Connect with us

Culture and Religion

Mathematical challenges to Darwin’s theory of evolution with Berlinski, Meyer, and Gelernter

Published

on

Mathematical challenges to Darwins theory of evolution with Berlinski Meyer and Gelernter

For the record, I’m not a fan of Intelligent Design. It’s a concept that has the potential to take people down the wrong path. A Biblical worldview and belief in Jesus Christ as Lord and Savior are required to have a proper understanding of the origins of life, and Intelligent Design opens possibilities for people to believe in false gods or “sciency” theories about creation.

With that said, I also recognize that Intelligent Design can be a bridge across which people who believe in false theories such as Darwinism can see the error in their ways. If that’s what it takes to bring people to seek salvation and explore the Gospel, so be it. I just want to be careful that scientific discussions such as the one in this video are quickly followed by proper evangelism. Take people away from the lies, then show them the truth. The first without the second may be just as dangerous as leaving them in the lies that have engulfed much of western society.

In this video, respected scholars David Berlinski, David Gelernter, and Stephen Meyer break down the mathematical problems with Darwin’s theory. They often point to the notion that if Darwin was alive today with access to what we know, he wouldn’t have come to the conclusions he came to in the 19th century. But the widespread acceptance of his theory and the dishonest allowance by many modern scientists to quash questions about it have perpetuated a narrative that life is possible without a creator. This is, of course, false.

Here’s what the Hoover Institute had to say about the video:

Recorded on June 6, 2019 in Italy.

Based on new evidence and knowledge that functioning proteins are extremely rare, should Darwin’s theory of evolution be dismissed, dissected, developed or replaced with a theory of intelligent design?

Has Darwinism really failed? Peter Robinson discusses it with David Berlinski, David Gelernter, and Stephen Meyer, who have raised doubts about Darwin’s theory in their two books and essay, respectively The Deniable Darwin, Darwin’s Doubt, and “Giving Up Darwin” (published in the Claremont Review of Books).

Robinson asks them to convince him that the term “species” has not been defined by the authors to Darwin’s disadvantage. Gelernter replies to this and explains, as he expressed in his essay, that he sees Darwin’s theory as beautiful (which made it difficult for him to give it up): “Beauty is often a telltale sign of truth. Beauty is our guide to the intellectual universe—walking beside us through the uncharted wilderness, pointing us in the right direction, keeping us on track—most of the time.” Gelernter notes that there’s no reason to doubt that Darwin successfully explained the small adjustments by which an organism adapts to local circumstances: changes to fur density or wing style or beak shape. Yet there are many reasons to doubt whether Darwin can answer the hard questions and explain the big picture—not the fine-tuning of existing species but the emergence of new ones. Meyer explains Darwinism as a comprehensive synthesis, which gained popularity for its appeal. Meyer also mentions that one cannot disregard that Darwin’s book was based on the facts present in the 19th century.

Robinson then asks the panel whether Darwin’s theory of gradual evolution is contradicted by the explosion of fossil records in the Cambrian period, when there was a sudden occurrence of many species over the span of approximately seventy million years (Meyer’s noted that the date range for the Cambrian period is actually narrowing). Meyer replies that even population genetics, the mathematical branch of Darwinian theory, has not been able to support the explosion of fossil records during the Cambrian period, biologically or geologically.

Robinson than asks about Darwin’s main problem, molecular biology, to which Meyer explains, comparing it to digital world, that building a new biological function is similar to building a new code, which Darwin could not understand in his era. Berlinski does not second this and states that the cell represents very complex machinery, with complexities increasing over time, which is difficult to explain by a theory. Gelernter throws light on this by giving an example of a necklace on which the positioning of different beads can lead to different permutations and combinations; it is really tough to choose the best possible combination, more difficult than finding a needle in a haystack. He seconds Meyer’s statement that it was impossible for Darwin to understand that in his era, since the math is easy but he did not have the facts. Meyer further explains how difficult it is to know what a protein can do to a cell, the vast combinations it can produce, and how rare is the possibility of finding a functional protein. He then talks about the formation of brand-new organisms, for which mutation must affect genes early in the life form’s development in order to control the expression of other genes as the organism grows.

“Intelligent design” is something only Meyer agrees with, but Berlinski replies that as a scientific approach, one can agree or disagree with it, but should not reject it. Meyer talks about the major discovery in the 1950s and ’60s concerning the DNA molecule, which encodes information in a somewhat digital format, providing researchers with the opportunity to trace the information back to its source. Gelernter argues that if there was/is an intelligent designer then why is the design not the most efficient, rather than prone to all sorts of problems, including the mental and emotional.

Robinson quotes Gelernter: “Darwinism is no longer just a scientific theory but a basis of a worldview, and an emergency . . . religion for the many troubled souls who need one.” Gelernter further adds that it’s a fantastically challenging problem that Darwin chose to address. How difficult will it be for scientists to move on from Darwin’s theory of evolution? Will each scientist need to examine the evidence for his or herself? These are some of most important questions facing science in the 21st century.

Life is far to amazing (and impossible) without the guiding hand of a higher power. We believe this higher power to be the God of the Bible. As you watch this video, remember that science without guidance leads to deception.

We are currently forming the American Conservative Movement. If you are interested in learning more, we will be sending out information in a few weeks.

American Conservative Movement

Advertisement

0

Culture and Religion

Many in Hollywood have gone all-in for an occult transformation in America

Published

on

Many in Hollywood have gone all-in for an occult transformation in America

There was a time not so long ago when the biggest worry from Hollywood was leftist indoctrination and the occasional heretical subliminal message they’d work into their productions. Today, the world of the occult is in full-swing in many of Hollywood’s most popular offerings. It’s not subtle. It’s overt and in many ways the most dangerous trend happening in modern media.

A perfect heinous example is the movie, Midsommar, from acclaimed horror director Ari Aster. He crossed the line with his occult-friendly film, Hereditary, and went far beyond it with his most recent release. It’s a blatant attempt to not only highlight occult practices but to mainstream them by including the audience in a participatory role.

In this video from Truthstream Media, they take a deep dive into the horrific messaging and attempts at normalizing the values within this deeply disturbing movie. Whether you’re considering watching it or not, watch this video first.

We are currently forming the American Conservative Movement. If you are interested in learning more, we will be sending out information in a few weeks.

American Conservative Movement

Continue Reading

Culture and Religion

Stand against Marxism

Published

on

Stand against Marxism

As you may have seen, there’s a conference coming up called Stand Against Marxism Conference. Fellow GKer Sam Jones and I will both be speaking at this conference, alongside a long list of speakers, including Trevor Loudon, Janet Mefferd, Judd Saul, Steve Deace, Jon Harris and JD Hall. This two day event will be jam-packed with information from these voices who have chosen to take a stand against the Cultural Marxist infiltration into the church.

There are at least two people that I know of that will be speaking at this conference that are not biblical Christians. One is flat out not a Christian, while the other is Catholic. So how can I be consistent in publicly confronting pastors like John MacArthur for speaking with those promoting a false Gospel when I choose to speak at this conference alongside a Catholic & a non-Christian?

For example, I wrote an article criticizing Pastor MacArthur being scheduled to speak at the NRB Convention. My criticism of him agreeing to speak there was that the premise of the convention was that everyone was unifying around furthering the Gospel. Thus, it’s a blanket endorsement of everyone’s Gospel who was speaking or exhibiting. Well, there were people like Rick Warren, Roma Downy & Mark Burnet, as well as TBN. Why would you agree to speak at an event that was stating for all to see that those people are furthering the Gospel? You see, there might be another context in which it would be ok to speak at the same event as those people. However, it couldn’t be when the premise was furthering the Gospel or some other unifying factor around serious doctrine that we disagree with.

So when it comes to the Stand Against Marxism Conference, am I being a hypocrite by speaking with a non-Christian and a Catholic? I do not believe so. Here’s why:

When Judd Saul asked me to be a part of this conference, I discussed this concern with him. We had a very good talk about it, and the thing that I came away with was that the unifying factor for this conference is combatting Cultural Marxism and Social Justice, which is intentionally infiltrating Christianity. However, this is not a strictly theological issue, although it is compromising the Gospel and the most dangerous threat to the Gospel in our lifetime.

This is a political ideology that is using religion to further its goals, and our own evangelical elite are falling for it hook, line and sinker. You see, the ultimate strategy behind the social justice movement is to usher in the one world religion, one world government and one world currency that we see talked about in Revelation. So what these non-Christian Globalists are doing is trying to use God’s own people for their evil plans. They’ve already infiltrated our government. They’ve already infiltrated the entertainment world. They’ve already infiltrated the education system. Now, the final stand is infiltrating religion. And the most influential religion in the most influential nation in the world is Christianity here in America.

Both non-Christians and Christians can be concerned with this strategy. Non-Christians see this as a communist/socialist attempt to overthrow our American way of life, taking away our freedoms and liberty given to us in the Constitution. Christians see this not only as a political overthrow, but as a flat out compromising of the Gospel, changing biblical theology just enough to motivate acceptance of Social Justice within our churches.

Think about it: Many of these Social Justice Warriors have eschatology that teaches them that they need to establish God’s Kingdom here on earth before Christ can return. So they are so concerned with overtaking politics, education, entertainment and business that they are accepting of these false beliefs of Social Justice, because they are trying to alleviate all of systemic oppression to clear the way for Christ’s return. However, really what’s happening is they have a belief system that is so sinister, that they think they are establishing Christ’s Kingdom, when in reality they are laying the groundwork for the anti-christ’s rule during the tribulation. This is the definition of the term: Useful Idiots.

So when it comes to the Stand Against Marxism Conference, the unifying principle is opposition to Marxism. Both Christians and non-Christians see that the church is the last stand against this sinister movement. If we lose this battle, that’s it. Our way of life is done.

When it comes to the majority of us who are Christians who will be speaking at this conference, we understand theologically and prophetically what is happening here. We understand that we have to take a stand for biblical truth. But we also have to remember that many of those who are on our side in this battle against Marxism are not saved and heading towards eternal punishment in hell. So it’s important that, while we are going to battle against Marxism alongside some that aren’t saved, we must preach the Gospel and not in any way compromise our beliefs. Many of those that are leading the way in this fight need to hear the Gospel themselves.

This is the perfect opportunity for many of us to be clear in our beliefs, but also point back to the necessity of the Gospel. We could win this war against Marxism, but many of those who helped us win are still going to hell. So what’s the point? For us as believers, we cannot get distracted with political battles. We can participate in them, yes. In fact, it’s a good thing to participate in them. But we have to remember our primary goal: Preach the Gospel and point everyone back to Christ.

For what does it profit a man to gain the whole world and forfeit his soul?

-Mark 8:36

To register for the Stand Against Marxism Conference, please visit standagainstmarxism.com. We’ll see you there!

We are currently forming the American Conservative Movement. If you are interested in learning more, we will be sending out information in a few weeks.

American Conservative Movement

Continue Reading

Culture and Religion

Lecrae’s Jordan River baptism is unbiblical

Published

on

Lecraes Jordan River baptism is unbiblical

The rapper known as Lecrae posted a baptism video on Instagram and Twitter touting his upcoming album. The social media post sparked conversation on baptism and the merits of getting baptized more than once. Many comments had assumed that Lecrae, who has for years marketed himself as a Christian had already been baptized. Others tout Jordan River baptisms as something Christians do when they visit the Holy Land. There are a number of important biblical questions here that should be discussed. But first, here’s the post:

Believer’s Baptism?

The Bible has examples of baptism all throughout the Book of Acts. We see that in Peter’s Sermon, Peter instructs the convicted audience to repent and be baptized. We can go all throughout the Book of Acts, but my favorite example is is Acts 16, the passage read when I was baptized.

27When the jailer awoke and saw the prison doors opened, he drew his sword and was about to kill himself, supposing that the prisoners had escaped. 28But Paul cried out with a loud voice, saying, “Do not harm yourself, for we are all here!” 29And he called for lights and rushed in, and trembling with fear he fell down before Paul and Silas, 30and after he brought them out, he said, “Sirs, what must I do to be saved?”

31They said, “Believe in the Lord Jesus, and you will be saved, you and your household.” 32And they spoke the word of the Lord to him together with all who were in his house. 33And he took them that very hour of the night and washed their wounds, and immediately he was baptized, he and all his household. 34And he brought them into his house and set food before them, and rejoiced greatly, having believed in God with his whole household. Acts 16:27-34 NASB

People first believe, then they are baptized, promptly. That is the model throughout scripture with every Christian except the thief on the cross next to Jesus.

Number of Baptisms?

I challenge people to find a scriptural example of someone being baptized more than once. There may be a passage fitting for this question with the baptism of Jesus.

11“I baptize you with water for repentance, but he who is coming after me is mightier than I, whose sandals I am not worthy to carry. He will baptize you with the Holy Spirit and fire. 12His winnowing fork is in his hand, and he will clear his threshing floor and gather his wheat into the barn, but the chaff he will burn with unquenchable fire.” 

3Then Jesus came from Galilee to the Jordan to John, to be baptized by him. 14John would have prevented him, saying, “I need to be baptized by you, and do you come to me?” 15But Jesus answered him, “Let it be so now, for thus it is fitting for us to fulfill all righteousness.” Then he consented. 16And when Jesus was baptized, immediately he went up from the water, and behold, the heavens were opened to him, and he saw the Spirit of God descending like a dove and coming to rest on him; 17and behold, a voice from heaven said, “This is my beloved Son, with whom I am well pleased.” Matthew 3:11-17 ESV

John the Baptist was presumably already baptized, seeing as he was baptizing many others. While one cannot blame him for wanting Jesus to baptize him, Jesus corrects the situation by saying it must be done to “fulfill all righteousness.” As we can see in verse 17, Jesus knew what he was talking about. John the Baptist is not then baptized by Jesus afterwards despite experiencing the awe of the Holy Spirit.

If John the Baptist was not baptized a second time, what scriptural support is there for any believer to be baptized a second time.

Legitimate Second Baptisms

Samuel Sey of Slow to Write wrote a piece on why he’s a baptist. It provocatively begins by stating:

I’ve been baptized twice. I was baptized for the first time two years before I became a Christian. And I was baptized for the second time six years after I became a Christian. But what happened in between that time is why I am a Baptist.

He goes on to explain how he had a meaningless baptism in his youth. Then when he actually became a Christian, his church wrongly disallowed him to be baptized. There are Christians who were baptized either as infants or when they never really believed. For them to be baptized when they are saved is perfectly in line with the scriptural model. Otherwise it is not rooted in the Bible for Christians to be baptized a second time whether they have just gone through something or as a “renewal.” For if it were, what is to stop baptism from being performed a third or fourth time for a believer. And if a believer can be baptized that many times, why then is baptism not practiced to the regularity that Communion is?

Lecrae Responds

So in one tweet, it went from being a baptism to a Mikvah. So after being questioned, he backtracked. His Instagram post delves deeper into explaining how baptism and Mikvah are the same, which further undermines the legitimacy of his defense.

But then after backtracking, he doubled down. He then compared his baptism after already being baptized to Jesus being baptized despite being God, as if the reasons for either are remotely comparable.

Thirdly, Lecrae insists that we “celebrate the heart” as opposed to criticizing him. But plainly put, there is nothing here to celebrate. He is a rich man of privilege vacationing overseas. There is nothing godly about what he is doing: calling a baptism a Mikvah under criticism and telling us to “celebrate the heart” instead of discerning the obvious theological discrepancy that sets a terrible example for believers. No, we should reject his his postmodernist statement of celebrating the heart which the bible says is deceitful. We should instead use our heads, for Christianity is a faith that promotes and enables us to critically think.

Final Thoughts

Can’t be baptized in the Jordan river and make the same old music. This new album is gonna be special.

This stunt is clearly self promotion and that elevates this from being a misunderstanding of scripture to an open mockery of the sacrament of baptism.

This is likely a sign of further decline as he increasingly distances himself from the “Christian” label in favor of going woke. There is one Lord, one faith, one baptism (believer’s baptism), and believers ought to take that seriously.

We are currently forming the American Conservative Movement. If you are interested in learning more, we will be sending out information in a few weeks.

American Conservative Movement

Continue Reading

Facebook

Trending