And Elijah came unto all the people, and said, How long halt ye between two opinions? if the LORD be God, follow him: but if Baal, then follow him. And the people answered him not a word. (1Ki 18:21)
In the search for intermediate life forms to support the theory of evolution none have been discovered. New developments out of the science community, however, reveal that some scientists appear poised to identify an intermediate life form by creating it themselves. In what has become a long and protracted campaign to do just that, a new effort by the National Academy of Sciences and the Institute of Medicine (NAS/IMO) has resulted in a 70-page book titled Science, Evolution, and Creationism. In the text they attempt to bolster the theory of evolution, and persuade religious people that they sacrifice nothing in joining their ranks.
The effort is aimed not only at convincing religious people that science and religion are compatible, but that religious people can also embrace the theory of evolution without contradicting the biblical account of creation.
The evidence already suggests similar efforts on their part have met with significant success, and that there is, in fact, a means to classify an emerging intermediate life form. To treat this new, emerging species, religious people will hereafter be referred to in this piece as religious-man.
According to NAS/IMO, their book “shows that science and religion should be viewed as different ways of understanding the world rather than as frameworks that are in conflict with each other and that the evidence for evolution can be fully compatible with religious faith.”1 The catch for this compatibility is that religious-man needs to make a few adjustments, or concessions, in the way they interpret the Bible.
The reward to be gained from the science community is the vaulted mantle of co-existence. The compromise to be granted by the religious-man is: everything.
Naturalists, those who put their faith in the theory of evolution for the genesis of life, flatly reject God’s explanation for the creation of mankind, and that does not mean that they co-exist as on equal planes with respective merit. It means that, between the two of them, at best, one of them is wrong, and at worst one of them is a liar.
Because God is not a liar, the task of assigning error and uncovering deceit is made easier. While Naturalists in general are only wrong when they put their faith in spontaneous generation of life by some chance environmental conditions and unintelligent forces that, through a blind natural selection process, eventually produced mankind, the scientists at NAS/IMO are liars for at least false representation.
They are representing religion as one of the two methods of human understanding that are of equal value. This, they do not genuinely mean.
The reality is that religious-man is held to be inferior to the naturalist, or scientific-man, and the actual offer being extended by the latter is for the former to submit to the authority of science.
Practically, they are to submissively enter the box naturalists have prepared for them so that they may be placed on a shelf and marked as exhibits of intermediate life forms; not fully evolved to the extent that the naturalists are (representing no small victory in that it would be the first intermediate life form yet produced for their theory).
Then, the naturalists will accept religious-man as their ignorant wards, and make all the pertinent decisions on their behalf, and at their expense.
Honest members of the evolutionary-faithful do not dispute this. Except for the way a few of these points are herein stated in so unsavory a fashion, this is what, by the mechanics of their theory, they’ve come to believe.
It is only when the high priests of science go trolling for religious converts, and more advantageous footing, are the terms of surrender euphemistically referred to as co-existence. They continue to invest in this strategy because its tactics, exemplified in this new book, continue to pay huge dividends.
There are growing numbers of religious-man who have embraced the theory of evolution as an explanation for the biblical account of creation. Naturalists have approvingly thumbed the starched lapels of their lab coats at the obsequious fawning of converts who bring forth such offerings to their altar of faith as Theistic Evolution.
The methods approved by the scientists at NAS/IOM which produce these sorts of heresies were put on record by Alan Leshner, CEO of American Association for the Advancement of Science, in an interview on the book Science, Evolution, and Creationism, where he said:
Over and over, religions that see the Bible as an allegory, as a description of an overall process that isn’t tied to literal day by day, those religions seem to understand better how science can co-exist with a religious belief or even a biblical belief. It’s the literalist point that has tremendous problems.2
Notice what is advanced to tender this co-existence: a detailed list of the demands for surrender that are at issue; and the scientists at NAS/IMO and AAAS might be acknowledged for their honesty in that, but it is made more from the strength of their disdain than their cool resolve for objectivity.3
Certainly, the naturalists will accept, on limited terms, any who will recant that the Bible is the literal word of God.
Surely, they will welcome, to a certain extent, those who will confess the Bible is nothing more than an allegory; a feeble attempt of primitive men to explain things that only scientists can be trusted to divulge, that only naturalists have evolved enough wisdom to understand, that only the result of blind chance and unintelligent forces could comprehend.
‘Tremendous problems’ indeed.
Contrary to what NAS/IMO claim, this is by any definition conflict. Opposed are two narratives for the explanation of life and its purpose. At odds are two distinct groups of people; those who have a faith grounded in a theory, and those who have a faith grounded in theology, those who deny the existence of God,4 and those who take him at His word.
There is, however, a growing middle; an intermediate life form of religious-man, not fully Bible-believing, not fully naturalist.
This foray into the realm of creationism by the NAS/IMO that includes overtures to this religious-man is not expected to topple Bible-believing men. That would be too much for them to hope for. On that score, they would gladly settle for intimidation.
This is a continued effort, in part, to create more of these useful intermediates. By another part, the campaign is designed to mollify the already converted religious-man. It is a calculated effort to sooth him so he will pay no attention to rising chorus of challenge to the exclusivity of one failed theory barring all other discussions on the subject of origins; to the extent that naturalists will not even discuss the scientific evidence that disproves the theory of evolution, or confront the fraudulent portrayal of supporting fabrications still published in school textbooks.
This new book from NAS/IMO exemplifies a polished and well funded campaign being run against the Bible. On its face, it is hoped that some Bible-believing men might pause, and religious-man ought to be kept quiet while his children are stolen away from him and turned unto fables.
What needs to be reiterated by Bible-believing man, as he presses the play, and learned by religious-man, is, again, there are no intermediate life forms. There are none to support the theory of evolution, and none to support an intermediate state of salvation. Nothing can save religious-man but complete faith in God, as is revealed in the Bible, and the same is true for naturalists.
1. Institute of Medicine, Reports, “Science, Evolution, and Creationism,” January 3, 2008 (emphasis added).
2. Katherine T. Phan, “Pro-Evolution Book Says Science and God Compatible,” Christian Post, January 09, 2008 (emphasis added).
3. The radio interview may be heard WAMU 88.5 FM. I do not imply that there was any choler in Leshner’s voice. He was interviewed by Diane Rehm on WAMU 88.5FM, which is listener supported public radio station. I am indebted to Katherine T. Phan of The Christian Post for her reporting (see n. 2) that alerted me to this interview and made it possible for me to hear it.
4.. If His claims are invalid, He fails the test for the definition of “God”.