinism renders meaningless. If one is convinced the second is true, the first will be overhauled. Adjusting our theology to accommodate Darwinism, however, adjusts Christian theism right out of existence. Putting This Solid Ground into Action • Keep in mind that instead of making Christianity more credible, Darwinism undermines the Gospel. If the first Adam is a fiction, why do we need a second Adam (Jesus) to repair the breech? • Remember the leprechaun in the boiling water – if evolution is true, God is superfluous. • If the Darwinian model is sound, it is difficult to imagine how core elements of redemptive history have any meaning at all. • “Theistic evolution” requires redefining either “theistic” or “evolution” in significant ways to make them compatible. Share ESG with a Friend Attach this Enhanched Solid Ground pdf to an email or simply forward the STR email containing the link to this ESG to anyone you’d like. Simple. New to Stand to Reason? Receive a FREE mp3 of “Ambassadors for Christ:The Essential Skills” by Greg Koukl. Visit our online store and use this discount code at checkout:NEWREGGIFT. Please, only new friends. Share on Facebook or Twitter Clear-thinking Christianity Stand to Reason Speakers Near You Greg Koukl Brett Kunkle • 24 Dayspring, Gardena, CA Contact: http://www.facebook.com/DaySpringChristianChurch • 23-24 Upland Christian Academy, Rancho Cucamonga, CA Topic: “Are Mormons Christian?”, “Who Is God?”, “What Is the Gospel?”, “Thinking Carefully about Mormonism” Contact: uplandchristianacademy.org March • 16-17 Liberty Free Methodist Church, Liberty, NY Sat. 8:30 a.m. Tactics, Sunday 9:30 Hell, Yes! The Terrifying Truth, 11:00 a.m. The Heathen and the Unknown God Contact: http://www.libertyfreemethodist.org April • 7 Praise Christian Center, Beaumont, TX 10 & 11 a.m. Topic: “Evil, Suffering, and the Goodness of God” Contact: http://www.praisebeaumont.com/gathering-times • 12-14 Huntsville, AL Contact: http://www.tacticalfaith.com • 17 Concordia University, Irvine, CA 6:30 p.m. Topic: The Columbo Tactic Contact: http://www.cui.edu/StudentLife/StudentLeadership/index.aspx?id=20890 • 19 Village Baptist Church Engage Conference Fayetteville, NC Contact: http://www.villagebc.org/index.php • 22 Athanatos Christian Ministries Online Conference Time & Topic: TBD Contact: http://onlineapologeticsconference.com • 29 Ecclesia Church of Hollywood, CA 9:30 and 11:15 a.m. Topic: “Hell Yes! The Terrifying Truth” Contact: http://www.churchinhollywood.com • North Coast Calvary Chapel, Carlsbad, CA 7 p.m. Topic: TBD Contact: http://www.northcoastcalvary.org Alan Shlemon March • 11 Saint Katherine’s College, Encinitas, CA Time: 7:30 - 9:00 p.m. Topic: “Making Sense of Bioethics” Contact: www.stkath.org • 15 Chinese Evangelical Free Church, Monterey Park, CA Time: 7:45 - 9:45 p.m. Topic: “Making Abortion Unthinkable” Contact: www.cefc.org • 24-26 Oregon Right to Life, Salem, OR Time:8:00 a.m. - 5:00 p.m. Topic: ”Making Abortion Unthinkable” & “Stem Cell Research & Cloning” Contact: www.ortl.org April • 20 Oregon Right to Life, Portland, OR Time: 9:00 a.m. - 5:00 p.m. Topics: “Pro-life Training”, “Tactics in Defending the Faith” Contact: Gayle Atteberry, www.ortl.org • 26-28 Chinese Church in Christ, Milpitas, CA Topics: “Tactics in Defending the Faith”, “Making Sense of Bioethics” Contact: Eugene Chu, www.ccicnv.org March • 17 Desert Springs Community Church, Goodyear, AZ Time: 9:30 a.m. - 3:00 p.m. Topic: “Why I Am a Christian?”, “Does God Exist?”, “Why Should I Trust the Bible?”, “Tactics in Defending the Faith” Contact: www.desertspringscommunity.com April • 1-6 Upland Christian Academy, Salt Lake City, UT Topics: Utah Mission Trip Contact: www.uplandchristianacademy.org • 14 Ecclesia Hollywood, Hollywood, CA Time: 9:30 a.m. & 11:30 a.m. Topics: “The Problem of Evil” Contact: www.churchinhollywood.com • 19 Village Baptist Church, Fayetteville, NC Topics: “Doubting Your Doubts: How to Deal with Doubt?”, “Do Christians Know Anything?” Contact: www.villagebc.org J. Warner Wallace March • 2 Apologetics Canada Conference, Abbotsford, Canada Time: 2:00 pm Topic: “Cold Case Christianity” Contact: www.apologeticscanada.com • 17 Grace Community Church, Clarksville, TN Time: 9:00 a.m. - 1:00 p.m. Topic: “Cold Case Christianity” Contact: www.gcomchurch.com • 22 Calvary Community Church, Brea, CA Time: 7 - 9 p.m. Topic: “Evidence for the Resurrection” Contact: www.calvarycomm.org • 27 University of Kentucky Ratio Christi, Lexington, KY Time: 12 p.m. - 10 p.m. Topic: “Cold Case Christianity” Contact: www.ratiochristi.org/uk April • 8-9 Sam Houston University Ratio Christi, Huntsville, TX Time: TBD Topic: “Cold Case Christianity” Contact: www.ratiochristi.org/shsu • 11 Emmanuel Faith Community Church, Escondido, CA Time: 7:00 - 8:30 p.m. Topic: “Cold Case Christianity” Contact: www.efcc.org • 14 Church of the Living Christ, Ojai, CA Time: 8:30 a.m., 10:30 a.m. & 6:00 p.m. Topic: TBD Contact: www.ojaiclc.org • 20 Prepare the Way Apologetics Conference, Bend, OR Time: 9:30 a.m. - 12:00 p.m. Topic: “Cold Case Christianity” Contact: www.preparetheway.us • 26 Chinese Bible Church, San Diego, CA Time: TBD Topic: TBD Contact: www.cbcsd.com To get information about inviting an STR speaker to your church, email [email protected] for Alan, Brett or Jim, or [email protected] for Greg. 10 Enha n c e d S ol i d Gro un d Clear-thinking Christianity top 10 Sign Up Today STR, Building Ambassadors through Dynamic Content Sign up to receive Greg’s bi-monthly mentoring letters. You can also choose to receive the Solid Ground print edition. Each month, Greg writes a personal letter covering a tactic or timely challenge to the Christian faith. By subscribing for free, you’ll receive: click here the Stand to Reason App iPad, iPhone, Android • The monthly STR Suggests, which highlights a new resource in the world of apologetics that we think is worthy of attention. • Priority notice when one of STR’s speakers will be speaking in your area. Subscribe here. Stand to Reason wherever you are. Connect With Us Today 1.800.2.reason www.str.org str radio str blogs 562.595.7332 www.strplace.org str podcasts str video 1438 E. 33rd Street Signal Hill, CA 90755 11 Enha n c e d S ol i d Gro un d A Foundation for Building Ambassadors Your Support Is Needed STR Depends on You STR is now in its twentieth year, through God’s grace, and the gifts of friends like you are vital to the success of STR. You see, from the very first day that we launched STR, almost two decades ago, we have depended on you. You are both the reason and the fruit of why we labor for “Christianity worth thinking about.” Your gift today, made in appreciation of the quality content that STR provides to you through resources like this edition of Solid Ground, will be received with my sincerest gratitude. Get Strategic! Would you like to play a strategic role Strategic in STR’s work? When you become a Partner Strategic Partner and support STR with a Information monthly pledge, you join a special group of people who help to equip Christians to graciously defend classical Christianity and classical Christian values. Endnotes 1 Clearly, mere belief in God is not inconsistent with Darwinism. Rather, people have assumed that only one explanation for biodiversity can be true, either the Darwinian story (as currently understood), or some version of the Christian account. 12 John Polkinghorne, Quarks, Chaos, and Christianity, 113; Kenneth Miller, Finding Darwin’s God, 272; both cited in West, Discovery Institute, 5/1/09. 2 By “randomness” I mean the process was unguided. 3 Collins is author of The Language of God and The Language of Science and Faith. 14 Find alternative views in John Lennox’s Seven Days that Divide the World, and Miller and Soden’s In the Beginning…We Misunderstood. 4 Henceforth, this is my meaning of “Darwinism” and “evolution.” 15 Richards, 12. 5 Ayala, as quoted in William A. Dembski ed., Mere Creation (Downers Grove, IL: InterVarsity Press, 1998), 113. 16 Proponents like Denis Lamoureux call this “teleological evolution” or “evolutionary creation.” 6 Michael Ruse, Darwinism Defended (Reading, MA: Addison-Wesley, 1982), xi-xii, as cited in Jay Richards, ed., God and Evolution (Seattle: Discovery Institute Press, 2010), 22. 17 Howard Van Till,“The Fully Gifted Creation,” in Three Views on Creation and Evolution, ed. J.P. Moreland and John Mark Reynolds (Grand Rapids: Zondervan, 1999), 171. 7 Douglas Futuyma, Science on Trial: The Case for Evolution, Sunderland, MA: Sinauer Associates, Inc., 1983), 12-13. 18 Stephen Meyer in Richards, 157-160. 13 Richards, 41. 19 Stephen Meyer, Signature in the Cell (San Francisco: HarperOne, 2009), chap. 11. 8 Stephen Jay Gould,“In Praise of Charles Darwin,” Discover, 2/82, cited in Johnson’s “Response to Gould,”. 20 Francis Collins, Language of God (New York: Free Press, 2006), 205, as quoted in Richards, 44-45. 9 George Gaylord Simpson, The Meaning of Evolution (Yale University Press: New Haven, CT, 1967), 344-345. 21 Invisible Gardener. 10 William Provine,“Evolution: Free Will and Punishment and Meaning in Life,”. 22 Richard Dawkins, The Blind Watchmaker (New York: W.W. Norton & Company, 1986), 1. 11 Richard Lewontin,“Billions and Billions of Demons,” The New York Review of Books, 1/4/97.The full citation is stunning in its clarity, candor, and hubris: A distinguished member of the scientific aristocracy admitting that the apparatus of science is rigged to produce philosophically acceptable answers. Find it here: 23 Note Longman. 24 The same can be said of 1 Cor. 11:8-9, 15:21-22, 15:45; 2 Cor. 11:3, 1 Tim. 2:13-14. 25 Enns. 26 Francis Schaeffer, The Complete Works, vol. II (Wheaton: Crossway, 1982), 3. 27 Richards, 68. Connect With Us Today 1.800.2.reason www.str.org str radio str blogs 562.595.7332 www.strplace.org str podcasts str video 1438 E. 33rd Street Signal Hill, CA 90755 12 Enha n c e d S ol i d Gro un d Clear-thinking Christianity
Similar documents
Line in the Sand
“Fear of man brings a snare,” the sage counseled (Prov. 29:25). “Friendship with the world is hostility toward God,” the apostle warned (James 4:4). Snares are rarely placed in full view, though, a...
More informationThe Canaanites: Genocide or Judgment?
Clear Thinking Christianity: There Are Apps for That!
More information