A very interesting video, from one of the top chemists out there.
I found the video thanks to the most famous post on Uncommon Descent, A world-famous chemist tells the truth: there’s no scientist alive today who understands macroevolution.
Why should we believe macroevolution, if nobody understands it?
Now that Professor Tour has informed the world that even Nobel Prize-winning scientists privately admit that they don’t understand macroevolution, a layperson is surely entitled to ask: “Well, if even they don’t understand it, then why should we believe it? How can we possibly be obliged to believe in a theory which nobody understands?”
That’s a good question. And it’s no use for Darwinists to trot out the standard “party line” that “even if we don’t yet understand how it happened, we still have enough evidence to infer that it happened.” At the very most, all that the current scientific evidence could establish is the common descent of living organisms. But that’s not macroevolution. Macroevolution requires more than a common ancestry for living organisms: it requires a natural mechanism which can generate the diversity of life-forms we see on Earth today from a common stock, without the need for any direction by an Intelligent Agent. But the mechanism is precisely what we don’t have evidence for. So the question remains: why should we believe in macroevolution?
Well, it’s mainly for cultural and power-political reasons. The end of macroevolution means the return of the Creator, even for highly educated white Europeans, and We Can’t Have That. It puts final authority out of the hands of powerful and wealthy men (and their intellectual flunkies) and into the hands of a deity that stands above creation, that can’t be bought or sold, that sees and judges.
Now, merely declaring that there is a Creator, that Intelligent Design is true, hardly means that Christianity is therefore proven. Any number of Muslims and Hindus and Pagans and even a majority of Taoists and Confucians will agree with you, to a greater or lesser extent.
But it does destroy atheism.
“The Will of Man”, “The Needs of the State”, “The Demands of the Collective”… all that ceases to have final authority. The amount of power and prestige that The Right Sort will lose is unimaginable.
And it’s going to happen: the rise of the Wrong Sort of Questions, the Fall of the Gatekeepers, the coming Great Default of our only true Lord and Saviour, the State… all point to the same destination.
Even the pointed refusal of secular cultures to bear children, and their eagerness to destroy all their accumulated wealth in an ocean of debt, a hatred of savings (negative interest rates, anyone?), and their love of Keynesian delusions (“stones into bread”) have the same message: the religious shall, indeed, inherit the Earth.
Now, all this is somewhat beside the point for Christians: after all, Augustine was an Young Earth Creationist, as was Paul, and Jesus, and Moses, and Abraham.
But not Reformed Pastors!
This leads me to a conclusion. Young men in seminary accept the framework hypothesis, but not because they intend to put their careers on the line by preaching it. They adopt it in their youth so that they do not have to think about the inescapable conflict between the sequence of days in Genesis 1 and the Big Bang cosmology, historical geology, paleontology, and the doctrine of evolution. They accept it for psychological reasons, and they do not pursue the matter in public. They believe that it gets them off the hook. They need not attempt to reconcile the irreconcilable. The opening words of Kline’s 1996 essay delivers them from internal conflict.
To rebut the literalist interpretation of the Genesis creation week propounded by the young-earth theorists is a central concern of this article. At the same time, the exegetical evidence adduced also refutes the harmonistic day-age view. The conclusion is that as far as the time frame is concerned, with respect to both the duration and sequence of events, the scientist is left free of biblical constraints in hypothesizing about cosmic origins.
He refused to answer Young. He pretended that there had never been such a detailed critique of his position. In academic circles, this strategy rarely works. A man who attempts it will be the subject of a career of snickering colleagues and chortling graduate students. But academic standards are lower in American Protestant evangelical circles. A man can get away with this sort of thing.
Kline did this more than once. In 1978, he persuaded the editor of the Westminster Theological Journal to let him publish a highly negative review of Greg Bahnsen’s Theonomy in Christian Ethics (1977). That book was an extension of Bahnsen’s Westminster Theological Seminary Th.M. thesis (1973). Kline’s review is here. Bahnsen was not allowed to reply in the WTJ. I let him respond in the journal I edited. His response is a classic. It simply destroys Kline’s review. Rarely will you read anything so devastating. You can read it here.
Kline never responded.
The enemy wins not because they are so strong (or smart…. or even that much attached to reality…), but because Christian leaders far prefer the praise of influential men in the here and now, than the praise of God before the judgement throne.
Said Christians leaders will indeed get their reward in the here and now… and in the hereafter, too!
As opposed to belly-crawling Man-fearers, God-fearers know that Jesus Christ will be victorious in time and on earth, as well as in the hereafter. Sure, it takes time for the enemies’ incompetence and self-destructive foolishness to work itself out, but its failure is certain. But no need to wait for the inevitable to kick in, when we are commanded to redeem the time, and put our backs into the work of expanding the Kingdom of Christ.
The enemy is going down! We should be standing up right now: first in the small scale, in our lives and our families and our churches, and then in our workplaces and our towns and our states.
“Politics last!” The formal reformation of our political systems happens only after we have prepared and tested and tried for high office. Not before.
Moses had to wait for high office.
Joseph had to wait for high office.
David had to wait for high office.
(Ten generations, actually, thanks to the bastardy in his line…)
Jesus Himself had to wait (…and suffer immensely…) for high office,
to sit as King of Heaven and Earth,
at the right hand of God the Father.
If we actually plan to win, we must pray and work, and prepare, and plan, and wait.
When the Glorious Liberal Statist Empire lies in ruins, people will want answers. We must be ready with those answers, as Christ had written down in both testaments.
To the Law and the Testimony!