Embedded Files
( - previous issue - )
Apologia Report 14:2
January 16, 2009
Subject: Discoveries that disturb Darwinists
In this issue:
CHRISTOLOGY - criticism of Craig Evans' Fabricating Jesus
HOMOSEXUALITY - cultural and medical myths
ORIGINS - recent archaeological discoveries that bother Darwinists
-------
CHRISTOLOGY
Fabricating Jesus: How Modern Scholars Distort the Gospels, by Craig A. Evans [2] -- in AR 12:9 we noted that "reviewer Craig L. Blomberg refers to [Evans] as 'one of the foremost evangelical New Testament scholars in our world today' and explains that [his] main objective throughout this concise volume is to debunk the claims of radical, unrepresentative scholarship about Jesus and the Gospels.'"
Yet current reviewer Richard A. Fordyce notes "One aspect, however, of Evans' presentation that will not sit entirely comfortably with evangelical readers. He denies the inerrancy of Scripture even as he affirms the reliability and authority of the Gospels. In his chapter on 'Misplaced Faith and Misguided Suspicions' he writes, 'By misplaced faith I mean placing one's faith in the wrong thing, such as believing that the Scriptures must be inerrant according to rather strict idiosyncratic standards and that we must be able to harmonize the four Gospels. If our faith depends on these ideas, especially in rigid terms, then scholarly study may well lead to a collapse of faith.' He often uses both [Robert] Funk and [Bart] Ehrman as examples of former fundamentalists who may have lost their confidence in the Bible because of 'brittle fundamentalism.' He concludes this idea with these words, 'I repeat: The truth of the Christian message hinges not on the inerrancy of Scripture or on our ability to harmonize the four Gospels but on the resurrection of Jesus. And the historical reliability of the Gospels does not hinge on the inerrancy of Scripture or on proof that no mistake of any kind can be detected in them.' ...
"Even so, the book has great value for evangelicals. ... Evans demonstrate[s] that good scholarship is on the side of Scripture...." Stone-Campbell Journal, 11:2 - 2008, pp310-311.
---
HOMOSEXUALITY
"Cultural and Medical Myths about Homosexuality" by Michael A. Grisanti -- the abstract reads: "Three questions need to be answered regarding cultural and medical myths about homosexuality: (1) Is there a 'gay gene'? In giving a positive answer, some sources cite two categories, nature and nurture. Behavioral genetics have sought and allegedly found a source for homosexuality, but many scientists have strong questions about behavioral genetics. Various studies have failed to prove conclusively that a 'gay gene' exists. (2) Is it possible for a person to change sexual orientation from being homosexual to heterosexual? The current consensus in the mental health profession is that attempts to convert a homosexual to a heterosexual are too likely to be harmful. A possibility of change has been demonstrated, but worldwide consensus continues to view such a change as impossible because of biological and psychiatric factors. Studies by Spitzer and Jones/Yarhouse have identified examples of change without harm to individuals involved. (3) How have homosexual activists impacted modern culture throughout the world? Various pieces of legislation, both national and international, have put at risk anyone who dares to oppose homosexuality. Even some ecclesiastical leaders have softened their tone in speaking against this sexual deviation." The Master's Seminary Journal, 19:2 - 2008, pp175-202.
---
ORIGINS
"The Hobbit That Wasn't" by Denyse O'Leary -- the march of scientific progress has spoiled things, because "in 2003, an international archaeology team was excavating the Liang Buea limestone cave on the Indonesian island of Flores, between Sumatra and East Timor. At a six-meter depth, they unearthed the skeleton of a tiny ancient woman, about thirty years old. ...
"The discoverers, R.P. Soejono, Michael Morwood, and their colleagues, identified her as Homo erectus, an extinct primitive human. If their identification was correct, their find was remarkable because she lived only 18,000 years ago, which would make Homo erectus contemporary with modern humans (Homo sapiens)."
When the Flores discovery was announced in October 2004, "the science media had no doubt that the [hobbit-sized being] represented a new human species. ...
"Almost immediately, a competing narrative appeared. In November, leading Indonesian scientist Teuku Jacob announced that the Flores hobbit was an 'ordinary human' and 'just like us,' though possibly with mental defects.
"But doubt about the 'new species' label lingered. Indeed, one analyst, Tabitha M. Powledge, worried that the controversy might be good for creationism: 'We certainly make it easy for them when we have disagreements like this one. I think that a lot of what has been said is going to have to be retracted. Given the amount of media attention, it just makes the field look incompetent.' The conclusion: 'Everybody wants a piece of this....'"
O'Leary reports that "in March 2008, everything changed. The New Scientist lead, 'Researchers have uncovered bones that could drive another nail into the Homo florensiennsis coffin,' signaled far more than mere information: Doubt was now fashionable, not forbidden [as earlier remarks in the controversy would suggest]. Why? Apparently, diminutive humans had 'overrun' a nearby island as recently as 1,400 years ago - 'but despite their size, these people clearly belonged to our species.'
"The article [1] then admitted what Professor Jacob and most other people know - that short stature is common in southeast Asia. ... [H]uman brain size and intelligence are not necessarily related, though that admission will probably be slipped in later."
O'Leary notes that, for many, this thinking cuts against the grain of modern scientific belief. "Ancient 'subhuman species' just aren't cooperating with Darwinists these days. First, the little people of Flores, whose existence would have shown that humans do indeed evolve, turned out to be just a bunch of short Homo sapiens. And now, that archaeological mainstay, the Neanderthal, is likewise proving quite similar to his human counterparts."
O'Leary explains that "The assumption has always been that the Neanderthals were a subhuman species that preceded - with some overlap - early Homo sapiens, chiefly because they were ostensibly less intelligent than the more evolved humans." Recently, "a series of studies [have] shown not only that Neanderthals were as good at hunting as Homo sapiens, but also that they could communicate just as effectively...."
"Defenders of materialist science 'versus religion' insist that they, unlike religious believers, change their minds on the basis of new findings. Perhaps, but only when new findings make treasured myths unsustainable." In a related sidebar O'Leary concludes, "So what does this mean for Darwinism? Not much - yet. But if evidence continues to accumulate showing that early man was no different from the men of today, it's going to get harder and harder to make a scientific case for human evolution." Salvo, #7 - 2008, pp11-13.
--------
Sources, Digital:
1 - <www.tinyurl.com/7524j3>
-------
Sources, Monographs:
2 - Fabricating Jesus: How Modern Scholars Distort the Gospels, by Craig A. Evans (IVP, 2006, hardcover, 290 pages) <www.tinyurl.com/9s2hvp>
( - next issue - )
Page updated
Google Sites
Report abuse