WND: The Scourge of Darwinian Philosophy

Buffoon Award

Your weekend wouldn’t be complete without something from the website of WorldNetDaily (WND) — described in the Cast of Characters section of our Intro page. It’s in their honor that our jolly buffoon logo is displayed above this post.

WND’s headline is Foundation of Christianity is at stake. We would ordinarily avoid such an article, because theology is not one of our strongest subjects, but we do know wackiness when we see it. WND’s author is Jim Fletcher, and above the headline we’re told that this is a WND exclusive.

The article is Fletcher’s review of The Battle for the Beginning (Amazon listing), by John MacArthur. Here are some excerpts, with bold font added by us:

John MacArthur, one of the most trustworthy Bible teachers in America today – and one of the few highly visible leaders that still has a backbone – has long recognized the importance of the early chapters of Genesis to Christian formation and thought.

Lordy, lordy. Another Genesis fanatic. The review continues:

In short, he understands that without a proper understanding of our origins, we cannot fully understand the gospel. That Darwinian philosophy has been a scourge in society is obvious.

A scourge! Not since Attila the Hun has anyone been labeled a scourge. We searched this humble blog and found that word only three times — once here, in a humorous reference to our work on “a miracle cure to help ladies who are suffering from the age-old but rarely-mentioned scourge which has brought misery to uncounted millions — Back Of The Hand Odor (BOTHO).” We also used it here, again humorously, referring to the scourge of VD — our abbreviation for “viewpoint discrimination” — which is what the Discoveriods call it when a sane person rejects creationism. The only other time the word appears here was in this post, and that was in a direct quote from Harun Yahya when he was discussing war, exploitation, etc., and it was his conclusion that “these scourges were organized by freemasonry, and that the religion of freemasonry is Darwinism.”

So now we have a fourth use of the word scourge — and this time it’s deployed in the same way that Harun Yahya used it. Okay, let’s continue with the WND review of MacArthur’s book:

“Many in the church are too intimidated or too embarrassed to affirm the literal truth of the biblical account of creation,” MacArthur writes.

Or maybe, unlike MacArthur and his fans at WND, they’re familiar with St. Augustine on Creationism. Then the reviewer chimes in with his own valuable experience:

For example, when I was editor for Master Books, I heard from hundreds of students who said something along the lines of, “If I can’t trust that Genesis is real history, how do I know Jesus was a real person?”

Aaaargh!! If the Iliad is fiction, how do we know Alexander the Great was a real person? But MacArthur is a creationist, and he doesn’t think the way so many Christian denominations do — see the National Center for Science Education’s list of Statements from Religious Organizations supporting evolution. Observe his reasoning:

“If Adam was not the literal ancestor of the entire human race, then the Bible’s explanation of how sin entered the world makes no sense,” MacArthur illustrates. “Moreover, if we didn’t fall in Adam, we cannot be redeemed in Christ, because Christ’s position as the Head of the redeemed race exactly parallels Adam’s position as the head of the fallen race [scripture reference].”

That sounds like it could have been written by Ken Ham. Let’s read on:

The key here is that MacArthur notes (as do creationist experts like Ken Ham) that one either looks to Scripture first in order to understand our world, or one looks at man’s theories and then goes to Scripture. It is a key, profound difference.

Yes, MacArthur thinks just like ol’ Hambo thinks. How wonderful for both of them. The WND review continues:

Another outstanding feature of “The Battle for the Beginning” is that MacArthur rightly addresses the philosophical underpinnings of Darwinian thought. He points out that Charles Darwin himself was heavily influenced by British attorney (and amateur geologist) Charles Lyell, who had developed a clever attack on Scripture under the guise of “uniformitarianism” (get the book!). This insight alone is quite helpful in gleaning understanding about why evolution ascended in the public’s consciousness.

Wow — MacArthur has figured out that the theory of evolution is consistent with the science of geology. Well of course it is — all branches of science are mutually consistent, because they’re all working with the same reality. But to MacArthur, that’s evidence of how wrong they all are. Here’s more:

Finally, MacArthur points us to the ultimate source, the Creator Himself, and to His Holy Word: “In every New Testament reference to Genesis, the events recorded by Moses are treated as historical events.”

Okay. Here’s one last excerpt:

Thus, we must come to terms with the fact that attempts to reconcile modern scientific thought with Scripture is fatally flawed: “If the biblical creation account is in any degree unreliable, the rest of Scripture stands on a shaky foundation.”

So there you are. Genesis is good. Science is bad. That’s the deal. Now you know why Darwinian philosophy has been a scourge to society.

Copyright © 2013. The Sensuous Curmudgeon. All rights reserved.

add to del.icio.usAdd to Blinkslistadd to furlDigg itadd to ma.gnoliaStumble It!add to simpyseed the vineTailRankpost to facebook

. AddThis Social Bookmark Button . Permalink for this article

17 responses to “WND: The Scourge of Darwinian Philosophy

  1. Jim Fletcher of WND writes, “The key here is that MacArthur notes (as do creationist experts like Ken Ham) that one either looks to Scripture first in order to understand our world, or one looks at man’s theories and then goes to Scripture.”

    Wouldn’t the reasonable approach be to look to the world first to understand the world? There are many religions within the human culture, each with its own explanation of origins, but only one world. For true understanding, go directly to the source.

    I was also going to comment on “(as do creationist experts like Ken Ham)”, but I must pass. It leaves me speechless.

  2. anevilmeme

    Partial credit for realizing your theology is in trouble, alas that pesky empirical evidence.

  3. retiredsciguy asks: “Wouldn’t the reasonable approach be to look to the world first to understand the world?”

    No, you fool! You must not be concerned with things of this world. For that is surly surely the path that will lead you to the Lake of Fire!

  4. “Thus, we must come to terms with the fact that attempts to reconcile modern scientific thought with Scripture is fatally flawed: “If the biblical creation account is in any degree unreliable, the rest of Scripture stands on a shaky foundation.”

    The major branches of Christianity have come to terms with this, and in order to preserve their religions, no longer insist on a literal interpretation of Genesis.

  5. Curmy warns, “For that is surly the path that will lead you to the Lake of Fire!”

    Hey — ultimate hot tub! Besides, I’ll be in good company. It’ll be nice to finally meet you, Curmy, after all these years of reading your blog.

  6. Charles Deetz ;)

    I know this happens all the time but here I am calling it out: ‘The Bible must be literally right, otherwise my faith is bad, therefor proven that evolution is wrong. Checkmate in my mind.’

  7. Doctor Stochastic

    I wonder if the Shepherd of Hermes weeps upon reading this.

  8. Doctor Stochastic, that’s Shepherd of Hermas, and it’s definitely one of your more obscure comments.

  9. Doctor Stochastic

    The Good Shepherd playing his Pan Pipes….

    I though a reference to the Gospel of Peter would be too obvious.

  10. I’ve heard of surly curmudgeons, but never surly paths. Surely you meant “surely”. (Just noticed the typo now.) I know — don’t call you “Shirley.”

    (For the record, “Shepherd of Hermas” is way too obscure and esoteric for my comprehension. Just wondering — did anyone else besides our Curmudgeon understand the reference?)

  11. Wouldn’t the reasonable approach be to look to the world first to understand the world?

    In the case of heliocentrism, almost everybody agrees that modern science determines what one believes, even if this requires a novel interpretation of the Bible.

    But even higher priority is given to exceptionally yucky things, such as descent from monkeys. Denial of this is more determinative as to what the Bible says. (In this case the fact that the Bible doesn’t appear to say anything about evolution or fixity of species is overruled by the need to reject it, and justifies considerable eisegesis.)

  12. retiredsciguy says:

    Surely you meant “surely”.

    Indubitably.

  13. Hey, if it hadn’t been for God, we wouldn’t be in this mess. He is the one who created a flawed Adam, he is the one who threatened to kill Adam if he ate the fruit and instead condemned all of humanity forever and ever instead. Thanks to WND for pointing this out. (WND, the WMD for Religion!)

  14. stephenpruis: “He is the one who created a flawed Adam…”

    Yeah! You’d think that with all the practice He got creating ALL the other living things first, He would have had it down pat by the sixth day. Sheesh!

  15. I got the Shepherd of Hermas reference. I’ve read the whole thing once, and that was not easy.

  16. If you put some of the quotes in boldface, this should have been in red, 50 point type:

    “Finally, MacArthur points us to the ultimate source, the Creator Himself, and to His Holy Word: “In every New Testament reference to Genesis, the events recorded by Moses are treated as historical events.”

    The Bible is true because the Bible says it is true. Really great logic there.

  17. Doctor Stochastic

    All religious books are self-authenticating. Sort of like FBI badges.