Is it consistent, on the one hand, to hold to an evolutionary world view, and yet claim, on the other hand, that humans who are causing the extinction of other creatures are improperly interfering with the evolutionary process (e.g. natural selection, survival of the fittest) that’s been shaping the development of those creatures?

That was the question bumping around in my mind on Sunday evening after listening to an interview with Conservationist,  Dr. Samuel Turvey (pictured), concerning the extinction of the Baiji – also known as the Yangtze River Dolphin.

During my Sunday afternoon drive home a couple of days ago, I found myself inadvertently listening to a program called Earth Beat – a product of Radio Netherlands Worldwide – courtesy of ABC News Radio, Australia. During the program we learned that Dr. Turvey has spent quite a bit of time working to locate and preserve any remaining members of the species that had been in steep decline for several decades. As it turns out, he was too late.

The Earth Beat website says that Dr. Turvey describes the demise of the dolphin as “a national tragedy and an international disgrace.” [emphasis mine]

Elsewhere, in several articles citing the paper co-written by Dr. Turvey concerning the extinction of the Baiji (a paper subsequently published in the Royal Society Biology Letters journal), he is also quoted as saying, “This extinction represents the disappearance of a complete branch of the evolutionary tree of life and emphasises that we have yet to take full responsibility in our role as guardians of the planet.”

Now I want you to keep in mind that the broader context of this story is an evolutionary world view. That’s critical context, given that we are dealing with the attempted conservation of a species that has arguably been eradicated by the industrialisation of the Yangtze River.

So here’s the remark that really caught my attention. Earth Beat host, Marnie Chesterton, says:

Read the rest of this entry

Approximately 24 hours ago Ray Comfort and his Living Waters Ministry released the short 180 Movie regarding the subject of abortion, which has not only exploded across social media but also reignited conversations all over North America over the moral question about abortion. A bit skeptical about the film, given the hype and build up to its release, I decided to give it a viewing, mostly because I knew I would encounter conversations about it in my circles and wanted to be properly informed. And good thing, too, for the conversations have been plenty. While many of those conversations have regarded the biblical and theological integrity of the Way of the Master gospel witnessing techniques, one of them tonight regarded the issue for which the film was made in the first place, which I want to share with you here. While I have changed the young man’s name to protect his identity, the following is the conversation that we had tonight over the moral question about abortion. He did not explicitly state his position on the subject but I gathered that for him the issue remains a somewhat open question (due to things he had said prior to the part I am sharing here), having not settled definitively on one side or the other. He is a Christian but converted quite recently, a matter of a few months ago. We pick up the conversation mid-stream, where he is critically evaluating the merits of defining life in the womb as human.

~ * ~

JOHN: I don’t think the biological distinction between “human” and “non-human” is the morally relevant question.

DAVID: What then is the morally relevant question as it pertains to valuing human life?

JOHN: It’s like I said: “persons” are afforded full dignity and value. In fact, we already know that not all persons are human beings anyway.

DAVID: Who or what defines personhood?

JOHN: Oh, well God, I should think.

DAVID: Does Scripture give any indication at which point such personhood becomes morally relevant?

JOHN: I have looked and, actually, I don’t think it’s very clear.

DAVID: So the Bible is unclear about human life in the womb?

JOHN: It doesn’t seem to be very clear on that issue.

DAVID: Are you familiar with Psalm 139:13-15 and Jeremiah 1:5?

JOHN: Yes.

DAVID: What is unclear about the moral relevance question in those passages?

JOHN: “Before I formed you in the womb I knew you.” I don’t see how that is going to make your case.

DAVID: That rather clinches it, I should think. Not only does God knit together the human life in the womb, but that life belongs and is known to him before that life is even conceived. Does that not indicate fairly clearly the moral relevance pertaining to the value of human life?

JOHN: It seems to be a statement of God’s foreknowledge, more than anything. I don’t think you can extrapolate anything else from that, particularly not anything helpful about dealing with a full-fledged person in the womb.

DAVID: That bothers me somewhat, that you don’t think anything beyond God’s foreknowledge can be extrapolated from that—such as, for example, his purpose for that human life, to which it is already set apart (consecrated) before it is even formed in the womb. The text rather explicitly states this. Ergo, you certainly can extrapolate more than God’s foreknowledge from this—not to mention what can be understood from this text and Psalm 139 about human life belonging to God.

JOHN: But the verse isn’t about that. It’s about God’s purpose for Jeremiah and foreknowing his destiny. I’d be more convinced if that verse was combined with more explicit statements about the topic, but that seems to be as good as it gets.

DAVID: How is what you said essentially different from what I said (vis-a-vis God’s foreknowledge and purpose for that human life)? You repeated what I said as if it was different from what I said.

JOHN: So, God making statements about foreknowing Jeremiah’s destiny implies that human life begins at conception? Non-sequitur.

DAVID: God foreknows Jeremiah’s destiny because he ordained it; before he was born God knew him, God consecrated him, God appointed him to a particular purpose.

JOHN: Yeah, right. So?

DAVID: What it implies, again, is that God not only knits together the human life in the womb but that human life belongs and is known to God before it is even conceived. That indicates rather clearly the moral relevance vis-a-vis the value of human life.

JOHN: Right, and God also foreknew that his parents would get together in the first place. I don’t think any relevant conclusion could be drawn from that, could it?

DAVID: John, that life is knit together in the womb by God; that life belongs and is known to God before it is even conceived. That life does not belong to itself, or to the mother or the father. It belongs to God. That is the morally relevant question as it pertains to human life.

JOHN: Yes, before he was even conceived God knew him. Obviously before he was conceived he wasn’t actually a person.

DAVID: Indeed. And yet even then that life belongs to God—because he is the one who brings it forth, knitting it together, having a purpose for it. If that life belongs and is known to God before conception, what about at conception or thereafter? You see what I mean?

JOHN: Okay, but in the situation outlined by the verse itself, God states that before Jeremiah was conceived God knew him. I think the “before” part is actually a problem to the argument.

DAVID: I cannot imagine how.

JOHN: Because if God knew Jeremiah even before he was conceived, then it must be that his parents had to get together or they’d be doing something wrong, frustrating God’s plans, not forming the life which is properly his, etc. And that seems highly implausible.

DAVID: That is an interesting and separate question from the one we are looking at.

JOHN: Well, I am arguing that perhaps the verse should not be taken in that direction, at the risk of implausible conclusions.

DAVID: Okay, let me address that. First, this subsequent issue you are raising pertains to the parents and their coming together, whereas our question pertains to the issue of moral relevance with respect to the value of human life. Therefore, it is a fallacious avenue to pursue (ignoratio elenchi). Second, we can certainly pursue that question if you like, but not until after the present question is settled. Third, your objection, at any rate, carries the implicit assumption that it is possible the parents could fail to come together (and thus do something ‘wrong’).

JOHN: I’m employing what I understand to be an analogous argument to yours about the nature of the verse, to demonstrate a reductio.

DAVID: See the second point.

JOHN: Yeah, I realize you think they are separate issues. But it strikes me as the same sort of reasoning being applied to different parts of the verse.

DAVID: Let us assume for the sake of argument that the verse carries the implication that I am arguing for. Let us continue in that vain. So, if that verse carries the implication I am arguing for, then what does that tell us about the moral relevance pertaining to the value of human life?

JOHN: That’s a loaded question (which is, by the way, what I think Ray Comfort was doing).

DAVID: An ‘arguendo’ does not a loaded question make.

JOHN: No, that’s not it. It’s the term “human life.” But setting that aside for a moment…

DAVID: Do we need to get into imago Dei? I would point to Psa 139:15 (cf. Job 10:9–11) as answering that question with its implicit reference to Genesis.

[A pause in the conversation for a few moments.]

JOHN: I think I lost track of what exactly I should answer—what the consequence would be of agreeing the verse implies that God directed the development of Jeremiah in the womb, or of agreeing that God directs the development of everyone in the womb? Sorry, I’m getting tired.

DAVID: You raised the issue of what the morally relevant question is with respect to valuing human life (with respect to the abortion issue in the context of The 180 Movie). My answer, calling upon those two texts from Scripture, seeks to answer you on that score, showing that the morally relevant question is answered by the fact that all human life belongs to God—not only in the womb but even prior to that. That is, abortion is wrong because that life belongs to God. Not to itself, nor to its mother, but to God. That answers what the morally relevant question is.

JOHN: Right, okay, which to me seems to leave us precisely where we started—namely, what counts as “human life.” The fact that God knew Jeremiah even before he was conceived (when obviously Jeremiah the person, the human life, was not around) doesn’t help to settle that question.

DAVID: If that person belongs and is known to God before it is a human life, would that not also apply to when it is a human life?

JOHN: If I accepted your interpretation of the verse for the sake of argument, that God knitting Jeremiah in the womb suggests that any developing embryo, fetus, etc., belongs to God and therefore only God has the right to direct what will or will not happen to that (developing) life, then yeah, I could see how that could apply to the morality of abortion. But I would suggest that that is a different argument than relying on defining a blastocyst as a human person or life or whatever. And I think that is a lot of weight for a single verse to carry, when the verse isn’t explicitly about that.

DAVID: Answer that question I asked you, please: “If that person belongs and is known to God before it is a human life, would that not also apply to when it is a human life?”

JOHN: You are assuming it all counts as human life. That is precisely what I question.

DAVID: I am getting to that.

JOHN: Okay. Then yeah, I granted that with my previous comment. (Also, I need to get going soon, after your next point.)

DAVID: All right, now observe the following. If that person belongs and is known to God before it is a human life (which answers the question of moral relevance), and if that person constitutes a human life upon being born (infant), then the moral relevance of abortion is answered at every stage in between—from conception to infancy.

JOHN: Right, which I just granted.

DAVID: At what point you happen to consider it a human life is irrelevant if that person belongs and is known to God even before it is a human life.

JOHN: Well, it wouldn’t be a person. But yes, I granted that.

DAVID: It would not be a person according to who or what?

JOHN: If the issue is that the (developing) human life or person “belongs to God” and therefore only God has the moral right to direct its progress or non-progress, then okay. That is an argument different from arguing that it is wrong because the blastocyst is a human life or person.

DAVID: Right. Whether it is a person, a human life, a potential human, etc., all of those points are irrelevant, given the answer to the moral relevance question.

JOHN: Okay. And I did explicitly state in the other conversation that a different argument could be advanced using a different morally relevant fact. So I think I will tentatively agree that, if I grant that interpretation of the verse, the argument could then follow.

DAVID: There are countless ways to answer this question. I have simply advanced two.

JOHN: Sure.

DAVID: The prior one I never actually got to finish because our conversation was hijacked.

JOHN: Yeah, the topic can rile people up.

DAVID: Are you too tired to argue for how that interpretation creates a problem for my argument?

JOHN: I think so. I am supposed to get up fairly early tomorrow. But, if you’d like, I’m game to pick it up another time.

DAVID: Sure thing.

JOHN: Okay, cool.

~ * ~

Have you watched The 180 Movie? Has it sparked conversations in your life about the moral issue of abortion? Do you have any positive encounters to share?

(HT: @Shinar_Squirrel)

Cathy Lynn Grossman of USA Today published an opinionated response to Southern Baptist Theological Seminary president Albert Mohler who seized upon Congressman Anthony Weiner entering “treatment” to make a point about Jesus Christ being the only answer for the problem of sin. Mohler tweeted the following on June 11, “Dear Congressman Weiner: There is no effective ‘treatment’ for sin. Only atonement, found only in Jesus Christ.”

Grossman’s scurrilous opinion piece about Mohler began by describing his tweet as throwing “an evangelistic dig at Jews like Weiner and other non-Christians.” That sounds rather scandalous, does it not? But if you remove her spurious histrionics about Jews it loses all its force. For instance, consider if Grossman had instead described his tweet as throwing “an evangelistic dig at people like Weiner and other non-Christians.” But that risks representing Mohler and his tweet accurately—gasp!—which targeted Weiner as a person, not as a Jew. And in a subsequent blog post Mohler also points that out. “I never mentioned Judaism,” he writes. “Rep. Weiner’s problem has to do with the fact that he is a sinner, like every other human being, regardless of religious faith or affiliation” (emphasis mine).

As she goes on to characterize Mohler’s tweet (in this and another article), notice how persistently Grossman harps on Jews and Weiner being Jewish:

• “… an evangelism tactic … aimed at people like Jews such as Weiner …”
• “What he told the Jewish congressman was …”
• “So, Mohler wasn’t targeting Jews, he was using a Jewish person in crisis as a sermon springboard … Right?”
• “He addressed his pitch to someone he knows is Jewish …”
• “… a turn-or-burn message addressed to a Jewish person …”

The fact that Weiner is Jewish was never a relevant point in Mohler’s tweet. And if she were to give it even a moment’s thought Grossman ought to realize that. The relevant point was that Weiner as a person struggled with a particular sin and chose to seek “treatment” to make himself well, which can never work apart from the sanctifying grace of Christ’s atoning sacrifice on behalf of all believers. She can make a big fuss about this person being Jewish or that one being Muslim but at the end of the day she has a battlefield full of straw men of her own making, none of them being relevant to Mohler’s gospel point which stands irrespective of the religion of this or that person, Weiner included. It is about people inescapably being sinners regardless of their religion, ethnicity, gender and so forth.

Consider the following rewrite and notice how her opinion piece loses just about all of its scandalous punch when the spurious histrionics about Jews is removed (the underlined text indicates where I made a change):

One of the nation’s top Southern Baptist leaders takes sexting-pol Anthony Weiner’s case as a chance to throw an evangelistic dig at people like Weiner and other non-Christians. … This reads as an evangelism tactic, riding in on the Weiner headlines but aimed at people like Weiner, Woods, and many others, such as Weiner’s wife, who hold different ideas about salvation, different approaches to atonement.

And a rewrite of her follow-up piece:

What he told the congressman was, “There is no effective ‘treatment’ for sin. Only atonement, found only in Jesus Christ.” … So, Mohler wasn’t targeting Jews, he was using a person in crisis as a sermon springboard to preach to his known flock to return to traditional faith. Right? But he didn’t begin “Dear Christians…” He addressed his pitch to someone he knows is a sinner … Evangelism is Mohler’s job description: He is charged with preaching the Good News, as Christians believe it, to the world and using every vehicle he can, even the sad case of #Weinergate in Twitterspeak… So, it would be no surprise if many read a message that starts, “Dear Congressman Weiner,” as a turn-or-burn message addressed to a person in the public domain.

All of a sudden Weiner being Jewish is irrelevant—as it always was. With all of her spurious histrionics about Jews removed, all of a sudden Grossman is reporting about an evangelist addressing a sinner about the necessity of being in Christ in order to “make himself well” (which Weiner’s spokesman Risa Heller said his aim is). Apart from the sanctifying grace of Christ no “treatment” will save him from his carnality and sin. This goes for everyone, completely irrespective of religion, ethnicity, gender, sexual orientation, and so forth.

References:

Grossman, Cathy L. (2011, June 12). “Baptist to Jewish Weiner: Christ is the only ‘treatment’.” Faith & Reason, USA Today.
http://content.usatoday.com/communities/Religion/

Grossman, Cathy L. (2011, June 15). “Baptist leader stands by ‘Christian love’ for Weiner.” Faith & Reason, USA Today.
http://content.usatoday.com/communities/Religion/

Mohler, Albert (2011, June 14). “Theology, therapy, Twitter, and the scandal of the gospel.” AlbertMohler.com.
http://www.albertmohler.com

Among the various threads I participate in at AtheistForums.org was one started by a Muslim user who had a particular question for Christians. I thought I would share my response to him here at the Aristophrenium.

I’d like to hear from Christians what original sin is, because I can never understand why God would allow the sin of a father (Adam) to be committed to the son (humanity). I’ve heard reasons from others to believe why this is wrong, but can anyone prove why it is right?

The question of original sin is somewhat difficult to discuss with non-Christians because it is a theological issue that is settled exegetically (i.e., study of the biblical texts); if one denies the Scriptures as divine revelation, the whole matter becomes rather moot (but their denial is a product of original sin). Outside of the biblical texts I suppose one could define original sin however they like, although the fact that such a person is talking about original sin at all would be quite odd, since it is quintessentially a biblical concept. While the term itself is not found in the Scriptures—it was actually coined by Augustine of Hippo—the concept is deeply biblical, rooted in the theology of salvation (soteriology).

There is an aphorism penned by Paul E. Little that captures the essence of original sin: “We are not sinners because we sin; we sin because we are sinners.” Original sin means quite simply sin derived from our origin; biblically and theologically that origin is “in Adam,” who is the federal representative of all mankind as imago Dei. It is not so much that we are all held accountable for Adam’s sin, as your question alluded to, as that all mankind is fallen as sinners because Adam, our federal head in the economy of salvation, fell into sin; i.e., from a sinful origin comes a sinful lineage, a condition which produces in man every sort of sin. In this same theology of salvation we have Jesus Christ, described in this context as the “last Adam” (cf. the theological dichotomy revealed in the New Testament gospels and epistles); that is, all mankind is represented in one of two camps, such that those who are not “in Christ” thus remain “in Adam,” each being the federal head of those they represent. So that is the meaning of original sin: sin derived from our origin, condemned “in Adam” as sinners until we are justified “in Christ” as redeemed.

Due to the word-count restriction in the comments area, I have chosen to address in a blog post many of the questions and objections being submitted in response to my posts on the Genesis creation account, since it takes more words to answer a controversial question than it does to ask it—and there are several being asked. I will not identify to whom each question or objection belongs; I am confident that people will recognize the substance of their question or objection in what follows. (I have also chosen to reframe each question or objection in my own words.)

Read the rest of this entry

In a recently published article [1] Duane Proud, a dear friend and colleague of ours here at the Aristophrenium and one of its founding contributors, published what he understands to be Statham’s misgivings [2] about Walton’s central thesis on how the Genesis creation account might be properly understood exegetically. [3] While this is quite appropriate for Proud, given that the origins debate is his primary interest here at the Aristophrenium (i.e., creation versus evolution), I do find myself wishing that he had reached out to me prior to publication because, quite frankly, it does appear that Statham was rather confused about the book he was reviewing. That, in addition to the fact that Proud has not read Walton’s book, is why I say that he published what he understands “to be Statham’s misgivings,” putting the onus on Statham. There is not a lot I can say about Statham’s review because I am still waiting for a copy of his article, as I have been since Proud brought it to my attention November 28 last year in a personal email. [4] But if Proud had have reached out to me I could have cleared some of this fog up, injecting these concepts with the coherence needed for him to digest the ideas, allowing him to publish an article that hits closer to its mark. Instead, I shall have to provide that further clarification here.

Read the rest of this entry

In the opinion of fellow staff writer Luis Dizon, the objection of Young Earth creationists against the idea of death existing prior to the Fall is “one of the strongest arguments against the Old Earth position.” (See his comment on my recent article “On Old Earth vs. Young Earth debate.”) That is, if there was no death in the world prior to the Fall, then Young Earth creationism must be the only view left standing, since every other creationist view (to my knowledge) involves prelapsarian death.

(For those new to the Aristophrenium or unfamiliar with staff writer Ryft, it must be noted that he rejects both Young Earth and Old Earth creationism. Although the view he takes on Genesis 1 is uniquely different to both positions, he does believe the earth is very old, so he often defends that view with Young Earth creationists for the sake of argument. It should also be noted that Old Earth creationism interprets Genesis 1, while believing in an old earth does not. Ryft argues that the Bible is silent on the age of the earth.)

So where do Young Earth creationists get the idea that there was no death in the world prior to the Fall? I think most people know the answer: Romans 5:12-14, “Sin entered the world through one man, and death through sin, and in this way death came to all men, because all sinned … Death reigned from the time of Adam …”

Read the rest of this entry

In this article I will be stepping out of character a little bit by writing on a subject that will do two things I typically try to avoid: (1) opposing a long-time associate of mine and fellow member of the Alpha & Omega Ministries online community; (2) engaging the Old Earth vs. Young Earth creationism debate.

I have typically avoided confronting fellow members of the Alpha & Omega Ministries online community (those with whom I enjoy regular fellowship) because for the most part we are unified on the ‘essentials’ of biblical doctrine, so that the only real source for possible conflicting views are the ‘non-essentials’. It would be pointless controversy to get into blog scuttles over that.

And I usually avoid engaging the Old Earth vs. Young Earth creationism debates since that is not only an example of a ‘non-essential’ but it also involves two views I am not committed to; I am neither an Old Earth nor Young Earth creationist. That seems like two good reasons to stand outside the debate.

But I am making an exception in this case for two reasons. First, this fellow Christian brother has submitted a rebuttal so weak that it needs challenging, in the hopes that he might reconsider or strengthen it. Second, the angle he takes on the issue implicitly raises it to the level of an ‘essential’ by invoking the doctrine of God’s sovereignty and the primacy of Scripture in our fundamental axioms.

Read the rest of this entry

An associate of mine, who goes by the pseudonym Noc Nocterro, recently notified me and some others about an article he had published over at UrbanPhilosophy.net called “Love Knows No Gender.” The aim of the article was “a comprehensive analysis on the debate over the moral permissibility of homosexual behaviour,” in which he argues that homosexual activity is morally permissible when it is similar in circumstances to heterosexual activity that is morally permissible. I will leave it to Mathew Hamilton to address the sociological arguments when he returns from his sabbatical. My purpose in this response is to evaluate whether or not the arguments Nocterro presents withstand critical scrutiny. And his basic argument reasons in this way:

Premise 1: In cases where the good-making properties of a behaviour are much greater than the bad-making properties, then that behaviour is prima facie morally permissible.

Premise 2: There is a subset of homosexual sexual relationships where the good-making properties are much greater than the bad-making properties.

Premise 3: There is a subset of homosexual sexual relationships that are prima facie morally permissible.

Premise 4: If there is a prima facie support for the permissibility of some-thing, and there are no good reasons to support its impermissibility, then it should be deemed permissible.

Premise 5: There are no good reasons to suppose this subset of homosexual sexual relationships are impermissible.

Conclusion: This subset of homosexual sexual relationships is permissible.

Read the rest of this entry

For those who are not familiar with Louis Ruggiero, he runs an apologetics website called the King Messiah Project. He is quite Arminian in his theology, and has been charged by some of being a Pelagian (although he denies this charge). He is known primarily for his diatribes against Calvinism. For example, some time back, he and Matt Slick tried to set up a debate on Total Depravity, but the debate was scrapped because Lou would not stick to the topic at hand. More recently, he has published a book called The God of Calvinism: A Rebuttal of Reformed Theology. He attempts to present it as a rebuttal to Dr. White’s The Potter’s Freedom, and interestingly enough, the foreword is written by none other than Ergun M. Caner. Unfortunately, I don’t have a copy of the book with me right now (although one of my friends who has dialogued with Ruggiero before does, and perhaps I can borrow it from him). So, until I can get my hands on the book, I will instead deal with an article he has posted on his website titled, Refuting the Tulip With the Fear of the LORD.[1]

Read the rest of this entry