It seems a funny way to pray
listening to the words You say,
but may we do that every day.
Your mercy lasts forever.
______
Ronovan Hester offers “funny” as inspiration for this week’s Ovi Poetry Challenge. Also posted on Poet’s Corner.
Bart dreamed that a rich man gave him the combination to the lock on his storeroom and told him to take all the gold and jewelry he could carry out. Joyfully he stuffed his pockets.
When a child approached with his hands out the rich man told him to give something to the child, but Bart said, “No, I have to fill my own barn!”
Nonetheless Bart obeyed the rich man giving the child the tiniest gold coin he had crammed away somewhere which turned into a loaf of bread and a fish in the child’s hands. Others seeing what happened rushed to receive something as well.
After Bart opened his eyes from his dream to the morning light and the sound of birds and put on his threadbare clothes to leave the shelter he recalled that his pockets in that dream remained mysteriously full no matter how fast the rivers of living water welled up from within him to give everything away.
______
Denise offers this prompt word “combination” for this week’s Six Sentence Stories.
John 7:37-38
37 In the last day, that great day of the feast, Jesus stood and cried, saying, If any man thirst, let him come unto me, and drink.
38 He that believeth on me, as the scripture hath said, out of his belly shall flow rivers of living water.
Dale offers the prompt “as the nights draw in” for this week’s Cosmic Photo Challenge.
No matter what the news may show
or what the mocking monsters throw,
go make your choice. Remember, though,
the Lord will always win.
______
Ronovan Hester offers the word “victory” as inspiration for this week’s Ovi Poetry Challenge. This was also posted on Poet’s Corner.
In the good old days the Ninevites were a wicked bunch. The Lord told Jonah to tell them to either repent or be severely punished which sent Jonah off on a boat in the opposite direction, because he knew, like everyone else, except perhaps the Lord, that Nineveh did not deserve an opportunity to repent.
When the Lord roughed up the waves to destructive levels below the boat Jonah was fleeing on, the reluctant crew threw him overboard at his own request so the sea would calm. A fish sent by the Lord scooped him into its mouth and held him in a disgusting state of indigestion for three days and three nights until the Lord finally let the fish relieve its bellyache by vomiting its cargo onto the shore. Then the Lord asked Jonah once again to tell the Ninevites to repent lest He destroy them.
Jonah recited the bare text of the Lord’s message hoping no one in Nineveh would listen, but the grotesque stench coming from his direction only confirmed the conspiracy theories about a fish and a boat and, since no one in Nineveh wanted whatever happened to him to happen to them, they all repented.
______
Denise offers the prompt word “text” to be used in this week’s Six Sentence Stories. For what really happened see the short book of Jonah. Jonah son of Amittai was a prophet during the reign of Jeroboam II: 2 Kings 14:25.
Dale offers the prompt “one thing inside another” for this week’s Cosmic Photo Challenge.
In the first photo there are tiny plants growing inside the space between the rocks.
In the second, there’s a heart inside this huge palm branch, if you can see it.
In the third, there are three (oops, make that four) tiny birds inside this sunrise.
About seven years ago I was studying the Christian analytic philosopher Alvin Plantinga. I think I actually reached a point where I could explain the details of his Evolutionary Argument Against Naturalism (EAAN). However, I see now that I didn’t understand what was really at stake. Because he was a Christian and an analytic philosopher I assumed he was someone I could trust. Today I see much of this very differently and I am hopefully not as gullible.
The Capitulation
Plantinga’s argument pitted evolution, which he didn’t seriously question, against naturalism, which he rejected, to try to show that if you believed in evolution, you should not believe in naturalism. The problem with his argument, logically sound though it was, is that he thought he could separate out evolution to save it from the false atheistic mythology of naturalism.
To his credit Plantinga argued for a special kind of evolution which he called guided evolution. Based on this idea he hoped to resolve the alleged conflict between science and religion by compromising with, that is, capitulating to, atheism rather than rejecting it. He wrote in Where the Conflict Really Lies, (2011) page 11, the following:
A more important source of conflict has to do with the Christian doctrine of creation, in particular the claim that God has created human beings in his image. This requires that God intended to create creatures of a certain kind—rational creatures with a moral sense and the capacity to know and love him—and then acted in such a way as to accomplish this intention. This claim is clearly consistent with evolution (ancient earth, the progress thesis, descent with modification, common ancestry), as conservative Christian theologians have pointed out as far back as 1871.
While it may be clearly consistent in some logical system to assume the existence of a god, such as the fictitious Gaia, to guide evolution, that god could not have been the Elohim of Genesis 1 who finished creation in six days. That god who guided evolution could not have been the Christian God.
Ignoring Genesis
Faced with such a complaint a Christian who supports evolution, even if it is just physical/chemical evolution of planets, stars and galaxies, has to rationalize how six days can be interpreted to mean a mythologically large number of years. Plantinga does this far too quickly by dismissing young earth creationism on page 10 with the following:
Of course Christian belief just as such doesn’t include the thought that the universe is young; and in fact as far back as Augustine (354-430) serious Christians have doubted that the scriptural days of creation correspond to 24-hour periods of time.
He even admitted (footnote, page 144) that his resolution of the conflict between science and religion is not concerned with belief in a universal flood or with a very young earth. According to him, these are not part of Christian belief as such. On this ground alone Christians should reject his argument.
Redefining “Evolution”
To make his theory work he not only had to ignore Genesis, but he also had to redefine evolution to allow for creative activity of some sort. However, the very point of evolution is to come up with natural processes that completely account for changes that take one from nothing to something, from non-life to life and from pond scum to human beings without involving the creative activity of any God, angel, demon or human being.
On this ground alone even atheists should reject his argument. It doesn’t matter whether he finds it clearly consistent to add in creative agents. According to atheist mythology they are not wanted. Atheists don’t need them. His EAAN argument attempts to show that such views, however, are not reasonable, but why should that matter to atheists who rely on randomness, not rationality, and can fantasize a multiverse of universes in which to play atheist roulette?
Christian Alternatives
Confronted with evolution the Christian has three options:
This may cause some people grief. No one wants to capitulate regarding their faith. However, there is no need for grief. It is a rational and scientific stance to reject evolution. Just ask yourself: what repeatable, measurable, non-creative, natural processes can you use to explain how nothing (not even a quantum vacuum) can turn into something? There are no non-creative, natural processes that can explain such a transition. That means physical evolution is atheist mythology. It is neither scientific nor rational to hold such a belief.
Continue this line of thinking. What natural processes exist that allow one to go from pond scum to human beings? If someone suggests that mutations and natural selection might work, then remind them that those processes lead to mutational meltdown (extinction). They do not lead to more complicated beings, but rather to less complicated ones. That means biological evolution is also impossible. One should reject it with the same conviction that one rejects the rest of atheist mythology.
The problem with evolution is the problem of building a house of cards without a creative agent. In the real world, not some magical, mythological world the atheist would love to live in, if you want to get a house of cards you need a human being, a creative agent. You need someone to build it. Natural, non-creative processes, such as a gust of wind and gravity, can surely knock that house down. Natural processes, however, cannot build it. That takes a creative agent, but evolution does not acknowledge them.
Ancient Earth
Plantinga describes evolution in these terms: ancient earth, the progress thesis, descent with modification, common ancestry. Note that without an ancient earth there would not be enough time for the rest of that mythological stuff to happen. On the Bible’s timeline of less than 8000 years there is no time for the progress thesis, there is no time for descent with modification and there is no time for common ancestry to occur.
Everything Plantinga wants to protect about evolution depends on an ancient earth, but what is the evidence for that?
Fulfilling Prophecy
Rather than trying to help atheists maintain their mythologies, Plantinga should have pointed out that evolution has never occurred and that the earth is not as old as atheists would like you to believe. Why didn’t he do that? Why did he add atheist mythologies to his Christian presuppositions? I think 2 Timothy 4:3-4 (NIV) tells us why:
3 For the time will come when people will not put up with sound doctrine. Instead, to suit their own desires, they will gather around them a great number of teachers to say what their itching ears want to hear. 4 They will turn their ears away from the truth and turn aside to myths.
Alvin Plantinga is an example of the fulfillment of this New Testament prophecy. Logically there is nothing wrong with the EAAN. It just doesn’t address the right problem which is the need to reject, not capitulate to, atheist mythologies. That capitulation turned Plantinga’s ear away from the truth and toward accepting myths.
Admittedly I used to be an example of this prophecy’s fulfillment as well and maybe I still am in ways I am not yet aware of. That is why I am writing about Plantinga’s EAAN and his claimed resolution of the conflict thesis. I want to make sure I put this stuff behind me having already repented of ever considering it helpful.
Don’t tolerate that tiny lie.
Deception rules until a cry
demands to know the reason why
we took God’s joy away.
If truth be known, the lies we spread
are moldy, wormy, wretched bread.
They’re traps that no one would be fed
were they not so deceived.
______
Ronovan Hester offers “trap” as the inspiration word for this week’s Ovi Poetry Challenge. Also posted on Poet’s Corner.
Poetry, Short Prose and Walking 