The Templeton attack on Christianity

The Templeton Foundation prides itself on being hated by all the wrong people. They claim that the fact 'extremists' like Richard Dawkins young earth creationists both hate them shows the world how right their 'moderate' position is. I don't think it shows this at all. They support a kind of vitalistic (theistic) evolution. One of their pet projects in the Biologos Foundation. I reject the 'conciliatory' position they've adopted, and will take a brief look at it in this post.

Quotes and comments;

A. 'Over the past six months or so, the evangelical world has been debating a series of statements and papers by Dr. Bruce Waltke, sponsored by the BioLogos Foundation. BioLogos, founded by Dr. Francis Collins, claims to be "a reliable source of scholarly thought on contemporary issues in science and faith. It highlights the compatibility of modern science with traditional Christian beliefs." [1.]
- Collins is a big favorite with the Templeton gang. Christians who accept and defend evolution are much beloved by atheists and anti-creationists.

B. 'Dr. Waltke insists that he is an ardent believer in "the infallibility (as to its authority) and inerrancy (as to its Source) of Scripture."2 Yet he also insists: "I believe that creation by the process of evolution is a tenable Biblical position, and, as represented by BioLogos, the best Christian apologetic to defend Genesis 1-3 against its critics."

- Are Christians 'called' upon to defend individual Bible passages? I'm not sure, but I don't think they are.
- Notice that he says evolution is a tenable belief. This means it's a defensible belief. It does not mean (necessarily) that it (E.) is true. I find this interesting. Is he admitting it's not true? Obviously it's easy to defend Evolution in this society, where almost everyone is sent to a government controlled school, that is in turn controlled by materialists and anti-Christians.

C. 'In a paper released by BioLogos in late 2009, Dr. Waltke listed eleven "Barriers to Accepting the Possibility of Creation by Means of an Evolutionary Process."
'Dr. Waltke defined the evolutionary process as:
"The sufficiency of mutation and natural selection in bringing about the development of present living kinds from simpler earlier kinds, including the emergence of man from a common ancestor with apes.'' [1.]

- It's nice to see that he defined Evolution honestly. (This is a novel approach indeed.)
- He's basically basing his whole argument on mutation. How he imagines copying mistakes can create a library of new information I have no idea. This is clearly impossible. (Give your head a shake Bruce.)

D. 'In the same paper, Dr. Waltke said about creation:
"Since "creation" involves "ordered existence," creation by the process of evolution implies--so it seems to me--the Creator's intelligence guiding the process, not a process by unguided, purposeless chance.6

- Now he's starting to waffle. Evolution guided by the Creator's intelligence is Not evolution. This is the fallacy of equivocation! He says he believes in evolution, but then the 'evolution' he believes in isn't evolution at all. This is Not the consensus science definition of evolution. The court mandated definition includes no creator, and W. assuredly knows this. How does he think he can get away with playing this game? What he's doing is transparently fallacious.

E. 'For several years now, various authors and spokespersons within the ID movement have accused ICR and other recent creation proponents of hindering evangelism because "no one" will talk to us if we hold such "silly" positions. Dr. Waltke's video comments reflect that thinking:

"I think that if the data is overwhelmingly in favor, in favor of evolution, to deny that reality will make us a cult, some odd group that's not really interacting with the real world.
To deny the reality would be to deny the truth of God in the world and would be to deny truth….also our spiritual death in witness to the world that we're not credible, that we are bigoted, we have a blind faith and this is what we're accused of.
I think it is essential to us or we'll end up like some small sect somewhere that retained a certain dress or a certain language. And they end up so…marginalized, totally marginalized, and I think that would be a great tragedy for the church, for us to become marginalized in that way." [1.]

- This is sad and pathetic. It's pretty obvious isn't it, that this defense of Evolution isn't really a concern with what the bible actually says. It's also not about whether Evolution (M2M) is true or not. What this is about is maintaining 'credibility' with people who reject Christianity and creation. This is a strange witness indeed. Has prof. Waltke not noticed what has happened in Europe where 'liberals' adopted all of his proposals many decades ago? Has he not noticed the utter collapse of the church in Europe? (Or has he been too busy inventing fake arguments for defending evolution?)

The approach he recommends is not only dishonest, it's suicidal. The calling of Christians is to proclaim the truth, not to conform to the wisdom of the academic world. The calling is to proclaim the gospel. Some will accept it and some will reject it. This is not to be the concern of the apologist. No one (and this includes the people at Biologos) can argue people into the kingdom of God. No one can argue people into accepting Christianity and creation. (Has Waltke forgotten the ministry of the Holy Spirit?)

- It's always interesting to me how people like W. care so much more about atheists than they do about fellow Christians. How is this? (You can ask this question a hundred times and not get a single answer.)

- I disagree with Waltke entirely. The evidence is overwhelmingly against evolution and in favor of Christianity. (It doesn't sound like he has even begun to keep up with the evidence against evolution. In fact he sounds like one of those 'liberals' who refuse to read anything critical of their beloved evolution.) His whole case revolves around maintaining face with Christ hating atheists. (A strange witness indeed.) The approach he advocates is the antithesis of how the apostles operated.

- Waltke talks about a blind faith. This would seem to be clear evidence he hasn't kept up with the origins debate in even a trivial way. Is he unaware of the mountains of evidence creationists have gathered? Has he read even one percent of it? There's a difference between faith and blind faith, and it's sad to see him accuse creationists of having nothing but blind faith. (Is it okay to lie about fellow Christians professor Waltke?)

On the contrary, it's people like Waltke who come a lot closer to blind faith. e.g. we know from biological study that life does not come from non-life. To believe otherwise is a matter of blind faith. (I could go on, and do so at length.) To imagine that the libraries of complex, specified information needed as a foundation for the plethora of living forms in the world came about by chemical accident is something I consider both impossible and preposterous. There is no way this could have happened. You can't get Shakespeare's plays by throwing letters into the wind. At the heart of Darwinian 'theory' is an absurd claim that complex, specified information issues out of the void.

Summary;
The claim that theistic evolution is the 'best' view of origins is based on the idea of the golden mean. The golden mean supposedly takes the middle (mean) position between two extreme positions, and thus is the best approach to take on an issue. The idea of the golden mean is a fallacy; one that's based upon the assumption there is no such thing as absolute truth, that truth is a human invention. It denies the idea of absolute truth; and thus denies the idea any biblical doctrine is true. It assumes that the bible (and Christianity) is a human invention.

Notes;
1. Creation by Evolution - by Henry Morris III, D.Min.
[Understanding the Theological Hazards of Bruce Waltke, BioLogos, and the New Darwinian Evangelicals]
2. BioLogos is funded by the Templeton Foundation, which has awarded prizes and grants to Hindus, Buddhists, Muslims, Catholics, evangelical Christians, and atheists. Its support of evolution-based science research is ongoing. [above]
3. When I speak about Evolution I'm referring to molecules to man evolution. (M2M)