Knowing Christ through creation evangelism; also: The Link between Atheism and Communism

CMI ^ | September 5, 2009

[GodGunsGuts]

Daniel H from northern England wrote CMI-UK a really encouraging, spontaneous letter, a testimony that we think will also encourage many readers.

To: All my fellow brothers and sisters in Christ Jesus. …

I would like to thank the team at Creation Ministries International (CMI) for their resources, time, love, dedication and zeal for our God and Saviour, Jesus Christ; the Almighty Father and the Holy Spirit, who empowers the church to give glory to the Son and live holy lives and become more fruitful in our walk in the LORD, Amen.

Formerly, I was an unbeliever who mocked the Christian faith during my schooling years...

[GodGunsGuts]

I never tire of hearing testimonies like this one. It’s like hearing that little bell in “It’s a Wonderful Life.” To think, this young man was once lost, but now he sees...and in the UK no less! Preach it brother!!!

All the best—GGG

[OldSpice]

Ayn Rand was a Communist. /sarc.

[GodGunsGuts]

LOL...notice they didn’t say that there is not a connection between atheism and objectivism. Here’s a little something from NRO for your reading pleasure. All the best—GGG

Big Sister Is Watching You

http://www.nationalreview.com/flashback/flashback200501050715.asp

[freedumb2003]

So many fallacies, so little time...

[TenthAmendmentChampion]

Ken Ham believes and preaches that teaching evolution in school is the surest way to make atheists out of children for life. He uses the illustration of Vegemite with Americans... they can’t stand the taste, while Australians love it. But Aussies don’t like pickles. The reason? Parents give their children little tiny bites of the food they themselves eat. Bit by bit, the children are accustomed to the taste and learn to love it.

[presently no screen name]

The damage done by compromise....

Mark for later reading.

[Caesar Soze]

Parents give their children little tiny bites of the food they themselves eat. Bit by bit, the children are accustomed to the taste and learn to love it.

I guess that explains my deep and abiding love for beer.

[Matchett-PI]

Creating Controversy
September 1, 2009
Ever a thorny issue, the teaching of evolutionary biology at a small Christian university in California has sparked debate on the campus and ...” [snip]
http://www.insidehighered.com/news/2009/09/01/evolution

One interesting comment:

This is not a small controversy—
Posted by Theistic Evolutionist on September 1, 2009 at 12:15pm EDT

This controversy is very important, for two reasons.
One: The Seventh-Day Adventists run a chain of hospitals nationwide. These hospitals are staffed with Adventist-trained doctors, nurses, technicians, and other medical personnel. These hospitals often provide the only medical care available in rural areas. Their doctors also practice in the surrounding community. If all these persons reject evolutionary biology, what effect might that have on the quality of their medical care? Is it possible to practice modern medicine while rejecting evolutionary biology? I really don’t see how.

Two: It is perfectly possible to be a Christian while accepting the theory of evolution as the best scientific account of the origin of life on earth and its subsequent development into complex life forms, including Homo sapiens sapiens. In fact, the majority of Christians worldwide see no incompatibiility between religion and science with respect to evolutionary biology. This is not a new thing. St. Augustine argued for a form of evolutionary theory more than 1500 years ago. So this is not a dispute between religion and secularism.

It is a dispute between one form of Christianity — a particular, modern form that is no more than 150 years old — and everyone else, including almost all other Christians and almost all other non-Christian religious faiths.

[raygunfan]

keep up the good fight against the purposeful ignorance of evolutionism....

[FreedomProtector]

thanks for posting.

[Matchett-PI]

“keep up the good fight against the purposeful ignorance of evolutionism.” ~ raygunfan

Will do. :)

“But creation always requires time. Perfection does not simply fall out of us fully formed. To say that creation as such has a purpose is effectively to believe in evolution — again, for the hundredth time, not the watered-down evolutionism of scientistic natural selection, but in the literal meaning of the word.”

Excerpted from:

Monday, August 31, 2009
Darwin’s Death Panels and the Spirit of ‘76
http://onecosmos.blogspot.com/2009/08/darwins-death-panels-and-spirit-of-76.html?showComment=1251745321524

bttt

[whattajoke]

Ken Ham believes and preaches that teaching evolution in school is the surest way to make atheists out of children for life.

I believe Ken Ham is wrong. So what?

[Ethan Clive Osgoode]

"No evidence was ever presented to support “evolution” and the lessons were quite akin to a history lesson, whereby the teacher presented a narrative of what happened and we were to repeat these ideas in our exams that determined how well we did in our academic careers.

Darwin Medalist Ernst Mayr writes of the importance of narratives in evolution "science": The Philosophical Foundations of Darwinism. And here is an example of one massive narrative, the kind the author speaks of... The Story of Human Evolution.

[stephenjohnbanker]

“LOL...notice they didn’t say that there is not a connection between atheism and objectivism.”

My brother was first, an objectivist, then an atheist.

[Alamo-Girl]

Thanks for the ping!

[tpanther]

I believe Ken Ham is wrong. So what?

So you have a screen name that describes you perfectly, that's what.

[GodGunsGuts]

Wasn't it Mayr who acknowledged that Darwin's Origin fo Species was nothing more than a "long argument" for evolution???

[goodusername]

“Wasn’t it Mayr who acknowledged that Darwin’s Origin fo Species was nothing more than a “long argument” for evolution???”

—Actually, that was Darwin, in the beginning of the last chapter of Origin, that said the book was “one long argument” (I don’t know what “nothing more” is supposed to mean). Because the book covered so much ground from so many different fields (embryology, paleontology, taxonomy, biogeography, etc) Darwin didn’t want readers to lose sight of the fact that he was pulling together all the myriad facts and data from all these disparate fields under a single explanation (the theory of descent with modification through natural selection) - which was the point of the book.

That was basically the point of Dobzhansky‘s quote as well: “Nothing in biology makes sense except in light of evolution” - without evolution all the data from the disparate fields becomes “nothing more” than a bunch of interesting but unrelated facts. All the data from embryology, paleontology, taxonomy, etc showing similar patterns would become one giant colossal coincidence.

This was a “coincidence” that long perplexed creationist scientists: “the phenomena of animal life correspond to one another, whether we compare their rank as determined by structural complication with the phases of their growth, or with their succession in past geological ages; whether we compare this succession with their embryonic growth, or all these different relations with each other and with the geographical distribution of animals upon earth. The same series everywhere!’ (Agassiz, 1851 – he’s referring to, in order: taxonomy or comparative anatomy, paleontology, embryology, and biogeography).

[ElectricStrawberry]

Atheists are not communists.
Atheists are not Nazis.
Atheists are not Hitler.
Atheists are not Stalin.
Atheists are not Lenin.
Atheists are not Mao.
Atheists are not Pol Pot.
Atheists are not Castro.
Atheists are not Che Guevera.
Atheists are not Charles Manson.
Atheists are not Ted Bundy.

Got any more?