Falling Stars, Damnable Heresy, and the Spirit of Evolution

“Who is a liar but he that denieth that Jesus is the Christ? He is antichrist, that denieth the Father and the Son” (1 John 2:22).

“And the fifth angel sounded the trumpet, and I saw a star fall from heaven upon the earth, and there was given to him the key of the bottomless pit." (Rev. 9:1)

In his Concise Commentary Matthew Henry identifies falling stars as tepid, indecisive, weak or apostate clergy who,

"Having ceased to be a minister of Christ, he who is represented by this star becomes the minister of the devil; and lets loose the powers of hell against the churches of Christ."

John identifies antichrists, in this case clergy who serve the devil rather than Christ, sequentially. First, like Bultmann, Teilhard de Chardin, Robert Funk, Paul Tillich, and John Shelby Spong, they specifically deny the living, personal Holy Trinity in favor of Gnostic pagan, immanent or Eastern pantheist conceptions. Though God the Father Almighty in three Persons upholds the souls of men and maintains life and creation, His substance is not within nature (space-time dimension) as pantheism maintains, but outside of it. Sinful men live within nature and are burdened by time and mortality; God is not.

Second, the specific denial of the Father logically negates Jesus the Christ, the Word who was in the beginning (John 1), was with God, and is God from the creation of all things (1 John 1). In a pre-incarnate theophany, Jesus is the Angel who spoke “mouth to mouth” to Moses (Num. 12:6-9; John 9:20) and at sundry times and in many ways “spoke in times past to the fathers by the prophets, last of all…” (Hebrews 1:1) Jesus the Christ is the incarnate Son of God who is the life and light of men, who by His shed blood on the Cross died for the remission of all sins and bestowed the privilege of adoption on all who put their faith in Him.

Therefore, to deny the Holy Father is to logically deny the deity of Jesus Christ, the incarnate Son of God, hence,

“…every spirit that confesseth not that Jesus Christ is come in the flesh is not of God: and this is that spirit of antichrist . . . and even now already is it in the world” (1 John 4:3).

According to Peter (2 Peter 2:1), falling stars will work among the faithful, teaching damnable heresies that deny the Lord, cause the fall of men into unbelief, and bring destruction upon themselves:

“The natural parents of modern unbelief turn out to have been the guardians of belief.” Many thinking people came at last “to realize that it was religion, not science or social change that gave birth to unbelief. Having made God more and more like man---intellectually, morally, emotionally---the shapers of religion made it feasible to abandon God, to believe simply in man.” (James Turner of the University of Michigan in “American Babylon,” Richard John Neuhaus, p. 95)

Almost thirty years ago, two well-respected social science scholars, William Sims Bainbridge and Rodney Stark found themselves alarmed by what they saw as a rising tide of irrationalism, superstition and occultism---channeling cults, spirit familiars, necromancers, Wiccans, Satanists, Luciferians, goddess worshippers, 'gay' shamans, Hermetic magicians and other occult madness at every level of society, particularly within the most influential--- Hollywood, academia and the highest corridors of political power.

Like many scientists, they were equally concerned by Christian opposition to naturalistic evolution. As is common in the science community, they assumed the cause of these social pathologies was somehow due to fundamentalism, their term for authentic Christian theism as opposed to liberalized Christianity. Yet to their credit, the research they undertook to discover the cause was conducted both scientifically and with great integrity. What they found was so startling it caused them to re-evaluate their attitude toward authentic Christian theism. Their findings led them to say:

"It would be a mistake to conclude that fundamentalists oppose all science (when in reality they but oppose) a single theory (that) directly contradicts the bible. But it would be an equally great mistake to conclude that religious liberals and the irreligious possess superior minds of great rationality, to see them as modern personalities who have no need of the supernatural or any propensity to believe unscientific superstitions. On the contrary...they are much more likely to accept the new superstitions. It is the fundamentalists who appear most virtuous according to scientific standards when we examine the cults and pseudo-sciences proliferating in our society today." ("Superstitions, Old and New," The Skeptical Inquirer, Vol. IV, No. 4; summer, 1980)

In more detail they observed that authentic ‘born again’ Christians are far less likely to accept cults and pseudoscientific beliefs while the irreligious and liberalized Christians (i.e., progressive Catholics, Protestant emergent, NAR, word faith, prosperity gospel) are open to unscientific notions. In fact, these two groups are most disposed toward occultism.

As Bainbridge and Stark admitted, evolution directly contradicts the Bible, beginning with the Genesis account of creation ex nihilo. This means that evolution is the antithesis of the Genesis account. For this reason, discerning Christians refuse to submit to the evolutionary thinking that has swept Western and American society. Nor do they accept the evolutionary theism brought into the whole body of the Church by weak, tepid, indecisive, or apostate clergy.

Over eighty years ago, Rev. C. Leopold Clarke wrote that priests who embrace evolution (evolutionary theists) are apostates from the ‘Truth as it is in Jesus.’ (1 John2:2) Rev. Clarke, a lecturer at a London Bible college, discerned that evolution is the antithesis to the Revelation of God in the Deity of Jesus Christ, thus it is the greatest and most active agent of moral and spiritual disintegration:

“It is a battering-ram of unbelief---a sapping and mining operation that intends to blow Religion sky-high. The one thing which the human mind demands in its conception of God, is that, being Almighty, He works sovereignly and miraculously---and this is the thing with which Evolution dispenses….Already a tremendous effect, on a wide scale has been produced by the impact of this teaching---an effect which can only be likened to the…collapse of foundations…” (Evolution and the Break-Up of Christendom, Philip Bell, creation.com, Nov. 27, 2012)

The faith of the Christian Church and of the average Christian has had, and still has, its foundation as much in the literal and historic meaning of Genesis, the book of beginnings revealed ‘mouth to mouth’ by the Angel to Moses, as in that of the person and deity of Jesus Christ. But how horrible a travesty of the sacred office of the Christian Ministry to see church leaders more eager to be abreast of the times, than earnestly contending for the Faith once delivered unto the saints (Jude 1:3). It is high time, said Rev. Clarke, that the Church,

“…. separated herself from the humiliating entanglement attending her desire to be thought up to date…What, after all, have custodians of Divine Revelation to do making terms with speculative Biology, which has….no message of comfort or help to the soul?” (ibid)

The primary tactic employed by priests eager to accommodate themselves and the Church to modern science and evolutionary thinking is predictable. It is the argument that evolution is entirely compatible with the Bible when we see Genesis, especially the first three chapters, in a non-literal, non-historical context. This is the argument embraced and advanced by mega-church pastor Timothy J. Keller.

With a position paper Keller published with the theistic evolutionary organization Bio Logos he joined the ranks of falling stars (Catholic and Protestant priests) stretching back to the Renaissance. Their slippery-slide into apostasy began when they gave into the temptation to embrace a non-literal, non-historical view of Genesis. (A response to Timothy Keller’s ‘Creation, Evolution and Christian Laypeople,” Lita Cosner, Sept. 9, 2010, creation.com)

This is not a heresy unique to modern times. The early Church Fathers dealt with this damnable heresy as well, counting it among the heretical tendencies of the Origenists. Fourth-century Fathers such as John Chrysostom, Basil the Great and Ephraim the Syrian, all of whom wrote commentaries on Genesis, specifically warned against treating Genesis as an unhistorical myth or allegory. John Chrysostom strongly warned against paying heed to these heretics,

“…let us stop up our hearing against them, and let us believe the Divine Scripture, and following what is written in it, let us strive to preserve in our souls sound dogmas.” (Genesis, Creation, and Early Man, Fr. Seraphim Rose, p. 31)

As St. Cyril of Alexandria wrote, higher theological, spiritual meaning is founded upon humble, simple faith in the literal and historic meaning of Genesis and one cannot apprehend rightly the Scriptures without believing in the historical reality of the events and people they describe. (ibid, Seraphim Rose, p. 40)

In the integral worldview teachings of the Fathers, neither the literal nor historical meaning of the Revelations of the pre-incarnate Jesus, the Angel who spoke to Moses, can be regarded as expendable. There are at least four critically important reasons why. First, to reduce the Revelation of God to allegory and myth is to contradict and usurp the authority of God, ultimately deny the deity of Jesus Christ; twist, distort, add to and subtract from the entire Bible and finally, to imperil the salvation of believers.

Scenarios commonly proposed by modern Origenists posit a cleverly disguised pantheist/immanent nature deity subject to the space-time dimension and forces of evolution. But as noted previously, it is sinful man who carries the burden of time, not God. This is a crucial point, for when evolutionary theists add millions and billions of zeros (time) to God they have transferred their own limitations onto Him. They have ‘limited’ God and made Him over in their own image. This is not only idolatrous but satanic.

Additionally, evolution inverts creation. In place of God’s good creation from which men fell there is an evolutionary escalator starting at the bottom with matter, then progressing upward toward life, then up and through the life and death of millions of evolved creatures that preceded humans by millions of years until at long last an apish humanoid emerges into which a deity that is always in a state of becoming (evolving) places a soul.

Evolution amputates the entire historical precedent from the Gospel and makes Jesus Christ unnecessary as the atheist Frank Zindler enthusiastically points out:

“The most devastating thing that biology did to Christianity was the discovery of biological evolution. Now that we know that Adam and Eve never were real people the central myth of Christianity is destroyed. If there never was an Adam and Eve, there never was an original sin. If there never was an original sin there is no need of salvation. If there is no need of salvation there is no need of a saviour. And I submit that puts Jesus…into the ranks of the unemployed. I think evolution absolutely is the death knell of Christianity.” (“Atheism vs. Christianity,” 1996, Lita Cosner, creation.com, June 13, 2013)

None of this was lost on Darwin’s bulldog, Thomas Henry Huxley (1825-1985). Huxley was thoroughly familiar with the Bible, thus he understood that if Genesis is not the authoritative Word of God, is not historical and literal despite its’ symbolic and poetic elements, then the entirety of Scripture becomes a collection of fairytales resulting in tragic downward spiraling consequences as the Catholic Kolbe Center for the Study of Creation makes clear in part:

“By denying the historical truth of the first chapters of Genesis, theistic evolutionism has fostered a preoccupation with natural causes almost to the exclusion of supernatural ones. By denying the several supernatural creative acts of God in Genesis, and by downplaying the importance of the supernatural activity of Satan, theistic evolutionists slip into a naturalistic mentality which seeks to explain everything in terms of natural causes. Once this mentality takes hold, it is easy for men to regard the concept of spiritual warfare as a holdover from the days of primitive superstition. Diabolical activity is reduced to material or psychological causes. The devil and his demons come to be seen as irrelevant. Soon ‘hell’ joins the devil and his demons in the category of antiquated concepts. And the theistic evolutionist easily makes the fatal mistake of thinking that he has nothing more to fear from the devil and his angels. According to Fr. Gabriele Amorth, the chief exorcist of Rome, there is a tremendous increase in diabolical activity and influence in the formerly Christian world. And yet most of the bishops of Europe no longer believe in the existence of evil spirits….To the Fathers of the Church who believed in the truth of Genesis, this would be incredible. But in view of the almost universal acceptance of theistic evolution, it is hardly surprising.” (The Difference it makes: The Importance of the Traditional Doctrine of Creation, Hugh Owen, kolbecenter.org)

Huxley had ‘zero’ respect for modern Origenists and received enormous pleasure from heaping piles of hot coals and burning contempt upon them, thereby exposing their shallow-reasoning, hypocrisy, timidity, fear of non-acceptance, and unfaithfulness. With sarcasm dripping from his words he quipped,

“I am fairly at a loss to comprehend how any one, for a moment, can doubt that Christian theology must stand or fall with the historical trustworthiness of the Jewish Scriptures. The very conception of the Messiah, or Christ, is inextricably interwoven with Jewish history; the identification of Jesus of Nazareth with that Messiah rests upon the interpretation of passages of the Hebrew Scriptures which have no evidential value unless they possess the historical character assigned to them. If the covenant with Abraham was not made; if circumcision and sacrifices were not ordained by Jahveh; if the “ten words” were not written by God’s hand on the stone tables; if Abraham is more or less a mythical hero, such as Theseus; the story of the Deluge a fiction; that of the Fall a legend; and that of the creation the dream of a seer; if all these definite and detailed narratives of apparently real events have no more value as history than have the stories of the regal period of Rome—what is to be said about the Messianic doctrine, which is so much less clearly enunciated? And what about the authority of the writers of the books of the New Testament, who, on this theory, have not merely accepted flimsy fictions for solid truths, but have built the very foundations of Christian dogma upon legendary quicksands?” (Darwin’s Bulldog---Thomas Huxley, Russell Grigg, creation.com, Oct. 14, 2008)

“When Jesus spoke, as of a matter of fact, that "the Flood came and destroyed them all," did he believe that the Deluge really took place, or not? It seems to me that, as the narrative mentions Noah’s wife, and his sons’ wives, there is good scriptural warranty for the statement that the antediluvians married and were given in marriage; and I should have thought that their eating and drinking might be assumed by the firmest believer in the literal truth of the story. Moreover, I venture to ask what sort of value, as an illustration of God’s methods of dealing with sin, has an account of an event that never happened? If no Flood swept the careless people away, how is the warning of more worth than the cry of “Wolf” when there is no wolf? If Jonah’s three days’ residence in the whale is not an “admitted reality,” how could it “warrant belief” in the “coming resurrection?” … Suppose that a Conservative orator warns his hearers to beware of great political and social changes, lest they end, as in France, in the domination of a Robespierre; what becomes, not only of his argument, but of his veracity, if he, personally, does not believe that Robespierre existed and did the deeds attributed to him?” (ibid)

“If divine authority is not here claimed for the twenty-fourth verse of the second chapter of Genesis, what is the value of language? And again, I ask, if one may play fast and loose with the story of the Fall as a “type” or “allegory,” what becomes of the foundation of Pauline theology?” (ibid)

“If Adam may be held to be no more real a personage than Prometheus, and if the story of the Fall is merely an instructive “type,” comparable to the profound Promethean mythus, what value has Paul’s dialectic?” (ibid)

After much thought, C.S. Lewis concluded that evolution is the central, most radical lie at the center of a vast network of lies within which modern Westerners are entangled while Rev. Clarke identifies the central lie as the Gospel of another Spirit. The fiendish aim of this Spirit is to help men lose God, not find Him, and by contradicting the Divine Redeemer, compromising Priests are serving this Spirit and its’ diabolical purposes. To contradict the Divine Redeemer is the very essence of unfaithfulness, and that it should be done while reverence is professed,

“…. is an illustration of the intellectual and moral topsy-turvydom of Modernism…’He whom God hath sent speaketh the Words of God,’ claimed Christ of Himself (John 3:34), and no assumption of error can hold water in the face of that declaration, without blasphemy.” Evolutionary theists are serving the devil, therefore “no considerations of Christian charity, of tolerance, of policy, can exonerate Christian leaders or Churches who fail to condemn and to sever themselves from compromising, cowardly, shilly-shallying priests”---the falling stars who “challenge the Divine Authority of Jesus Christ.” (ibid)

The rebuttals, warnings and counsels of the Fathers against listening to Origenists (and their modern evolutionary counterparts) indicates that the spirit of antichrist operating through modern rationalistic criticism of the Revelation of God is not a heresy unique to our times but was inveighed against by early Church Fathers.

From the scholarly writings of the Eastern Orthodox priest, Fr. Seraphim Rose, to the incisive analysis, rebuttals and warnings of the Catholic Kolbe Center, creation.com, Creation Research Institute, Rev. Clarke, and many other stalwart defenders of the faith once delivered, all are a clear, compelling call to the whole body of the Church to hold fast to the traditional doctrine of creation as it was handed down from the Apostles, for as God spoke and Jesus is the Living Word incarnate, it is incumbent upon the faithful to submit their wills to the Divine Will and Authority of God rather than to the damnable heresy proffered by falling stars eager to embrace naturalistic science and the devil's antithesis--- evolution. But if it seem evil to you to serve the Lord,

“…you have your choice: choose this day that which pleases you, whom you would rather serve….but as for me and my house we will serve the Lord.” Joshua 24:15

Oh my, I find I left out two other great scientists from my list of greats: Francis Crick and James D. Watson, the two scientists who helped discover the structure of DNA in 1953. It goes without saying that the work of these two scientists is indispensable to the conduct of modern biology.

Of course, Charles Darwin never heard of these two guys.

Also, if I may amplify my earlier suggestion that human nature is a "given" that persists down the millennia of human history [which by the way is what Genesis alleges], not the product of evolutionary development.

Ellis Sandoz limns this issue nicely, to wit:

At the level of common sense, it is evident that human beings have experiences other than sensory perceptions, and it is equally evident that philosophers like Plato and Aristotle explored reality on the basis of experiences far removed from perception. The Socratic "Look and see if this is not the case" does not invite one to survey public opinion but asks one to descend into the psyche, that is, to search reflective consciousness [note: brains per se do not conduct such a search; only minds do]. Moreover, it is evident that the primary nonsensory modes of experience address dimensions of human existence superior in rank and worth to those sensory perception does: experiences of the good, beautiful, and just, of love, friendship, and truth, of all human virtue and vice, and of divine reality. Apperceptive experience is distinguishable from sensory perception and a philosophical science of substance from a natural science of phenomena. Experience of "things" is modeled on the subject–object dichotomy of perception in which the consciousness intends the object of cognition. But such a model or experience and knowing is ultimately insufficient to explain the operations of consciousness with respect to the nonphenomenal reality men approach in moral, aesthetic, and religious experience. Inasmuch as such nonsensory experiences are constitutive of what is distinctive about human existence itself — and of what is most precious to mankind — a purported science of man unable to take account of them is egregiously defective. — "Editor's Introduction," The Collected Works of Eric Voegelin, Vol. 12, 1990

And then there are the maunderings of my co-author, Alamo-Girl, and me in our book, Don't Let Science Get You Down, Timothy (2006):

A human being is never consulted about the terms of his coming into the world, nor of his departure from it. It is the essence of the human condition that a man is neither the origin nor the “end” — in the sense of telos, meaning a purpose, or goal — of himself. Meanwhile, in between birth and death, there is a litany of evils to which mortal human nature is subject. “The life of man is really burdened,” as [Eric] Voegelin put it, “with the well-known miseries enumerated by Hesoid. We remember his list of hunger, hard work, disease, early death, and the fear of the injustices to be suffered by the weaker man at the hands of the more powerful — not to mention the problem of Pandora.”

Notwithstanding, Voegelin continued, “as long as our existence is undeformed by phantasies, these miseries are not experienced as senseless. We understand them as the lot of man, mysterious it is true, but as the lot he has to cope with in the organization and conduct of his life, in the fight for survival, the protection of his dependents, and the resistance to injustice, and in his spiritual and intellectual response to the mystery of existence.”

Now the “lot of man” as just given is a description of the condicio humana, the human condition. It is the very basis for the idea of a common humanity, or of a brotherhood of mankind. It is [our] conjecture that it is possible for a person to take great umbrage at this condicio humana, to deplore and reject it, to see it as a grievous insult to one’s own assumed personal autonomy; and so to take flight in an alternative reality that can be structured more according to one’s own wishes, tastes, and desires. And thus, a Second Reality is born.

I allege that Darwinism is such a Second Reality, an attempt to flee the First Reality of God's making, of which man is designated part and participant.

So sue me!!!

Best wishes, R7 Rocket.

One of the legs of radical Atheism, it represent[s] a full-blown religion that parallels each and every Christian belief, though without a god at its foundation.

Indeed dear CityCenter: Atheism indeed is "a full-blown religion that parallels each and every Christian belief."

And yet, I suspect atheism does indeed have "a god at its foundation."

So guess who that might be???

At the superficial level, the "god" is the atheist himself. He feels unconstrained to be his own lawgiver at any point in time, according to his own shifting preferences. There is no solidity in the world of an atheist; and any social world composed of atheists would likewise have no solidity and, thus, no stability.

So, where did this miscreant, atheist concept of self-divinization come from?

Simply put, I imagine the atheist inspiration is simply to follow the pattern established by Satan himself.

First, there was a Fall in Heaven; and then, there was a Fall of Man. Satan personally effected the former; and then directly facilitated the latter.

It is said that Satan is the Father of Lies.

It is also said of Satan that, prior to his utterance of the eternally self-devastating words, "non serviam," he was an archangel, a sub-ruler, of God's heavenly kingdom, along with the archangels Michael and Gabriel; and he was highly favored by God, his Creator. His name then was Lucifer, or "Prince of Light."

From what I gather, Lucifer did not take well to the news that God was about to establish a new Creation that would involve the "incarnation" of souls in matter. God hadn't even created matter yet (nor space nor time); so this was understood in the angelic realm as presaging a really big, divinely revolutionary deal. Evidently, God passed over the class of angels (who are also souls) to effect this. His purpose, instead, was to make a new spiritual creation, culminating in a new creature, Man, designated to be His Son and Steward of the new Creation.

I further gather that Lucifer was incensed at being "passed over for promotion," as it were; it would seem there was no place for him in this new Creation.

But he begged to differ: And so he told God, his Father, to "stuff it": "I will no longer serve you."

At the same time, he had been such an influence in the order of the angels that he was able to recruit a goodly part of them — something around a quarter or a third — to follow him in rebellion against the Lord.

And he promised to be the enemy of mankind forevermore. Please read the Book of Job for details.

Thus Lucifer got a new name (Satan).

I don't see a dime's worth of difference between Lucifer's Fall, and the Fall of the angels of his party, and the decision of an atheist to turn his back on God.

The Father of Lies will always try to use the Holy Scriptures, and "each and every Christian belief," by inverting them, to destroy the Faithful. He succeeds by exploiting any baseness he can find in the human person. By "baseness" I mean the propensity to sin, which all men have.

But Satan whispers into our ears: "I will transform thy baseness into personal glory, into the fulfillment of all thy dreams, even unto the status of a god: Just sign on the dotted line."

Truly, he is the Father of Lies; for he has no such power. The only power he has over us is his ability to capitalize on our self-delusions. To our eternal peril.

Thank you so very much, CityCenter, for your deeply perceptive essay/post!

“Abandon the truth? Renounce exposing nonsense?”

Your brazen pretentiousness is not surprising. Goebbels would be proud of you.

“I've seen nothing remotely resembling your description here.”

To “see,” one must look. To quote our FRiend, Boop; “. . . the use of ad hominum attack is a diversionary tactic designed to conceal the paucity of actual understanding of the issues in dispute, or of any good-faith willingness to engage them at all.”

Hands over eyes! Don't look!
“LOL, it would now seem that if we understand metaphysics, we can accept that donkeys can talk, snakes can charm and humans can stay alive inside fishes”
“Indeed, and that diseases are cured by casting out evil spirits...(by those who have been given special powers)! I wonder what evil spirit causes the flu...? :)”
the “Flying Spaghetti Monster” and Zeus make an excellent argument against the existence of God.
Scholars that believe the Bible are “biased fundies” but those who don’t believe the Bible are “honest” and doing “accepted scholarship.”
"If Adam was the perfect creation of the perfect Creator, why did he fall?
“I have led a more Godly life in my Agnosticism than you have in your Bible-thumping one.”
“the cult may demand your membership card back.”
“Are we damned? Unloved? Doesn't it sound a bit cultish (in the insane way, not the nice way) to say that”
“Did God imbue us with rational minds just to waste them?
“Or, perhaps, you may wish to talk biblical “medicine,” and tell me if you regularly visit some medicine doctor who “heals” you by chasing “demons” out of you?”
“Let's be honest and admit that not even the most religious—save for a handful of nutjobs—seek to be "healed" by having “demons” chased out of their bodies. :)”
“I believe unicorn farts smell like gardenias - prove that they don’t.”
“Or, perhaps, you may wish to talk biblical “medicine”, and tell me if you regularly visit some medicine doctor who “heals” you by chasing “demons” out of you?”
“The difference is that I am not obligated to believe fantastic tales and you may be, by virtue of the religion you profess, even if your reason may tell you otherwise. I am free.”
“Coming from a source whose very name is a fraud.”
“If you type louder, will it become true?”
“Culthood is not the glamorous life that you may think it is. I strongly suggest that you abandon any plans that you may have to join the Hare Christians.”
“your post was a hazing ritual for cult membership!”
“In my experience, most people who hold nutty quasi-religious beliefs are way too whacked out to even consider studying science.”
“Don’t forget those evil ‘Geologists’ And them ‘Physicists.’ And don’t even get me started on them damned for all time ‘Astrophysicists’ and ‘Chemists.’”
“Or perhaps you would burn me at the stake while assuring me I’m damned to hell?”
“Racism and Creationism have been frequent bedfellows.”
“a local origin myth of a tribe of Middle-Eastern camel-herders”
“To which ‘God’ do you refer? The name ‘God’ has been applied to numerous deity constructs, many of which are mutually exclusive.”
“Perhaps the intelligent designer [God] is a really late term abortionist.”
“Perhaps we should compare the number of clergymen convicted of child molestation with the number of biology teachers convicted of child molestation.”
“Can you say American Taliban?”

“all your great billowing clouds of smoke strongly suggests you are confused and in doubt on this subject . . . ”

You are not speaking a truth; only expressing your fondest hope. Again, why do you continue to tell me something you know I know?

By the way, quit stealing my lines; go find your own. LOL!

Let me remind everyone that there are two separate, distinct debates going on here:

The natural-science of evolution: is evolution a valid theory which accurately describes how life on earth has come to be what we see today?
The philosophy (or call it "metaphysics", "ontology" or "atheism") of materialism: is the material natural universe all there is, or is there a super-natural, spiritual realm within or beyond it?

Those of us here defending science (aka "methodological naturalism") are generally not interested in defending atheism (aka "metaphysical naturalism"), and yet that is the issue on which many attack "Darwinism".
Atheistic-"Darwinism" is said to cause and result from every socialistic wickedness known and therefore should be rejected in favor of... of... of... well, why not go all the way and say: young earth creationism?

My point is: many Christian denominations teach that evolution can describe the methodology by which G*d created life on earth, and therefore it's unnecessary to equate evolution "Darwinism" with atheism.
That should wipe out about half the assaults on evolution theory from a religious perspective.

The other half involve actual mechanics of evolution: can purely "random" mutation-changes possibly lead to first, the origins of life itself and second, the development of thousands upon thousands of new species?
"Intelligent Designers" insist that G*d must take a personal hand in certain specific evolutionary innovations, for instance, complex eyes.

A scientist says: there's no physical evidence of that, and indeed many "transitional forms" can be found for every alleged "intelligently designed" feature, suggesting that evolution's "step by step" methodology is indeed adequate to explain them.

Likewise, a "theistic evolutionist" (that's the term used) says:

First, this is all part of G*d's original plan,
Second, G*d's handiwork is totally visible in every feature of the Universe, not just certain DNA sequences, and
Third, it's entirely possible that G*d does intervene directly, from time to time (which we see as miracles), and yet in such a way that nearly always a non-believer will look at it directly and fail to see G*d.

So, bottom line: the question is not whether science somehow "proves" or "disproves" G*d, but rather, can we see G*d's Hand at work in various scientific theories, such as evolution, or "Big Bang", etc.?

I think, with just a little effort nearly anybody can and, indeed, should.

Methodological naturalism is a strategy for studying the world by which scientists choose not to consider supernatural causes - even as a remote possibility. (Conservapedia)

According to Christian philosopher Alvin Plantinga,

“The philosophical doctrine of methodological naturalism holds that, for any study of the world to qualify as “scientific,” it cannot refer to God’s creative activity (or any sort of divine activity).”

The possibility of divine intervention in nature is not only neglected, but positively dismissed.

“The methods of science, it is claimed, “give us no purchase” on theological propositions—even if the latter are true—and theology therefore cannot influence scientific explanation or theory justification. Alvin Plantinga, Department of Philosophy, Decio Hall, University of Notre Dame

Whether it is called natural science and evolution or methodological naturalism it imperiously demands the exclusion of everything supernatural in favor of the closed box of naturalism: void, matter and energy working in and through matter.

As void, matter (chemicals) and alchemical energy acting on chemicals does not, can not, and never has produced life, let alone conscious life, natural science adherents cannot allow ontological questions to be asked, thus they are rabidly zealous in the quashing of such questions by way of psychological abuse, terror, ruthless ridicule, relentless criticism, slander and even physical death whenever total power falls into the hands of the worst of them, as was the case in the Soviet Empire.

After much thought C.S. Lewis concluded that the entire purpose of natural science is to keep God out and furthermore, Evolution is the Biggest Lie at the center of a vast, interlocking system of lies.

YAHOS: "These “fans” mock Christians with sneering references to “Demonic” possession and accusations of the adoption of the principal that a lie, told often enough, acquires a semblance of truth by virtue of sheer repetition."

Your word "fans" here refers to your post #81, regarding Richard Dawkins, where you challenge: "There’s nothing to prevent you from correcting his fans on FR..".
When I responded that I'd never seen such fans, you shape-shift to saying: "these 'fans' mock Christians..." and then produce a totally un-sourced listing of 27 alleged "mockings" of Christians.

Of course, I don't condone mocking Christians (or Christians pretending to feel "mocked" by normal conversations).
But none of your 27 quotes can be identified as a "fan" of Dawkins, only three refer to "demons", and none to the repetition of lies.
Furthermore, you never reveal what provoked each response, so we might reasonably assume there was a good deal of mocking going the other way as well.

Here's what I'd consider a traditionalist's "mocking" of science in general and evolution specifically, from the article above:

"After much thought, C.S. Lewis concluded that evolution is the central, most radical lie at the center of a vast network of lies within which modern Westerners are entangled while Rev. Clarke identifies the central lie as the Gospel of another Spirit.
The fiendish aim of this Spirit is to help men lose God, not find Him, and by contradicting the Divine Redeemer, compromising Priests are serving this Spirit and its’ diabolical purposes."

I'd call that "mocking" as serious as anything YHAOS can copy and paste from previous Free Republic threads.
Indeed, its strident language fairly invites a, ahem, spirited response.
But you won't find that same level of vituperation being returned by non-traditionalists, because generally, that's not the kind of people we are, FRiends.

spirited irish: "Whether it is called natural science and evolution or methodological naturalism it imperiously demands the exclusion of everything supernatural in favor of the closed box of naturalism..."

You still don't "get it", do you?

Science itself "demands" nothing, except adherence to the definition of the word "science": natural explanations for natural processes.
Science itself makes no claims -- philosophical, metaphysical, ontological or otherwise -- to be true, True, complete or even necessarily accurate, except, except: in the practical sense of "what works".

Science is and only is a methodology which often produces results that help humans comprehend our otherwise incomprehensible material universe.

Yes, of course, there are atheists who grab onto the practical working assumptions of science and apotheosize them up to the levels of philosophy and theology.
But they are your problem, not science itself, or those many scientists who were and are Christians.

Well, I think your answer was actually quite deeper than my post, :-) But it’s something I’ve been thinking about for a long time (as are many others, I expect).

Militant Atheism is not that different from any other belief system when it becomes radicalized, but I think it’s far more damaging in the end and history proves that out. Not only because it damns people to Hell, but because it’s far more murderous in the way it deals with non-believers than almost any other ideology. It doesn’t just sit in disagreement, but it seeks to destroy all those who interfere with it.

The fruit of the Spirit is love, joy, peace, forbearance, kindness, goodness, faithfulness, gentleness and self-control. What is the fruit of Atheism? It’s a kin to an insatiable appetite that can never be satisfied. Just gobbles up everything in sight and then blames endlessly when there is nothing left.

Satan?

To cite Sir Alex, "Now -- there's a name I've not heard in a long, long time..."

~~~~~~~~~~~

One can only wonder how the homosexuals, the pro-abortionist and the free condom crowd would react if they were ever confronted by their real Leader -- in all his sulfurous, evil glory...

It's a true pity that even those who occupy even the most powerful and conservative of church pulpits seem fearful to utter his name nowadays -- or, even, acknowledge that he exists. But, then, that shouldn't surprise us, since they also seem to avoid all mention of the results of his handiwork -- sin -- as if the mere mention of it would instantly empty their revenue-producing pews.

Satan is "alive and well on Planet Earth" -- and, from all current appearances, he is well along on the path to victory...

~~~~~~~~~~~

Oh, well, at least my tagline agrees with me... '-)

Disclaimer: Opinions posted on Free Republic are those of the individual posters and do not necessarily represent the opinion of Free Republic or its management. All materials posted herein are protected by copyright law and the exemption for fair use of copyrighted works.