No more evolution

I suppose I shouldn't have been laughing but I was. In a Washington Post article the author lamented along with a scientist the loss of habitat in the Bahamas for lemon sharks. I like lemon sharks, they are a cool creature.

The reason I was laughing was not at the sharks. But what I was laughing at was the unconscious on again / off again evolutionary thinking of a scientist the author quotes. Let me give you her quote and then comment. She said, "They've been survivors on an evolutionary scale, but they've met their match, and it is us." The clear intent of this quote and the article is to convince the reader to stop thinking evolutionarily and suddenly start thinking as though they had a moral obligation to something or someone.

Yes you read that right. The author - and really not just this author and scientist but everyone who seeks to ground any sort of concern for the environment in something less than God's mandated stewardship of His Creation - seeks to impose a moral obligation on the reader to do something to preserve the lemon sharks. That's right you are to throw off your evolutionary instincts to be a winner and instead help someone else be a winner.

This double-speak is endemic to our conversing because we are made moral creatures. The environmentalist attempts to convince us to violate the dictates of evolution by not seeking to preserve ourselves only but to be altruistic and help other species. But are we obligated to preserve other species? No, obligation only arises in relationship with another person. Though the evolutionist seeks to avoid accountability with God they can't avoid accountability, they can just pervert it.

Naive news writers

I'm confused ... an article from 8/3 in the Washington Post makes clear that the writers don't think evolution is a religious viewpoint. Let me quote them so that I can't be accused of misquoting. Here's what they say, "Much of the scientific establishment says that intelligent design is not a tested scientific theory but a cleverly marketed effort to introduce religious -- especially Christian -- thinking to students." What is clearly left unstated is that evolution is a tested scientific theory (did I miss something or did someone replicate macroevolution in the last 5 years) and non-religious.

It's this 2nd aspect of evolution being non-religious that is naive. Somehow because a matter is "science" it sits off in some area that is neutral. Not true. Every scientist brings his beliefs with him. If you doubt it, work with one. They'll convince you otherwise. The true fact is that evolution takes as much or more belief in an unreproducible event or events than Creation. That anyone does anything without assuming ultimate answers in a worldview is impossible. It's the way we were made.

Clothing Not Optional

Though his family didn't follow his wishes, a nudist who died recently went into the ground fully clothed. Why would a pastor care about a nudist's wish to be buried naked? It's not because I don't like the human body or think nakedness is wrong in the right context.

The human body is to be enjoyed within the bounds of marriage in private. There and only there is nakedness permissible. As much as before the Fall God said that it was not good for Adam to be alone, He also said through His actions in clothing Adam and Eve in more than bikini style clothing (see Gen. 3:21), that it was not good for fallen man and woman to be naked in public.

What the nudist refuses in his or her rebellion against God is that man is fallen and thus public nakedness is wrong. But there is something hidden in the rebellion. It is the sense that men and women are made for complete openness - including physical openeness - and union. However, that openness and union first come with God through Christ and then only, among humans, in marriage with a member of the opposite sex.

So in a matter of speaking the nudist gets the concept right but the context wrong. Yes we are made to be naked and unashamed. But without Christ we are naked and ashamed before God. With anyone but our marriage partner we ought to be dressed and if we aren't we should be ashamed. Clothing is not optional in a fallen world, it's required.

Of Toads and Trust

There are many worldview implications involved in the recent debate regarding the nomination of John Roberts to the SCOTUS. Last week we considered the not so stealth religious litmus test being applied to Mr. Roberts.
This week it seems one of the main topics of debate revolves around Roberts ruling in a case involving an endangered toad. Supposedly because of the Commerce Clause in the Constitution, the Federal Government can watch our for endangered species wherever they are found in the states. We'll leave the constitutional debate on that matter for another time.

My focus in bringing up this aspect of the debate is to drill down into whether Mr. Roberts can be trusted because of his view on a toad. The debate in the background is not about the Commerce Clause but rather whether the nominee believes certain religious commitments held by the left in America. There is a religious commitment to the environment and the dominion mandate that is from God. I've explictly taught that and wrote on this theme recently.

This is not the kind of thing being expected of Roberts. What the left in America wants in a candidate is an explict avowal not of Christianity but of paganism. Those of a supposedly neutral religious perspective desire that a candidate agree with their conviction that all species should be preserved irrelevant of impact to culture, society, and economy. That is, there is nothing which trumps the preservation of species.

Some other time we'll consider how this is actually counter to typical evolutionary thinking. For now though I simply want to make the point that this value of species preservation at all costs is explicity pagan in worldview. What does a pagan think? He thinks that this world is all there is and the world is a great unity which ought not be broken. If a species is lost, the unity of the world is broken and "sin" has occurred. This is the kind of thinking which leads incredible attention being paid to a Panda bear cub because it is an endangered species while no attention is paid to the 1.5 million children killed each year in abortion. Humans are in no danger of going out of existence so we don't have to concentrate on their preservation (see just previous post today). Instead we must focus on keeping the circle of life intact.

What Judge Roberts is expected to be is a pagan, someone who could sing songs from the Lion King and Pocohontas without reservation and with religious commitment. Yes to trust him he'll have to put a toad above all else. This is yet another religious litmus test but instead of rejecting him because of his Christianity rejection is being sought because Roberts isn't pagan.

Is Life About Our Comfort?

Sadly a British Appeals Court has ruled that a terminally ill person can be starved to death. Specifically if "a patient is no longer able to express his or her wishes or is mentally incapacitated, doctors can withdraw treatment, including ANH [Artificial Nutrition and Hydration - mb], if they consider it to be causing suffering or 'overly burdensome.' " How food and water can cause suffering to someone is a bit obscure. However, the "overly" burdensome category is simply convenience speak for "your life isn't worth living and you're too much hassle to take care of". I have a 10 month old at home who is quite a bit of work. He doesn't feed or hydrate himself on his own but requires multiples incidents of intense care throughout the day. Is it inconvenient? Sure if I deem that what I'm doing is more important than him. But God is the one who sets importance on people made in His image and it isn't our right to determine that caring for a dying person is "overly burdensome". Babies are also "overly burdensome" or perhaps better "character building". Life - under the curse - is not about what is easiest or most comfortable. Instead it's about doing what it our duty knowing in advance that we live a cursed place where much of what we do is difficult. But this labor also helps us look forward to the New Heavens and New Earth where disease and difficulty will be no more.