More like ‘a matter of misinformation’

Harry Anderson stars as Atheist-To-Receive-Comeuppance in "A Matter of Faith."

In just the latest evidence that a certain subset of conservative evangelical Christians really has no interest in occupying the real world with the rest of us, the trailer for a new movie called “A Matter of Faith” has hit the Internet.

The film follows the travails of a Christian father, who — horrified by the fact that his daughter’s college teaches the theory of evolution as a fact (gasp!) — challenges the villainous biology professor to a public debate that will no doubt settle the matter once and for all.

If this premise sounds strangely familiar, it could be that you’re remembering “God’s Not Dead,” a film released in March, in which a Christian student who — horrified by the fact that his philosophy professor is a committed atheist — challenges the dastardly nonbeliever to a debate on the existence of God that, no doubt, settled the matter once and for all.

(I’m told that the new movie was called “Christians vs. the Straw Man II: This Time It’s Personal” throughout production, before filmmakers decided to rename it “A Matter of Faith.”)

The similarities between the two pictures don’t stop there. For example, both feature iconic former TV stars for their antagonists (ex-“Hercules” Kevin Sorbo in “God’s Not Dead” and “Night Court’s” Harry Anderson in this one). Both seem earnest in their desire to put forth a positive, pro-Christian message in an industry apparently hell-bent on becoming more trite, commercialized and vacuously soulless every year.

And both, ironically, are doomed to failure because of their stubborn refusal to apply even a passing measure of fairness or generosity to the characters and viewpoints they disagree with.

I haven’t seen “A Matter of Faith” yet (not that I expect to be even the slightest bit surprised by how its plot unfolds). I have watched the trailer and read the summaries and released by those involved. I know that the Answers in Genesis staff member responsible for the “Evolution Exposed” book series (which I have read, unfortunately) served as a “content consultant” for the film, and I know that AiG president Ken Ham is hailing it as “a great new movie” that he is “fully behind.” So I think I’m about as well-informed as a person could be.

Not having seen it, it would be unfair to lambaste the film with snide remarks (like, “Gee, it sure makes winning a debate for Jesus easier when you let Christians script both sides of it, huh?”). Instead, I’ll let its synopsis speak for itself:

Rachel Whitaker, a Christian girl, heads off to college for her much-anticipated freshman year. New friends create situations that require important, quick decisions — some about her social life, some about her core beliefs! Rachel begins to embrace the ideas of the university’s immensely popular biology professor, who boldly teaches that Darwinian evolution is the only logical explanation for the origin of life, and the Bible therefore cannot be true.

It would take more than the length of this column to explain everything that is at odds with reality in those three sentences, so I’ll just hit the highlights. First of all, there is no such thing as “Darwinian” evolution, just as we do not credit falling objects’ return to earth to “Newtonian” gravity.

Gravity had existed, and wrought its inexorable marks upon the universe, long before Sir Isaac Newton devised his theory of gravitation, so it makes little sense to apply the scientist’s name to the force as if it needed to be qualified somehow. The same is true of evolution. Life did not begin evolving when Charles Darwin published “On the Origin of Species” in 1859. He did not “invent” the idea of evolution; he merely took notice of the phenomenon and sought to understand and explain it.

And for that matter, what he was seeking to explain was the process by which life changes, and has changed over time. That’s what evolution is. It is not an explanation — logical or otherwise — for “the origin of life,” because it could, in fact, do nothing until after life originated. The absence of life is also, necessarily, the absence of evolution, and if we never fully understand how life first appeared — or if we prove beyond doubt that it was started by God, or aliens, or a mystical blue fairy with sparkly wings — none of that would change our understanding of evolution one iota.

But what is most concerning to me about this movie is that everything about it, from its trailer to its synopsis to its gushy praise from the likes of Ken Ham, screams the old saw that “evolution” means “atheism,” and Christianity just ain’t Christianity without good ol’-fashioned young-earth creationism.

Movies like this do not spread the gospel. They don’t reach non-Christians because they caricaturize non-Christians as willfully ignorant scoundrels. As surprising as it may be, a pro-faith pitch to atheists that begins with, “I know everything there is to know about you, I don’t like you, and I consider you an enemy of me and my God,” doesn’t tend to push people to know more about Jesus.

Nor do these kinds of saccharine, subtle-as-a-stack-of-Bibles-falling-on-your-head messages nourish the church. They propagate the absurdly unbiblical idea that a six-day creation 6,000 years ago is a central, non-negotiable tenet of the Christian faith. They encourage further insulation by believers — because we already know all we need to and outsiders can’t be trusted (in fact, they may very well be conspiring against us). And they further entrench the battle lines in a toxic, suffocating debate that has produced nothing good in the past 50 years.

In the end, they do nothing but engender more culture war. Just what we all need.

Cross-posted on Sojourners’ God’s Politics blog.

Tyler Francke is the founder of God of Evolution and author of Reoriented. He can be reached here.

  • DonaldByronJohnson

    To be fair, the so-called militant atheists make the same claims, the evolution implies atheism and therefore it is Christianity versus evolution in a death match.

    • This is true, and Jerry Coyne is one of the most vocal and visible examples of it. That’s why I wrote this a while back.

      • Paul Braterman

        Oddly enough, Coyne today on WEIT is pointing out that he DOES not claim that all evolution scientists are atheists, referring to Dobzhanski and Francis Collins as evo scientists who are/were firmly religious. Though he does think that they all ought to be.

        • Sure. I didn’t mean to imply that Coyne believes all “legitimate” biological scientists are atheists, but he does state firmly and frequently that he thinks religion (Christianity in particular, for some reason) is incompatible with science (and evolution especially). From what I’ve read of his stuff, he seems to think that those scientists who are religious are skill compartmentalists, who hold onto their faith out of some misguided sense of duty or childlike nostalgia.

          • Paul Braterman

            Agreed (with you, certainly; with him, depends on what I had for breakfast)

          • For a particular variant of Christianity, Coyne is correct. Not all – ultimately, how Christians square their faith with science is their problem, and not ours. I think the resurrection and other miracles are more problematic than evolution, which can be explained away with underhand teleology, BioLogos style. I still don’t understand the reason for the crucification – it is an utterly senseless sacrifice in a modern context.

            Love the working title of the movie, btw 😀

          • Paul Braterman

            Let me play God’s advocate. Pain is part of reality in any complex universe, and for a Christian the Crucifixion is God showing Himself sharing that pain. This, at any rate, is what I think some of my Christian friends believe. A much less repulsive doctrine than substitutional atonement.

          • Good effort, Paul. As an omniscient being, one would think it could could tap into the pain experiences of every living thing. A more benevolent being would, IMHO, help alleviate pain rather than share in the wealth of it we already have available. He’d have also stayed dead, because resurrection just looks like a cop out.

            I’ll have to shake my head and give up trying to understand why people buy into such nonsense, beyond the usual ones concerning insecurity, identity and tradition.

          • Gary

            Actually Collin, people accept God into their lives because He is a father to His children. If you ask a Christian they will probably have many examples of how God intervened in their lives and took care of them as a father does. This is an experience that happens to people who willfully chose to have that special father and child relationship. It cannot be experienced otherwise.

          • And this is true of other religions too. Thus, ‘experience’ is only evidence for such things if all religions are true. The human brain is capable of all sorts of things, and coincidence, superstition and confirmation bias takes care of the rest.

          • Gary

            The reason for the crucifixion was the need for a blood sacrifice to cover sin. Right from the get go when Adam and Eve were tempted by the devil to become “God-like” an animal was killed to clothes them. God does not waver. He does not change His mind. To cover the sins of all He had to do it Himself and came to earth to be that sacrifice in the flesh and blood form of a man. God did not ask anyone to do anything that He wasn’t prepared to do Himself. God is able to do what ever He wants and He wants all of us to latch on to His coat tails and enjoy the ride. He wants us all to be in Heaven at the end of our lives and has created the means to that end. However people fool themselves thinking that everyone goes to Heaven to be with God when they die. Confusing when you really think about it because they don’t want God to be part of their lives while they live but reason that God wants them with Him when they die.

          • So your god demands blood sacrifice – how primitive.

            You do know Adam and Eve never existed? We know this from phylogenetic studies and our knowledge of evolution – the human population has never numbered less than a few thousands. Tyler knows this. Anyone who understands evolution knows this. A population of two is headed only one way – extinction.

            The rest – so to appease his own list for a blood sacrifice, he had to do it to himself? That is senseless. I’m pleased you can be so certain of his other traits based on…I don’t know what? There’s nothing confusing about it when you step back, compare all the world’s cults, and recognise them all as a human product, borne of ignorance and fear of our own mortality.

          • Gary

            Colin, my friend. You speak with great confidence that you are right. However just because you make statements as if they were factual does not make them so. If I were to accept your premise that Adam and Eve did not exist then everything else would be a wash. No creation and no creator. Sorry. Evolution raises more questions than it answers. Right from the very beginning Charles Darwin recognized the innate weakness in his theory which has not been resolved to this day. Why hasn’t any evolutionists been able to show in the fossil record the “in-between” species or transitional fossils. I think that after all these years that some of those remains would be uncovered if they existed. Evolution is based upon the fact that they do exist. Doesn’t that frustrate you? I believe that God can do anything that He needs to do accomplish His will. It gives me peace knowing that a God who has no limitations can do ANYHING He chooses to do and only chooses to do good for those who He loves and who He chose to love Him. I feel bad for anyone whom He did not chose. I feel bad for you, Colin. I really do.

          • I’ll deal with this point-by-point:

            “If I were to accept your premise that Adam and Eve did not exist then
            everything else would be a wash. No creation and no creator.”

            – Untrue. There could indeed be a creator – just not one described in Genesis.

            “Why hasn’t any evolutionists been able to show in the fossil record the “in-between” species or transitional fossils.”

            – This old chestnut. They have, the creationists have just ignored the mountains of them found. Tiktaalik is a classic example. Just because you keep ignoring them doesn’t make them go away.

            “Evolution is based upon the fact that they do exist. Doesn’t that frustrate you?”

            – No, because it’s untrue. Evolution has enough evidence now, using molecular phylogenetic techniques, that it could be firmly established if not one fossil existed….which they do. Molecular phylogeny is so good it is used to correct mistakes in the fossil lineages. The data and tools are publicly available, you can perform the calculations yourself if so minded.

            “I believe that God can do anything that He needs to do accomplish His
            will. It gives me peace knowing that a God who has no limitations can
            do ANYHING He chooses to do and only chooses to do good for those who
            He loves and who He chose to love Him. I feel bad for anyone whom He
            did not chose. I feel bad for you, Colin. I really do.”

            – I feel sorry for you too, that your beliefs interfere with your acceptance of established science, and thus interfere with your ability to comprehend the latest discoveries. What an impoverished existence!

            I could cite all sorts of things in nature which point to not a loving, compassionate god, but a sadistic brute. The suffering in the natural world is beyond imagining. Also, an all-loving god that only loves those who love him, and punishes those for the crime of disbelief due to lack of evidence? That’s the talk of an abusive spouse, not a compassionate being.

          • Hans Geiger

            Gary you are dealing with a demon which doesn’t admit the existence of God. I tried it so often and I am convinced that there need to be those God deniers so that God is glorified in his believers. even praying for them wouldn’t help anymore, they are condemned already.

          • Frank DeVenuto

            God is holy, perfect, omnipotent, eternal, all – knowing, etc. To not obey God is called sin and it means missing the mark. Sin is a debt owed to God and must be paid. Sin against an eternal God demands an eternal payment – something us frail, weak, temporal and sinful humans cannot do. Because God is holy he cannot allow sin into His presence. That is why Jesus came to earth as God in the flesh to pay an eternal debt to God the Father because we could not and cannot. His dying on the cross was an act of obedience to God the Father and love to His creation (Col. 1:16 -18). His resurrection demonstrated and validated His message of grace and salvation were true. Jesus is truth and He is the only way to heaven. Denying Jesus is the only unpardonable sin.
            In reality, biological studies are now indicating all humans came from an original man and woman – which supports the Genesis account of creation.
            Those who scoff and mock the Bible (Romans 1) cannot account for the biblical accuracy of Scripture, the prophetic accuracies recorded, the archeological accuracies, etc. Whatever you believe must conform to reality in all areas and must account for evil, morality, laws of science, laws of logic, laws of nature, laws of information, etc. Evolution of life from simple to complex cannot account for these things. And yes, the truth is to be an evolutionist almost requires one to be an atheist because God cannot be allowed into the equation. And only the God of the Bible can account for these things – evolution cannot.

          • God requires repayment of the debt of sin? I thought you said he was perfect? Direct contradiction. A perfect being requires nothing.

            As for the rest of the primer on Christianity, I’ll simply abbreviate my response to being quite happy to deny it all as obvious and ludicrous nonsense.

            Biological science shows that the human population has NEVER been reduced to two individuals. It’s been as low as a few thousand.

            I’m somewhat in agreement that evolution leans towards atheism, though it is perfectly compatible with deism.

            Evolution does nothing but explain the diversity of life. It can explain things like morality, as the flourishing field of evolutionary psychology demonstrates. As for the rest…there are other explanations much, much more likely than the one you posit.

          • Frank DeVenuto

            I agree God is perfect and requires nothing. Respectfully, it is not a contradiction. If you broke the law such as speeding or robbing a bank, there are consequences (and a payment) for the crime. Once time is served or the debt paid, then you are free to go. Because God is holy, eternal, and the perfect Lawgiver, a crime (sin) against His standard results in consequences (a payment). Finite beings cannot pay back an infinite debt to an eternal God – similar to someone given multiple life sentences as there is no realistic way to do that.

            Because made us in His image and knowing we could not make restitution, promised in the Garden of Eden that He would send a Redeemer to pay the debt we owe (Gen. 3:15). All of history (His story) is nothing more than God pursuing us so that the relationship broken by Adam can be restored by Jesus. Jesus took on the punishment / consequences every person owes so that ALL who believe in Jesus as Savior and Redeemer is assured of eternity in Heaven.

            I am sorry that it sounds like you just arbitrarily decided not to pursue the validity and truth of the Bible rather than giving it an honest look.

            As to evolution explaining morality, could you provide some references for me to look at? Here is part of a research paper I wrote almost 2 years ago.

            “Atheists can be morally good, and many are, but they ultimately have no logical basis to do so apart from Christianity. Sam Harris indicates he and other atheists can “embrace” absolute morality even though almost no philosophical atheist will support this position since objective moral standards cannot realistically
            exist within atheism. Harris’ position, as noted by Dr. Habermas, is precarious since objective morality leads into an argument for God’s existence and if he recants, then Harris cannot blame God
            for evil.” (page 822 – 823)
            Link included – Habermas, Gary. “Review Article: The Plight of the
            New Atheism: A Critique.” Journal of the Evangelical Theological Society 51, no. 4 (December 2008), 813 – 827. http://www.garyhabermas.com/articles/J_Evangelical_Theological_Soc/habermas_JETS_Plight_of_new_atheism_critique.htm
            (accessed March 2, 2013).

          • Thanks to our understanding of evolution, we know Adam never existed.

            Apologies, but I don’t have time to rustle up papers on evolutionary origins of morality, though if you google “jailbreak rat” and fairness in capuchin monkeys, you’ll get a start on it.

          • Frank DeVenuto

            Here is a quote from an atheistic professor linking atheism and evolution: Atheistic professor Michael Ruse admitted this connection
            when he wrote, “Evolution is promoted…as more than mere science. Evolution is…an ideology, a secular religion
            – a full-fledged alternative to Christianity, with meaning and morality…. Evolution is a religion.” Source is “National Post, May 13, 2000, page B-3 – The article is titled “Saving Darwinism from the Darwinians.”

          • “So the answer to the question “Is Darwinism a religion?” is varied, interesting and insightful. But I bet a million dollars that for the next 10 years it will be the first paragraph and only the first paragraph of this piece that will be quoted and requoted by those who are more interested in using my words for their own ends rather than for understanding what I am really trying to say.” – Michael Ruse, Is Darwinism a Religion?

            How right he was, destined to be quote mined by apologists forever.

          • overtaxed77

            You have proof of nothing. Evolution has so many holes in it one has to wonder how someone could ever fall for it.

          • Matthew Funke

            Evolution has so many holes in it one has to wonder how someone could ever fall for it.

            … For example…?

          • Plethora

            Your God is heavily influenced by Zoroastrian teachings, which introduced the concepts of heaven hell, sin, messiahs, resurrection, and revelation to the Jewish tribes, who could only come up with Sheol, a purgatory afterlife similar to the fields of Asphodel. Zoroastrianism also argued that flesh was not evil, but Manicheaism, an offshoot of that particular belief, postulated that flesh WAS evil, a concept that influenced Christianity’s concept of “original sin.”
            Then the Jewish tribes came in contact with Hellenistic philosophy, which, among other things, promoted the golden rule, and the forgiveness of one’s enemies as a fine Athenian virtue. To say nothing of the Egyptian Book of Dead, written 1500 years before Moses came down from Mt. Sinai with the Ten Commandments, or of people like Vespasian, who healed a blind man with spittle.
            St. Augustine argued against a literal interpretation of the Bible, and also said it was okay to torture heretics. Popes said “celebrate Christmas because it will convert pagans.” Christians like to erase what other Christians have said and done, because it’s convenient. That doesn’t even get into the influences on Christianity before Constantine fought for it.
            I don’t believe in your God, because even your own faith can’t even agree on God, and you erase what OTHER MEMBERS OF YOUR OWN FAITH have said about it, even saints! So no, I don’t want a confusing mishmash of Mediterranean syncretism telling me how to think and feel my whole life. You barely understand it yourself: the origins of Christianity, what influenced the canon of the BIble in terms of local political and cultural struggles at the time, or even just the basic history of Christianity’s violence, but it makes you feel authoritative and superior. so you’ll preach about it.
            Sounds pretty typically Christian to me. Worship of Egyptian gods lasted longer than two thousand years. Christianity is on its way out for the same reason.

          • elissalf

            There is no inherent reason for God to have ever needed a blood sacrifice to forgive sin, except insofar as he’s clearly some kind of evil murderous vampire that doesn’t care about either life or mercy.

            That’s not really a God I think worthy of worship.

      • Peter M J Hess

        Tyler, that’s the subject of a scuffle I’ve been in with Jerry Coyne today, at http://ncse.com/blog/2014/05/god-astronomy-appreciation-william-r-stoeger-0015569

        • Interesting! Thanks for posting the link. It is nice to see Dr. Coyne clearly stating he believes sincere religious believers can do great science.

  • Well said. There is nothing good that can come from a movie like this.

    • Thanks, Julie!

    • Mark Jacob Garao

      wrong… watch the whole movie to know why… (by the way pardon me for my attitude… hehe…)

      • DoxInRxBox

        Agreed

      • Matthew Funke

        I did. What did you think was good?

  • Larry Bunce

    The working title was perfect. The image of evolution they set up is certainly a straw man, easy for them to defeat.

  • Why do you hate Christians who actually believe the Bible? Why the need to put them down and assume that

    “Movies like this do not spread the gospel. They don’t reach
    non-Christians because they caricaturize non-Christians as willfully
    ignorant scoundrels”. Can you back up your statement, or do we have to assume that because you said it, therefore, it is true?

    • Ian Derthal

      Here we go again Cowboy Bob Sorenson.

      Young Earth creationism is found no where in scripture so how can it be a “bible believing” doctrine ??????

      • Good question, Ian 🙂 Thanks!

      • You clearly do not understand Scripture, and it is in fact a straw man, not a “good question” except in the minds of anti-creationists. But never mind, this site is famous for misrepresenting and even dishonesty.

        • Oh dear, I’m gaining a reputation for “misrepresenting and even dishonesty” amongst the good people at The Question Evolution Project??? Too bad, but isn’t that sort of like being called a “glutton” by the folks at Overeaters Anonymous?

      • Ugandaservant

        How about the first 11 chapters of Genesis?

    • Why do you hate Christians who actually believe the Bible?

      That’s an easy question. I don’t.

      Can you back up your statement

      Yes, I believe I can, certainly better than your claim that I “hate” fellow Christians who disagree with me about evolution and the age of the earth.

      • You said you can back up your statement. Well?

        • How about the fact that these movies are almost universally reviled and criticized by anyone who is not a Christian (not to mention many Christians)? One would hope that a gospel message intended to reach the lost would, you know, reach the lost.

          • As one of the ‘lost’, I concur with Tyler. These films serve only to make Christianity in its entirety look bad. Age old fallacies and ridiculous black and white strawmen characters do not a compelling case make.

            God’s not Dead could have been interesting, because the manmade concept of gods is an interesting subject. However, this debacle is propaganda for ridiculous pseudoscience – it is reprehensible dishonesty…as in the end the other film also turned out to be.

          • Ugandaservant

            So what is new about that? They did the same to Jesus, and most rejected Him. Therefore, numbers of conversions is not an accurate representation of truth or effectiveness. Truth is truth, whether people accept it or reject it–and most will reject it. Many are called but few are chosen. The message about the absolute truth of God’s word strengthened my faith hugely. I knew it was true the moment it was presented to me.

          • Apparently you forget that Jesus was rejected, hated and ultimately killed by the religious hypocrites, who couldn’t stand being told that their interpretation of the Bible was not correct (sound familiar?). The Gentiles and “sinners” actually seemed to like Jesus quite a bit.

          • Frank DeVenuto

            That is an opinion and not fact. Where is the data to support your conclusion? Even though you say you do not hate Christians, your words say something else entirely. As a Christian, I do believe the movie “God’s Not Dead’ was inaccurate in its presentation of the biblical account of creation – the young man used the Big Bang theory to make his case for Christianity when it did not properly reflect biblical truth. My question to those who espouse evolution and denounce Christianity is why you guys do not hold more debates with Christian scientists and theologians?

          • That is an opinion and not fact. Where is the data to support your conclusion?

            My data is called reality. Disagree? Fine. How about you find one unconditionally positive review of “A Matter of Faith” by anyone who is an expressed non-Christian. If you do manage to locate such a review, no doubt the extreme difficulty of doing so will demonstrate how rare such an opinion is.

            My question to those who espouse evolution and denounce Christianity is why you guys do not hold more debates with Christian scientists and theologians?

            Because they refuse to dialogue with us: http://www.godofevolution.com/answers-in-genesis-responds-to-my-request-for-dialogue/ Evidently, their preference is to take potshots at those believers with whom they disagree from the safety of their comment-disabled website.

          • Frank DeVenuto

            It is difficult to write a review a movie having not seen it. Many people wrote excellent reviews of God is Not Dead but I disagreed with the young man’s use of Big Bang rather than the Bible to make his case, although the final point of morality / evil justifies there being a god. In an evolutionary / atheistic worldview, there is no basis for morality nor can one anything wrong is evil or bad.
            As to biblical creationists not wanting to debate evolutionists / atheists, then Bill Nye should never have received so much flak from Eugenia Scott and others for be willing to debate Ken Ham. There are too many quotes and papers by evolutionists / atheists who admit they do not have a case or leg to stand on.
            I would say that if the two sides ever debate then definitions must be defined to avoid confusion. For example: In my grandfather’s day it took 5 days, during the day to pick an acre of corn. The word has 3 separate meanings in the same sentence. Jason Lisle, “Not Even Wrong,” Acts & Facts, January 2015, page 15.
            I will look at the link you provided.

          • I didn’t say young-earth creationists are unwilling to debate athiests or those who accept evolution, I said they are — in general — unwilling to debate or dialogue with those of us who accept both Christ and evolution.

          • Frank DeVenuto

            You cannot accept both without twisting God’s words to us. Even Thomas Huxley, considered Darwin’s bulldog, understood that adding evolutionary thoughts / views / interpretations was a compromise of Scripture and Christianity. I have no problems debating the issue because if God’s Word is not the standard, then you allow for compromise – and that is heresy. Jesus chastised the religious leaders for changing what was intended in Scripture – not once but twice.

          • Matthew Funke

            I know it’s been a long time since this reply, but on the off-chance he feels like replying:

            You cannot accept both without twisting God’s words to us.

            By the same token, you cannot accept that the Earth moves without twisting God’s words to us. You cannot accept that there are natural causes for rain without twisting God’s words to us.

            … or maybe we need a more sophisticated understanding of God’s words to us, where we understand that those words exist for a purpose other than to communicate what we will find if we test reality — perhaps because reality’s always there and can be tested separately anyway.

            If the Bible tells you one thing, and reality tells you another, and you’re committed to the idea that the Bible is true, doesn’t it make sense to search for a different understanding?

            I have no problems debating the issue because if God’s Word is not the standard, then you allow for compromise – and that is heresy.

            Forgive me for saying so, but it sounds like you’ve treated your understanding of God’s word as “the standard”, even if reality itself disagrees with your interpretation — which smacks of hubris, if not outright arrogance.

            Jesus chastised the religious leaders for changing what was intended in Scripture – not once but twice.

            I wonder how He would chastise those who continue to insist that their interpretation is true and that others must follow the standard of that interpretation, when anyone willing to test the reality that surrounds them could see that that interpretation is false.

  • Ben Amend

    Did you notice the misogyny, too? How in God’s not Dead, the male student addresses his professor directly, but in this film, the girl’s dad has to do it for her (the YEC implication being that she was more easily “tempted” by the professor’s teachings and “not strong/smart enough to object”)? Clearly this film is going to be even worse than God’s not Dead, even if the professor is friendlier…

    • That’s a good point, too! Thanks, Ben. Though, from what I’ve heard, “God’s Not Dead” wasn’t exactly progressive in its portrayals of women and minorities, either.

      • DoxInRxBox

        Bringing educated discussions to the table are wonderful things to do, however, in all fairness it is short sided to post a blog and envoke a discussion about a movie you’ve judged without seeing. True scientists look at all of the facts before coming to a conclusion. The debate actually went differently than you think because you’ve judged without educating yourself. Another college professor that taught Biology from the stand point of creation finished the debate and made some decent scientific arguments. But, you would only know that if you’d given the movie a chance. These movies aren’t made for nonbelievers to bring them to Christ. They are made for believers to be able to sit down and watch a movie with their family that doesn’t have crushing, sexual immorality, or violence every 10 minutes. By doing so, maybe the friend of your daughter that lives in a home that doesn’t have morals realizes there is something more out there. These movies are made for the very reason you wrote about it… to envoke conversations.

        • Matthew Funke

          I’ll be honest — I didn’t see any decent scientific arguments made from the standpoint of creation. All I saw were points that have been known to be irrelevant for decades, but which creationists seem unwilling to engage or address. (That and a lot of misrepresentation of evolution, e.g., )

          For example:

          * The professor teaching evolution says that complex life forms — like the chicken, which he holds up to illustrate the point — evolved from simpler life forms — like the egg, which he holds up as he continues. No, evolution does not teach that chickens evolved from eggs, nor that eggs are simple life forms. It doesn’t even hold that living things will monotonically become more complex.

          * There’s no such thing as “evolutionists”, and creationism is not a viable scientific alternative to evolution.

          * Olympic runners getting better over time is not an example of evolution.

          * Technological evolution is not the same thing (and doesn’t even follow the same principles) as biological evolution.

          * The Big Bang has nothing to do with the theory of evolution.

          * There’s no such thing as “science from a Biblical perspective”, or science from any perspective in particular. The point of science is to attempt to remove perspective as a factor as much as possible.

          * Nobody claims that “evolution created the world”.

          * The whole question of “Does your mother look like an ape?” misses the point powerfully. Humans didn’t just come from ape-like ancestors; humans are apes. Still. We possess every quality in that taxonomic grouping, and only differ from other apes in the degree to which different physical features are expressed. We’re apes in the exact same sense that we’re mammals, vertebrates, and animals. (Better: “Does your mother have characteristics common to all apes?” That’s a relevant question to what we’re actually talking about.)

          * Evolution does not hold that life created itself. (In fact, there’s no scientific consensus on exactly how life arose. It’s still a hot area of investigation and study.) Evolution is only a description of what life does once you have some (i.e., how it diversifies).

          * Contrary to the claims in the debate, we have directly observed evolution. Also, not everything has to be directly observed to be considered scientific. We haven’t seen Pluto complete an orbit around the Sun, for example, but astronomers hold that it orbits the Sun. Also also, forensic science is a thing; we can form scientific conclusions based on evidence, even if we haven’t directly observed them. Also also also, evolution could potentially be falsified by a new discovery made that is inconsistent with its predictions about the nature of the evidence we should find if it is true.

          * “It looks designed to me” (because I find it beautiful or orderly or whatever) is not a scientific argument.

          * Evolution is not a religion. It doesn’t describe an ultimate, supernatural reality. It doesn’t describe the role of humans within that reality. It doesn’t require reverence of supernatural power. It has no social structure surrounding its beliefs. It prescribes no moral framework. It has no rituals and no sacraments. It resists the static nature of religious explanations and assertions. No one even put “Evolution” in the blank allocated to religion on the census.

          * Evolution is not an attack on the Bible or God. There are many here who believe both (myself included) and accept evolution as the best explanation we have for life’s diversity. (Honestly, if reality is seen as an attack on the Bible, maybe you need to re-think some stuff.) As such, all the stuff that tries to paint evolution as being an excuse to explain away God, the demands for proof of God, the claim that evolution leaves no room for a supernatural creator, and so on, are not only thoroughly wrong — they’re completely irrelevant.

          * The professor mentions what a lot of evidences that point to evolution *are*, but not what they *mean*. That’s irresponsible filmmaking. Just sayin’.

          * The old “no God, no rules” argument, which is flatly wrong. We’re all accountable to ourselves and the people around us, regardless of our individual belief.

          * The point of lab tests forming complex organic molecules under certain conditions is to show that under certain conditions, complex organic molecules can form. That’s it.

          * The claim that the nucleus of a cell has more information in it than can be accounted for without invoking design is neither backed up with evidence nor even defined. (How are we defining the amount of information, and how are we concluding how much is needed before we have to invoke design?)

          * The claim that no one has seen one animal turn into another is completely wrong. (I assume that he’s talking about one “kind” changing into another.) I can give examples, if you like.

          * He claims that the consensus for the age of the Earth is wrong, but he doesn’t explain how he knows that. (Are we just supposed to believe him because of his bewitching beard?)

          * “No one can scientifically prove evolution” is completely bogus, because science doesn’t “prove” anything. That doesn’t mean that accepting evolution is a matter of faith.

          It seems to me that this movie was created by people unwilling to engage what evolution actually proposes, and unwilling to weigh ideas for their scientific merit. But I also know that it’s entirely possible that I missed something. What points do you think were good ones?

          • DoxInRxBox

            Thank you Matthew, but you saw the movie. I was more interested in Tyler’s response as to why he would’ve written the blog without at least seeing the movie.

          • DoxInRxBox

            By the way… I do believe these movies prove the biasness of Hollywood. You should look up the movie budget and earnings. It’s disturbing that Christian movies won’t sell in Hollywood. Maybe Tyler could branch out in a blog on that topic. However, I believe “I Can Only Imagine” due out in 2018 will make a few people take notice. And that will have a huge impact on Non-Believers.

          • Matthew Funke

            It’s disturbing that Christian movies won’t sell in Hollywood. Maybe Tyler could branch out in a blog on that topic.

            That’s his call, really. This is a blog about evolution, not Christian movies in general, though, so touching on that topic in this movie may be as far as his interest takes him. =shrug= I really don’t know.

          • DoxInRxBox

            Yes… I did educate myself further in the purpose of his blog which I should’ve done prior to commenting. Hindsight…

          • Matthew Funke

            Hey, no worries. I have no problem with feel-good, wholesome movies per se. I’ll admit, though, that this particular movie threatens to give people a false sense of security in their beliefs, and lies to them about why their neighbors think the way they do — because it seems primarily to exist as a vehicle to promote creationism as scientifically viable with counterfactual and/or irrelevant arguments.

            I mean, even if it was a relatively clean movie, I’d have some misgivings about a movie that claimed to give reasons to doubt that the Holocaust actually happened (and buttressed it with a fake “debate” in which arguments and “facts” were simply made up); such a movie isn’t just entertainment, but threatens to spread misinformation and disparage otherwise honest people. So as much as I think clean, feel-good movies ought to be made for people who want to see them, I think there are grounds to disapprove of this particular movie. My impression of Mr. Francke is that if this movie had raised some valid scientific points about creationism, as it purported to, he would have apologized and either prefaced this post with a note about how it was mistaken or taken it down.

          • DoxInRxBox

            Very valid points. I must have missed the holocaust reference. That is discouraging. I believe it is hard for for some to understand the premise that God designed our bodies to adapt and change in environments necessary to survive. As with anything, those conversations need finesse when discussing with certain believers. I have gone through a recent growth period in that first and foremost, I want to Honor God in my conversations. I wish I often didn’t feel like I failed miserably at that task. I had a glorious example being taught evolution. A true believer and man of honor to God and Science. Unfortunately, he was a rarity.

            I would be interested to know if any of you have studied the Bible with Apocrypha. I am diving into the Book of Enoch before I purse my Masters in Divinity.

          • Matthew Funke

            I must have missed the holocaust reference.

            Sorry, just to clarify: That reference wasn’t in the movie. That was me, explaining why it is irresponsible to claim that creationism is compatible with science by way of analogy.

          • DoxInRxBox

            Apologies! Again, my brain is battling a sinus infection which has impaired in part my ability of critical thinking.

          • DoxInRxBox

            Matthew… it has truly been a pleasure. Thank you for giving me the opportunity to share my intentions.

          • Thank you Matthew, but you saw the movie. I was more interested in Tyler’s response as to why he would’ve written blog without seeing the movie.

            Because this was written over three years ago and the movie hadn’t been released yet?

            I didn’t write about the movie. I wrote about the synopsis, the film’s stated purpose and the beliefs and backgrounds of the people involved in the film, all of which were known and released at the time I wrote about them. Filmmakers pre-release these kinds of information specifically to provoke discussion and promote their projects, and I was simply obliging them.

            If the film had turned out to be wildly different (spoiler alert: it didn’t) then the trailer, synopsis and other pre-released info had indicated it would be, that’s the filmmakers’ problem, not mine for taking them at their word.

            For my part, I’m curious as to why you think the fact that I hadn’t seen a movie when it wasn’t released yet somehow exempts you from addressing Matthew’s detailed criticism of the movie above?

          • DoxInRxBox

            You answered my question. I’m exempted from answering because it’s not why I commented. If you’d read my comments, then you know I had no abrasive intentions. God plants passions on our hearts, it’s up to us to know when those passions become more about us being right than showing those we don’t know that at the end of the day our only purpose is to spred His word in a positive, loving light and Honoring Him. ❤️

          • The reason you commented was to criticize my take on the movie. You said multiple times that the “debate” in the film was fair and presented accurate scientific information — contrary to my predictions. When Matthew countered your criticism with his own valid points for why he believes the film’s “debate” was not fair or accurate, and was in fact, more in like with exactly what I predicted it would be before it was even released, you ignored him.

            Sorry, but no, the fact that you did not expect your criticism to be challenged with evidence does not exempt you from addressing that evidence. So long, and hope you feel better soon.

      • Johann Hollar

        I agree, it has the same anti-college theme as “God is Not Dead” but instead of forcing students to give up their faith in God, the students are attending the class because they either want to or need to as means of fulfilling their General Education requirements. Sadly, the people who made this film failed to realize that and decide to make it look like higher learning is evil and opening your mind to new ideas is a sin. I am finishing college with my bachelor’s in history with a minor in philosophy, so I can so for a fact that educated minds like myself and the rest of you, are better than these freeloaders who feel that faith can solve everything.

    • Liz

      Thank you! I have been saying the same exact thing!

    • Christopher Walker

      I think you’re reading too much into it. You’re creating something that isn’t there. I think this film just featured an over protective dad and that’s why he wanted to do the debate. Nothing to do with misogyny.

      • Matthew Funke

        Overprotection of a daughter who is an adult in her own right is a form of misogyny.

  • Larry Bunce

    Whatever we may think of it, the movie “God’s not Dead” has grossed over 57 million worldwide. Christian-themed movies typically bring in 6 million over their entire run. Considering that “God’s not Dead” cost around 3 million to make, it shows that there’s money to be made producing films for fundamentalists. “A Matter of Faith” will not be released until September, but its producers must already be counting their profit. This can only encourage more films of this type.
    Anti-intellectualism has been a defining feature of American society for at least the last century, and the word on the street is that science and religion are not compatible. These two movies fan the flames, if not pour gasoline on the heat of the perceived conflict between science and religion. In spite of America’s having a high level of education among the world’s countries, Americans are down the list in knowledge of science and mathematics..
    People can believe whatever they want to in private, but in a country that depends upon public education, a scientifically illiterate population has the power to eliminate good science from public schools. Private schools can teach whatever they want, but if we come to the point where scientists can come only from families that can afford private schools, America will lose its world prominence in science. We face the possibility that science and medicine will operate in a hostile environment, with scientists and doctors being attacked as doing the work of the devil.
    I hope I am being overly pessimistic in my outlook, and ascribing far too much influence to a couple of minor films. Films of this type have been around for decades, shown originally in church basements with 16mm sound projectors, usually with insufficient film loop between the lens and sound pickup, making the sound both tinny and fluttery.
    Both of these recent films are reactions to the way religious people have been treated in the media over the years. People whose religion provides comfort and means a great deal to them have grown accustomed to seeing their beliefs ridiculed on TV and in the movies. “God’s not Dead” and “A Matter of Faith” are their chance to get even. Both movies strike me as being the equivalent of the commercials produced during the last days of cigarette ads on television. A group of cowboys would be singing, “Winston tastes good like a cigarette should,” and interrupted by a schoolmarm with her hair in a bun who said, “That should be, ‘as’ a cigarette should.” A cowboy would knock her down, put a boot on her throat and say, “Wadda ya want, good grammar or good taste.” All of these represent false choices.

    • I can see it now: “A Matter of Faith 2: Also, There’s No Such Thing as Global Warming.” And to complete the trilogy: “A Matter of Faith 3: Homosexuality is a Choice.”

  • moonovermyhammy

    Anyone else think there’s a good chance of a side plot where the daughter gets propositioned for sex by a fellow student because, hey, we’re all just monkeys anyway

    • Which offer she — in the firm embrace of Darwinian thinking — accepts. She, of course, becomes pregnant immediately (in the fundamentalist mind, this is one of only two acceptable divine punishments for premarital sex) and chooses to have an abortion because, again, we’re all just monkeys anyway. Her decision causes much heartbreak and terrible guilt at the movie’s inevitable conclusion when, to the surprise of no one, the daughter re-embraces her faith and repents of her evolutionary ways.

      • GMgreeneggsandham

        add some homosexuality in there and you have yourself some fear mongering gold.

        on a side note has this site ever explored the misrepresentation of starting points between science and YEC in this manner:
        Misrepresentation as in the idea that scientists happen to start with evolution and creationist start with the bible. This very starting point sets up a flawed argument, as evolution is a conclusion not a starting point. Using observation, scientists have come to the conclusion that evolution is our best model for explaining the similarity and difference of all living things, as well as their change over time. Further experimentation and “prediction” made using the evolutionary theory is fundamentally meant to test this concept to see if assumption made using this framework pan out, leading to evidence solidifying or weakening the strength of the theory. As a result the ultimate starting point of evolution (and science in general) is observation and experimentation. YEC on the other hand admittingly begin with a literal interpretation of the Bible. They then add in observation, but out of necessity use logic to figure out how these observation fit into their schema. In essence they are doing math problems having already looked at the answer in the back of the book (whether or not there is a misprint). Thus no matter how hard they try or how many PhDs they parade around, creationism cannot be good science until it first uses observation and then reaches the conclusion that what we see points to a literal reading of the Bible (which it won’t)

        • Great points! Yes, this is one of the fundamental “arguments” behind young-earth creationism. Answers in Genesis uses it all the time, and like most of their “arguments,” it’s little more than a misleading semantic trick. We respond to stuff like this all the time 🙂

        • Diana

          Just FYI, when scientists take their samples to labs to have the rocks dated – did you know they have to fill out paper work and one of the questions they are supposed to answer is how old the rocks are thought to be? I do not understand why this is. If the dating methods are so good and accurate, why do those testing the material need this information?

          • Presuming this is true, I’m guessing it has something to do with the fact that different dating techniques have differing effective ranges. In the case of Carbon-14, for example, a sample eventually reaches a point (I believe it’s about 50,000 years) where the remaining radioactive carbon isotopes have decayed to such low levels that they are no longer detectable. Therefore, an object that was older than 50,000 years would be unable to be accurately dated by this method, just as a mountain’s height could not be accurately measured using a yardstick.

  • Micah

    Ken Ham and the YECs are at it again in the shadows……http://m.youtube.com/watch?v=0rTRyYthulw

  • Micah

    I am a theistic evolutionist and follower of Jesus; I just felt this video should be shared!

    • Hey Micah, thanks for sharing! I’m putting it up on the Facebook page.

  • To be fair to God’s Not Dead (Which I still consider to be an ok movie despite being primarily a propaganda piece) was about the professor challenging the student.

    “Movies like this do not spread the gospel. They don’t reach non-Christians because they caricaturize non-Christians as willfully ignorant scoundrels. As surprising as it may be, a pro-faith pitch to atheists that begins with, “I know everything there is to know about you, I don’t like you, and I consider you an enemy of me and my God,” doesn’t tend to push people to know more about Jesus.”

    That, however, I do agree with wholeheartedly.

    • Hey Alex, thanks for the comment! It’s a fair criticism. I knew that my description of the plot was a little bit off in that regard. I went with it for clarity of comparison and because I thought the inaccuracy was minor enough to be ultimately inconsequential.

  • “The guy’s an evolutionist, and there is nothing in the course description about Biblical Creationism in the course description as even a plausible alternative.”

    Yea, and I will bet that Hindu, Shinto, Kaan, Coatlicue and Janist creation (or non-creation in the case of Janists) as plausible alternatives either.

    And, I know I’m just preaching to the choir here, but Evolution has nothing to do with the origin of life that’s Abiogenesis.

  • Diana

    I have seen this movie – six times, in fact.

    You wrote, “Movies like this do not spread the gospel. They don’t reach non-Christians because they caricaturize non-Christians as willfully ignorant scoundrels. ”

    Perhaps you will be (happy?) (suprised?) to learn that your generalization about the non-Christian professor in A Matter of Faith is completely wrong. I will not go into details other than to say your are very much off base. While the movie takes place at a college and there is a non-Christian professor and there is a debate, this IS NOT “God’s Not Dead”. If you know anything about the film maker, Rich Christiano, his passion with his films is defending the authority of Scripture and that is ultimately what this movie is about.

    Secondly, Rich has written that “the church is a mission field”. Many, if not most Christians, are unable to give a reason for the hope that is within them. This movie’s audience is 1) Christians and 2) their non-Christian friends, family, etc. I can assure you that this film does indeed present the Gospel. Of all the faith-based films that have, or will be released this year, this is probably the only one that presents the Gospel message and it does so in love and humility.

    To Ben, who commented that the movie is misogynistic in the dealing with the daughter in the movie, you are making a characterization based on just the preview – it is not accurate. Having said that, I applaud a father protecting his daughter, even when/if it might be misplaced, it usually comes from a place of love.

    To those who have written that this movie will fan the flames between the perceived conflict between science and religion – you will be surprised. In many respects, this movie is NOT what you think it is.

    To those who have written that Americans are “down the list in knowledge of science and mathematics” and blame this on Christianity and YEC, please note this precipitous fall has occurred after God was kicked out of our schools, curriculum that was once based on the Bible has gone secular/common core. It has happened under a system that is increasingly hostile to bible-believing Christians and teaches as fact the “theory” of evolution, the Big Bang, and humans are nothing more than animals

    To those who say nothing good can come from “a movie like this” – I am happy to report you are wrong. Already in the few weeks we have been doing the screenings for pastors, we are seeing great things! We are looking forward to God using this movie to His Glory!

    • Thanks, Diana. I hope that I am wrong about this movie and what it will do, but I would be very, very surprised if I am.

    • Ugandaservant

      Thank you Diana. You are absolutely correct. People have been sold a bill of goods with this evolution lie. But God said He would shake everything that can be shaken and God’s people need to look to the bible, God’s word for absolute truth, not flawed human beings.

      • I absolutely agree that Christians need to look to the Bible, not the words of flawed mankind, and certainly not the deeply flawed and incorrect interpretations and extrapolations of the Bible preached as “absolute truth” by the young-earth creationists.

  • davegosse

    Well Tyler, you are right about one thing, Darwin didn’t invent evolution. He simply represented ancient Epicurian materialism as a scientific theory. “It’s not what you know that’s a problem, and it’s now what you don’t know; it’s what you think you know that just ain’t so.” De rerum natura (On the Nature of Things) WikiP

    • Dave, here is a short list of the scientific evidence that supports evolution and does not corroborate the idea of special or separate creation: comparative DNA sequence analysis, phylogenetic reconstruction, endogenous retroviruses, pseudogenes, nested hierarchies, atavisms, homologous and vestigial structures, fixed-action patterns, continental distribution, island biogeography, ring species and the fossil record. It would take much more space to present even a fraction of the evidence against a recent creation or young universe.

      If believing that evolution is not scientifically supported, that it’s just a philosophy people accept because they hate God, makes it easier for you to live your life, then by all means, go right ahead. But don’t insult the intelligence of me or the community of this site by expecting us to agree with you.

      • Ugandaservant

        Then don’t insult us by expecting us to agree with you, a mere man. There are fantastic answers and rebuttles and different world views based on the authority of God’s word which you say you believe, but twist whatever way you think you need to to fit into you idea of history, But you weren’t there when it was all created. God was, and He told us how it all happened

        • I don’t expect you to agree with me, but I do expect you to not deny reality.

  • Hey Jeff, just to clarify, I am a Christian. My faith is very important to me, as is the gospel, which is why it bothers me so much when it is presented in such unrealistic, ungracious and feeble-minded ways. The gospel is about Jesus and what he did for us, not about rejecting evolution or the scientific evidence that demonstrates its truth.

    • Jeff white

      Thanks for replying Tyler, you are correct in the fact that the gospel is all about Jesus. the fact is all the gospel is about Jesus. not just some but all. You said you are a Christain I’m interested in knowing your stance as a Christian on the trinity.

      I have a hard time understanding how even with science and all it can prove that anyone can come to an absolute. your attitude is that its your way and no other makes sense the exact attitude you despise in your writings when its a stance on the other side. I had a friend as silly as it sounds presented an argument about which way the toilet paper goes on the roll. He started with “there is no question this is the way it goes on…..” and the fact is there is a question or we wouldn’t be having the discussion. obviously there is also evidence that can draw some to the conclusion of creation, otherwise we wouldn’t have any of these debates.

      but even beyond that your tone as a believer to other believers is egregious. again you throw out insults, calling someones stance on the topic “unrealistic”, “ungracious” and worse of all “feeble-minded”.

      Science pushes us to consider all things. human nature pushes us to aggravate and attempt to demoralize. you sir have a human issue and I believe the issue is you yourself are intolerant. again the same issue your page blasts us believers for.

      I am not any of those things you stated but I will certainly be honest when I watch the film about its ungraciousness. The only part of that statement I believe is up for discussion is “ungracious”. the “feeble-minded” statement is again just rude.

      Just once I would like to see one of these discussions without one side or the other throwing insults. I have seen it come from the other side also and it offends me greatly.

      • You would probably be offended less often if you were a teeny bit less sensitive. I did not call other believers, or their “stances” on evolution, unrealistic, ungracious and feeble-minded, I called the way that films like this present the gospel unrealistic, ungracious and feeble-minded. The gospel is not about defeating atheists in some misguided battle of wits, and it’s not about attempting to disprove evolution by rhetoric, and yet that is exactly the terms presented by this movie, with the Christian, evolution-denying father pitted against the atheist evolutionary professor. And of course we already know without seeing it who’s going to “win.”

        The gospel is about the love and grace of God, poured out on sinful and undeserving man through the blood of Christ. I fail to see how a debate such as the one presented by this movie or “God’s Not Dead” presents that in a remotely accurate way.

        • Jeff White

          LOL your probably correct about being sensitive.

          but again I just think there is no place for it. I dont want to just hear the views of others but actually consider them. not fight the my slam is better than yours fight.

          I don’t believe that the movie, that Ive not seen and like you can predict just about the whole thing without seeing it, is trying to discuss the gracious blood of Jesus Christ. Its trying to state a point that you should know as well as I do that universities around our country have not proven without a shodow of doubt either side. there are still gaps. and yet the same universities in large refuse to consider creation as an option. The story albeit embelished to make a point is very real on campuses around this country. look Hollywood can dramatize a thumb tack. but they do it to make the script better and sell a ticket. we see it over and over.

          so yes your correct the movie is not going to show the story of Jesus christ dying on the cross and all of what that means to you and me. But it will show a real life scenerio that those who are creationists may have to face when taking a collage class.

          you are also correct that its easy to win the debate when you write the script. but lets be real, those professors have been force feeding their kool-aid everytime they can. and Hollywood has made film after film without a creation point of view. maybe the fresh perspective is good. not that its all that fresh.

          I to hope you are wrong, and we see a gracious offering of the view point.

          Of coarse maybe you would be less offended by its presentaition if you were a “teeny bit less sensitive”

          • You are missing the point. I am not bothered by the movie because I accept evolution and disagree with the creationist interpretation, of both the Bible and the available evidence. I am bothered by the movie because it presents a skewed, misleading and ultimately destructive view of what it means to be a Christian. By portraying its Christian protagonist as believing it’s importatnt to debate and attempt to disprove evolution, the film paints a distorted and unbiblical picture of the Christian faith, and hence, the gospel.

          • Jeff

            good morning Tyler,

            I guess we are going to just have to disagree on this.

            I too believe we are to love Jesus and each other. at some point though I believe we are to stand up for what we believe in also. is Creation or evelution that point? for some like yourself and others it would seem so. I understand that its not the big issue. But even Jesus himself at one point decided he could no longer take what was happening in the temple courts and stood up for what he felt was right and tore the place up.

            I just feel like your stance that we creationists should not enter into the debate about something that is important (not most important) is a bit unfair. you have obviosly had a few discusions over creation vs. evelution so should every believer. of coarse its way after the “do you except Jesus as you Lord and Savior discusion on the importance chart.

            you should know I did go and see the movie this weekend with a group of teens ranging from 18 – 13 both male and female, some believers, some not. in our discusion after the movie, we talked some about creation and some about evelution. but I believe you will be surprised about what the take away was for almost all that attended with me and my wife.

            ” I think the point of the movie was not weather you believe in creation or evelution but that God calls us to respect one another and understand that both side have got to fill the gap with faith. faith in science or faith in Gods word” (17 year old male believer)

            you and I both were correct, there was not a lot of surprise in the story line (although some). I was pleased and I hope you will be also that both sides displayed grace. there was no winner or loser of the debate only people who had to stop and pause for reflection on their stance. which I believe makes everyone a winner in the end. (it did however make the evolutionist out to be a bit of the bad guy in the begining)

            on another note I still am interested, because of your clear stance for science what your thought is on the trinity? but also what about the Immaculat conception and Virgin birth? what about the reserection? how does Science explain these things. also how does someone who is a christian but relies on science make peace with things like this.

            I wholeheartedly agree with you Jesus is the issue. and we need to keep all this in perspective. and not allow Him to be lost in the discussion.

            God So loved the world that he sent his only son into the world to save the world.

            weather I believe in creation or evelution, the virgin birth or some other posision is not going to change that I get to spend eternity In a place called Heaven. with a God who loved me through my uglyness.

            Tyler, I never want to stop growing. I always want to be pushed to seek Gods face. I believe part of our growth is actually having these discusions. if it takes a movie to push us to discuss things than great bring on the movies.

            if its an article on a website that does the same thing than bring on the articles.

            I read an article on your site from a guy who quesioned his learned ideas about creation. Through that process and lots of discussion he came to a conclusion of evelution. Now that man is still going to Heaven for surrendering his life to Christ, not because of his beliefe in evelution. but he could not have gotten to where he is (and your obviouse joy in that decission) unless he had someone pose the question followed by lots of discussion.

            oops found myself writing another dissertation…..

            I appriciate your responses and respect you for your stance.

            Have a good day,

          • Frank DeVenuto

            If you are a Christian, then that means you are a believer of Jesus Christ as Savior and the only way to heaven, as the Redeemer who died on the cross for man’s sin. If Jesus is God, and He is, then we must believe His Word is infallible, and it is. If His Word is perfect, then we must allow God to tell us how He created everything (Gen. 1, Exod. 20:11, Col. 1:15 – 18). If evolution is true (goo to you or pond scum to people), then the Bible is wrong and therefore Jesus cannot be God or our Redeemer: thus we are all accidents, then is no god, and we can all do what we want. Biblical creation (creating all things in 6 literal days and evolution (single cell organisms turning into complex creatures) are mutually exclusive. Evolution as in single to more complex life means there is no god and death, disease, corruption are normal. If theistic evolution were true (that God used evolution to create), then God is not perfect, holy, or good since God said death, disease, corruption are good (Gen. 1:31) – there would be no need for a Savior since these things would be normal and the Bible indicating these things entered creation when Adam sinned would be wrong.
            All Christian doctrine (anthropology, Theology Proper, hamartiology, Christology, etc.) all find their roots in Genesis. Take away Genesis and the rest of the Bible falls apart. Jesus believed in the Genesis account (Mark 10:6) and considered the Noahic account as a real event.
            I guess I just don’t understand how a Christian can truly reconcile evolution with the Bible’s account of creation without destroying the character of God.

          • I guess I just don’t understand how a Christian can truly reconcile evolution with the Bible’s account of creation without destroying the character of God.

            The difficulty that you’re having is because you have accepted an incredibly incorrect understanding of the theory of evolution and theistic evolution, and deeply flawed interpretations of Genesis.

          • Frank DeVenuto

            Sir, with all due respect that the Bible is God’s inspired Word to man. Since God is perfect, holy, eternal, and good, the Bible must be also. Then we cannot change how God told us He created everything – in 6 literal days. How things came about by the Big Bang theory and the theory of evolution (simple to complex creatures) cannot be squared with the Bible. For one the order of is different between the them as is the age of creation. The Hebraic language and structure of Genesis is historical narrative – it can be no other or Adam cannot have committed the first sin against God. If Adam is not a real person, then Jesus died for a lie. Jewish scholars acknowledge Genesis is historical narrative – Jesus took it as such when He referenced the first marriage (Mark 10:6) and that the last days would be like those in the days of Noah (Matthew 24 – 26). If evolution were true, including theistic evolution, then God cannot exist as eternal, holy, omnipotent and therefore Jesus could not be our Savior. It would mean, death, disease, corruption, and evil existed before Adam’s sin and God would be liar saying everything He was very good (Genesis 1:31) including those things. We cannot disparage God’s character by adding something that is not in scripture. If you think you can add man’s interpretation to the Bible, then it is you who has a low view of God and His Word. And for that I am sorry.

        • Ugandaservant

          If there was death and suffering before Adam & Eve, then how could their sin have brought death and the curse if sin death and suffering already existed? It blows the whole gospel message. Please don’t try and give me any evolutionary answers,

          • If there was death and suffering before Adam & Eve, then how could their sin have brought death and the curse if sin death and suffering already existed?

            It couldn’t have. Nowhere in the Bible does it say that Adam’s sin is responsible for animal death or the physical death of all humans. If you believe I’ve mistaken, please read the detailed explanation of Adam’s, Eve’s and the serpent’s punishment in Genesis 3 again, and tell me what I’ve missed.

            It blows the whole gospel message.

            The gospel message is that, through faith in Jesus Christ, the Son of God, we might all have forgiveness of sin and eternal life with him in heaven. This belief is only complicated by adding the peculiar YEC view that animal death and physical human death are the consequences of a single act of disobedience thousands of years ago.

            Please don’t try and give me any evolutionary answers,

            Wouldn’t dream of it. No, let’s try and keep our discussion specifically within in the context of what the Bible actually says. You know, if you can.

          • Ugandaservant

            Romans 5:12 -14 Romans 8: 18-22, I Cor.15:22 Adam and Eve wore skins of animals provided by God because of their sin, because the knew they were naked–thus death of animals was precipitated by their sin. The land was cursed because of their sin Gen 3:17 & 18 and so on. I would argue that the reason you don’t believe there was in fact a world wide flood sent by God is because it would destroy your world view of geological records of fossils built up over millions of year. The bible is explicitly clear about the world wide flood. Even sea shells on top of mountains testify to that. I have already given you all that information. The goo to you explanation of where life came from is ridiculous. There was an eye witness to exactly how it life was created and He left a record of it in the bible–God. Evolution is neither observable, testable nor repeatable and no one was there to see be an eye witness.
            There is soooo much scientific information that confirms the biblical historical data. I challenge you to take a good long look at it. I have prayed for you.
            Yes, ANSWERS IN GENESIS is the best place to find it. I really don’t have time to continue this as I am an extremely busy person. The answers are there for all to know. I: know this may not mean much to you, but I felt very lead by God to respond to you. I am now done.

          • Romans 5:12 -14

            This passage is explicitly limited to mankind. It says nothing about animal death, and certainly nothing about the corruption of the entire universe. Also, it’s very likely Paul is talking about spiritual death, not physical death, as was clearly the case in such passages such as Romans 7:9.

            Romans 8: 18-22

            Perhaps you should try actually reading the Bible passages you reference before you submit them as “proof” of your unbiblical views. Laura, where in Romans 8:18-22 does it say that suffering, corruption or decay is the result of the fall of man, sin (Adam’s or anyone else’s), or the curse? Where does it reference Adam, Eve, the serprent, or their transgressions in the garden? Oh, yeah, it doesn’t. In fact, it gives only one party responsible for the “frustration” referenced in the passage: God (Rom. 8:20), who did what he did not as a punishment, but “in hope” that something greater would be revealed through suffering.

            I Cor.15:22

            And, if I may be frank, this is the most absurd of any passage for a young-earth creationist to submit in support of their views. “For as in Adam all die, so in Christ all will be made alive.” If the “all” who die in Adam includes animals and plants, and anything else supposedly affected by “the curse,” then it would mean that animals and plants, et al., are entitled to the exact same salvation offered to us through faith in Christ. Period. You can’t say the first part of 1 Corinthians 15:22 refers to everything in the universe, and the second part refers only to humans who repent and accept the free gift of salvation offered through Christ.

            Adam and Eve wore skins of animals provided by God because of their sin, because the knew they were naked–thus death of animals was precipitated by their sin.

            Yes, Adam and Eve wore animal skins after recognizing that they were naked, which proves that all animals were completely immortal before that moment. Yes, that makes perfect sense!

            The land was cursed because of their sin Gen 3:17 & 18 and so on.

            In what way was it cursed, Laura? The text is quite specific. The curse was that Adam would have to labor over the ground to produce food, and that the ground would produce thorns and thistles. Period. Doesn’t exactly sound like the entire cosmos was going to be poisoned with death and decay.

            I would argue that the reason you don’t believe there was in fact a world wide flood sent by God is because it would destroy your world view of geological records of fossils built up over millions of year.

            I don’t believe there was a worldwide flood because neither the geological evidence nor the biblical evidence supports the idea.

            The bible is explicitly clear about the world wide flood.

            No, actually, it isn’t.

            Even sea shells on top of mountains testify to that.

            That is not part of the Bible.

            The goo to you explanation of where life came from is ridiculous.

            Well, yes, it is, but it’s not my fault you, apparently, get all your information about evolution from people who don’t understand it and/or deliberately misrepresent it. If you paid more attention to what actual scientists have to say, it would probably make a lot more sense to you.

            There was an eye witness to exactly how it life was created and He left a record of it in the bible–God.

            How do you know Genesis was meant to be read as an eyewitness testimony? Just because it’s in the Bible? The Parable of the Good Samaritan is also in the Bible — does that mean it’s meant to be read as eyewitness testimony? The Gospel of Luke is explicitly described as an eyewitness account in Luke 1:1-4, but Genesis is not, so how are you so sure about its genre?

            Evolution is neither observable, testable nor repeatable

            Repeating the same party lines over and over again does not impress me. Learn what those terms actually mean, then we’ll talk and I’ll show you how you are mistaken.

            There is soooo much scientific information that confirms the biblical historical data.

            Wow, you added three extra O’s to the word “so,” so I know how serious you are. Sorry, Laura, there is not. The young-earth creation model is so unworkable in the light of the available evidence that it’s absurd. That’s why virtually every single scientist in the relevant fields of inquiry reject it, and even those who believe in a young earth admit that they do so because of their interpretation of the Bible, not because of the evidence.

            I challenge you to take a good long look at it.

            I’m quite confident I have read more of the young-earth literature than you have.

            I have prayed for you.

            Thank you. I have prayed for you as well.

            Yes, ANSWERS IN GENESIS is the best place to find it.

            I think I’ve heard of them.

            I really don’t have time to continue this as I am an extremely busy person. The answers are there for all to know. I: know this may not mean much to you, but I felt very lead by God to respond to you. I am now done.

            And I felt very led by God to respond to you. Whether or not you “continue this” is entirely up to you. I’m not forcing you, but I’m also perfectly entitled to respond to the claims you make, especially when you say patently untrue things about scripture and the available scientific evidence.

          • Your question is based on the assumption that effects necessarily follow chronologically from causes. But why should that be assumed? If there was salvation before Jesus Christ died and rose again, does that mean his atoning sacrifice isn’t what brought salvation (since people were already being saved)? Of course not. The effects of his atoning sacrifice reached both backward and forward in time; the effects followed from the cause, but not necessarily chronologically.

            Perry G. Phillips, “Did Animals Die Before the Fall?” [PDF] Perspectives on Science and Christian Faith, vol. 58, no. 2 (2006): 146–147.

  • Cindy Smith

    When you criticize others attempts at evangelism you really take away from your primary argument, ‘that you can be a Christian and disagree about the origins of mankind’. Or is your point that you are right and creationism is wrong. I hope its the former

    • I’m not sure how this article undermines my argument that you can be a Christian and disagree about the origins of mankind…since, you know, nowhere in the article do I say anything remotely like, “You can’t be a Christian and disagree about the origins of mankind.”

      I’m not saying that the people who made this film aren’t Christians, I’m arguing that evangelistic techniques such as this, which attempt to put the gospel in the context of a particular view of origins, are irresponsible and unbiblical.

      • Ugandaservant

        And I totally disagree. I guess you would think it was all right if it represented evolution as a fact. Of course I am only concerned about what God thinks.

        • Wonderful! So let’s talk about “what God thinks.” Please share any and all Bible passages in which God presented the gospel message and the essence of the Christian faith, explicitly in the context of a six-day creation and a 6,000-year-old earth.

  • Ugandaservant

    Evolution is neither observable, testable, nor repeatable. You have a world view in which you interpret all evidence and non evidence. You presuppose that your thinking is correct because of your starting point, As I read your emotionally laden article I noticed that it was full of unsubstantiated conjectures of which you cannot prove any of. You cannot prove in a test tube that evolution exists. Dogs changing into dogs or horses changing into horses is not evolution–it a combining of DNA. The law of information science says that information cannot come from matter. DNA is information. You can copy information but ultimately it all comes from a mind–the mind of God–the creator of everything that exists. That law of information totally eliminates the fallacy of evolution. Pick up any object, like a toothpick, Did it evolve into a toothpick? Silly, right. Then take the whole universe–supposedly just add nothing and then add more nothing and then add billions of years and “wow” bang! you have a whole universe that works so finely tuned together. Does the time it takes light to travel prove me wrong? God made Adam a full grown human being, And according to God’s word, the way God created the universe is not the same way He upholds it. Is it really impossible for God to do this? No. Even before I became a Christian, all I did was look around at how everything depends on everything else to operate. I am so glad that our creator gave us a book to tell us how it all began, gave us the history of mankind and the reasons of why there is so much evil in this world. So why do so many scientists believe in evolution? It’s called sin. Since God created the everything, He gets to make the rules. If you don’t want to obey those rules, you deny the rule giver and His revealed word. Jesus referred specifically to Adam being the first man, He referred to Noah’s world wide flood and the list goes on and on. If these things aren’t true (which they are), and you have to reinterpret everything according to man’s ideas about our beginnings, then we can supposedly really know nothing. God is not a man that He can lie, Men lie and suppress the truth in unrighteousness.

    • Evolution is neither observable, testable, nor repeatable.

      Actually, it’s all of those things. You must be thinking of creationism.

      You have a world view in which you interpret all evidence and non evidence. You presuppose that your thinking is correct because of your starting point,

      Again, I believe you’re thinking of creationism.

      As I read your emotionally laden article I noticed that it was full of unsubstantiated conjectures of which you cannot prove any of.

      As I read your emotionally laden comment, I noticed that it was full of unsubstantiated conjectures and misleading rhetorical arguments that fall apart after a moment’s rational thought.

      You cannot prove in a test tube that evolution exists.

      Nothing in science is ever “proven.” It is confirmed through observation and testing, and evolution has been confirmed through this process for over a century. You also cannot prove “in a test tube” that gravity or electricity exists, but I don’t see you jumping off a cliff or sticking a fork in a wall outlet.

      Dogs changing into dogs or horses changing into horses is not evolution–it a combining of DNA.

      Dogs and horses are both an excellent example of evolution at work. In just a few hundred years, look at all the variety that selective breeding has produced. Just imagine what would happen if that process over a process 10,000 times longer.

      DNA is information. You can copy information but ultimately it all comes from a mind–the mind of God–the creator of everything that exists.

      This I agree with. But just because God is the creator doesn’t mean he didn’t use natural processes to accomplish his ends. The Bible says he sends the rain, but we now know he uses a natural process (the water cycle) to do so. The Bible says he knits babies together in the womb, but he now know he uses a natural process (cell division and fetal development) to do so.

      That law of information totally eliminates the fallacy of evolution.

      Evolution requires only that DNA information can be replicated and passed on, so this actually confirms evolution.

      Pick up any object, like a toothpick, Did it evolve into a toothpick? Silly, right.

      Yes, it’s incredibly silly that you would compare an inanimate object to self-replicating biological life forms and think you are producing a comprehensible argument.

      Then take the whole universe–supposedly just add nothing and then add more nothing and then add billions of years and “wow” bang! you have a whole universe that works so finely tuned together.

      Teeny bit more complicated than that.

      Does the time it takes light to travel prove me wrong?

      Well, if you believe the universe is only a few thousand years old, then, yes.

      God made Adam a full grown human being, And according to God’s word, the way God created the universe is not the same way He upholds it.

      I’m sorry, but I’m not familiar with that passage. Where does God’s word say this? I was under the impression that God is “the same yesterday, today and forever” (Heb. 13:8), the “alpha and omega” (Rev. 1:8), “who does not change like shifting shadows” (James 1:17).

      Is it really impossible for God to do this?

      No, but he tends not to be a liar.

      Even before I became a Christian, all I did was look around at how everything depends on everything else to operate. I am so glad that our creator gave us a book to tell us how it all began, gave us the history of mankind and the reasons of why there is so much evil in this world.

      Wowie! Theologians have been grappling with the problem of evil for thousands of years — guess they should have just gone straight to you, huh?

      So why do so many scientists believe in evolution?

      Evidence?

      It’s called sin.

      Oh.

      Since God created the everything, He gets to make the rules.

      Agreed. So why do you and your friends insist he could have only created in the way and in the timeframe you presuppose to be true?

      If you don’t want to obey those rules, you deny the rule giver and His revealed word.

      Yikes, sounds serious! Sounds like enough to give you and your friends pause to reconsider whether you should really be putting God in such a box.

      Jesus referred specifically to Adam being the first man,

      Man, something else I missed! Please tell me, where did Jesus “refer specifically to Adam”?

      He referred to Noah’s world wide flood and the list goes on and on.

      Now, I feel stupid. I know Jesus referenced Noah in Luke 17:27, but he did not say it was a worldwide flood, so I must have missed something else. Please tell me the chapter and verse in which Jesus expounds on the historicity of a global flood.

      If these things aren’t true (which they are), and you have to reinterpret everything according to man’s ideas about our beginnings, then we can supposedly really know nothing.

      I know all those words, but that sentence makes no sense to me.

      God is not a man that He can lie,

      Amen! So, why do you insist he made the universe look about 2.3 million times older than it actually is?

      Men lie and suppress the truth in unrighteousness.

      True, but thank God he loves us both anyway.

      • Ugandaservant

        Dear Tyler,
        I believe God’s word just as He wrote it.  It is the ultimate authority in my life.  Man’s ideas and models are in constant change and motion.  They are not the authority in my life.  Evolution is molecules to man from non life (which is impossible)in million and billions of years.  It is not dog’s changing into various kinds of dogs which is speciation. My world view which starts with the plain reading of Genesis, is that God wrote it through his chosen vessels. So every word in the bible is written by God.  Since in John chapter 1 is says that Jesus is God and that everything was created through Him, then every scripture has His signature on it.  No need for someone to come along and tell me that it doesn’t mean what it says when I know it does. Who should I believe– God or man. God created everything in six 24 hour day.  He isn’t doing that now.  So the way He created the world is not the way He upholds it. We know that since creation, we have uniformity of nature so we can expect that tomorrow nature will basically remain the same.  We are so interdependent with nature that we could not live if gravity changed, or air composition changed, or the sun moved . . . . . and so on.  Gravity is the name we give to the way God holds everything together.  Gravity is not a replacement of God’s power, it is God’s power–as it is all of nature, i.e. creation Adam was a full grown man created on day 6 of creation.  He walked with God in the garden of Eden.  He gave Adam a wife.  All this is found in Genesis 1 & 2. The world wide flood: Many Christians today think the Flood of Noah’s time was only a local flood, confined to somewhere around Mesopotamia. This idea comes not from Scripture, but from the notion of “billions of years” of Earth history. But look at the problems this concept involves: – If the Flood was local, why did Noah have to build an Ark? He could have walked to the other side of the mountains and missed it. – If the Flood was local, why did God send the animals to the Ark so they would escape death? There would have been other animals to reproduce that kind if these particular ones had died. – If the Flood was local, why was the Ark big enough to hold all kinds of land vertebrate animals that have ever existed? If only Mesopotamian animals were aboard, the Ark could have been much smaller.1 – If the Flood was local, why would birds have been sent on board? These could simply have winged across to a nearby mountain range. – If the Flood was local, how could the waters rise to 15 cubits (8 meters) above the mountains (Genesis 7:20)? Water seeks its own level. It couldn’t rise to cover the local mountains while leaving the rest of the world untouched.2 – If the Flood was local, people who did not happen to be living in the vicinity would not be affected by it. They would have escaped God’s judgment on sin.3 If this happened, what did Christ mean when He likened the coming judgment of all men to the judgment of “all” men (Matthew 24:37–39) in the days of Noah? A partial judgment in Noah’s day means a partial judgment to come. – If the Flood was local, God would have repeatedly broken His promise never to send such a flood again. Belief in a world-wide Flood, as Scripture clearly indicates, has the backing of common sense, science and Christ Himself.Originally published in Creation 21(3):49, June 1999 No, theologians should have believed God’s word that tells us because of Adam & Eve’s sin, death and suffering came into the world.  We live in a world under the curse of sin and mankind continues to rebel against Him and bring the evil and suffering into the world themselves along with Satans continued opposition against God. When presenting the Christian worldview, I take the Bible at face value. Call it literal interpretation if you wish, but it is difficult to see how else the writers of the Old and New Testaments meant to be taken. Figures of speech, yes; typologies, yes; analogies, yes; but overall they wrote in simple, straightforward terms. When a writer says, “In the beginning God created the heavens and the earth,” we understand him to say that there is a God, there was a beginning to creation, that heaven and earth exist, and that God made them. When a writer says, “God so loved the world that he gave his only begotten Son that whosoever believeth on him shall not perish but have everlasting life,” we understand him to say that there is a God, that God loves, that God sent His Son, and that those who believe Him shall not perish but have everlasting life. It does not take a Ph.D. or a high IQ to comprehend the basic message of the Bible. God’s special revelation is open to everyone. The first verse of the Bible identifies who God is (see The Creator). He is the Creator, not an idea, not a moral standard. All of Scripture agrees and supports that point. The Bible begins that way, and continues on through the Psalms (Psalm 19:1, “”The heavens declare the glory of God and the firmament shows His handiwork””), the epistles (Colossians 1:16–17), and the last book of the Bible (Revelation 4:11, “”Thou are worthy, O Lord, to receive glory and honor and power: for thou hast created all things, and for thy pleasure they are and were created””). Thus the concept of an actual, historical creation identifies the Creator.The second point is that creation identifies man. Man is not just a body—not just a stack of chemicals that arrived by natural processes. Yes, man does have a body, but he also has a mind and a spirit (Genesis 1:26–27 says, “”And God said, Let us make man in our image, after our likeness: and let them have dominion over the fish of the sea, and over the fowl of the air, and over the cattle, and over all the earth, and over every creeping thing that creepeth upon the earth. So God created man in his own image, in the image of God created he him; male and female created he them.””). Man is in the personality image of the Creator (see Man: The image of God).That is the basis for our praising the Creator, our worship of Him (Psalm 100, “”Make a joyful noise unto the LORD, all ye lands. Serve the Lord with gladness: come before his presence with singing. Know ye that the LORD he is God: it is he that hath made us, and not we ourselves; we are his people, and the sheep of his pasture. Enter into his gates with thanksgiving, and into his courts with praise: be thankful unto him, and bless his name.””).The third point is that creation is the basis of the gospel. Man was created perfect, but in Genesis 3 we have the account of the Fall. Man was tempted to substitute his own autonomous truth standard for the Creator’s absolute. Up until the Fall, the Creator’s Word was the test and standard for truth. The Creator said, “Don’t eat this fruit.” At the Fall, man was tempted to move away from the Creator’s standard of truth and substitute his own standard. All ideas were compared to what the Creator said. Any idea that didn’t agree would therefore be wrong because the Creator would not lie. At the Fall, man was tempted to move away from the Creator’s standard of truth and substitute his own standard. As a result, death came into the universe. Death is an intrusion. Man was not created to die. We have a right to cry at a funeral. Romans 5:12 says, “”Wherefore, as by one man sin entered into the world, and death by sin; and so death passed upon all men, for that all have sinned.””Death entered the world when man sinned. In fact, man’s sin affected the entire creation (Romans 8:22, “”For we know that the whole creation groaneth and travaileth in pain together until now.””). Man therefore needs a Savior and the first promise and prophecy of that was Genesis 3:15. The phrase is, “”the seed of the woman.”” That phrase should stand out like a red neon sign. All of the rest of Scripture, and even in our culture today, children take the father’s name. But here we have “”seed of the woman”” (offspring of the woman); a child would be born, a virgin-born Son of God, “”seed of the Woman”,” to be our Savior. So man was created, has fallen, and needs a Savior.Now, when man fell, it wasn’t just a moral fall (it was that), it wasn’t just a spiritual fall (it was that), it wasn’t just an emotional fall (it was that), but it was also an intellectual fall. Instead of being spiritually in tune with our Creator, man is now spiritually dead and normally uninterested in spiritual things. Instead of being excited and at peace with God, man is emotionally estranged from God and angry at Him. Instead of normally wanting to do what is right, our normal tendency is to do what is wrong; we fell morally. We have to work at being good. A baby does not have to be trained to be bad, but to be good. Bad comes naturally.But we also fell intellectually. Instead of using the Creator’s Word as our test of truth, our natural tendency now is to use our own opinions, the opinions of rebellious, fallen man. Because the Fall affected all aspects of man, salvation also is for all aspects of man. Man has to be converted spiritually (to be alive and alert and responsive to God the Creator); he has to be converted emotionally (to have peace with the Creator); and there has to be repentance (a moral change); but man also needs to be converted intellectually. He has to again move back to the Creator’s Word as his test for truth. Romans 12:2 describes this, “And be not conformed to this world; but be ye transformed by the renewing of your mind, that ye may prove what is that good, and acceptable, and perfect, will of God.”
        Laura Carter
        From: Disqus
        To: Laurac398@yahoo.com
        Sent: Tuesday, October 21, 2014 12:16 PM
        Subject: Re: New comment posted on More like ‘ a matter of misinformation’
        #yiv8892481127 #yiv8892481127 a:hover, #yiv8892481127 a:hover span {color:#1188d2!important;}#yiv8892481127 .yiv8892481127button-cta:hover {color:#ffffff!important;background-color:#1188d2!important;}#yiv8892481127 .yiv8892481127button-cta:hover span {color:#ffffff!important;}#yiv8892481127 #yiv8892481127 #yiv8892481127 #yiv8892481127outlook a {padding:0;}#yiv8892481127 body {width:100% !important;}#yiv8892481127 .yiv8892481127ReadMsgBody {width:100%;}#yiv8892481127 .yiv8892481127ExternalClass {width:100%;display:block;}#yiv8892481127 _filtered #yiv8892481127 {}#yiv8892481127 .yiv8892481127content {width:100%;}#yiv8892481127 table {border-collapse:collapse;}#yiv8892481127 h2.yiv8892481127headline {font-weight:700;font-size:20px!important;margin-bottom:5px;}#yiv8892481127 .yiv8892481127button-cta {display:block!important;padding:0!important;}#yiv8892481127 div.yiv8892481127header {padding-top:20px;}#yiv8892481127 div.yiv8892481127footer {padding-bottom:20px;}#yiv8892481127 #yiv8892481127 #yiv8892481127 p.yiv8892481127mod-tools a:hover {color:white!important;background:#8c989f!important;}#yiv8892481127 _filtered #yiv8892481127 {}#yiv8892481127 td.yiv8892481127avatar img, #yiv8892481127 td.yiv8892481127spacer img {width:28px!important;}#yiv8892481127 | |
        | |  Settings | |
        |   |

        | |

        | |
        |
        A new comment was posted on God of Evolution
        |
        | |
        |
        | |
        Tyler Francke

        Evolution is neither observable, testable, nor repeatable.
        Actually, it’s all of those things. You must be thinking of creationism. You have a world view in which you interpret all evidence and non evidence. You presuppose that your thinking is correct because of your starting point, Again, I believe you’re thinking of creationism.
        As I read your emotionally laden article I noticed that it was full of unsubstantiated conjectures of which you cannot prove any of. As I read your emotionally laden comment, I noticed that it was full of unsubstantiated conjectures and misleading rhetorical arguments that fall apart after a moment’s rational thought. You cannot prove in a test tube that evolution exists.
        Nothing in science is ever “proven.” It is confirmed through observation and testing, and evolution has been confirmed through this process for over a century. You also cannot prove “in a test tube” that gravity or electricity exists, but I don’t see you jumping off a cliff or sticking a fork in a wall outlet. Dogs changing into dogs or horses changing into horses is not evolution–it a combining of DNA. Dogs and horses are both an excellent example of evolution at work. In just a few hundred years, look at all the variety that selective breeding has produced. Just imagine what would happen if that process over a process 10,000 times longer. DNA is information. You can copy information but ultimately it all comes from a mind–the mind of God–the creator of everything that exists. This I agree with. But just because God is the creator doesn’t mean he didn’t use natural processes to accomplish his ends. The Bible says he sends the rain, but we now know he uses a natural process (the water cycle) to do so. The Bible says he knits babies together in the womb, but he now know he uses a natural process (cell division and fetal development) to do so. That law of information totally eliminates the fallacy of evolution. Evolution requires only that DNA information can be replicated and passed on, so this actually confirms evolution. Pick up any object, like a toothpick, Did it evolve into a toothpick? Silly, right. Yes, it’s incredibly silly that you would compare an inanimate object to self-replicating biological life forms and think you are producing a comprehensible argument. Then take the whole universe–supposedly just add nothing and then add more nothing and then add billions of years and “wow” bang! you have a whole universe that works so finely tuned together. Teeny bit more complicated than that.
        Does the time it takes light to travel prove me wrong?
        Well, if you believe the universe is only a few thousand years old, then, yes. God made Adam a full grown human being, And according to God’s word, the way God created the universe is not the same way He upholds it. I’m sorry, but I’m not familiar with that passage. Where does God’s word say this? I was under the impression that God is “the same yesterday, today and forever” (Heb. 13:8), the “alpha and omega” (Rev. 1:8), “who does not change like shifting shadows” (James 1:17). Is it really impossible for God to do this?
        No, but he tends not to be a liar.
        Even before I became a Christian, all I did was look around at how everything depends on everything else to operate. I am so glad that our creator gave us a book to tell us how it all began, gave us the history of mankind and the reasons of why there is so much evil in this world. Wowie! Theologians have been grappling with the problem of ev il for thousands of years — guess they should have just gone straight to you, huh? So why do so many scientists believe in evolution?
        Evidence?
        It’s called sin.
        Oh.
        Since God created the everything, He gets to make the rules.
        Agreed. So why do you and your friends insist he could have only created in the way and in the timeframe you presuppose to be true? If you don’t want to obey those rules, you deny the rule giver and His revealed word. Yikes, sounds serious! Sounds like enough to give you and your friends pause to reconsider whether you should really be putting God in such a box. Jesus referred specifically to Adam being the first man,
        Man, something else I missed! Please tell me, where did Jesus “refer specifically to Adam”? He referred to Noah’s world wide flood and the list goes on and on. Now, I feel stupid. I know Jesus referenced Noah in Luke 17:27, but he did not say it was a worldwide flood, so I must have missed something else. Please tell me the c hapter and verse in which Jesus expounds on the historicity of a global flood. If these things aren’t true (which they are), and you have to reinterpret everything according to man’s ideas about our beginnings, then we can supposedly really know nothing. I know all those words, but that sentence makes no sense to me.
        God is not a man that He can lie,
        Amen! So, why do you insist he made the universe look about 2.3 million times older than it actually is? Men lie and suppress the truth in unrighteousness.
        True, but thank God he loves us both anyway.3:16 p.m., Tuesday Oct. 21 |   |
        |
        |   | Reply to Tyler Francke |   |

        |
        |   |

        |

        | Tyler Francke’s comment is in reply to Ugandaservant: |
        |   |
        | | Evolution is neither observable, testable, nor repeatable. You have a world view in which you interpret all evidence and non evidence. You presuppose that your …Read more |
        |
        | |

        | |

        | |
        | You’re receiving this message because you’re signed up to receive notifications about replies to Ugandaservant. You can unsubscribe from emails about replies to Ugandaservant by replying to this email with “unsubscribe” or reduce the rate with which these emails are sent by adjusting your notification settings. | | |

        | |

        • Dear Laura,

          Matthew 24:37-39 does not say that Noah’s flood was global, or that it affected all mankind. It merely references “they” — those who “were eating and drinking, marrying and giving in marriage.” This could very easily refer to a small group or small population of people. The passage’s comparison to the Christ’s return is not a reference to the scope of the coming judgment, but to its suddenness, and the fact that it will take by surprise those who are not prepared (Matt. 24:42-44, 1 Thess. 5:2, 2 Peter 3:10).

          In the massive block of text that you submitted as a comment, I failed to see a reference where Jesus specifically discussed Adam, by name, as the “first man,” or specifically referred to Noah’s flood as a global event. Since you claimed in your original comment that these passages exist, I’ll reserve any further response on my part until you’ve provided these references.

          Thanks,
          Tyler

          • Ugandaservant

            I made it quite clear, since Jesus is wrote the whole bible,
            He was quite clear about the flood over the whole earth as a judgement. I gave plenty of scriptural references. You just don’t believe them and want to reinterpret them according to your world view. Let’s see, who should I believe, you or God? God has chosen the foolish things of the world to confound the wise.

          • Laura, what’s quite clear is that you’re moving the goalposts. In your initial comment, you said twice that “Jesus referred to ____” because you believed that Jesus, in his earthly form, actually did refer to Adam and a worldwide flood in the gospels. If you had intended to refer to the stories in Genesis, then you would have said “God’s word,” as you did elsewhere in your comment. Now that I’ve pointed out to you that Jesus did not actually say what you claim he said, you’re trying to pretend like you didn’t really mean Jesus (in his earthly form) when you said “Jesus.” Won’t work on me. It’s OK to make a mistake, Laura, but at least have the courage and decency to admit you were mistaken.

          • Thanaseelan Pushpanathan

            Oh poor child, whoever told you that Jesus wrote the Bible is sorely mistaken, as are you. He didn’t. God may have said it, Jesus may have reitterated it, but in the end the bible as well as many other holy scriptures were written long, long after the prophets were gone. God and his prophets may be infallible, but the men who wrote the Bible long after they are gone most definately are fallible. So don’t quote scriptures as if it is a 100% reliable source, you cannot verify it. Use the God given brain to make the distinction in the contradictions, which parts are the will of God, which are the parts edited by men.

          • Ugandaservant

            As an unstated premise, you are insisting that there are certain standards by which we judge how likely something is true. When we stop to consider what these standards are, we will see that the “standards” themselves are proof that the Bible is true. Putting it another way, only the Bible can make sense of the standards by which we evaluate whether or not something is true. One set of standards are the laws of logic. “The light is red” and “the light is not red” cannot both be true at the same time and in the same sense. Laws of logic thus represent a standard by which we can judge certain truth claims. Moreover, all people seem to “know” laws like the law of non-contradiction. We assume that such laws are the same everywhere and apply at all times without exception. But why is this? How do we know such things? If we consider the biblical world view, we find that we can make sense of the laws of logic. The Bible tells us that God’s mind is the standard for all knowledge (Colossians 2:3) Since God upholds the entire universe and since He is beyond time, we would expect that laws of logic apply every where in the universe and at all times. And what about the uniformity of nature? The tools of science allow us to describe the predictable, consistent way in which the universe normally behaves. Science allows us to make successful predictions about certain future states. For example, if I mix chemical A with chemical B, I expect to get result C because it has always been that way in the past. This happens the same way every time: if the conditions are the same, I will get the same result. Science is based on an underlying uniformity in nature. But why should there be such uniformity in nature? And how do we know about it? The Bible provides that foundation. According to the biblical worldview, God has chosen to uphold the universe in a consistent way for our benefit. He has promised us in places such as Genesis 8:22 that the basic cycles of nature will continue to be in the future as they have been in the past. Although specific circumstances change, the basic law of nature (such as gravity) will continue to work in the future as they have in the past. Interesting, only God is in a position to tell us on His own authority that this will be true. According to the Bible, God is beyond time, and so only He knows what the future will be. But we are within time and have not experience the future. The only way we could know the future will be (in certain ways) like the past is because God has told us in His Word that it will be.
            Apart from the Bible, is there any way we could know that the future will be like the past? So far, no one has been able to show how such a belief would make sense apart from Scripture. The only non biblical explanations offered have turned out to be faulty.
            The Bible is the most historically authenticated book of all history–deal sea scrolls, meticulous copying, self attesting, portions of scripture within the first hundred years of Jesus coming to earth and church fathers writings. But this isn’t the ultimate proof of the authority of the Word of God. The ultimate p[rood is that, “If the bible isn’t true you couldn’t prove anything” because it alone gives us the preconditions for intelligibility for the laws of logic, the uniformity of nature and absolute morality–among many other things. Jesus, who was exact representation of the Father, who was and is the creator of everything John 1: 1-10, breathed upon men and inspired them to write His holy word. It is the Bible that says God wrote the Bible. It is the authority for my life. I am very very rich because of it.

  • Debbie Michels Finn

    I don’t know what’s more troubling… the people who made this movie or the audiences who buy into it. Scary, actually.

  • Hans Geiger

    Clown, it doesn’t reach non-Christians? Guess who is answering? Evolution is a lie, creation is the way. Poor soul, have nothing to know and believe in, only the nonsense of evolution, which needs a constant feed with more and weirder nonsense. Am I right or am I right,; at least be truthful to yourself….in secret of cause.

    • No, Hans, you are not right. In fact, I can’t think of a single way your comment could have possibly been more wrong. It is a masterpiece of ignorance and fallaciousness.

  • David Arnold

    A Catholic should make a film against Creationism. After all, without Catholics Christianity is a peon of a religion. The only time Protestants consider Catholics Christian is when it favors them, in some way.

  • Gregory Phillips

    The one question I would pose to all atheist to consider.

    What if you are wrong?

    If the Christians are wrong then what have they really lost, besides “wasted energy/time” which even that is debatable, as most Christians actually enjoy the fellowship and worship.

    However if the Atheist is wrong…well that is a whole other story, in which people like Collin don’t seem to grasp. Eternity. Translation-“I am so bound and determined to prove you wrong I will gamble my eternal soul”

    The “Science/Religion Can’t co-exist” crowd wants you to think they are SOOOO smart, however this basic logic seems to escape them. Therefore it is very hard to give credence to anything they say.

    Please Atheists Explain how your version is “Better”…as the version of I die and that is it just doesn’t seem “Better” in any capacity.

    Just my humble opinion.

    Gregory

    • Thanaseelan Pushpanathan

      That is one way of seeing it, you have portrayed the religion as perfect and all loving. But the fact remains, atheist don’t judge or persecute each other. They don’t condemn people to hell for not conforming with their ideology. They don’t wage war for their belief. People of religion (especially the fundamentalists) are often judgy and vengeful, I think if god is as loving and merciful as described to be, god would actually side with atheist and not the so called religious one. One who is powerful enough to create the whole universe could not be bothered over petty thing like humans and what they do. Have you ‘considered’ it that way at all?

  • John

    These movies are all the same. Crap.

  • John

    Christianity is selfish. They are disrespectful to native Americans with their Missionaries, and they think their religion is the best, and the others are evil and ignorant. Do you get my point?

    • DoxInRxBox

      Following Jesus Christ is dying to oneself. True followers lay down their wants, needs, and live to spread the word of Jesus and Honor God. No one may get to the Father unless through the Son. Many religions have selfish people with their own agenda. Being true to God is denying sins of the flesh.

  • John

    well said, well said.

  • Darleen

    So well thought out and well communicated. Thanks for sharing.

  • If the population never – and you said never has fallen below a few thousand. ..how did we begin?

    The human race developed gradually over time, descending from our ancestors. You have to stop thinking in magicky young-earth creationist terms if you really want to understand evolution.

    A few thousand people didn’t just *poof* onto Earth all in a spontaneous moment.

    No, they didn’t, though this is pretty much what young-earth creationists believe happened.

    Could you imagine thousands of people suddenly looking around at each other saying “Where in the heck are we!” Hahahaha – Now THAT’S absurd!

    It’s completely absurd, but again, it’s what young-earth creationists believe.

    • Christopher Walker

      So where does consciousness come from?

      • Matthew Funke

        So where does consciousness come from?

        Can you define “consciousness” for us?

        You don’t have to dig very far before you start to run into the slippery inadequacy of our current terminology to describe and define “consciousness” precisely. Since we’re only just scratching the surface when it comes to defining what consciousness is, we shouldn’t be surprised that science has a long way to go to answer that question. (Some interesting suggestions have been made by Daniel Dennett in Consciousness Explained that seem to indicate that a theory of consciousness is possible, even if it’s currently beyond our grasp.)

        However, a lack of knowledge is only proof of just that: a lack of knowledge. It’s not an indication that anyone’s explanation is right — or wrong. To analyze that, you need to start looking at the evidence we do have and what we can determine that it indicates.

  • Douglas

    Wow, I love this “hamster on a wheel” thinking in this paragraph:

    “That’s what evolution is. It is not an explanation — logical or
    otherwise — for “the origin of life,” because it could, in fact, do
    nothing until after life originated. The absence of life is also,
    necessarily, the absence of evolution, and if we never fully understand
    how life first appeared — or if we prove beyond doubt that it was
    started by God, or aliens, or a mystical blue fairy with sparkly wings —
    none of that would change our understanding of evolution one iota.”

    You got one thing correct, that evolution is not logical. How could a rational educated person hold to, or teach a “theory” as truth, as that’s what exactly the school systems are teaching it as. God doesn’t have to prove himself to his creation, he has placed it in the hearts of man to know him. If one of his creations choose to not want a relationship with him, by creating or believing in his own God (evolution) or the multitude of other God’s created (Idolatry), then he gives that person up to a debased thinking and upon death, will not recognize you as a child of his welcomed into his kingdom. Sounds logical to me!

    Not one person on this planet can explain how matter was created, how gravity was created, how the universe was created, or why someone on the direct opposite side of earth doesn’t feel the effects of being upside down. Sure you can come up with some sort of scientific explanation for it, but not how it truly works or was created. There are too many individuals, as this site confirms, that are wrapped up in their so-called intelligence, that they miss the truth that’s right in front of them.

    • You got one thing correct, that evolution is not logical.

      What a shame: The only thing I got “correct,” and that’s not even what I said. Oh well.

      How could a rational educated person hold to, or teach a “theory” as truth, as that’s what exactly the school systems are teaching it as.

      I suppose because rational and educated people understand what a scientific theory is, and know the evidence that supports this particular one.

      God doesn’t have to prove himself to his creation, he has placed it in the hearts of man to know him.

      That’s true, but he does encourage us to learn about him and his invisible qualities through study of and interaction with his creation (Romans 1:19-20).

      If one of his creations choose to not want a relationship with him, by creating or believing in his own God (evolution) or the multitude of other God’s created (Idolatry), then he gives that person up to a debased thinking and upon death, will not recognize you as a child of his welcomed into his kingdom.

      Yikes, so you guys do think accepting evolution damns a person to hell! Thank you for being so clear and direct, Douglas. Very few young-earth creationism proponents will so easily admit that this is what they believe (you know, because of how absurdly unbiblical that belief is).

      Sounds logical to me!

      I’m sure it does, Doug.

      Not one person on this planet can explain how matter was created, how gravity was created, how the universe was created, or why someone on the direct opposite side of earth doesn’t feel the effects of being upside down. Sure you can come up with some sort of scientific explanation for it, but not how it truly works or was created.

      Great work, Doug. Few science deniers can construct a theologically damaging God-of-the-gaps argument as sublime as this one.

      There are too many individuals, as this site confirms, that are wrapped up in their so-called intelligence, that they miss the truth that’s right in front of them.

      You are quite right, Doug. Unfortunately, I have met many young-earthers on this site who suffer from the exact problem you describe here.

  • david

    nerds why cant you guys just keep your thoughts and beliefs to yourself. You scientist cant think of a logical way that the world was created and decided to make something as out-of-the-blue as the big bang theory but as far as i have learned, biological life forms can’t just come to existence.that is spontaneous generation, a theory that has already been disproven. Stars, as far as i know,aren’t considered living matter. seeing that we can totally just put evolution to the side. Nothingness can’t evolve, so how do you explain that Tyler.you can’t prove how the earth and the universe came into existence just as christians cant prove to people like you that god exist. therefore neither can be proved wrong and neither sides win. its a never ending cycle. you christian should understand that not everyone can or wants to believe so you should leave them be. none of you will be proven wrong until or if the world ends. if it doesnt this debate will never end. Also tyler you say that god made things in a way that is science and can be proven for example the water cycle and cellular division but maybe god made it so that humans can make they’re own logical beliefs. maybe you’re right and christians are wasting they’re time. Maybe maybes are all we got to live with. so why don’t we just maybe let it go. I’m not much for one side or the other since both ideas are far-fetched and a burden to me since i have to deal with it both at home and school. honestly the bible is nothing more than a poruquoi tale to me. Forgive any of my grammar and punctuation since i was at a rush to express myself. but why can’t both ideas collaborate to explain any phenomenons. they are both crazy ideas and should work out together perfectly. it could be called Bio-Theology. Nice right.

    • Chris

      I’m pretty sure the purpose of this site is exactly to say that both sides can and do corroborate each other, and just because one could believe God has the power to have used what we can find through evolutionary science is not in any way to say that He does not exist or that His words are untrue.

      • David is very confused. He apparently thinks that I’m an atheist. Which is strange, since this article very clearly explains that movies like this bother me because I’m a Christian, and these types of projects distort the gospel.

        • David

          (I meant to reply this here my bad) That wouldn’t work though. The Bible says that you can’t have two masters your either with God or against. You can’t believe in evolution and God. The Bible also says, and I quote (kind of)” you are not hot or cold though I wish you were but since you are neither I vomit you.” So technically God despises people like you, Tyler. Beleiving in evolution while beleiving in Christ is wrong. Are you saying that we all started as monkeys and that sin turned us into humans. If not then what your saying is that monkeys evolved because of God but then why are there still monkeys around. Or are you saying that monkeys are the likeness of God either way its ilogical to believe two contrasting things. P.S yes I was confused I didn’t bother reading your article or actually finding out what this site was about. P.S.S Also if your so Christian be respectful love your neighbor. P.S.S.S Also bio thology sounds better.

          • yes I was confused I didn’t bother reading your article or actually finding out what this site was about.

            Chris gives an excellent and more thorough response to your post, but I think this right here is the only sentence that really matters. We can go on and on about how absurdly, hilariously misguided you are to suggest that God “despises” believers who accept the scientific truth he’s revealed in his creation, or that sin changed monkeys into humans (???), but the fact that you would come on here to rant against a position and an article you freely admit to having not even attempted to understand says all anyone needs to know.

      • David

        That wouldn’t work though. The Bible says that you can’t have two masters your either with God or against. You can’t believe in evolution and God. The Bible also says, and I quote (kind of)” you are not hot or cold though I wish you were but since you are neither I vomit you.” So technically God despises people like you, Tyler. Beleiving in evolution while beleiving in Christ is wrong. Are you saying that we all started as monkeys and that sin turned us into humans. If not then why your saying that monkeys evolved because of God but then why are there still monkeys around. Or are you saying that monkeys are the likeness of God either way its ilogical two believe two contrasting things. P.S yes I was confused I didn’t bother reading your article or actually finding out what this site was about. P.S.S Also if your so Christian be respectful love your neighbor. P.S.S.S Also bio thology sounds better.

        • Chris

          That wouldn’t work though. The Bible says that you can’t have two masters your either with God or against. You can’t believe in evolution and God.

          Can you believe in God, and at the same time believe in gravity? Can you believe in God, and at the same time believe in germs? Can you believe in God and at the same time believe in other planets? Then why, according to you, can you not believe in God and at the same time believe in evolution? (Keep in mind, I am not saying you have to, just wondering how one could conceive that they contradict each other at all)

          The Bible also says, and I quote (kind of)” you are not hot or cold though I wish you were but since you are neither I vomit you.” So technically God despises people like you, Tyler. Beleiving in evolution while beleiving in Christ is wrong.

          “So, because you are lukewarm–neither hot nor cold–I am about to spit you out of my mouth.” -Rev 3:16. According to your logic, those who believe in a scientific process are diametrically opposed to believing in God. This would indicate that this type of believer actually is hot or cold; the lukewarm would be the person who ignores God completely. Your analogy is not a good one, and God despises no person– he is love.

          Are you saying that we all started as monkeys and that sin turned us into humans. If not then why your saying that monkeys evolved because of God but then why are there still monkeys around. Or are you saying that monkeys are the likeness of God either way its ilogical two believe two contrasting things.

          Here, I think, is where you are having trouble. You don’t understand the basics, and are making judgment calls as if you did. Do yourself a favor, learn about what you are preaching is so against God, instead of jumping to conclusions. A good place to start may be here. No one who understands the theory says people came from monkeys, and even if they did, the fact that monkeys still exist would not in any way be a problem. Consider, even YEC models depend on evolution in some form, for example dogs descended from wolves. Does the fact that wolves still exist negate that fact?

          yes I was confused I didn’t bother reading your article or actually finding out what this site was about.

          Ever heard the expression, it’s better to stay silent and look like a fool, than to open your mouth and remove all doubt? Why’d you reply to the article or the page to attack what you did not even “bother reading” (your words) what you were even claiming to be opposing?

          • Great response, Chris. Thanks. I really appreciate it.

    • Hey David. I am not an atheist. I am a born-again, Bible-believing evangelical Christian. Now that we’ve cleared that up, is there any part of your comment above that still applies? Didn’t think so.

    • myklc

      Perhaps you mean BioLogos?
      http://biologos.org/common-questions

  • Hey “Science lover,” thanks for your comment, but that is not actually how science works. Theories don’t grow up and become laws; they’re completely different things.

    A law is a description of how some aspect of the universe normally behaves, based on observation. I.e., Newton’s law of universal gravitation (since superseded by general relativity): “Every object in the universe exerts an attraction upon every other object.”

    A theory is an explanation of some aspect of the universe that arises from repeated testing and confirmation through experimentation and observation.
    Theories do originate from hypotheses (you got that part right), but they don’t graduate and become laws if they do really well as theories.

    Theories are actually more useful and higher than laws in the scientific hierarchy, since they explain observations rather than just stating that that’s what happens. To revisit the example above, a theory would explain why objects exert attraction upon other objects, rather than just stating that they do, like the law of gravitation does.

    Yes, evolution is a theory, but it is an extremely well-substantiated, successful and predictive theory. To just reject it outright because, “Hey, people can choose to believe whatever they want,” is incredibly arrogant and stupid. And I say that as your loving neighbor.

  • Sam Rinne Hooker

    In 6th grade we learned that evolution was in fact compatible with biblical Creation. Where were these people?

    • Thanks for the link, Sam. I’ve run across that piece before. It’s a good one.

  • Silje

    You should definitely watch the movie to get to the points it is making. For me as a christian who believe in science and in the bible, I loved how the character of Professor Portland presented it humbly that he had been prideful in his presentation of the creation as the only truth, refusing to teach about evolution. He encouraged that we should present both (or maybe more) and let the students themselves make the choice of what they themselves believe in. To not present something as the one and only truth, but present the sience in a way that would make them reflect on their own and make up their own mind.

    A very valuable thing I learned is that the creation story was not written for scientists, but for everyday people in the form of poetry that would make sense for them, not present the actual facts. And that most of what sientists today present actually go together with what rhe bible teach.

    • Matthew Funke

      Well, creationism shouldn’t be taught in science class, because it isn’t science. Even beyond that, the efficacy of “teaching both” threatens to undermine the teaching of good science, because doing so implies a scientific legitimacy in creationism that it does not possess, and takes away valuable time for teaching how the science we understand actually works. (The fact is that science is so darned good at uncovering information about the natural world that by the time we taught them enough so that they could “make up their own mind” in an intelligent way that is responsible to the facts, they’d be in grad school.)

      We don’t do this for any other pseudoscience. We don’t insist that our geography classes should also teach the idea of a flat Earth, or that our chemistry classes should also teach the idea that everything is composed of the four classical elements, or that our health classes should also teach the idea that health is about keeping the four humors in balance. We understand that doing that is foolishness. It’s the same for teaching creationism in our biology classes. The idea that we should present both is a false equivalence created by creationists to get their material taught without having to do the hard work of achieving scientific validity.

    • Chris

      I watched it about a month ago, it’s on Netflix. I would only advise those who thought God’s Not Dead was Oscar-worthy to see it. Because it is crap.

      The pervasive message throughout the entire thing after the dad finding out who the professor was, was how evolution goes against everything the Bible teaches. And ends with a (spoiler alert) tail-between-the-legs arrogant professor being disproved because the Bible is right so evolution is wrong. With all the bad acting and over-the-top dialogue that you’d expect from a typical Christian propaganda piece.

      It is a horrible movie with the feel good message only for those who already had their minds made up going in, that the Bible starting in Genesis 3:25 says “and therefore the Lord did not use evolution”. Which of course, it does not.

    • I don’t have to watch the movie to “get the points it is making.” I have been reading and listening to createvangelists for years; I probably understand their points as well as, if not better than, most YECs.

      As far as “teach the controversy,” uh, yeah, that’s a terrible idea. You don’t teach children how to think by presenting good, evidence-based science alongside moralistic, misguided hokum and asking them to “choose.”

  • That’s what I thought. Evolution is not the same as the origin of life. I felt like the movie was lumping evolution with other things that it says nothing about.

    • Thank you!

      • Thank you for writing the review. I watched it last night and wrote my own review too.

        I also have long thought about the problem of saying that Darwin invented evolution. That makes it sound like it’s some lie made up(which most Christians genuinely believe). Rather, it was based on something he observed and tried to explain. When you think about it, none of us actually invent or create anything. Somehow his name is always tied to it as if it depended on him alone somehow. If it hadn’t been Charles Darwin to first explain how life was evolving, I’m sure someone else would have.

        • Matthew Funke

          More to the point, Charles Darwin didn’t come up with evolution. He came up with a mechanism to drive evolution along (natural selection) — but evolution itself was pretty well accepted in science before he published.

          (In other words, we knew that the process was real before we understood how it worked. The fossil record is highly suggestive of the idea that a process like evolution must have taken place, as is the nested hierarchy in which organisms can be and are sorted.)

          • More to the point, Charles Darwin didn’t come up with evolution. He came up with a mechanism to drive evolution along (natural selection) — but evolution itself was pretty well accepted in science before he published.

            This is correct: Evolution had been discussed and was largely accepted in scientific circles long before Darwin, but it was not known how or why it happened. However, we also can’t discount that Darwin’s work did an awful lot to popularize the notion of evolution and common descent among the general public.

          • Matthew Funke

            Excellent point, yes. His Origin did a whole lot to explain in plain language why evolution is such a compelling theory (and what the evidence is for it, even explaining a few apparent conundrums). I don’t mean to diminish Darwin at all; the man was a genius, and his contribution is hard to encapsulate.

            Tellingly, when Ray Comfort et al. distributed free copies of Origin with a creationist preface to college students, they removed four critical chapters that detailed the evidence for the theory (including my personal favorites, 11 and 12, showing biogeographical evidence).

          • I remember that stunt. What a joke.

        • Thanks, Chandler! You have a link to your review?

  • Simi

    For God so loved the world that He gave his only begotten son, that whosoever believeth in Him, shall not perish, but have everlasting life. (John chapter 3 Verse 16)
    May the Almighty God have Mercy. He is very very real.

  • Mark Jacob Garao

    *Sigh* Just from my perspective. anyone who does not believe in God’s existence is considered an Atheist. just wondering why debating much about it…

  • VectorVictor

    I just watched this movie (it’s now on Netflix) because the cover picture depicted a man’s hand reaching out to touch an ape hand, an allusion to the painting The Creation of Adam. I did not watch the trailer. My take on the movie itself was that the acting was relatively robotic and unnatural most of the time. It depicted the atheist characters as somewhat loose morally and projected a worldview that appears to be a subdued dogmatism which, as the story progressed, morphed into fully-fledged propaganda in favor of creationism and dogmatic unquestioning belief in the literal interpretation of the Bible. It was rather like watching a christian science themed soap opera that only shows up on tv at around 2 pm on weekdays. Some of the story is believable, but really, the movie was a rehash of evolution vs. christian debates – but this time the christian science side comes out victorious…. and completely misses the point of evolution.

    I noted some mistakes in scientific vernacular usage. One example of this was within the debate scene when the former biology professor character comes onto the stage to take over for the main character’s father. He starts talking about how he was fired, which is irrelevant in such a debate and is a well-known debate tactic that is known as emotional appeal, which is, by definition, a logical fallacy. People love underdogs and he presented himself as the underdog who is on an upswing – which is all irrelevant to the debate of evolution vs creationism.

    He then went on to discuss the matter at hand, the idea of evolution as a concept of organic matter coming out of inorganic matter willy-nilly. There is a slight misunderstanding when it comes to the general populace that “organic matter” is defined as those chemicals which comprise living organisms, when it is in fact defined as matter that is composed of the elements carbon and hydrogen in the form of a “hydrocarbon” and, while living organisms are composed, mainly, of these long hydrocarbon chains and rings, there is a distinction between “organic matter” and “living being tissue.” As an aside, while methane is an organic compound, i.e. organic matter, it is not a living thing. “Inorganic matter” however, is everything that is not composed of a hydrocarbon. It may include carbon, but it is primarily concerned with the chemistry of those elements and their derivatives. This includes everything from table salt to water. Organic matter does not necessarily mean living organisms and organic matter cannot be directly “pulled” from inorganic matter in the way that was presented in the debate scene. This is a misrepresentation of evolution’s premise and a gross misunderstanding of the theory of evolution and of the massive amounts of knowledge gained from scientific inquiry.

    There were similar allusions to popular scientific topics that also misunderstood the depth of the topic at hand. The big bang was presented as a bang that was initiated by a chemical reaction. This invokes the idea that there were chemicals before the big bang, even though we have no information that can tell us anything that existed or occurred before the big bang. We have ideas, of course, and there are people that are trying to come up with ways of finding out what may have existed before the big bang, but altogether, it’s a mystery. There however, is no statement that postulates the nonexistence of a supernatural power in the big bang theory. This is another misrepresentation that was included in the debate scene.

    It would seem to me that in the evolution vs creationism debate, one side appears to be discussing apples, while the other discusses oranges – but calls them apples. One is concerned with actual scientific inquiry, the other – with the unsettling feeling that their beliefs are being challenged and that their children are being led “astray” by people who hold different beliefs, or no beliefs at all. The issue then becomes a psychological matter of the nature of belief. It was mentioned in the debate scene that Freud postulated that man made up God to have someone to blame things on.

    Now, I don’t know much about Freud, but I do know a little bit about belief, specifically, confirmation bias. If I believe that aliens exist, then I will perceive evidence of their existence in my experience of the world, even if no such evidence actually exists. If someone believes that their lucky coin makes them lucky, then they will see the evidence of it in their winning games of poker.

    The behavioral component of beliefs is where it gets really interesting. If someone believes that they have the capability to achieve greatness in the context of society, then they will present themselves as competent and driven people who are capable of greatness. This will lead people to see them as great, leading to a reinforcement of the belief. If someone believes that they are destined for failure and a life of misery, then, in the context of human society, they will behave in a way that will reflect this image. This is called low self-esteem in society.

    The thing to note though, is when someone projects an image of their beliefs, whatever they are, and is responded to by a contrary belief – that is when we run into conflict. The person with low self esteem who meets a person that believes that everyone can achieve greatness, is going to feel an incongruent response. This self-professed “loser” is now having to deal with the effect of a paradigm shift, where their beliefs are challenged and they have the option of sticking with their old paradigm, or going with this new paradigm.

    In human society, our paradigms are very precious to us. In many ways, they seem to BE us. We represent them and changing the paradigms feels like changing who we are. So, it’s understandable that, when the religious person who believes, literally, every word of the bible, comes across the idea that their world view, their paradigm, is wrong, then the religious person will experience some cognitive dissonance and feel threatened by the outside source of discomfort. But they believe that they have God on their side, so they don’t lose too much sleep over it.

    Meanwhile the atheists are super confused about what the big deal is and form their own little clubs where they get together and share their awe of how people can be so…. so… closed-minded to the obvious… because… well, SCIENCE! Even if some of them don’t fully understand the concepts themselves, they believe the scientists, which is great (job security is pretty important kids), but also misses the social dynamics of different beliefs clashing together. Again, it’s apples. And oranges that have been arbitrarily labelled “apples” but aren’t really apples. If Shakespeare were alive today, he might say, “I said that a rose by any other name would smell as sweet, but I think you may have missed the point of what I meant by ‘rose’. I meant it as a metaphor for the actuality of a thing being the most important… but.. what was that? You say that it’s not a rose? But… well, no, but that’s not the point… mhm… well yes… but–…. oh heck, I give up. Call it what you want, I don’t care any more. I’m not even alive! And this is all an allegorical statement anyways.”

    All in all this movie was interesting from a social psychology perspective and held my attention only because of my curiosity in the other side’s point of view.

  • Dylan Cook

    The nerve of Young Earthers! They censor Christians for no reason,.

    Yes, I don’t count Young Earth Creationism as part of Christianity, Judaism, or Islam whatsoever. I’m a Christian and I believe in evolution, the big bang and climate change.

    Young Earth Creationism disgusts me, and I wager it disgusts God as well.

  • alice

    You are talking about ‘misinformation’ but let’s be honest – you’re the one who’s misinformed. U didn’t get what the movie is about haha. It’s simple to make fun about things u haven’t an idea of. Oh, and even science is created by God so don’t try him and try to cause him with his own ‘invention’ lol. The movie is great by the way.

    • Matthew Funke

      What do you think he missed, specifically?

      (For whatever little it’s worth, I don’t think anyone is crediting science with causing God.)