Sunday, December 05, 2010

Evolution in the Pulpit

This week's installment from The Fundamentals

by "An Occupant of the Pew"

If, as some assert, the clergymen who accepted the evolutionary theory were driven to it by fear of ridicule, or of not being thought abreast of "the trend of modern thought," it was not only cowardly on their part, but grossly inconsistent with their Christian profession. For even a partial investigation of the subject must have made clear to them that evolutionism and Christianity are, essentially, intensely antagonistic.

The pulpit efforts of some ministers at reconciling them would be laughable from a logical standpoint were the issues involved not so serious and the effects upon some of their unthinking hearers not so deplorable. Certainly, scholarship can no longer be pleaded as an excuse for clinging to Darwinism; and, in the interest of common honesty, these men ought to either drop their materialism or leave the Christian pulpit.

1 comment:

lee n. field said...

Could I get on a mini-rant about evolution and creationism?

Christians need, need, NEED, when they argue the creationist case, to be careful to understand the other side, and get the facts right.

Examples: Decades back (1976 or so), I listened to a presentation by someone from CRI, on a secular college campus. The guy made the point that the shark had a 4 chambered heart. As it happened, I was at that time taking a comparative vertebrate anatomy class, and had covered that. The shark heart is in fact 4 chambered, but it is not arranged like a mammalian heart. Your or my heart has two halves, running in parallel. One side pumps blood through the lungs, the other pumps blood through the rest of the body. The shark's heart's 4 chambers are a linear arrangement.

Another example. Same campus, somewhat later, I listened to a presentation from someone arguing for the usual scenario of Noah's flood you see in creationist circles. He had the chart you see a lot, of reported lifespans and how they decline. He maintained that the disappearance of the supposed vapor canopy caused lifespans to begin to decrease. Looking at the chart, it looked to me as though the graph was an S curve, with lifespans beginning to decline prior to the flood (with Methusalah's age as a "flier"). This would mean that the cause predated the flood (like, maybe the Fall?!?! Duh!). I brought it up, but got blown off.

Another example: a big deal is made about how carbon dating doesn't go back for "millions and millions of years". Ummm, this is well known. C14 dating is good for a ways back into the Pleistocene, but not further. People don't try to carbon date dinosaur bones!

(Rant continued later.)