Don’t Tell Me The Gospel Did Not Change The World

In the ancient Roman world, the cross was not a symbol of hope. It was not worn as jewellery or placed atop buildings as a sign of reverence. It was an instrument of terror, a public display of Rome’s brutal power. In most provincial cities, crosses lined the roads, the marketplaces, even the entrances to shops. Crucified bodies were part of the everyday landscape—a grim reminder of what happened to those who defied the empire. It was meant to humiliate, to intimidate, and to crush the spirit of the oppressed.

Imagine going to the mall and seeing that there is a crowd at the front entrance because someone has been crucified over the entrance. And in the food market there are people crucified on both sides. And outside the shoe shop, where you wanted to get new shoes, you saw someone is crucified as well. This is what it was like in ancient Rome. This visible and horrific reminder of Rome’s dominance and power was everywhere for people to see. It was a bit different in Jerusalem because they had special dispensation to crucify people outside the city in accordance with their laws, but still you would have seen this as a common site even there, just outside town. 

Yet, in the fullness of time, God entered that world. Jesus of Nazareth, the Son of God, took the cross upon Himself. He was crucified outside Jerusalem, in accordance with Jewish law, but in harmony with the Father’s eternal plan. And in that act, He did more than suffer—He transformed the very symbol of His suffering. When you understand what the cross once was, it is incredible that today we look at it as a symbol of true salvation and hope.

What was once a sign of cruelty and domination has become, for us, a sign of love, redemption, and victory. The cross today is a reminder not of Rome’s power, but of Christ’s sacrifice and his ability to over this world not by might but by the power of the Holy Spirit. The cross now speaks not of humiliation, but of exaltation. Don’t ever tell me the gospel has not changed this world. It changed the way we see the cross. It changed history itself. It changed how we even see the condemned, those who we know are guilty. Because an innocent man, who was also God, took the place of all who would believe in him.

But the story does not end at the cross. It rises from the empty tomb and ascends to the throne. And for this, we turn to the Scripture most quoted in the New Testament: Psalm 110.

“The Lord said to my Lord,
“Sit at My right hand,
Till I make Your enemies Your footstool.”
(Psalm 110:1, NKJV)

Stop and think about what David writes here for a second. He says, “The Lord said to my Lord…” Who was King David’s Lord, as no man stood higher than him in all Israel? His Lord was The Lord, God. So who was his Lord’s lord? This can only be a reference to the Father and the Son. For David was no idolator. Here, David is prophesying that God would rule this world through his Son.  

The apostles returned to this Psalm again and again because in it they saw the blueprint of Christ’s victory, that he would rule the world. Jesus is not merely a martyr; He is the Messiah, seated at the right hand of the Father, reigning until every enemy is put under His feet. Every dominion, every power, every system of oppression—spiritual, political, or social—will be defeated by Him. He is the King who fights for His people.

“2 The Lord shall send the rod of Your strength out of Zion.
Rule in the midst of Your enemies!”
(Psalm 110:2, NKJV)

He rules not from a distance, but in the midst of the battle. He entered our world of crosses and cruelty, and He reigns from right there—from the place of suffering, from the heart of human brokenness. And He shall vindicate His people. He shall judge on their behalf. He shall set things right. And we see his impact in this world clearly, already. Because the idea of setting up a cross is now unconscionable. At least in the vast majority of the world. In some dark places it still occurs, but the Lord’s conquest through his word, by the power of his Spirit continues.

But Psalm 110 tells us something even more profound about Jesus:

“4 The Lord has sworn
And will not relent,
“You are a priest forever
According to the order of Melchizedek.”
(Psalm 110:4, NKJV)

Jesus is both King and Priest. He does not only defeat our enemies; He represents us before God. He stands in our place, offering not the blood of animals, but His own blood, once for all. He is our Mediator, our Advocate, our Eternal High Priest. He represents us to God, and he represents God to us.

This is why we trust in him. This is why we take communion, because we know he is victorious and he is advocating on our behalf. We proclaim His death until He comes. We remember the cross, but we also celebrate the throne. We eat the bread and drink the cup in the confidence that the One who was crucified is now crowned—and He is reigning for us.

When Jesus went to the cross, He took the worst the world could do, the humiliation, the violence, the oppression, and He turned it into the instrument of our salvation. The very tool of Rome’s terror became the means of our peace. The cross, once a symbol of death, is now our tree of life.

He is not dead. He is risen. He is seated. He is reigning.

And because He reigns, everything changes. The world that once crucified its Creator now wears His sign as a symbol of hope. The systems that once ruled by fear are destined to fall under His feet. The people who once walked in shame now walk in His victory.

This is the power of the gospel.
This is the rule of our Priest-King.
This is the hope we celebrate.

“5 The Lord is at your right hand;
    he will shatter kings on the day of his wrath.
6 He will execute judgment among the nations,
    filling them with corpses;
he will shatter chiefs
    over the wide earth.
7 He will drink from the brook by the way;
    therefore he will lift up his head.” 

(Psalm 110:5-7, NKJV)

We have recently seen more of the crimes of Epstein and his network be revealed. We know in many ways how much evil and cruelty dominate in this world. The people of Judea in Jesus’ day were waiting for their Alexander the Great, their Julius Caesar. But their conqueror a different came a different way. Jesus came and defeated sin, death and the devil in a way most of them did not expect. But you better believe he is working on the destruction of evil in this world. He is transforming it, and subjugating all powers to himself, and he will judge the evil of this world. 

The only question is will you be judged by his final decree on judgement day? Or will you be judged and accounted in him by virtue of his work on the cross?

 

The Mathematics Against Darwin Intensifies

 

Last week I published my review of Probability Zero: The Mathematical Impossibility Of Evolution by Natural Selection by Vox Day. Since then he has already published a sequel called the Frozen Gene. Vox Day’s books are currently best sellers in the Science section of Amazon and deservedly so. The first one, and what I have read of the second one, very powerfully demonstrate that the proposed mechanisms of naturalistic evolution simply do not work. They do not have the horsepower. None of the modified versions of the theory do either. The math is simply not in their favour.

Vox Day has done the math, checked it with advanced AI’s and leading physicists and other scientists, and put the conclusive nails in the evolutionary theory coffin. His books are causing a bit of storm right now, because they are challenging the current scientific narrative about the scientific explanations of bio-diversity in our world. But as Vox Day notes in his book, he is not the first person to observe the mathematical impossibility of evolution. He has in fact independently come across the mathematical challenges to evolution that other scientists and mathematicians have discovered over the years. Many people who examine the data, and know what they are looking at, find that evolutionary theory crumbles to dust under closer examination.

A good example of another mathematical case against evolution is this one here, from Replacing Darwin, a 2017 book by Nathaniel T Jeanson. Replacing Darwin comes at this from a very different perspective than Vox Days, but it is another thread of evidence showing that the mathematics do not support the theory of evolution. It is also a good bit of evidence to show that among the creationist researchers fellowship there are genuine scientists doing the kind of research that really helps put the naturalistic worldview to the test.

Answers In Genesis and other such creationist ministries are often overlooked by many Christians and seen as anti-intellectual. But they have some seriously good scientists and researchers in their ranks, and they are working hard and fighting an uphill battle. I think in the long run many of their claims will be vindicated. In Probability Zero Vox was clear that he was not seeking to make a classical creationist argument. He is simply seeking to demonstrate that the naturalistic explanation for biodiversity does not work. He also proposes an alternative, Intelligent Genetic Manipulation.

Jeason, however, is clear that he is coming from a creationist perspective. What he is able to demonstrate with genetics and mathematics, is that the young earth creationist perspective is not as unscientific as many people have said it is. In fact, it makes proper predictions that can actually be tested and quantified.

I have here an extended discussion from his book, which I read many years ago. I went back over this section of the book a few days ago, to evaluate it in light of Day’s observations and calculations. You will see his argument is different to Day’s though it does overlap in some ways.

I’ll let Jeason outline his argument for you, himself, here:

“Examination of current evolutionary literature reveals that the assumption of constant rates of change is largely followed. When discussing molecular clocks, evolutionists typically measure the DNA difference between two species, assign the time of origin from the evolutionary geologic timescale, and then calculate a rate of mtDNA mutation from these parameters. Implicitly, this methodology assumes constant rates of mtDNA mutation.

However, very few evolutionary clock analyses invoke the measured rates of mtDNA change. By analogy, the typical evolutionary molecular clock methods parallel the following (theoretical) geologic practice: Let’s say a geologist wants to know the rate of erosion in the Grand Canyon.

Rather than measure it directly, the geologist first determines the ages of the layers in the Grand Canyon. Then the geologist determines the depth of the Grand Canyon. By dividing the depth by the ages, the geologist calculates how fast (or slow) the Colorado River has been eroding the gorge. Obviously, this “rate” is simply a prediction, not an actual measurement. In practice, geologists determine the rate of erosion by directly measuring it in real time. This measurement directly tests the prediction we just made.

Similarly, the rates of mutation in typical evolutionary molecular clock discussions represent a prediction, not an actual measurement. This prediction can be tested with the human pedigree-derived rate that we just discussed.

Using these experimentally derived rates, we can make predictions on the origin of humans. For example, by taking the evolutionary time of origin for humans or for other species from the fossil record and by multiplying the time by the mutation rate, we can predict how many mtDNA differences should be present today. For comparisons between individuals in the same species, this math and methodology is the same as that which the evolutionists have been using for years. In technical terms, the equation is a coalescence calculation.

When we’re comparing mtDNA differences between two separate species, we multiply our calculation by 2 — to account for the fact that mtDNA differences have been accumulating independently in both species. In technical terms, this second equation is a divergence calculation. With respect to humans, evolutionists have proposed that chimpanzees are our closest living relatives. They have put the time of divergence between the human and chimpanzee lineages around 4.5 to 17 million years ago. Using this timescale, along with the measured human mtDNA mutation rate, we can predict how many mtDNA differences should exist between humans and chimpanzees today.

Before we can perform this calculation, the mutation rate that I reported earlier must be converted to an absolute timescale. To convert units of mutations per generation to units of mutations per year, we need to know the ages at which humans and chimpanzees give birth.

In technical terms, the length of time from conception to reproductive maturity is referred to as the generation time. Specifically, since mtDNA is inherited primarily — if not exclusively — through the maternal lineage, we need to know the generation times for female humans and female chimpanzees. For chimpanzee females, the average generation time is around 25 years. In humans, the generation time varies. Some women give birth early in life; others, late in life. Since we’re calculating mutations over many generations, the safest approach is to predict mutations over a whole range of generation times — from 15 years to 50 years. In practical terms, this means that humans mutate one mtDNA base pair every 76 to 419 years.

Using this rate, we can predict how many mtDNA differences should exist between humans and chimpanzees after 4.5 to 17 million years of mutation. Though the chimpanzee mtDNA mutation rate has not yet been empirically measured, we will assume that it is the same as the human mutation rate.* Since we’re comparing the DNA of two species to one another, a divergence calculation is most appropriate. At a mutation rate of one base pair per 76 to 419 years, a minimum of 21,480 mtDNA differences (1 mutation per 419 years * 4.5 million years * 2 = 21,480) and a maximum of 447,368 mtDNA differences (1 mutation per 76 years * 17 million years * 2 = 447,368) would arise. Today, only 1,483 mtDNA differences separate these two species. (See also Figure 7.3, which uses more precise calculations, based on previously published work.) The evolutionary timescale predicts mtDNA differences far in excess of what is observed.

These results also raise an important question. In humans, the total length of mtDNA sequence is less than 17,000 base pairs. How could over 447,000 mtDNA differences arise between humans and chimpanzees?

In practical terms, the 447,000 result is the number of predicted mutations. Since the total mtDNA genome size is far less than 447,000 base pairs, each mtDNA position would have been mutated multiple times over. In other words, the mtDNA genome would have been mutationally saturated. Today, a comparison of human and chimpanzee mtDNA reveals two genomes that are far from mutational saturation — the 1,483 differences represent just 9% of the total human mtDNA genome length.

These evolutionary predictions improve little if we narrow our focus to living and extinct members of the genus Homo. For example, Neanderthals are classified within the Homo genus, and a Neanderthal mtDNA sequence has been published. Evolutionists put the split between the Neanderthal and modern human lineages about 400,000 to 700,000 years ago. Treating them as members of the same species, we can use a coalescence calculation to predict how many mtDNA differences should exist today between Neanderthal sequences and sequences from living humans. At a mutation rate of one base pair per 76 to 419 years, a minimum of 955 mtDNA differences (1 mutation per 419 years * 400,000 years = 955) and a maximum of 9,211 mtDNA differences (1 mutation per 76 years * 700,000 = 9,211) would arise. Today, only 213 mtDNA differences separate Neanderthals and modern humans. (See also Figure 7.4, which uses more precise calculations based on previously published work.51) Again, the evolutionary timescale predicts mtDNA differences far in excess of what is observed. The discrepancy between predictions and reality is less than what we observed for the human-chimpanzee calculations. But it still fails to capture actual differences.

When we focus just on differences among modern humans, the discrepancy becomes even smaller — but still fails to result in a successful prediction. As mentioned above, evolutionists put the origin of Homo sapiens in Africa about 200,000 years ago. Since we’re examining differences within a single species, a coalescence calculation applies. At a mutation rate of one base pair per 76 to 419 years, a minimum of 477 mtDNA differences (1 mutation per 419 years * 200,000 years = 477) and a maximum of 2,632 mtDNA differences (1 mutation per 76 years * 200,000 = 2,632) would arise. Today, an average of 77 mtDNA differences separate African mtDNA sequences from other mtDNA sequences. An average of 39 mtDNA differences separate non-African sequences from other mtDNA sequences52 (see also Figure 7.5). The evolutionary timescale still fails to accurately predict reality.

If these predictions are unable to account for mtDNA differences that we see today, what model can accurately predict them? If we expand our analysis further back into evolutionary time and include more primate species, then the number of differences in the “Actual” column would increase. However, the longer timescale would necessarily lead to a higher number of predicted differences. Since the mutation predictions for the human-chimpanzee timescale already exceed the mtDNA genome size, this lengthening of the timescale would only make the predictions even more at odds with reality.

On the other side of the timescale spectrum, we might be able to make accurate predictions for a very narrow group of modern humans. Perhaps the recent origin of one of the European ethnolinguistic groups will be explicable by the mutation rates we’ve discussed. But if this is all that the evolutionary timescale can explain, what do we do with the rest of the timescale for human evolution?

Can the timescale itself be changed? In theory, perhaps this is possible. However, in practice, this would require significant reinterpretation of the conventional evolutionary geologic model — an action which could produce significant disarray in this discipline.

In a similar vein, perhaps the assumption of constant rates of change could be altered. However, as we observed above, evolutionists have insisted for years that changing rates must not be invoked to explain the majority of phenomena observed in geology and astronomy. Instead, they have claimed that present rates are the key to the past, and that the world we see today has arisen primarily by slow, constant rates over time. Invoking changing rates in genetics would be logically inconsistent with the practice of evolutionary geology and astronomy.

Perhaps the explanation involves natural selection. At first pass, this might seem plausible. After all, mtDNA encodes proteins with critical functions in the cell. If you interrupt basic metabolism, cellular death is sure to result. Surely most of the thousands of mtDNA mutations that have occurred over the last several million years of evolutionary time were lethal to the possessors of these mutations. Consequently, natural selection would surely have eliminated these mutations (and individuals) from the mtDNA pool.

How might we evaluate the natural selection hypothesis? The scientific community has a long-established practice of dealing with scientific controversies. We’ve already discussed in chapter 4 how to advance a scientific debate towards resolution. The scientific method operates like a process of elimination. When two hypotheses offer competing explanations for the same phenomenon, one must be eliminated before scientific inferences can be made.

Naturally, this logic assumes that two competing hypotheses actually make testable predictions. We assumed as much in our discussion of the history of genetics (chapter 2–3) and in our discussion of Darwin’s arguments from biogeography. For example, Mendel was successful as a scientist because he inferred rules that made testable, accurate predictions about the mathematical ratios of traits among offspring in each pea plant generation. As another example, in our discussion of whether DNA or proteins were the substance of heredity, we observed that both of these hypotheses made testable predictions. If proteins were the substance of heredity, their chemical elimination in the experiments of Avery and colleagues should have eliminated the transforming ability of the heat-killed smooth cells. The same prediction follows from the hypothesis that DNA is substance of heredity. Conversely, if species were created in their present locations, then you might expect the fauna on islands to possess more terrestrial species. You wouldn’t expect the native fauna to be so skewed towards aquatic and aerial species. In other words, the hypothesis of the fixity of species’ geography makes testable predictions.

Hypotheses that fail to make predictions do not qualify as science. As evolutionists maintain to this day:

Science is . . . a process of acquiring an understanding of natural phenomena. This process consists largely of posing hypotheses and testing them with observational or experimental evidence. . . . Scientific research requires that we have some way of testing hypotheses based on experimental observational data. The most important feature of scientific hypotheses is that they are testable [emphasis his].

The importance of this fact to the evolutionary community is manifest in the way in which it has been applied to creationist ideas:

Science differs in this way [see quote above] from creationism, which does not use evidence to test its claims, does not allow evidence to shake its a priori commitment to certain beliefs, and does not grow in its capacity to explain the natural world. Unshakeable belief despite reason or evidence (i.e., faith) may be considered a virtue in a religious framework, but is precisely antithetical to the practice of science.

In other words, since the most important feature of a scientific hypothesis is that it is testable, the seeming un-testability of the existence of God, of the supernatural creation of various creatures, and of a global flood a few thousand years ago has typically removed creationist ideas from the realm of science.

Some evolutionists have even taken the criticism of the creation model one step further. They have summed up creationist views in a short phrase: “God did it.” Besides rejecting this phrase as unscientific, they have denounced it as anti-scientific. For example, let’s say that you were testing a potential anti-cancer drug in the lab. If you were laboring over a confounding experimental result, “God did it” wouldn’t seem to reveal an answer. At least, it wouldn’t lead to discoveries on how the natural world operated. Rather, testable hypotheses would be the only scientific way forward toward a solution.

In light of this historical practice, we can revisit the evolutionary explanation of natural selection. The elimination of thousands of mtDNA mutations by natural selection might seem plausible. But to be scientific, this explanation would have to make testable predictions. For example, the mtDNA mutation rate in the most divergent African people groups (San peoples, Biaka peoples, etc.) has not yet been measured. Can the evolutionary explanation of natural selection predict what this rate will be? In other words, before the rate is actually measured, will evolutionists publish a guess as to what it will be? If not, is the evolutionary explanation scientific?

* * * *

Curiously, the human mtDNA data that we’ve just discussed fits a model that many have previously discounted. In a previous section, I discussed the YEC geologists and astronomers who hold to a 6,000-year timescale for the earth and universe. Predicting mtDNA differences for Homo individuals over 6,000 years exactly captures both the average mtDNA differences among non-Africans and among Africans (Figure 7.6).

The non-African differences were best predicted by a moderate generation time (i.e., about 30 years), and the African differences by a fast generation time (i.e., about 15 years) (Figure 7.6). Historical data offered an explanation as to why. Since mtDNA is inherited primarily — if not exclusively — through the maternal lineage, data on female generation times are the most relevant to our analyses. United Nations marriage data from the 1970s revealed that women from African nations married younger than women from non-African nations (Table 7.2). My mtDNA predictions suggest that this discrepancy was also true in the centuries preceding the 1900s.

Alternatively, these marriage data might simply be an artifact, and not a reflection of historical practices among African people groups. Conversely, some African lineages might mutate their mtDNA at a faster rate than non-African lineages. Measurement of a form of genetic change (recombination — see chapter 9) in a different DNA compartment (the nucleus — see chapter 8) suggests that Africans have faster rates of genetic change than non-Africans.57 This might also be true in the mtDNA compartment.

As mentioned above, no direct measurement of the mtDNA mutation rate has been performed in the most divergent African people groups. I expect that the rate in these groups will be on the order of 1 mutation per 5 to 8 generations — or faster. In fact, I wouldn’t be surprised if these divergent African lineages mutate twice as fast as the non-African lineages — 1 mutation per 2.5 to 4 generations.

In other words, the 6,000-year timescale makes testable predictions about the rate of mtDNA mutation.[1]

Vox Day’s calculations demonstrate that the theory of evolution by natural selection does not have enough time or capability to be able to achieve what is necessary to explain biodiversity. The mechanisms proposed simply do not have the required horsepower, and this is just a fact. Jeanson’s calculations show that the evolutionary worldview predicts far more changes in mtDNA than are actually observed. In other words, the naturalistic time scales are wrong, and this is demonstrated by cross referencing changes in many different species.

Mathematics is squeezing the life out of evolution. It makes me wish that I had studied more mathematics in my earlier days. However, the equations being discussed here are relatively simple. Creationists have always argued that genetics was going to end evolutionary theory. Day has demonstrated that someone or something or somethings have manipulated human and other DNA on earth. As I said in my last review, evolution is dead, but its corpse will hang around for a while. But it is really starting to stink guys. Evolution was always pseudo-science. I recognized that when I started reading different evolutionists years ago and observed how much of their books were based on their imagination, rather than hard data. It was only a matter of time before enough data put an end to the credibility of evolution by natural selection.

 

List of References

---

[1] Jeanson Ph.D., Nathaniel T. Replacing Darwin: The New Origin of Species (p. 293-307). Master Books. Kindle Edition.

Corruption, Conspiracy and a Book Giveaway

 

Tahe release of more of the Epstein files brings to my mind, how the Bible told us how Babylon works many years ago;

"17 Then one of the seven angels who had the seven bowls came and said to me, “Come, I will show you the judgment of the great prostitute who is seated on many waters, 2 with whom the kings of the earth have committed sexual immorality, and with the wine of whose sexual immorality the dwellers on earth have become drunk.” (Rev. 17:1-2).

Babylon specialises in corrupting the powerful.

The term conspiracy or conspire is used dozens of times in the Bible. There are also references to many direct conspiracies involving government and religious officials, where the word is not directly used, but are still examples of clear conspiracies. This evil way of the world is woven throughout the Bible, and is even a central aspect of the most important part of the Bible, the unjust crucifixion and death of Jesus Christ himself.

John Calvin and Charles Spurgeon both noted that dark, evil conspiracies are a common part of how power works in our world. I believe one or even both of them noted that we would be foolish to ignore this.  

Yet if you look at an evangelical dictionary of theology you won't even find this vital biblical topic mentioned (at least not the ones I reviewed). The Catholic Catechism barely mentions it. Many pastors say the topic is not an area of Christian concern. Even though conspiracies often happen even in churches, either against the pastor, or by the pastor using his power against people unjustly, or in other ways. Some prominent Churches have been shown just recently to have engaged in dark conspiracies.

Old Christians books discuss the topic of conspiracy, to varying degrees. But as far as I know, an extensive theology of how evil works, including conspiracy, is not a topic of modern theologians. Maybe if it was the modern Church would be much less gullible to the corruption of power in our world.

Hence, I addressed this in detail in my book, Like a Roaring Lion.

To help promote the book I am going to run a short competition. The prize will be a copy of the book. If you live in Australia the postage will be covered in the prize, so you will get the book and postage for free. If you live overseas, I still want to include you in the competition, but postage can get expensive. So, if someone from overseas wins, I will evaluate the postage and perhaps we can split it. If it is not too much I will cover it though. I am running this competition myself, as I have committed at getting better and doing publicity for my writings. Hence, my budget it not expansive, but I want to include as many people in it as possible still.

Here is the competition, it is simple. Share this post and comment. The best comment wins, by that I mean the best biblically based reflection. I will be running the prize over a few different platforms, so once I have the leading entries I will put them in a new blog or Substack and explain why I chose the one which wins.

God bless you, and may the best post win.

License to Preach

 

I think this suggestion by Scott Morrison is interesting. Why?

Because just a few days ago I was thinking about the new hate speech laws, and how they are very old school English. What I mean, is that they reminded me of what the laws of speech were like prior to about 1689 (though general free speech was not really enshrined fully and protected till a bit later).

1688 was when William of Orange took control of the English throne, and in 1689 he made the proclamation of tolerance, stopping persecution of most English protestants. This put an end to Catholic control in England, and the throne remained a guardian of both Protestant religion, and toleration of Christian differences, to varying degrees from that point on.

Prior to that licences for preaching were common. John Bunyan, the famous Baptist author of Pilgrim's Progress, was jailed for preaching without a licence. Many preachers, preacher's wives, and Christians were persecuted for seeking to gather outside of licenced churches, under unlicensed ministries. Baptists, Congregationalists, Shakers, Presbyterians and more were all targeted under these laws.

The kind of churches we take for granted today, where people meet freely of their own choice and discernment, were far harder to run, and often persecuted before 1689.

Tim Grant and myself several years ago wrote about how this changed, and how the BAPTIST theology of liberty of conscience was utterly necessary to making this change. This was a doctrine which existed among the early Church and Church fathers, but passed into obscurity under the state churches of Christendom.

Prior to the revival of this doctrine, Anglicans and high church theologians of most types were decidedly anti-liberty of conscience. Part of what changed this was the Baptist commitment to refuse to bow to state sanctioned rules about who could preach and what could be preached. Another core part of the success of this doctrine was that powerful Anglicans became convinced of the doctrine of liberty of conscience by engagement with Baptists, and they had the power to make it legally protected. John Locke and the Earl of Shaftesbury were two notable examples.

Most of the Church has forgotten how we got to where we are. What is worse is that even the Baptist Churches have forgotten their legacy and are increasingly moving in a direction that is anti-Baptist.

The book Tim and I wrote a book covering this was called Defending Conscience. Because of the context in which we wrote Defending Conscience many people might think this is just a book about the Covid days and the crisis around that. It is not, what Tim and I both saw was the trajectory of our society and the heavy handed and authoritarian response to Covid was merely a symptom of that. Many other Christians saw the same thing. It is frankly disturbing how many did not see this.

I'm not even a little surprised at Morrison's authoritarian suggestion. That man did more to undermine liberty in this nation than any PM before him.

I don't think most Baptist churches can reclaim their legacy of liberty of conscience, and by that I mean their dogged advocacy for it in society. Why? Well, you know what they say about old wine skins, don’t your. But I believe Christians of all types who have appreciated that legacy and want to reclaim it, could learn a lot from that book about how to do so.

I suspect that it will be Christians of varied denominations, maybe even some not denominated yet, that take up that cause successfully. History shows this is usually the case.

Note, for interest sake John Locke predicted that liberty of conscience or wise toleration could not survive in a multicultural society. This was one of his core arguments in his Letter Concerning Toleration. How did he know this? Because all things, including nations, work according to certain principles or laws of determination. You can't have it all, as they say.

Evolution is Dead, But Its Corpse Will Hang Around A While

Several years ago I asked a friend of mine to come and preach at my church. He is a skilled evangelist, in fact, he taught me how to evangelize when I was a new Christian. He is also quite a capable apologist, as all good evangelists need to be. During his message he said something that really caught my attention. He mentioned that some atheists like to argue that religion is the cause of all wars, but in reality, the Encyclopedia of Wars shows that religion is only the cause of 7% of wars.

Why did this get my attention? Because I immediately recognized this was an argument based on Vox Day’s 2008 book The Irrational Atheist. It was not completely correct, the number is 6.98%, and it was Vox who calculated that number based on the Encyclopedia of Wars and his own extensive military history readings. But it was unmistakably an argument based on Vox’s book.

I asked my friend after the sermon if he had read or heard of Day’s book The Irrational Atheist. He had not. Had no idea who Day was and had never read the book.

This story is relevant to our review here, because it highlights how influential Vox Day is, how influential his ideas especially are, and also how they are often very effective. You hear much less today about how much war is caused by religion, have you noticed that? You are more like to hear people say that all wars are bankers wars, or the result of imperialism or something like that. This is in part because of Day’s 2008 book. It changed the cultural understanding of what the fundamental causes of war are, and took away one of the so-called New Atheists favourite weapons.

The reason he was able to do this was simple: he did the math. He did what none of us thought to do, he sat down and actually calculated, to the best of our history knowledge at the time, how many wars were known to be caused by religion. And this simple examination pulled apart the threads of a powerful rhetorical argument against Christianity.

Vox has done this again with Probability Zero: The Mathematical Impossibility of Evolution by Natural Selection.

The premise of Vox Day’s argument is relatively simple: if something happens in the physical world then it can be quantified. This is a simple enough concept. The way it applies to Day’s book is as such: if evolution is happening, what is the average rate of evolution? This is the thread which Day has pulled on to bring down the whole Evolution by Natural Selection edifice. A simple question to an evolutionary biologist in a debate in 2019, that could not be answered, has turned into a demonstration of the impossibility of evolution via any proposed natural means. The mechanisms simply do not work. They do not have the horse power to achieve what we were told they could achieve.

I recommend that every Christian, and non-Christian, who is interested in the origins debate, in apologetics, or in understanding the way our world works, should read this book. Because Day has effectively put the nail in the coffin of evolution by natural selection. Genetics was always going to be a threat to the naturalistic evolutionary argument, because it was going to allow the theoretical claims of Darwin’s theory to be examined by direct observations of the genes of living organisms. But we just had to wait for the data to be properly analysed, and now it has been.

The mechanisms proposed to seek to make the evolutionary hypothesis possible do not work. As another good book on this subject notes (Origin, by Graeme and Geoffrey Messer) evolution is not a recent theory but was originally proposed by the ancient Greeks, who believed in spontaneous generation, and also that all life evolved from simple forms to more complex forms. What Darwin did was propose the mechanism that made this origins hypothesis compelling, and allowed it to become the dominant academic theory of the diversity of life on earth. What genetics has done is show that Darwin’s mechanism is not powerful enough. What Day and Tipler have done is lay this out for us. The Messers (they are brothers) even note in their book that the theory of evolution by natural selection is the last hold out of the ancient Greek scientific established left to be turned over. And they predicted that as more data is collected it will be. They were right, Day and Tipler have done just that. And rather elegantly too.

Despite the title of this book, Probability Zero, at its core MITTENS (the mathematical impossibility of the theory of evolution by natural selection) is not a probability argument, though the book does go into probability to some degree. Rather Day’s argument is a capability argument. It is a complete deconstruction of the ability for evolution to explain the diversity of biological life through natural means. It is rather simple, really. We now know, from genetics, how long it takes for genes to be fixed in various populations, this can be called the rate of evolution. And the rate at which natural selection fixes genes is far too slow to account for the amount of genetic differences between Humans and Chimpanzees and really anything else. Even the fastest recorded fixation events in history fall far short of being able to make up the time problem. I encourage you to read the book so you can see how Vox Day uses Mick Jagger, Genghis Khan and lactose intolerance to show that naturalistic evolution just cannot achieve what has been claimed by secular scientists for 170 years that it could achieve.

To explain it very simply. You do not need to be an engineer or a physicist to know that if I told you that I travelled from Sydney to Melbourne in 60 minutes, there is not a car on the planet that could have gotten me there. To travel that distance another means is needed. The laws of physics and mathematics require it. You just can’t get around this fact. Natural selection (plus parallel fixation, gene drift, sex selection, etc which have been added since by other biologists) is effectively the car, or vehicle, that Darwin proposed as driving evolution. But it does not have the horsepower. It falls far short, and this is not theoretical, but observed. This has been confirmed by know fixation rates.

For evolution by natural selection to work, just for humans and chimpanzees, you need to explain how on average about 40 genes were fixed per generation, in every generation, from our proposed common ancestor, when it takes something like 1600 generations to fix a few genes, and we know this for a fact now. And this time frame and length of generations is being generous to the naturalistic argument. Vox uses a number of 1600 generations to fix genes, from E. Coli, and this includes parallel fixations (hence why I note a few genes). This is being generous, because even though humans have many more mutations per generation, than E. Coli, the fixation rate is much slower, because of the birth rate barriers, less defined generations length (this is where Mick Jagger is relevant, read the book to see why), and other issues. This is important. Day is not arguing that large amounts of mutations don’t happen, we know they do, about 40 or 50 per human, per generation. His argument is about those mutations which are fixed, that is mutations which are required to distinguish humans from chimpanzees and other animals. This fixation takes far too long, for evolution by natural means to be capable of producing.

This is just a fact. A fact well demonstrated in this book.

As noted, this is not a probability argument but is rather a capability argument. Genetics has now demonstrated that the mechanisms that have been proposed to drive evolution by natural selection cannot have possibly done so. Just as you know I cannot drive my car to Melbourne from Syndey in 60 minutes, nor an even more powerful car like a Bugatti Veyron. It is not possible.

This book is not written by the usual creationist crowd (who I really appreciate) nor is it written by the Intelligent Design crew (who are also great), but comes at this from a different perspective, that surpasses the probability arguments, or appearance of design arguments, that creationists often rely on.[1] That is what makes this book so valuable to read. While some probability arguments against evolution do exist in the book, they are not the core of the argument. Atheists and naturalists like to brush aside probability arguments by simply saying they are irrelevant, because, as they say, “We are here. Hence evolution must have happened.” This is a tautology, using our existence as evidence of their theory is simply dishonest, and lazy. However, it is also common. Hence, the book’s examination of the actual capabilities of natural selection and all the epicycles biologists have proposed to bolster their theory over the decades is its most important contribution to this debate. Probabilities are abstract and therefore many people cannot comprehend their significance, even if they are conclusive. Showing the observed natural fixation rates are too slow to vindicate Darwin’s theory is much more tangible. Everyone can understand how it is impossible for a car to drive from New York to L.A. in an hour. But that is effectively what proponents of evolution by natural selection are claiming has happened to create biodiversity. And we know this could not have happened. It is a certainty.

The book is not very long, and therefore it is not a massive read.

Day’s and Tipler’s writing style is clear and accessible. Day often uses humour, too, which is good.

You also do not need to have a degree in science, mathematics, or anything like this to understand the vast majority of the book. However, there is some stuff in there for the trained mathematicians and scientists to chew on, which bolsters the strength of the book. I won’t pretend that I could follow all the math in the book, I never studied it beyond high school, and even there not at a high level. But this did not stop me from being able to understand the vast majority of the book, and its implications. So, this book is accessible to the general reader.

I should also note that Vox proposes an alternative theory called Intelligent Genetic Manipulation, to explain what is more likely to have happened. So, he is not just attacking academic structures, but is also constructively making claims about better avenues of scientific research for scientists to engage in. This is helpful.

I suspect, that Probability Zero will have a similar effect on Darwinism that Vox Day’s earlier work, The Irrational Atheist, had on many other atheistic arguments, especially about what causes wars. This is because the concept is just so elegantly simple. Again let me state it: what is the average rate of evolution, and is there enough time for what Darwin claimed happened? The answer is it takes at a minimum over a thousand generations, though the average rate of fixation is much higher, and hence there is nowhere near enough time for Darwin’s mechanism to achieve such diversity of life. Simple. Now, it is simply a matter for people to access the book and share it with others.

You can’t get it on Amazon anymore*, but you can at NDM Express where both the ebook and the hard cover are available. I highly recommend you read this, because creationists have been predicting for years that the genetic data we are collecting would one day prove that evolution by natural selection in the sense of goo to you change was going to be shown to be impossible. They were right, and they were vindicated by someone who simply did the math.

Rev. Matt's Newsletter is a reader-supported publication. To receive new posts and support my work, consider becoming a free or paid subscriber.

Notes:

---

[1] These arguments are often correct by the way. But still, there is more that needs to be demonstrated.

*correction, it has been reinstated to Amazon. 

Real Liberty

 

It is not an accident that the government which has ramped up immigration more than any other government in our history, also has brought in the most restrictive speech laws in our history.

1)     They have already shown by their actions that they want to radically change this country.

2)     They know that most Australians, even people who have emigrated from other countries recently, don't like how quickly they are changing this country.

So, there was a need to make it harder for people to oppose their policies. As far as I know it is still allowable to criticize government policy. But the trajectory is towards less and less ability or freedom to do so.

Freedom or liberty, despite what some constitutions and philosophers say, is not really a human right. It is not something that most peoples have experienced in history, or even something that most peoples have conceived of, really. It is not something that many peoples in the world today have experienced, either. 

Liberty, rather, is a fruit, specifically a fruit of righteousness. Psalm 119:45 shows us this, "And I will walk at liberty, For I seek Your precepts." There is the kind of liberty to do what you want, which is really libertinism, which is really just anarchy. And there is the liberty to live as we were intended to, which is true liberty. Righteous liberty. This liberty means to live free from the constrain of evil.  

The problem we have today is that we forgot the difference, and the more our society moves away from its Christian foundations the more we are losing the liberty to live as we were intended to, by our creator. You can still do basically whatever you want, in many ways our society is still libertine, even more libertine really. But true liberty is shrinking. The ability to live free from the constraints of evil is disappearing.  

We forgot where our liberty really came from as a people, and hence we are losing it. I suspect most Australians won't care too much until they are no longer able to afford to do the things they want. That day is approaching, but we have so much slack and wealth in our society, that it has not hit people hard yet. At least not most people. Though younger Australians are already feeling it harder. And some others are starting to fall off the treadmill, it will be some time before this increases to where it effects most people in significant ways. But that day will come.  

Our nation is going through a process of refinement. Are you looking to God, or to politicians to bring us out of this? Are the politicians you think can help bring us out of this looking to God? If not, I don't see how they can bring back liberty. They would not really even understand what liberty actually is.

Keep Up the Good Fight*

I woke up with a really sore back yesterday morning. Its not the first time recently. For the last few days or week my back has been good, but over the last couple of months many mornings it has flared up bad, and has taken a long walk on the treadmill to stabilise. It comes from an old injury, that I thought I had healed, but it has flared up again. 

But yesterday morning was different. It was worse than it had been for ages. I don't know why, but it felt awful. My usual stretches barely helped. It really hurt, but I wanted to go to church. We are on holidays and I wanted to visit a particular church. But I actually wondered if I could physically do so. Personally, the level of pain was so intense I wondered if it was a spiritual attack. 

I also didn't want to hobble into church, as I was visiting another fellowship on my holidays. I prayed over it, tripled my stretches, paced in my office to loosen it up, and got into my car with a very sore back. 

Once we got to the Church, we found a park, and I got out of my car with my family and was able to stand and walk with a little twinge in my back. As we got to the front of the Church, I saw a man, likely in his late 50's or early 60's, who was hobbled by serious back pain. But he was walking purposely towards Church. He was only a metre or two in front of us at this point, and he slipped over at the front entrance to the Church. It was raining and the level had a hidden slight change at the entrance. 

Myself, and the two ushers saw him fall over, and we immediately went to help him. He stood up himself, and I handed him the two items he had dropped when he fell. He was fine, joyful and he walked into church, where I later saw him sitting with his family. 

Here I was wrestling with my pain, while at much the same time of the morning this man had obviously been doing the same, but with a far worse level. Lesson learned, as seeing him gave me real perspective. 

For some reason my back did not hurt at all again yesterday. 

Church was a blessing. The message was very solid, and grace filled. We also ran into old friends. 

You never know the battle some go through just to get to church. Some I know, because as a pastor people tell me. Others you never know. Some you experience yourself. 

Never give up the battle. It's always worth it to fight through it.

*I will be back to regular writing soon. Just enjoying an extended break with my family. God bless you all.