A presentation of the C.S. Lewis Society, Darwin or Design is a radio program hosted by Dr. Tom Woodward that airs at 5 p.m. on 570 WTBN in the Tampa Bay area.
Darwin or Design addresses issues in apologetics and intelligent design bringing in world class experts in these areas on a weekly basis.
He starts off by addressing the caricatures of dispensationalism.
He then argues the case for his view: Progressive Dispensationalism.
In the process, he pretty much smashes Replacement Theology, the idea that the church replaced Israel. He gives tons of scripture to support his position, and a lot of it comes from Paul.
As a partial-preterist, I left impressed and I definitely am open to changing my views, or at least the views I was shaky on and wasn't really firm in the first place.
Former House Majority Leader Tom DeLay (R-Texas) urged Americans to realize that God “wrote the Constitution” and predicted an upcoming “awakening” during an interview on John Hagee Ministries’ Global Evangelism Television network on Wednesday.
“I think we got off the track when we allowed our government to become a secular government,” DeLay told host Matthew Hagee, the executive pastor of the Texas Cornerstone Church. “[W]e stopped realizing that God created this nation, that he wrote the Constitution, that it’s based on biblical principles.”
No sir, God did not write something that would fundamentally reject his rule.
He rightfully opposes today's secular humanist approach to civil government—which to one degree or another has infected most of American Christianity. This is indeed an area that needs reformation. He also rightfully points out the anti-Christian nature of the U. S. Constitution; not that we deny that it is has some good procedure law, but it is at the very least dishonoring to Jesus Christ in its neglect of recognizing Him as the highest political authority in the land. (Covenanters pointed out this fatal flaw long ago.)
God is like that mother who waits for her child to come back home from playing outdoors and makes sure the child gets washed up, nourished and ready for the next day. (Late Elementary & Middle school memories of my Mom waiting at the front door with the door wide open come to mind here)
Of course, in some sense that's where the analogy ends because kids should totally play outside. But we who know the Lord Jesus Christ have someone ready to clean us when we get dirty in sin from time to time. ~The Proprietor
‘Let me summarize my views on what modern evolutionary biology tells us loud and clear … There are no gods, no purposes, no goal-directed forces of any kind. There is no life after death. When I die, I am absolutely certain that I am going to be dead. That’s the end for me. There is no ultimate foundation for ethics, no ultimate meaning to life, and no free will for humans, either.’ ~William Provine, 1994
While I somehow ran across this quote today from Creation.com (and I really don't know how I got to Creation.com, since I visit it only a few times a year, meaning 0-3; maybe I clicked on a link on a Youtube video I watched today), I actually heard Provine say this quote in his debate with Phillip E. Johnson many years ago. That's the only reason I'm quoting it; because it has sentimental value. It is otherwise pretty pedestrian, even if it is revealing.
I watched that video back as an undergraduate; it is below.
But on the free will thing, agnostic physicist Michio Kaku would disagree.
This ruling could have never occurred had the government not got into the (lucrative) business of licensing (making legal) heterosexual marriages, what was already lawful under Yahweh's jurisdiction. That which provides the license, ultimately makes the rules for what it licenses.
Had the framers not failed to expressly establish government upon Yahweh's immutable morality, secular government would have never been allowed to provide licenses for marriage and this ruling would have never occurred. In fact, not one of today's Supreme Court Justices would be on the bench if Bible law were the rule and thereby Biblical qualifications the standard for judges.
For more, see online Chapter 6 "Article 3: Judicial Usurpation." Click on my name, then our website. Go to our Online Books page, click on the top entry, and scroll down to Chapter 6.
There are two things I wonder when people decide to expound their ideas and release them to the public: how long did this person think about the topic before deciding to write an article, and what was going on in their mind when they wrote it. In the case of David Horton's article "Green and Atheist: The Incompatibility of Religion and Environmentalism" the latter thought pulsated through my head the most. Perhaps I should have also extended that thought to the editorial room and pondered what the editor was thinking before he or she allowed this article to be published.
Horton's thinking is of the horrid kind: dreadfully obtuse and deeply un-philosophical (I think that's an irony). Or perhaps it is philosophical, in a sort of way that parallels the amateur D-grade philosophy of Dick Dawkins (do people call him Dick? Or do they just call him Richard?) Skewering Horton's position, in a sort of analytic-Plantinga-to-Dawkins kind of way, is something that can only be done by Plantinga himself, since I am not an analytic Christian philosopher. But at least addressing Horton is something that should be done, since Christians ought to be able to defend what they believe.
I find it unfortunate that something so badly thought through reached the light of day. Not only does the guy display his ignorance on contemporary religious thought, he seems to be out of touch with contemporary arguments for atheism (if there is such a thing as a corpus of atheistic thought). What makes things even worse, and even more laughable, is that he is arrogant about it (Does the question "anyone disagree?" at the end signal arrogance to you too, dear reader?)
In block quotes I have listed his thoughts.
It is odd that the Libertarians among the religious, so big on self-reliance for individuals and communities, don't apply that principle to the Earth as a whole.
It seems that everyone wants to take shots at Libertarians nowadays. Tisk, tisk. He probably is not familiar with the Libertarian work "The Politically Incorrect Guide to Capitalism." In chapter 6, How Capitalism Will Save The Environment, Robert. P. Murphy explains the relationship between capitalism and environmentalism, and argues that capitalism is the best economic system to support environmentalist ventures. Who would have thought that the laws of supply and demand would kick in to conserve oil and other natural resources by raising the price when resources are low, forcing consumers to conserve the resources they have or become more efficient with their resources.
Only atheists understand, deep down, that there is no divine Lone Ranger out there coming to the rescue; that if we don't save our own planet, no one else will.
This is such an old line that I'm sure many atheists will disagree with it or won't bother using anymore. The line of thinking goes, since we only have this one life, we must protect it as much as we can. The thinking goes further: those theists, since they believe they will be going to Heaven, must have less incentive to take care of the Earth, since Earth is not their home but a pit stop to Heaven. Before I focus on the latter, I will focus on the former. Why is it that when someone reasons this way they never bring up the other side; that is, the side which says because this is the only life I have and I am going to do what I want--that brand of atheism does exist too. Not every non-believer is a principled scientist, philosopher, "Greenie" or "Darwinist" (although they don't have too many options for creation stories). Some people just don't care and are apathetic. As for the latter, Christians, as N.T. Wright explains in the video above (make sure you check out the video below too), are to be preparing the Earth now for the Kingdom to come in its fullness. Heaven is something that is coming to Earth; we are not coming to it when we die, and that theology makes a profound difference in how one views the Earth.
Religious people, even putting aside the Left Behind loonies, aren't really concerned, because they have an imaginary friend who will look after them if they are good and pray hard and wear the right clothes and don't cut their hair.
Oh really, you mean an opinion poll back in 2001 revealing that "Because God created the world, it is wrong to abuse it" doesn't matter? Should we not exclude these folks from the already excluded Left Behind loons and call them unconcerned? Since Horton is a scientist, it would be to his horror to find out that as early as 2001, Christians were pioneering the use of drought-resistant crops in famine-ridden parts of Ethiopia. Also, in 1994 what appears to be over 100 signatories have signed the "Evangelical Declaration on the Care of Creation." Perhaps it would be too much for evidence to contrary to find out that Christian theological seminaries actually have courses on environmentalism and stewardship, or that Christian biologists have come together to create an institution to educate the community on environmental issues. Oh no, that would be too much. Let's keep that quiet so we can keep our pro-atheist views in good standing. We wouldn't want anything to undercut our ideology (wait, our belief is not a belief). We don't want anyone to think that Christians actually care for mother nature, now do we?
[The Earth] is best helped by those who understand that these ecosystems have evolved naturally over tens of thousands of years, not by those who think the Garden of Eden was a real place and that the Biblical Flood was a real event.
This idea doesn't even follow from the premises. How does knowing about the traditional Darwinian explanation of our origins tell us whether a person will be caring or a "better helper" to the environment or not? It doesn't. Plus, he doesn't appeal to one relevant branch of science (ecology, biology, zoology, geology, etc.) to support his claim. He just makes an assertion (Big Deal). To prod further, what exactly are we supposed to know about the environment that will help us take care of the environment better? I'd also argue that the opposite is true: knowing that we have Darwinian origins can be a real downer for some. People who are of the more nihilistic bent, if they don't allow it to drive them nuts, could feel unmoved to care for the environment, despite knowing our natural theory of origins. If they feel as though human history has no ultimate purpose, that may diffuse some of that energy to help the environment.
Greenies really understand the proposition that all these species are in it together, that we are all cousins, that we all come from a common ancestor, and that all have either a complete right to exist or no right to exist, not some of one and some of another.
I'm not to sure what the second half of the sentence means but I will try my hand at it. I don't see how the replacing the common ancestor idea with the idea that we are created by one God does any harm to environmentalism, or all those cute and cuddly animals. He also implies that Christians, or at least theists, believe that because God is the creator some have the right to hold the keys to the animal kingdom--i.e. who gets in and who stays out; which animals will we eat or eat us (Yikes!Down Bambi! Down I say!)
And, I would hate to rain on his parade but what is this notion of having a right to exist? This doesn't seem to be very consistent in light of atheistic evolution. If we just happened--from the big bang to evolution--then why does anything have rights to live or not? If an atheistic big bang scenario is your starting point then you have no right to exist, you just exist.
I think Dinesh D'Souza was right in his debate with atheist ethicist Peter Singer when he said (something to the effect of)that I wonder if the animals think the same way too. In other words, if we take the position that "we have a complete right to exist" is a bear wrong for wanting a human snack when we decide to go on our camping trips? Heck, if we take this position we must ask if it is ethical for the bear to eat fish out of a river? What about the grass? Clearly, other animals don't think that other animals have the right to exist, or at least they support their right to exist right up until the moment they are consumed. Oh and since "we are all cousins" that's one heck of a round of family feud isn't it?
Ultimately I think the preceding quote is unclear. For example, what exactly does he mean by no right to exist? Does he mean it in the Libertarian sense, that people have a right to life but not a right to be supported to live? Or does he mean it in the way I think, that as Darwinians we have no ultimate rights. That all rights are contrived.
unless you really feel the wind and the sun and the smell of marshland or grassland rather than driving in your air-conditioned car from your air-conditioned house to your air-conditioned megachurch, blissfully unaware of being part of nature,blissfully believing that you are somehow above all that
So is this guy telling me he doesn't like air-conditioned places or doesn't drive an air-conditioned car? If he is driving something without air-conditioning (assuming it's an older car model), I'd doubt the environmentally friendliness of his car. Technology has a way of being efficient with resources and being environmentally friendly at the same time. Driving an environmentally friendly car shows awareness of environmental issues (to a limited degree) and is an environmentally friendly act in itself.
And is he really suggesting that these same megachurch-attending Christians don't have the capacity to care about the environment or bask in the splendor of nature? Tell that to the Christian Camp and Conference Association! And then follow them on Twitter!
Somehow, I think Mr. Horton is blissfully unaware of all thebooks onChristian environmentalism that have come out during the past decade; and I think he is blissfully ignorant about how Christians view the environment in the 2000's (and 90's). Perhaps next time, he can be a little bit more objective, you know, like science.
The rest of N.T. Wright's talk on 100Huntley can be seen here.
I'll go watch some of my imaginary friends now. They provide much comfort.
So, I am also a writer for The Collegian, La Salle University's student-run newspaper. Please check out my published articles online (you may have to type 'Goins' into the search bar). So far, they've only posted 6 articles, but I've written more than that. I plan to expound on some of the ideas presented in the articles later in this blog.
