“No Miracles Allowed”

Today’s Washington Post runs a story on the Intelligent Design (ID) debate titled “In Explaining Life’s Complexity, Darwinists and Doubters Clash.” One opponent of Intelligent Design explains why he thinks ID is unscientific: “One of the rules of science is, no miracles allowed. That’s a fundamental presumption of what we do.”

Isn’t it telling that the proponents of Darwinism reject ID based solely on the presumption that ID can’t be right. There’s no serious engagement of the arguments and data cited by ID proponents, just an a priori dismissal.

This just goes to show the atheistic naturalism that is at the heart of much of modern science. This God-less presumption concerning human origins is no less a faith commitment than those who would argue otherwise.

1

“Politicized Scholars Put Evolution on the Defensive”

Even the title of the story reveals that the New York Times is on the war-path against intelligent design: “Politicized Scholars Put Evolution on the Defensive”. This article reads like an opinion piece, but it’s not. It’s reported as straight news. There is no serious engagement of arguments in this article, just the usual ad-hominem accusation that Intelligent Design scientists are politically motivated culture warriors.

0

The Gospel for Porn Stars and Porn Addicts


“. . . and such were some of you” (1 Corinthians 6:11)

After two critical posts, it’s time to say something constructive. Even if I can’t agree with the methods of the XXXChurch, I do want to affirm their desire to take the Gospel to every sinner. The Gospel of Jesus Christ is just as much for porn stars and porn addicts as it is for any other sinner on planet earth. Continue Reading →

4

More on the XXX Church

I have had more than one person object to my last post with something like the following: “You cannot come down on these guys for going to the porn convention because they may not have a struggle with lust like most other men do. Besides, we have to take the Gospel to sinners, and sometimes that may mean going to porn conventions.”

I want to respond to those objections with a few thoughts. Continue Reading →

5

R. Albert Mohler on Contraception in Marriage

R. Albert Mohler, president of the Southern Baptist Theological Seminary, has posted the second of two articles on married couples who refuse to have children. You ought to take a look at both of them.

This most recent article is titled “Deliberate Childlessness Revisited,” and the first is titled “Deliberate Childlessness: Moral Rebellion With a New Face.”

Mohler admits that he touched a nerve with the first article—which is no surprise given that he maintains that “deliberate childlessness” is a “moral rebellion” against God.

2

The New York Times Bashes the NARAL Ad

Can you believe it? Now the New York Times is editorializing against the NARAL ad! Not only that, but John Tierney piles on with an Op-Ed titled “Pro-Choice but Anti-Naral.”

This bodes ill for NARAL Pro-Choice America and leaves them looking more and more like a fringe group. No doubt this is why their communications director, David Seldin, has resigned.

The Times editorial ends with the following paragraph:

“In withdrawing the ad, Naral’s president, Nancy Keenan, said that the controversy sparked by the ad had ‘become a distraction’ from the group’s effort to educate the public. Lamentably, her statement stopped short of apologizing to Judge Roberts, and to Americans of all ideological stripes who are hoping for a confirmation process at once vigorous and informed. If Naral wants to regain credibility, it should start there.”

0

Washington Post Calls a Spade a Spade

You have probably heard about the ad that NARAL ran on TV smearing Judge John Roberts. The ad alleged that Judge Roberts supports violence against abortion providers. The ad was manifestly scurrilous, and thankfully, has been called out as such by an editorial in today’s Washington Post. You can read it here. NARAL has now withdrawn the ad.(HT: Justin Taylor)

0

Interview with Bono in CT

For you rabid U2 fans, I thought you might be interested in an interview with Bono appearing on the Christianity Today website. The interview appears under the title “Bono: Grace over Karma.” Among other things, Bono is able to articulate a fairly clear profession of faith in Christ.

“I’m holding out that Jesus took my sins onto the Cross, because I know who I am, and I hope I don’t have to depend on my own religiosity . . . I love the idea of the Sacrificial Lamb. I love the idea that God says: Look, you cretins, there are certain results to the way we are, to selfishness, and there’s a mortality as part of your very sinful nature, and, let’s face it, you’re not living a very good life, are you? There are consequences to actions. The point of the death of Christ is that Christ took on the sins of the world, so that what we put out did not come back to us, and that our sinful nature does not reap the obvious death. That’s the point. It should keep us humbled… . It’s not our own good works that get us through the gates of heaven.”

I don’t know much about Bono’s religious commitments or how his definition of terms may vary from that of the typical North American Evangelical. But at first blush, this isn’t too shabby.

The interviewer (who is a skeptic, to say the least) goes on to ask: “Christ has his rank among the world’s great thinkers. But Son of God, isn’t that farfetched?” Bono responds:

“No, it’s not farfetched to me. Look, the secular response to the Christ story always goes like this: he was a great prophet, obviously a very interesting guy, had a lot to say along the lines of other great prophets, be they Elijah, Muhammad, Buddha, or Confucius. But actually Christ doesn’t allow you that. He doesn’t let you off that hook. Christ says: No. I’m not saying I’m a teacher, don’t call me teacher. I’m not saying I’m a prophet. I’m saying: ‘I’m the Messiah.’ I’m saying: ‘I am God incarnate.’ . . . So what you’re left with is: either Christ was who He said He was—the Messiah—or a complete nutcase . . . The idea that the entire course of civilization for over half of the globe could have its fate changed and turned upside-down by a nutcase, for me, that’s farfetched . . .”

Here, Bono sounds as if he’s been reading C. S. Lewis’ “Lord, Liar, or Lunatic” trilemma. Whatever the case, I have to give Bono credit for giving such a thoughtful answer.

Notwithstanding his apparent misunderstanding of the relationship of the Old Testament to the New, the entire interview was a pleasant surprise.

8

Powered by WordPress. Designed by Woo Themes