Showing posts with label Fred Hoyle. Show all posts
Showing posts with label Fred Hoyle. Show all posts

Sunday, January 24, 2016

OUR WORLDVIEW IS THE LENS THROUGH WHICH WE SEE





Our worldview can either bring reality into sharp focus or it can distort and prevent us from seeing what is right in front of our eyes.

Atheist Nobel Laureate, Francis Crick, also approached the evidence with a worldview. However, rather than preventing him from seeing the evidence, it caused him to reject it:

* “An honest man, armed with all the knowledge available to us now, could only state that in some sense, the origin of life appears at the moment to be almost a miracle, so many are the conditions which would have to have been satisfied to get it going."

Why then does he reject the miraculous? Because there is no place for it within his atheistic worldview, which demands a natural answer. Meanwhile, when a theist is confronted with the same evidence, he concludes otherwise.

Former atheist, Sir Fred Hoyle, concluded in favor of an Intelligent Designer:

* "Biochemical systems are exceedingly complex, so much so that the chance of their being formed through random shuffling of simple organic molecules is exceedingly minute, to a point indeed where it is insensibly different from zero." So, there must be "an intelligence, which designed the biochemicals and gave rise to the origin of carbonaceous life." (Norman Geisler is the source of these quotations.)

Why are people unwilling to revise their worldview when confronted with overwhelming evidence against it? Often, they don't want to.

Atheist Aldous Huxley wrote:

* "I had motives for not wanting the world to have meaning; consequently, assumed it had none, and was able without any difficulty to find reasons for this assumption.... For myself, as no doubt for most of my contemporaries, the philosophy of meaninglessness was essentially an instrument of liberation. The liberation we desired was simultaneously liberation from a certain political and economic system and liberation from a certain system of morality. We objected to the morality because it interfered with our sexual freedom." (Ends and Means, 1937, pp. 270, 273, emp. added).

Not everyone rejects God in favor of sexual freedom. However, Huxley demonstrated, very transparently, that we have reasons for our worldviews that might have nothing to do with the evidence.

Saturday, January 23, 2016

QUOTATIONS FROM ATHEISTS WHO HAVE BECOME THEISTS (EXCEPT FOR THE FIRST TWO)





Albert Einstein (Perhaps a non-theist)
·       "The harmony of natural law . . . reveals an intelligence of such superiority that, compared with it, all the systematic thinking and acting of human beings is an utterly insignificant reflection."

Atheist Nobel Laureate, Francis Crick
·       “An honest man, armed with all the knowledge available to us now, could only state that in some sense, the origin of life appears at the moment to be almost a miracle, so many are the conditions which would have to have been satisfied to get it going.” 

Former atheist, Sir Fred Hoyle:
·       "Biochemical systems are exceedingly complex, so much so that the chance of their being formed through random shuffling of simple organic molecules is exceedingly minute, to a point indeed where it is insensibly different from zero." So, there must be "an intelligence, which designed the biochemicals and gave rise to the origin of carbonaceous life." (Norman Geisler is the source of these first quotations)

Former atheist and astronomer Alan Sandage
·       "As I said before, the world is too complicated in all of its parts to be due to chance alone. I am convinced that the existence of life with all its order in each of its organisms is simply too well put together. . . . The more one learns of biochemistry the more unbelievable it becomes unless there is some kind of organizing principle—an architect.

Frank Tipler, mathematical physicist and cosmologist, Tulane (‘The Physics Of Immortality.’)
·       “When I began my career as a cosmologist some twenty years ago, I was a convinced atheist. I never in my wildest dreams imagined that one day I would be writing a book purporting to show that the central claims of Judeo-Christian theology are in fact true, that these claims are straightforward deductions of the laws of physics as we now understand them. I have been forced into these conclusions by the inexorable logic of my own special branch of physics.”

-Antony Flew (‘There is a God: How the World’s Most Notorious Atheist Changed His Mind.’)
·       “It now seems to me that the findings of more than fifty years of DNA research have provided materials for a new and enormously powerful argument to design.”

·       “I now believe there is a God…I now think it [the evidence] does point to a creative Intelligence almost entirely because of the DNA investigations. What I think the DNA material has done is that it has shown, by the almost unbelievable complexity of the arrangements which are needed to produce life, that intelligence must have been involved in getting these extraordinarily diverse elements to work together.”

·       “…we have all the evidence we need in our immediate experience and that only a deliberate refusal to “look” is responsible for atheism of any variety.”

-Francis Collins (The Language of God: A Scientist Presents Evidence for Belief.)
·       “The God of the Bible is also the God of the genome. He can be worshipped in the cathedral or in the laboratory. His creation is majestic, awesome, intricate and beautiful – and it cannot be at war with itself. Only we imperfect humans can start such battles. And only we can end them.” -Rick Oliver Ph.D. in Biology.  He is a member of the American Federation of Herpetoculturalists, the California Science Teachers Association, and the New York Academy of Science. (‘Designed to Kill in a Fallen World.’)


-Lee Strobel (‘Case For Christ: A Journalist Investigates the Toughest Objections to Christianity.’)
·       “It was the evidence from science and history that prompted me to abandon my atheism and become a Christian.”

-Warner Wallace (‘Jesus Is Evidence That God Exists.’)
·       “In the end, I came to the conclusion that the gospels were reliable eyewitness accounts that delivered accurate information about Jesus, including His crucifixion and Resurrection. But that created a problem for me. If Jesus really was who He said He was, then Jesus was God Himself. If Jesus truly did what the gospel eyewitnesses recorded, then Jesus is still God Himself. As someone who used to reject anything supernatural, I had to make a decision about my naturalistic presuppositions.“

-Alister McGrath, theologian, scientist, and a priest (‘Breaking the Science-Atheism Bond’)
·       “Atheism, I began to realize, rested on a less-than-satisfactory evidential basis. The arguments that had once seemed bold, decisive, and conclusive increasingly turned out to be circular, tentative, and uncertain.”

-Sir William Ramsay  (1851 – 1939) was a Scottish archaeologist and New Testament scholar. By his death in 1939 he had become the foremost authority of his day on the history of Asia Minor and a leading scholar in the study of the New Testament:

·       “Further study . . . showed that the book (Acts) could bear the most minute scrutiny as an authority for the facts of the Aegean world, and that it was written with such judgment, skill, art and perception of truth as to be a model of historical statement.'” .  (‘The Bearing of Recent Discovery on the Trustworthiness of the New Testament.’)

Aleksandr Solzhenitsyn (1918 – 2008) was a Russian writer, and winner of the 1970 Nobel Prize in literature.

·       “Over a half century ago, while I was still a child, I recall hearing a number of old people offer the following explanation for the great disasters that had befallen Russia: “Men have forgotten God; that’s why all this has happened.” Since then I have spent well-nigh 50 years working on the history of our revolution; in the process I have read hundreds of books, collected hundreds of personal testimonies, and have already contributed eight volumes of my own toward the effort of clearing away the rubble left by that upheaval. But if I were asked today to formulate as concisely as possible the main cause of the ruinous revolution that swallowed up some 60 million of our people, I could not put it more accurately than to repeat: “Men have forgotten God; that’s why all this has happened.” (‘Voice from the Gulag.’)

-Peter Hitchens has published six books, including The Abolition of Britain, The Rage Against God and The War We Never Fought. He also writes for Britain’s The Mail on Sunday newspaper and is a former foreign correspondent in Moscow and Washington. In his book The Rage Against God: How Atheism Led Me to Faith he tells us of his conversion from militant atheist to Christian theism.

·       “I thought this gesture [burning his Bible] was a way of showing that I had finally rejected all the things that I had been brought up to believe, and I went on to behave for the next 20 years of my life exactly as if I didn’t believe in him [God], and that’s how I discovered in the end that what I had rejected was right.” (‘The Rage Against God: How Atheism Led Me to Faith.’)

·       “The current intellectual assault on God in Europe and North America is in fact a specific attack on Christianity – the faith that stubbornly persists in the morality, laws, and government of the major Western countries. . . .The God they fight is the Christian God, because he is their own God. . . .God is the leftists’ chief rival.  Christian belief, by subjecting all men to divine authority and by asserting in the words ‘My kingdom is not of this world’ that the ideal society does not exist in this life, is the most coherent and potent obstacle to secular utopianism. . . . the Bible angers and frustrates those who believe that the pursuit of a perfect society justifies the quest for absolute power.”

·       “…when it comes to the millions of small and tedious good deeds that are needed for a society to function with charity, honesty, and kindness, a shortage of believing Christians will lead to that society’s decay.”

-Philip Vander Elst, a former atheist, is a freelance writer and lecturer who has spent nearly 30 years in politics and journalism, and now works with Areopagus Ministries.
 “So, confronted by all these facts and arguments – philosophical, scientific, and historical – I surrendered my sword of unbelief to God, and asked Jesus to forgive my sins and come into my life during the hot, dry summer of 1976. In the years that have followed, I have never regretted that decision, despite many ups and downs and trials of my faith.”

·       “My atheistic philosophy had allowed me to lose my compassion for others. I no longer had the ability to love anyone, not even myself. I had become apathetic to life itself. For years, I had been dead, but because I continued to walk and talk, I didn’t know it. But now, I was born again and the spirit that was in me, which had allowed me to understand spiritual things, connected with the glorious and perfect higher consciousness of Jesus Christ” (‘From Atheism to Christianity: a Personal Journey’)

-A.S.A Jones was a devout atheist for over 20 years before finally managing to see the biblical truths that had managed to elude him for so long.

·       “I thought that atheism was “smart.”  When my grandmother argued for a first cause, I replied by postulating an infinite regression of causes (my arrogance left me unaware that my response violated modern physics!)  Yet unknown to me, my father’s mother, sister, and the sister’s family were praying for our family.  When I was 13, reading Plato raised for me the question of life after death, but Plato’s answers did not seem adequate.  I began to realize that only an infinite Being could guarantee the hope of eternal life.  Yet if such a Being existed, there seemed no reason why that Being would care about me, even if that Being were perfectly loving enough to give life to some.  I was incurably selfish and undeserving of a loving Being’s attention; it seemed to me that if I pretended to love, it was only for the self-serving purpose of getting that Being’s attention.  Yet shortly before I turned 15, I began to secretly cry out, “God, if You are there—please show me.” (‘Testimony of A Former Atheist, A.S.A. Jones’)



Wednesday, May 8, 2013

Evolution and the Church: A Dysfunctional Marriage




Although none of its followers would call it a religion, evolution has become the religion of the university. Instead, they call it science, even though none of it can be verified in the laboratory. However, even a growing number of atheists are challenging this theory. The late theoretical physicist, Fred Hoyle, dismissed this theory:

  • Darwinian theory is wrong because random variations tend to worsen performance as indeed common sense suggests. (CRJ, Vol. 36, #02, 47)
  • Biomaterials [the materials of the cell] with their amazing measure of order must be the outcome of intelligent design.
Even Lynn Margulis, the late biologist and wife of the famous atheist Carl Sagan, finally rejected this theory:

  • Neo-Darwinists say that new species emerge when mutations occur and modify an organism. I was taught over and over again that the accumulation of random mutations led to evolutionary change – led to new species. I believed it until I looked for evidence. (44)
Other atheists, Jerry Fodor and Massimo Piattelli-Palmarini confessed that:

  • There is something wrong – quite possibly fatally wrong – with the theory of evolution.
  • We have been told by more than one of our colleagues that, even if Darwin was substantially wrong to claim that natural selection is the mechanism of evolution, nonetheless we shouldn’t say so. Not, anyhow, in public. To do that is, however inadvertently, to align oneself with the Forces of Darkness, whose goal is to bring science into disrepute. (44)
Nevertheless, the power and prestige of the university has been able to push evolution into the church. Evolutionists are just as evangelistic about their faith as we are and they have even enlisted Christians to do their bidding, and they have been quite successful at this.

Ordinarily, what people believe about biological change does not have a direct impact upon faith and the Bible. However, when Christians adopt Darwin, the consequences are disastrous to the faith. Here are some examples:

Christian evolutionists (CEs) unbiblically elevate evolution to the level of Scripture. Instead of Scripture critiquing all other truth claims evolution now stands in judgment over Scripture. Paul claimed that we have to bring all thoughts and worldviews into conformity to the Gospel (2 Cor. 10:4-5). In reverse to this teaching, Christian evolutionists tend to bring biblical thinking into conformity evolution.

Jesus had warned against serving two masters (Mat. 6:23-24), arguing that one would eventually take the place of the other. In all of my conversations with Christian evolutionists, it has been apparent that it was the Bible that got replaced. It was always coerced to conform to Darwin and not the other way around. Consequently, when “science” is allowed to trump Scripture, there is no end to the compromises that Scripture is forced to make.

Evolution introduces a competing and entirely alien worldview. The message of Genesis, and the rest of the Scriptures, is that God had made everything “very good”(Gen. 1:31) and we screwed it all up, requiring a future Savior (Gen. 3:15) to bring about a “restoration” (Acts 3:21).

According to evolution, life was always a dog-eat-dog, survival-of-the-fittest struggle from the beginning. Amazingly, cunning and death were God’s glorious tools. Consequently, Adam and Eve screwed-up nothing, and sin and death had their origins from the inception of life, in contrast with Genesis 3.

As a result of this unholy marriage between the Scriptures and evolution, Jesus, the “second Adam,” has to be re-evaluated. He is no longer the Savior from the effects of the Fall – sin and death, the work of Adam – but the Savior from God’s own “glorious” but bloody evolutionary plan.

There can be no “restoration,” because a restoration would be a restoration to our dog-eat-dog beginnings – not a very pleasant prospect.

The CE claim that the Bible is about the spiritual world, while evolution is about the physical. Therefore, there cannot be any contradiction between Darwin and the Bible, since the Bible is just concerned about the spiritual and Darwin about the physical – two entirely distinct realities! CEs make this insupportable distinction in order to defend themselves against any verse that might contradict Darwinism. Where there is an apparent contradiction, like the biblical assertion that animals had originally been herbivores, the CE claims that this teaching is a spiritual one, not one about the physical creation of the animal world. How convenient, but how inaccurate!

This alien worldview also undermines morality in many ways. If the “survival-of-the-fittest” is God’s glorious plan to bring us onto the scene, then we should regard this God-given methodology as normative – a model for our guidance. Consequently, who can blame Cain for killing the naïve and less well-adapted Abel! Besides, if there is no absolute distinction between us and the beasts, then there can be no absolute distinction between the way we treat man and beast.

Evolution disparages the Biblical accounts. In order to make room for Darwin, Scripture – at least the first several chapters of Genesis – has to be relegated to non-historical allegory. For instance, Genesis 1:30 states that God gave the birds and beasts green herbs to eat. However, this contradicts evolution’s insistence regarding the bloody struggle of the survival-of-the-fittest. Therefore, the CE dogmatically asserts that the Bible “isn’t a science or history text,” but a theology text - the way to find salvation.

In this manner, evolution illegitimately separates theology from its necessary historical foundations. However, we cannot separate the theology of the cross from the history of the cross. To remove the historical fact that Christ died on the cross is to deny the Gospel – that Jesus died for our sins. No history, no theology!

We also find this inseparable relationship between history and theology in Genesis. Peter reasons that God means business about a future judgment. He cites His past (historical) judgments as evidence – the flood and Sodom (2 Peter 2:4-9). However, if these accounts were merely parabolic or allegorical, then we’d have no reason to believe that the future judgment is any more than an allegory. Clearly, this was not Peter’s intention.

Closer to home, Jesus bases His teachings on marriage on the historical events of Genesis 1 and 2:

·        "Haven't you read," he [Jesus] replied, "that at the beginning the Creator 'made them male and female' [Genesis 1:26-27] and said, 'For this reason a man will leave his father and mother and be united to his wife, and the two will become one flesh' [Gen. 2:24]? So they are no longer two, but one. Therefore what God has [historically] joined together, let man not separate." (Matthew 19:4-6)

If God hadn’t actually created them and historically joined the two together, Jesus’ argument against divorce would be insupportable. (If God hadn’t historically joined them together, then there is no need to keep them together!) Therefore, if Genesis isn’t history, then Jesus was mistaken.

Many CEs deny that Adam and Eve were historical people. However, if we deny their historicity, then we have to deny everything that the New Testament says about them. However, Paul clearly affirmed the historicity of the Genesis 3 account:

·        Therefore, just as sin entered the world through one man, and death through sin, and in this way death came to all men, because all sinned—(Romans 5:12)

Without any doubt, Paul made an historical claim and based a lot of other theology on the historical Adam (1 Tim. 2:14-16; 1 Cor. 15:21-22, 45).

The many genealogies also assert that Adam was an historical person. Besides, if Adam isn’t historical, then Cain and Abel aren’t historical, and Abraham and David aren’t historical – all the way up to Jesus. Consequently, if Adam wasn’t historical, the genealogies would lead us to believe that all of his so-named descendents are likewise unhistorical. Therefore, to compromise the first chapters of the Bible is to compromise everything else.

The CE worldview kills apologetics – the defense of the faith. Proofs build upon what is clear and generally accepted in order to prove what has been unclear and disputed. This also pertains to apologetics – theistic proofs and proofs that the Bible is actually God’s Word. Consequently, we start with what we can see and touch – the physical world (evidences of miracles, fulfilled prophecy, extra-Biblical testimony…) – and apply these areas of agreement to areas of disagreement. Jesus performed miracles and fulfilled prophecies to provide a foundation for our faith. However, the CE claims that the Bible is both mistaken and unconcerned about events in the physical world. This undercuts the possibility of any comprehensive proof.

The CE also disparages ID as science and proof. This too goes against the testimony of Scripture that we are “without excuse” (Romans 1:18-20) when we deny the physical evidence for the existence of God, because God has given us this evidence. Consequently, the CE worldview has limited the Christian faith to only subjective/personal appeals – “taste and see that the Lord is good” (Psalm 34:8)

When I challenge CEs about their inconsistencies, they will tell me that we have to be humble about our interpretation of the Bible. If only they were equally humble about their belief in Darwin!