"You're nothing but a minion of the devil!" Strange words, coming from a biology professor at a 'Christian' college.
A few days ago I received a mailing from Dordt College. The leaflet's message was very positive and apparently conservative; every page mentioned God in one way or another. Their point? Taken from their website, http://www.dordt.edu/, "Ours is a community where faith and life and learning are not separate ... they're one." Since many Christian schools teach evolutionism and liberal ideology, I decided to see whether Dordt had a strong stance on the authority of Scripture. I left a message with one of their professors. Yesterday, the professor called back. He introduced himself as the top biology teacher at Dordt (I didn't get his name). I asked what the school taught about origins. He asked me to explain, so I asked specifically what the school's position was on the origin of life. "We teach that God created everything but we don't assume when or how," he replied. I wanted more details so I asked whether they taught the earth was thousands or billions of years old. After explaining that he was not a geology professor, he assured me that "of course, the earth is much more than thousands!" I did not agree, but kept it to myself. He began asking me questions about my beliefs about origins. As the conversation went on, it soon became apparent that the college teaches what sadly is prevalent in the mainstream Christian world today: 'God did it, but instead of looking to His Word for answers we will teach whatever the secular scientific consortium tells us.' I politely but firmly defended a Biblical interpretation of Genesis as he continued to question me. The professor avowed his support of the 'framework theory', which apparently ignores Genesis 1 and loosely interprets Genesis 2. He said that "if you just read Genesis 2, you would have a much different story than if you have the bias given by Genesis 1," implying, of course, that any "bias" is negative. I pointed out that if I only had the first chapter of my science textbook, I would have a very different idea of physics than if I read the whole book. He indicated that he had left a six-day interpretation of Genesis because of scientific 'evidence'. I replied that as "all Scripture is given by inspiration of God," it is and should be its own best interpretation guide. He countered by exclaiming that I was "making an idol" of the Bible. Not my interpretation of the Bible, but the Bible itself. I was somewhat taken aback. After all, isn't that what we are supposed to do? I quoted John 1: "In the beginning was the Word, and the Word was with God, and the Word was God." Also, Psalm 138:2: "For You have magnified Your Word above all Your name." I said that making an idol of Scripture sounded like a good idea to me, as it is the living Word of God! He replied that I was "just making an idol of the Bible," and went on. He quoted almost every evolutionist stock answer in the book: from "it doesn't matter how God did it as long as we get the right message" to "the Bible isn't a science textbook." He finally asked me how old I thought the earth was, and laughed when I gave an age of 6-7 thousand years, due to the genealogies and a plain reading of Genesis 1-11. He then attacked the validity of Scripture by saying that the genealogies are full of errors. He called my position "historically bankrupt," declaring that hardly anyone in history supported six days of creation. I politely contradicted him, pointing out that Sir Isaac Newton, Galileo, and Jesus all believed in a young earth; after all, Jesus said "at the beginning of creation He made them male and female." I had told him earlier that I planned to go into a legal field, so he asked why the creation-evolution issue was important to me. I explained that the foundations of morality and sin lie in Genesis, and that unless it can be trusted there is no rhyme or reason to anything I might do in law. "Besides," I said, "my entire faith hinges on the fact that there was no death before sin." I quoted Romans when it says that "through one man, Adam, sin entered the world, and death through sin." He hastily asserted that "obviously, he is speaking of spiritual death and separation from God!" But, I told him, Paul had just said that if Christ did not conquer the same death that "entered by Adam's sin" by physically raising from the dead, our faith is in vain and we are of all men "most miserable." So unless I believe that there was no death, physical or otherwise, before sin, I cannot believe I am heaven-bound. Rather than considering God's Word for what it says, the biologist again struck at Scripture by asking whether I believed Adam and the animals ate before the Fall. I knew what was coming, and sure enough he played what he thought was his trump card against God's Word: plants died before the Fall so it proves death before sin (and, therefore, apparently proves Paul wrong). I pointed out the concept of nephesh chayil life; that just as "the life of the flesh is in the blood" and that God "breathes the breath of life into life," that as plants have neither blood nor breath, it follows that plants are not alive in a biblical sense and cannot really die. He cut me off and quickly told me that the entire biological system is built around the 'fact' that plants are alive and can die. Which is patently false: as Dr. Lisle of Answers In Genesis pointed out when speaking with progressive creationist Hugh Ross, plants are really nothing more than complex biological machines. But rather than argue from a scientific basis I just said that "God apparently does not rely on scientific models to determine truth." By this time the professor was getting rather agitated. He told me my life was a waste and that my view was "junk science and junk theology." "If you know so much about it, I suppose you don't need to come to college." "The only point of Genesis," he said, "is to show that we are depraved and need a Savior, and that we should respect God's creation. When you stand before God, if you get there, He will ask you what you did with His creation and all you will be able to say is that you argued over a six-day creation viewpoint. You won't have anything to say!" I refrained from replying that I believe upholding the authority of God's Word and making sure it is believed from cover to cover bears eternal fruit. He declared that debate on origins was a lie from the devil, and that for talking about origins I was "just one of the devil's minions." Then he calmed down and informed me that he had just been "professing", and that as a 'professor' that is what he teaches at the college. This really sold Dordt well. After all, if upholding God's Word and being ready to give an answer is "the work of the devil" according to the teachings of this college, I will definitely not be applying there. What struck me about this conversation was that he had the boldness to say that upholding the authority of Scripture is equivalent to the work of the devil. This puts me in mind of Isaiah 5:20, "Woe to those who call evil good, and good evil; who put darkness for light, and light for darkness." The reason that we defend a plain-sense interpretation of Scripture is this; Christ told us to preach the Good News of His redemption: that all men are depraved and in need of a Savior, and that He is that Savior. In order to do this, we must tell why we are depraved, that God created the world perfect but man fell into sin and so brought death and suffering into the world. If we do not teach the first part of God's Word, telling everyone why mankind needs a Savior, they will have no reason to believe us when we tell them Who that Savior is. As Jesus told Nicodemus in John 3:12, "If I have told you earthly things and you do not believe, how will you believe if I tell you heavenly things?"
In Him,
David S. MacMillan III
Media/Persia, and stomach and thighs of bronze that herald Greece under Alexander the Great. The legs of iron came next; Daniel told the king that this worldwide empire would break in pieces, crushing the known world. This was fulfilled by the collapse of the Holy Roman Empire that threw Europe into the Dark Ages.
The last kingdom is the toes of the statue; ten toes of iron mixed with clay. The iron, the prophet says, is part of the iron of Rome, and though the clay will try to adhere to the iron, it will not mix. This is the final government that will be crushed by the Second Coming of Christ; a government of 10 sections in two parts.
Revelation says that the headquarters of the Antichrist will be centered in "Mystery Babylon; the city of seven hills." The city of Rome, especially the Vatican, has been known for over 2000 years as "the city of seven hills". Revelation was written by a Roman exile John, which explains why he had to use symbolic language to allow his letters to go through.
I have no argument with teaching Darwinian evolution in Biology class. It is real empirical science. The observation is genetic variance in species and direct speciation. The conjecture is that mutations (observed phenomenon) and natural selection (another observed phenomenon) combine to produce uphill progress in the broad spectrum of life on this planet. Just because the proponents of this scientific theory cannot bring up any tests or observations of natural processes that support it does not make it non-scientific.
But it would be academic folly in the greatest degree to teach Natural History in a Biology class. Biology is the study of natural processes. Period, end of sentence. Natural History is a forensic scientific study of the echoes of our past. Biological observations can be used as the "tests" in conjectures made concerning Earth's history. But since "Natural History" has by its very nature never been observed, it is useless to use it as the "test" in a biological study.
In other words, it is one thing to present Darwinian evolution as a theoretical biological process. It is quite another to assure students that life on earth came about through it.
Since Biology and Natural Science are two different branches of scientific inquiry, it only makes sense that different rules should be applied. If we teach evolution in Biology 1, we should present it as a scientific theory similar to General Relativity or any other theory, with the observations, the theory itself, and all tests that either support it or attack it. Just because science cannot find any supporting experiments or tests does not mean that unsupporting evidence must be suppressed.
We all know the reasons behind this, however. The biological hypothesis of evolution serves as the backbone of the forensic hypothesis of evolution. To question the "natural process" of evolution casts doubt on what the schools teach as fact in Natural History class. To question the historical hypothesis of evolution is to allow evolutionist Richard Lewontin's "Divine Foot in the door."
More later.
In Him,
D3
