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

Alamo-Girl: "Outside the laboratory, the boundaries of science (methodological naturalism) have not been honored for a very, very long time."

Sure, but the world is chock full of sales-people hoping to sell you on something or other.
99.99% of them we ignore, and so with scientists hoping to sell you their religions beliefs.
It's still a "free country", and people are free to hawk whatever legal substance they think somebody will buy.
And it's still caveat emptor -- let the buyer beware.

So, obviously, what's needed is a "DO NOT CALL" register for people who seriously don't want to listen to a bunch of nonsense.

Alamo-Girl: "There are too many people doing theology and philosophy under the color of science, in particular Dawkins, Singer, Lewontin, Pinker."

Now that you mention it, I've never heard of any of those people, except Dawkins, and him only because the name appears so frequently on these threads.
And I didn't sign up for any particular "DO NOT CALL" register, so how are these folks such a problem for you?

Alamo-Girl: "And then there are the politicians and activists who torture science to authenticate their own agendas."

If you mean, i.e., AlGore's Glo-Bull Warming, I'm all in with you, FRiend.

Alamo-Girl: "It is disingenuous to tolerate these abuses while complaining about those who support an intelligent design hypothesis."

I don't "tolerate" any abuse, Glo-Bull Warming or otherwise.
But evolution is a valid confirmed scientific theory, and "intelligent design" is not even a scientifically expressed hypothesis.

Of course, as a religious-theological belief, I agree that G*d created the Universe, and all its scientific laws, for His purposes of which we are an instrument.
So, as long as we don't call that "science", I have no problem with it, FRiend.

spirited irish: "If evolution is the gradual linear and cumulative change of one kind of organism into another kind (macroevolution), the fossil record itself illustrates that evolution has not occurred.
Nor has anyone ever observed it happening."

In fact, the fossil record, spotty as it is, still clearly demonstrates changes over many millions of years in obviously related species.
These include many "transitional forms" among which I've posted this particular photo many times:

Of course, I understand your devotion to the biblical word "kinds", but there is no such scientific classification, nor does the Bible itself define "kinds".
Instead, science uses a sliding scale with infinite variations, from races, breeds and sub-species to species, genera, families & orders, etc.
Each of these words describes slightly increasing levels of differences -- i.e., different breeds of dogs can look very different, but are still biologically the same, whereas different genera of bears can no longer successfully interbreed.
In between, we have the category of species which often can interbreed, but normally don't.

The fossil record, spotty as it is, and DNA analyses support each other in confirming what we can see every day: speciation is an ongoing process, happening very slowly, but over millions of years producing great diversity.

spirited irish: "Thus it is not difficult to see that evolution has achieved the status of a religion in western society."

Sorry, but simple evolution theory is and only is a scientific explanation of the observed facts.
If some people consider it "religious", that's their choice and likely pathological, but just one amongst many others (i.e., drug abuse) sadly available these days.

spirited irish: "Midgely asserts that the theory of evolution is not just an inert piece of theoretical science but is also a powerful folk tale about human origins."

Sure, it's a fact that all human beings, throughout our history have passionately mythologized their origins.
So there was no ancient culture that did not have some great story to explain the Earth's beginnings, and their own special place in it.
That people would continue to do such things today is totally understandable.
But, let me put this bluntly: it is a job of True Religion to make certain that people can see all the known facts within their proper context.

In short, the facts are what they are, and it's a job of True Religion to elevate its people above mere facts so we can see our true nature and destiny.

spirited irish: "Dr. Erasmus Darwin, a pantheist known to attend séances.
As master of the famous Masonic Canongate lodge in Edinburgh he had close ties with both the Jacobin Masons, the organizers of the bloody revolution in France, and with the infamous Illuminati, whose diabolical cause was overthrow of the Church and destruction of Christendom.
Thus Erasmus Darwin was an important name in European Masonic anti-religious organizations..."

The actual historical record shows that Bavarian German Illuminati were outlawed and disbanded in 1785.
Erasmus Darwin (age 57) was made a Mason (not "master") of the Time Immemorial Lodge of Cannongate Kilwinning, No. 2, of Scotland, in circa 1788.
The French Revolution began in 1789 with its Reign of Terror in 1793.
That Reign of Terror appears to have scarred forever Catholics view of the Age of Enlightenment.

Erasmus Darwin published his book "Zoonomia: or the Laws of Organic Life" in 1794, so it is clear that Darwin's first love was biology, not politics.

Now, FRiend spirited irish, we need to make an effort to understand the importance of the Age of Enlightenment, our Founding Fathers and their Freemasonry, in building the conservative bedrock of what the United States is, and was intended to be.
Simply stated, the list of Freemasons among our Founders is the list of our Founders, period: from Benjamin Franklin & John Adams to George Washington & Thomas Jefferson.
And they acknowledged their debt to Masonry for the principles on which their new Constitution was built, including the First Amendment's freedom of religion.

Now it is claimed that Freemasons in Europe "went bad" during the French Revolution and imposed the "Reign of Terror" killing tens of thousands, including Catholic clergy.
I don't know how true that is, but, but it's obvious that American Freemasons were descendants of their British ancestors, and so our Founders tell us who British Freemasons like Erasmus Darwin were, not necessarily their French counterparts.

So, FRiend spirited irish, if you have a problem with our Founding Fathers, with their Age of Enlightenment and Freemasonry, and with their US Constitution based on those principles, then I'm sorry to say, but you are not really an American Conservative.
You may even be something altogether different: a European Conservative, a monarchist and supporter of state religions.
In that case, I'm sorry to say, then Free Republic is not your home.

spirited irish: "It is more than obvious BroJoeK, that the essay under discussion not only offends your sensibilities but deeply disturbs them as well."

Sorry, but I am not "offended" by anything, even the wildest of insults, it's not my nature.
I do make an effort to point out errors and lies, of which there at least appear to be some on this thread... ;-)

spirited irish: "So desperate are you to persuade yourself and betty that CS Lewis surely did not mean what he said that you are trying to cast aspersions onto the author and lead betty into joining with you in your unholy enterprise."

Sorry, but if anything, your term "unholy enterprise" would describe your own efforts here, not mine.
Mine is simply to point to truths of the matter.

And if you yourself, FRiend spirited irish will honestly examine those words about CS Lewis in your article, you'll notice there's something very odd going on.

For example, CS Lewis is not directly quoted, though is said to describe evolution as a central, radical lie.
But then, the sentence shape-shifts from CS Lewis to a certain Rev. Clarke who rants about the "fiendish aim" and "diabolical purposes" of "another spirit".
This concatenation of views is clearly intended to suggest that Lewis agreed with Clarke -- well, did he?
I rather gather that betty boop thinks perhaps not.

spirited irish: "But why stop at Lewis, BroJoeK?
Why not persuade yourself and others that Jonathan Tennenbaum, T. Rosazak, Henry Osborn, Michael Ruse and Mary Midgely didn’t mean what they said either?"

Sorry, but I've never heard of any of those people.
If you wish to summarize their views for us, and post them on this or some future thread, I'll be delighted to respond and correct any errors. ;-)

Gene Eric: "Non-belief is an implied requirement to whatever might contradict the given “science”.
So 'science' can certainly apply constraints on faith."

Sorry, but apparently you don't "get" what the definition of "science" is: natural explanations for natural processes.

You can picture it as a prison fence around the word "science", and everything inside the "fence" must be natural explanations for natural processes.
So, if you wish to discuss higher level subjects such as theology or teleology, then you must first go "outside the fence" of science to some other area.

Sticking with this metaphor, everybody is free to go in and out of the "science fence" at any time.
And working scientists chose to spend their careers inside the fence, though of course they go home at nights and weekends, etc.
During their time-offs many belong to churches and worship devoutly -- outside the fence.

Of course, there are some (atheists) who chose to live inside the "science fence" permanently, and yet others (militants) who attempt to move and expand the fence to include areas which are not strictly science.
These people should be ignored and guarded against.

Does this metaphor help you to "get" the idea that science is and only is all about natural explanations for natural processes, and that if you wish to examine other realms, you must first go outside of science?

FRiend spirited irish, sorry, I'm posting out of sequence here, and see now I missed something important, namely:

spirited irish: "It’s my quote:

In a letter to a friend, C.S. Lewis writes that he is right in 'regarding (evolution) as the central and radical lie in the whole web of falsehood that now governs our lives...'
However, said Lewis, 'it is not so much your arguments against it as the fanatical and twisted attitudes of its defenders.' (Letter to Bernard Acworth, Spt. 13, 1951)"

OK, now let's compare that to your article's sentence 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."

So what began as Lewis' polite agreement with his friend, and immediate refocus of discussion on "fanatical and twisted attitudes" of certain "Darwinists", now ends up in the hands of our current article's writer as a rant against the "fiendish aim" and "diabolical purposes" of "another Spirit".
Well, may I humbly submit: that's not what Lewis intended?

spirited irish quoting CS Lewis: "Has it come to that?
Does the whole vast structure of modern naturalism depend not on positive evidence but simply on an a priori metaphysical prejudice.
Was it devised not to get in facts but to keep out God?” (CS Lewis, The Oxford Socratic Club, 1944)

Lewis well knew, certainly, that from its beginning, from the time of St. Thomas Aquinas, as a branch of natural-philosophy, science was designed precisely with that purpose: to provide natural explanations for natural processes.
It's what science does, and if you wish to include a discussion of G*d's role, that's great, but it is not, by definition, "science".

spirited irish: "Darwinism is a lie:

'The irony is devastating.
The main purpose of Darwinism was to drive every last trace of an incredible God from biology.
But the theory replaces God with an even more incredible deity – omnipotent chance....'

I'd say, rather, that Rosazak is stupid, panic stricken and unfaithful himself if he cannot see the Hand of G*d at work in evolution's allegedly "random" processes.

spirited irish: "As for ‘modern’ evolutionary theory, anthropologist Henry Fairfield Osborn, longtime director of the American Museum of Natural History reveals that Darwin is not its’ originator but rather ancient pagan conceptions of transmigration and reincarnation are."

Regardless of how ancient certain ideas were, Charles Darwin was the first to express evolution in scientific terms.

spirited irish quoting: "(Darwinism is) nothing but a kind of cult, a cult religion....
It has no scientific validity whatsoever.
Darwin’s so-called theory of evolution is based on absurdly irrational propositions, which did not come from scientific observations, but were artificially introduced from the outside, for political-ideological reasons.”
(Jonathan Tennenbaum, “Towards ‘A New Science of Life,’ Executive Intelligence Review, Vol. 28, No. 34, Sept. 7, 2001)

In this quote Tennenbaum is simply flailing wildly and irrationally at something he obviously thoroughly misunderstands.
The truth is that basic evolution is a confirmed scientific theory, nothing more & nothing less.
If certain people go crazy in their enthusiasm for -- or condemnation of -- evolution theory, those are both surely pathological reactions that have no bearing on the scientific theory itself.

YHAOS: "Do you object to the “Universe” being portrayed as “the Creation,” and being characterized as a process that unfolds in space and time, from a beginning, progressively developing its potentialities as it “evolves.” Why?"

Informal scientific use of that sense of "evolve" is not related to basic evolution theory.
I believe G*d created the Universe and everything that implies, but just so we're clear: that is a religious & philosophical belief, not a scientific theory.

YHAOS: "The Theory of Evolution is a biological theory.
Do you object to the word “evolve” (in any of its derivations) being used in some other context? Why?"

The word "evolve" is used in endless informal, non-scientific contexts, from evolving fashions, to evolving vehicles, to evolving ideas and even the evolving universe.
None -- not one -- of these informal usages equate to the basic scientific theory of evolution.
So, my only objections would come from any efforts to confuse some informal use with the scientific theory.

YHAOS: "Do you disagree with the proposition that randomness cannot serve as an organizational principle governing the evolutionary process?"

I don't agree with your idea of an organizing principle, whether "randomness" or anything else.
Plus, as others have pointed out here, the term "random" is often used incorrectly, when what is intended is "unpredictable".
"Unpredictable" only means that we can't figure it out, not that it's purely "random".
Furthermore, once you accept that G*d created the Universe, then nothing is truly "random" -- everything happens according to Plan and for a purpose.
Finally, Chaos Theory tells us that even mathematically "random" events are not so "random" when seen from a larger perspective.

So the answer to your double-negative question is: no, meaning yes, I agree.

YHAOS: "Do you disagree with the proposition that randomness cannot cease to be “random,” and actually evolve into “something”?"

I don't think true "randomness" exists in nature.
I do think organic chemistry can and will under the right circumstance naturally grow more complex, and suspect this could eventually lead to organic chemistry complex enough to be labeled "lifelike".
But no such hypothesis has ever been confirmed.

YHAOS: "Can you state, without equivocation, that the purpose of “Evolution” is to achieve “reproductive fitness”?"

Silly YHAOS -- have you yet learned nothing?
There is no teleological "purpose" in science, only mechanistic relationships.

Mechanistically, evolution does achieve "reproductive fitness", but for any idea of "purpose", you have to look to G*d, and ask Him, FRiend.

YHAOS: "Can you state, without equivocation, that Man is a “vicious predatory animal”? Why?"

No, far from it, except certain criminal mind-sets.
But other similar words (i.e., "effective hunter-gatherers") certainly do describe our ancient ancestors.

YHAOS: "It is at this point that Miz boop observes that “dogmatic, bitter-ender, materialist” Darwinists and “thoughtful” Christians cannot see “eye-to-eye” because they do not even stand on the same “ground of Being.”
Do you agree or disagree?"

Disagree.

YHAOS: "Miz boop goes on to observe that Christians (and I would add Judeo-Christians) do not believe the universe is a random development.
Do you agree? Disagree?"

Agree.

YHAOS: "She states further that, “What I find truly fascinating is that recent findings in scientific physical cosmology seem to corroborate God's statements in Genesis 1.”
Agree or disagree? Why?"

Agree, but I would not pin any hopes on the idea that science will eventually end up where Genesis begins.
That's because our Creator G*d is not a matter of scientific theory, but rather of religious understanding and faith.

Always was, always will be in this world, FRiends.

Thank you for sharing your insights and concerns, dear BroJoeK!

The problem is that the abusers of science – those who do theology and philosophy under the color of science – hold positions of great power and influence. For instance,

Steven Pinker – Harvard Professor and father of the animal rights movement.

Peter Singer – Princeton Professor of Bioethics, promotes animal liberation and infanticide

Richard Lewontin – Harvard Professor until 1998, Marxist evolution biologist and geneticist who admits his political views affects his science.

Richard Dawkins – Oxford Professor, ethologist and evolution biologist, atheist activist who obviously does atheism and anti-Christianity/anti-Judaism under the color of science. Notably, the atheist activists have not attacked Islam...

The potential consequence in political terms can be visualized as bodies stacked liked cordwood in the Nazi and Marxist genocides and presently in the slaughter of the unborn.

And presently, those very abusers of science and their minions in academia, media, peer review, judiciary and politics suppress virtually all discussion of intelligent cause.

Truly, the statement that “things change over time” is just as obvious and trivial as the intelligent design hypothesis which simply states:

“Certain features of the universe and life are best explained by intelligent cause rather than an undirected process such as natural selection.”

After all, higher life forms are known to chose their mates, ergo “intelligent cause.”

And since God alone is the only candidate for uncaused caused, He remains the only explanation for the origin of space/time, inertia, anisotropy, information (successful communication, Shannon), autonomy, function and of course, life.

So far, scientists can only offer explanation for the present earth or universe by moving the goalpost to prior universes or life forms. For instance, both Dawkins and Crick accept panspermia as a possible explanation of the origin of life on earth though they can neither explain the rise of life in the universe. And all physical cosmologies - other than Tegmark’s level IV parallel universe which posits that 4D is a manifestation of mathematical structures which actually do exist outside of space and time – are open, meaning that they likewise cannot explain physical origin ex nihilo (e.g. multi-verse, multi-world, ekpyrotic, cyclic, hesitating, imaginary time.)

Bottom line, this is a fight over the conscience of men – particularly the young and impressionable.

For we wrestle not against flesh and blood, but against principalities, against powers, against the rulers of the darkness of this world, against spiritual wickedness in high places. – Ephesians 6:12

Remember how easily the Germans bought into the term untermenschen and thereby could slaughter Jews, Gypsies, Poles, Serbs and Russians as not actually being human – and likewise how easily “modern” women can “terminate a pregnancy” because the fetus is not actually human.

We will continue to engage in this debate, wrestling the dictionary away from the abusers and pursuing clarity because God’s Name is I AM.

BroJoeK: So what began as Lewis’ polite agreement with his friend, and immediate refocus of discussion on “fanatical and twisted attitudes” of certain “Darwinists”, now ends up in the hands of our current article’s writer as a rant against the “fiendish aim” and “diabolical purposes” of “another Spirit”.
Well, may I humbly submit: that’s not what Lewis intended?

Spirited: There is no disconnect in logic with respect to the writer’s segue from Lewis to “fiendish aim” of “another spirit.”

First, note that Lewis did not refer to Evolution as a white lie, a small lie, a fib, or just any garden variety falsehood. No, he specifically described Evolution as the “radical and central lie in the whole web of falsehood... “ This is a serious allegation. Evolution, according to Lewis, is a lie of the greatest magnitude. It is a Big Lie, not a small fib, but a Big Lie.

Second, Lewis definitely believed in the devil:

“There are two equal and opposite errors into which our race can fall about the devils. One is to disbelieve in their existence. The other is to believe, and to feel an excessive and unhealthy interest in them. They themselves are equally pleased by both errors, and hail a materialist or magician with the same delight” (C.S. Lewis. The Screwtape Letter. 1941, p. 3).

This is a critical point for two reasons. First, because Lucifer became the devil as the result of his fall. If evolutionary religion with its inverted exegesis is true then Lucifer never fell, hence is not the devil. Second, as the devil is the father of the lie, especially the Big Lie, it stands to reason that he is the devilish “other spirit” of the “fiendish aims” and “diabolical purposes.”

BroJoeK: I’d say, rather, that Rosazak is stupid, panic stricken and unfaithful himself if he cannot see the Hand of G*d at work in evolution’s allegedly “random” processes.

Spirited: Lurking behind ‘scientific’ evolutionary religion is neo- Gnostic hatred of Yahweh, the evil demiurge and inept creator of bad matter.

Modern Gnostic pantheist religion is a syncretic, dualistic, evolutionary religion holding that divine sparks, “reason,” or pneuma, for example, inexplicably fell from being as one with the one-pantheist substance of the ‘good god’ or Gnostic pleroma into evil matter where they are entombed within evil apish-humanoid bodies.

In “The Pagan Temptation,” the eminent Catholic scholar and historian Dr. Thomas Molnar writes that from Plato to Plotinus it was held as axiomatic that the fall of divine sparks into the material realm was either inexplicable or explained as punishment. (p. 27)

The Genesis account of creation ex nihilo was repugnant to ancients for much the same reason it is repugnant to modern evolutionary religionists. This is because if true it means that matter was of God’s creation and did not pre-exist creation as a separate and evil principle, said Molnar. To modern evolutionary theists it also means that if true then Yahweh is not responsible for death, suffering and other evils but rather the devil and fallen men are.

The Incarnation was utterly repulsive to ancients because if true meant the Divinity had incarnated within a body and this was unthinkable because matter and material bodies were evil.

The same disgust of the Incarnation and the human body is held by modern evolutionary religionists whose view of depersonalized man as the genetic spawn of apes (see your own vast display of human & ape skulls), and worse, a misery-inducing meat machine. This view holds that the material brain’s function is determined by reptile-ape genetics, thus ‘reason’ (divine spark, essence, pattern, pure spirit) is constrained by evil grey matter, genes and body fluids.

Whereas neo-Gnostic ‘scientific’ evolutionary materialism teaches that everything is in continuity with void, matter and evolutionary energies working in and through matter, its Eastern-influenced New Age counterpart (i.e., Teilhard’s New Christianity) teaches that everything is in continuity with spiritualized prakriti matter and energy.

In the Hindu Vedanta (from which Teilhard drew inspiration) and Sankhya systems prakriti stuff is the material substance from which the universe and all beings evolve. D.L. Johnson elaborates:

“The whole of the universe evolved out of the basic material stuff...Prior to evolution into what things are today, matter was inert, undifferentiated, quiescent...Each individual human being is part of the cosmic process which began some time ago and will continue as a process...The human being is tied to the world of evolving matter. Each person becomes a person as part of a determined evolutionary process.” (The Long War Against God: The History and Impact of the Creation/Evolution Conflict. Dr. Henry Morris, p. 224)

Darwinism is not true science but a devilish gnostic myth said the eminent philosopher of science, Dr. Wolfgang Smith (b. 1948):

“As a scientific theory Darwinism would have been jettisoned long ago. The point, however, is that the doctrine of evolution has swept the world not on the strength of its scientific merits, but precisely in its capacity as a Gnostic myth. It affirms, in effect, that living things created themselves, which in essence is a metaphysical claim...Thus...evolutionism is a metaphysical doctrine decked out in scientific garb...It is a scientistic myth. And the myth is Gnostic because it implicitly denies the transcendent origin of being (soul/spirit); for indeed, only after the living creature has been speculatively reduced to an aggregate of particles does Darwinist transformism become conceivable. Darwinism therefore, continues the ancient Gnostic practice of deprecating ‘God the Father Almighty, Creator of Heaven and earth.’ It perpetuates the venerable Gnostic tradition of ‘Jehovah bashing.” (From Old Gnosticism to New Age I, Alan Morrison, SCP Journal Vol. 28:4-29:1, 2005, pp. 30-31)

For the soul, who in his rebellion against Jehovah, has emancipated himself from his creator, evolutionary religion is the Gnostic ‘magic-science’ of ‘transformism’ ending in reabsorption into the ‘divine’ one substance.

“just so we're clear: that (Creation) is a religious & philosophical belief, not a scientific theory.”

Just so we’re clear; that’s been my point from the beginning . . . and that Dawkins, his many acolytes, and many of his colleagues, claim that the Judeo-Christian Tradition must give way to anything Science might wish to assert on any subject. Hence, my question; Why do you continue to tell me what you already know I know?

“Silly YHAOS -- have you yet learned nothing?”

Nothing from you. A great deal from boop and Alamo-Girl (and others), who explain things far better than you (and without the fog of disinformation you mix with your attempts at a/disa greements).

“No, (to the question if Man is a “vicious predatory animal”) far from it, except certain criminal mind-sets.”

Exception noted. Aside from your exception, how do “other similar words,” such as “effective hunter-gatherers” equate with “vicious predatory animal”?
(And that, boys & girls, is how it’s done. That is how one says “yes” by saying “no”)

I await with interest how Miz boop answers your response (should she choose to do so). And/or others.

One other issue:
In post #200, this thread, you allege no new quotes since February of 2009, How Much Longer Can They Sell Darwinism?, FR, and you set the standard for “new quotes” to be four year’s (or less). Prove what you allege.

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.