Vicki pointed out that today was also Abraham Lincoln's birthday and that he surely deserves at least a mention. Born on the same day and the same year, their contributions to history were significant and significantly different. I can identify with Abraham Lincoln. His family was poor and so was mine and so am I. It seems that he was destined to be president and I guess the parallel ends there. I am sure I was destined for something and until I discover what, I will continue to blog. His wife Mary Todd told her friends that "Mr. Lincoln is to be president of the United States. If I had not thought so, I would not have married him, for you can see he is not pretty." Gloria could have said the same about me except for the president part.

Some speculate that Lincoln might have been bi-polar. He definitely struggled with depression. "I never dare carry a penknife" as a caution against suicide.

Schweikart and Allen in their History write that "Lincoln was homely, but Mary Todd was downright sour looking, which perhaps eontributed to his having left her, literally, standing at the altar one time." Lincoln claimed that he was sick, but was it lovesickness or just sick?

Lincoln's religious faith or lack of it has garnered the attention of historians and not all agree. Some accused him of being a skeptic while others believed him to be a deist. However, not long before his death he was asked by a minister "do you love Jesus". His answer was revealing:

"When I left Springfield I asked the people to pray for me. I was not a Christian. When I buried my son, the severest trial of my life, I was not a Christian. But when I went to Gettysburg and saw the graves of thousands of our soldiers, I then and there consecrated myself to Christ. Yes, I love Jesus."

We are the greater people for having been blessed with an Abraham Lincoln.

Charles Darwin is 200 years old today. Of course he has been dead for some time; a victim of a meaningless, purposeless world produced by evolution. Most educators would name Freud, Marx and Darwin as the three most influential thinkers of the past 200 years. The theories of the first two have experienced the death that was a natural product of applying their theories to real life. Darwin's theory survives and even thrives in academic institutions around the world. Yet, it survives because people live as though "it ain't so". Instead of viewing love as a cold c
chemical process that is biological only, scientists live as though love transcends biology.

Imagine going home in the evening and greeting your wife with "I don't know why I'm here except that chemical activity in the brain led me here. Oh, John Jr., you do realize you are here only because you possess a "selfish gene" that desired to propagate more selfish genes, and Johnny you do understand that you are no different than and have no more value than a toad?"

Such conversations do not occur because scientists live contradictory to their theory of origin and life.

In 1925 there was a trial in Tennessee that pitted a part time science teacher and coach against the state of Tennessee which had banned the teaching of evolution as true. The trial was actually a stage production in that the American Civil Liberties Union had been looking for a teacher who would agree to violate the law and test it in court. They actually advertised in papers looking for a willing collaborator. The leaders of Dayton Tennessee were concerned about the diminishing population and prosperity of their community when one of their leaders saw the add which generated an idea for bringing puplicity to their community. They could get a local teacher to challenge the law and then provide lawyers to defend him. When potential prosecutors were informed of the idea, they went along with it for the sake of the community. The ACLU even offered to pay for the prosecutors, as well as the defense attorneys. The case was so high profile that Clarence Darrow, one of America's best known defense attorneys agreed to defend the teacher, and former Presidenitial candidate William Jennings Bryan volunteered his services to the prosecution. The fact that Bryan hadn't practiced law in more than 30 years was not seen to be a problem. The defendant had already been assured by all involved that he would not serve time.

The argument centered on the open pursuit of truth featured by scientists and the narrow minded bigotry of religion. The classroom should be a place where opposing ideas ought to be allowed so that truth could rise above the arguments.

Today, the shoe is on the other foot, Intelligent Design theory is fighting for a right to challenge evolution which now controls our public schools and schools of higher learning.

In a previous article in this series I quoted from Richard Dawkins, the leading advocate of Darwinism today and an aggressive advocate of atheism, as saying that religion draws its conclusions from a holy book that is not open to being questioned while he as a scientist derives his conclusions from the scientific evaluation of evidence.

The disagreement between theists who believe God is the origin of life and our cosmos and people like Dawkins is not so much as a result of science vs a holy book as it is naturalism vs theism. Most Darwinians are naturalists. They begin with an assumption not science. Their assumption is that nothing exists except matter and that all things and events must be explained by natural causes. They deny that design or purpose has anything to do with our universe and our existence. Theists refuse to rule out the possibility that reality extends beyong the material and natural. Theists believe there is sufficient evidence of design and purpose in the cosmos to lead to the plausibility of God's existence. Read the holy book's record of Paul's argument in Romans chapter 1.

Currently, many biologists, astronomers and physicists agree that design makes more sense then random mutations and natural selection. Maybe in the future we can examine more closely the actual evidence offered by theists and evolutionists, but today we simply want to pay tribute to the third member of the intellectual trinity that has helped shape us. Will we live to see the death of Darwin's theory as we have Freud's and Marx's?

If you have read my blogs on atheism, would you be so kind as to respond with a simple "yes" so that I can determine if there is any value to my continuing to blog. I simply don't know if anyone is reading and it takes some time to write the blogs. It may be that I'm the only one who values such a discussion, and thus may be writing primarily to myself. If so I'm wasting a lot of the Lord's time that might more profitably be used on other tasks. This is the only problem with a blog. When you're preaching or teaching you can see an audience although you may question if anyone is listening, but when blogging, you don't know if anyone is there.

If any of my readers have read the senate bail-out bill, could you tell me if I'm going to be re-imbursed for the investments I've lost in the recession. From my understanding the money in the bail out bill if given to the long term unemployed in America would provide 250,000 dollars each. I'll bet that would stimulate the economy. However, for those who will be seeking employment when they are ninety years old because they have lost their retirement due to government regulations and lack of self control of lenders and borrowers, well I guess we are the losers. Aren't you glad we can pay our taxes to help stimulate the economy that rewards those that fail and ignores those who are the victims. Actually I don't want other people's money, but I also don't want mine going to reward greedy corporations and politicians seeking to stay in office by rewarding those who have paid to get them elected

As a footnote to my blog of yesterday, I need to point out that the idea of an earth centered universe is not a biblical doctrine, but a doctrine taught by the Greek philosopher Aristotle. Aristotle has had a great influence on Catholicism, and for that matter protestantism also. Thus Science's issue with Christianity is really an issue with Aristotle who influenced Christianity. Maybe I should also point out that the sun centered view of the universe had already been introduced in the 3rd century B.C. by a philosopher named Aristarchus. However, he was unable to support his contention with evidence and as a result his view never gained traction.

I hope some are reading these blogs and if any of the things I write produce questions or problems either respond on my blog or on my e-mail (ronnie.wiggins@ectisp.net). Since I'm not writing for publication, I'm not providing footnotes for my quotes, but if any should be interested in tracking down my quotes, I will be happy to provide that info. upon request.

In our last blog we discussed the atheist argument that Christianity is responsible for killing more people than any other philosophy or religion in the world. If such were true then it would be little wonder that people would reject it as negating its message of peace. However, we tried in our response to show that the atheists magnify several-fold the evils of history for which Christianity is responsible while at the same time almost completely ignoring the good that has resulted from Chrisitianity.

In the present blog, I want to evaluate their criticism of Christianity because of its alledged opposition to science, knowledge, truth and progress. All of the recent books advance the view that Christians have always opposed science and that scientific advancements have occurred because scientists were willing to be oppressed and persecuted by Christians in order to advance the cause of knowledge and truth.

Of course this view is not new. One of the best known advocates of this view was Bertrand Russell who popularized it in his lecture WHY I AM NOT A CHRISTIAN delivered on March 6, 1927. He argued that people believe in God because they are indoctrinated as small children, then he adds that "the next most powerful reason is the wish for safety, a sort of feeling that there is a big brother who will look after you." Its interesting that in the same year that Russell delivered this lecture, the FUTURE OF AN ILLUSION by the father of psychotherapy was published.

The following quote from Freud agrees with Russell that fear is the origin of God. Religion he says is an illusion. "They are illusions, fulfillment of the oldest, strongest and most urgent wishes of mankind. The secret of their strength lies in the strength of those wishes. As we already know, the terrifying impression of helplessnes in childhood aroused the need for protection--for protection through love--which was provided by the father; and the recognition that this helplessness lasts throughout life made it necessary; to cling to the existence of a father; but this time a more powerful one. Thus the benevolent rule of a divine Providence allays our fear of the dangers of life." In a later paragraph, he says that "scientific work is the only road which can lead us to a knowledge of reality outside ourselves." Thus according to Freud, God is a product of our neurosis and is a result of wish. God has no basis in reality outside of our wishes.

Hitchens in GOD IS NOT GREAT longs for the day when religion will be but a distant dream of a terrible past. "Thanks to the telescope and the microscope, it (religion) no longer offers an explanation of anything important...It can now only impede and retard --or try to turn back---the measurable advances that we have made."

Dawkins in the GOD DELUSION gives a great deal of attention to the conflict between Christianity and science. The following words show how he sees each: Christians "know they are right because they have read the truth in a holy book and they know, in advance, that nothing will budge them from their belief...The book is true, and if the evidence seems to contradict it, it is the evidence that must be thrown out, not the book. By contrast, what I, as a scientist, believe (for example, evolution) I believe not because of reading a holy book but because I have studied the evidence."

It is clear from the previous series of quotations that Christians are viewed as weak psychologically and thus in need of a father, and have a superstitious belief in a holy book rather than a mind open to research and evidence.

There is so much here that needs to be addressed, but for the moment I simply want to address the charge that Christianity has waged war on Science. This story of conflict goes back to two books written toward the end of the 19th century alledging that Christianity has been in conflict with science since the early days of science. John William Draper, in 1874, wrote HISTORY OF THE CONFLICT BETWEEN RELIGION AND SCIENCE and in 1896 Andrew Dickson White, the first president of Cornell University wrote a two volume work entitled HISTORY OF THE WARFARE OF SCIENCE WITH THEOLOGY IN CHRISTENDOM. In the 100 years since the publication of these books, the conflict model has prevailed.

The centerpiece of their argument is the story of Galileo. According to their account, Galileo, who promoted the Heliocentered view of our galaxy was resisted by the Catholic church, because it would seem to diminish the value of man. The previous scientific model had assumed that the earth was the center of the universe. In that view man was far more important. Actually Galileo was only continuing in the footsteps of Copernicus ( a loyal Catholic) who had already introduced the heliocentric view.

As the story goes, the Pope tried to silence Galileo and when he couldn't, he had him arrested and held in a dungeon where he nearly starved to death. That interpretation is more "wish fulfillment" as Freud would say than scientific. The truth of the matter is that a number of Catholice theologians were open to this new view, but at the time proof was lacking and Galileo was asked not to promote it without any proof. He agreed, but then later broke his word. Thomas Kuhn, a scientist and author of THE STUCTURE OF SCIENTIFIC REVOLUTIONS admits that during Galileo's life there was no proof available for this theory. Galileo tried to support with evidence that proved to be false. Later he wrote a treatise DIALOGUE CONCERNING THE CHIEF WORLD SYSTEMS. This treatise is what produced the problem with the pope. Galileo had been free for 20 years since he first announced his support of heliocentric view, but in 1632 with this publication things changed. Pope Urban VIII had been a friend and admirer of Galileo. He even penned a poem honoring him. However, in Galileo's treatise, he featured a dialogue between his view and one named Simplicio. He placed in Simplicio's words an argument that had been publicly espoused by Pope Urban, and then he humiliated Simplicio. In Italian "simplicio" means simpleton. The Pope took offense to what he viewed as an embarrasing "put down". Galileo was ordered to travel to Rome where he was put under house arrest. He was never placed in a dungeon, but was treated with respect.

No question the Pope did not behave properly, but Galileo was not without blame in breaking his word, producing erroneous support for his hypothesis, and betraying his friendship with the Pope in the way that he did. I'm not trying to defend the Pope and the Catholic Church, but am trying to say that this great conflict between Christianity and Science based on this episode is largely a myth.

There is reason why the west has made advancements in Science that the Arab world and most other areas of the world have not. Christianity provided the environment that would encourage Science. Genesis one says that mankind is to exercise dominion over the earth. Such a relationship warrants investigation into how the world works. Furthermore, Christians assume as Paul wrote that God is a God of order. Thus we would expect to find laws that govern the natural world just as we find order in the moral world.

Atheists up until about thirty years ago argued that the world had always existed. The advent of the Big Bang theory was actually a disappointment to many because it said there was a beginning. Eastern religions such as Hinduism had been perfectly content with no beginning, but Jews and Christians insisted that there was a creation. The Big Bang confirmed that there was a beginning.

Polls show that the vast majority of Americans believe in God. At least 40% of American scientists believe the same thing. This troubles Richard Dawkins to no end. He says well the best scientists tend to be atheists. Elitist intellectualism has gone to seed with these guys, but as we noted in a previous blog, they are the "BRIGHTS" don't you know.

Religion is evil
Christianity is a religion
Therefore Christianity is evil

This seems to be the logic offered in the recent books attacking theism or belief in God. The error in logic should be obvious. The major premise that religion is evil is a product of generalization from the worst examples and the coloring of all forms of religious expression with the same brush. Richard Dawkins and Christopher Hitchens want to take suicide bombers as the religious proto-type and infer from their behavior that all religions are equally evil. In the interest of fairness, I must admit that they attempt to provide historical documentation for characterizing Christianity as evil.

Dawkins especially is fond of illustrating the evils of Christianity by appealing to examples that the vast majority of Christians would view as extreme distortions of the Christian faith.
Dawkins produced a television documentary ROOT OF ALL EVIL and in it he interviews "Christians" He acknowledges that he has come under criticism for interviewing those that many Christians would label extremists. He responds to his critics with the following: "It sounds like a fair criticism--except that, in early 21st-century America, what seems extreme to the outside world is actually mainstream". One of his interviewees is "Pastor Keenan Roberts" who operates "Hell houses". In a hell house actors play abortionists and homosexuals. A scarlet-clad devil is present. Sulphurous smells and burning limestone are accompanied by agonizing screams of the forever damned. I know nothing of these Hell Houses except what Dawkins describes, but I wonder how many normal Christian families send their children to enjoy this experience. Call me stupid, but I doubt that most Christians would call this typical of most Christians or churches. Yet its from these kind of practices that Dawkins and others draw their conclusions about Christians in general.

When they do provide substantial reasons for labeling Christianity as evil, it usually is based upon the crusades, the spanish iquisition, the Salem witch trials, the treatment of native Americans and discriminatio against women and homosexuals. Of course slavery is also blamed on Christians. With such a shotgun approach, the hope is that some will stick.

To adequately address all of these issues would require a book rather than a blog, but I will try to address a few of their most common examples of corrupt, evil Christianity.

First, I nor any other writer would try to defend all that's been done in the name of Christ. Even in the first century, the writers of scripture point out that at that time much was being done in the name of Christ that deserved to be denounced not only by critics of Christians, but by Christians themselves. Read 2 Peter chapter 2 and the book of Jude. One thing the Bible makes clear is that we remain sinners even after becoming Christians and therefore, not all that we do brings honor to God or expresses the will of God as taught in scripture.

Second, the evils done by christendom have often been exaggerated. While we would never defend the crusade carried on by the Catholic church, nor the Spanish inquisition or witch trials, still the number killed in these combined efforts were far less than are often quoted in the writings of critics of Christianity. For instance Gore Vidal, the well known atheist, wrote that "more people have been killed in the name of Jesus Christ than any other name in the history of the world." For an effective rebuttal of such unwarranted hyperbole, one should read CHRISTIANITY ON TRIAL by Carroll and Shiflett.

The bloodiest century on record was not characterized by religious wars, but millions died at the hands of atheists. Communism killed as many as 100 million people. Hitler who was by no stretch of the imagination a dedicated Christian, was just as deadly, but his reign of terror was shorter lived. The fact is that war seems to be typical rather than exceptional in the history of humanity. Some religions have without question fostered war, but I would argue that Christian initiation of war has been the exception and that Christianity is better known for peace than war.

Read the Koran and then read the New Testament. Do they sound alike when it comes to fighting to promote their religion? Jesus said "my kingdom is not of this world, if it were my servants would fight". He told Peter to put his sword up. Wars of the Old Testament deserve discussion, but since atheists want to criticize Christians then they must consider the teachings of Jesus. It wasn't until about AD 175 that we have any historical data confirming a Christian becoming a soldier for the Roman Empire. It wasn't until about 400 that Augustine presented an argument supporting Christians participation in warfare and only if the war could pass a number of criteria that would classify it as a just war. Does the world have more hope from a leader who is called "the Prince of Peace" or from a leader such as the atheist Karl Marx who called for revolution. The evidence is overwhelming in favor of Christianity.

Just as the works of Dawkins, Hitchens and Harris exaggerate the evil done by Christianity, they minimize or hardly mention at all the good done by Christians. How many atheist organizations were at the forefront of efforts to relieve the suffering of the victims of Katrina? Churches sent trucks with food and clothing from all over the country. Christians went to New Orleans by the hundreds to help distribute relief and rebuild the city. Churches and Christian families opened their doors to vicitims of the catastrophe. I don't remember reading about atheist organizations and families participating in this relief effort. I'm sure there were some who did, but my point is that it is the calling of Christians to do so. Who were those who volunteered to work in leper colonies, Christians. Who led the way in building hospitals, Christians. Today one third of all hospitals in America are operated by Catholics. Baptists, Mehodists, Presbyterians and others have been a part of the effort to provide health care to neighbors, friends, and fellow Americans. Exactly how many hospitals have been built by atheists?

God told His people that His name would at times be blasphemed because of their behavior(cf. Rom. 2:17ff). Some of the criticism of Christianity is understandable because Christians are sinners, but when put in perspective, Christianity is not the terrible evil atheists would have us believe that it is. A balanced perspective would admit our wrongs, but critics who are honest with the evidence would have to admit that no movement has brought more good to the world in the last 2000 years than Christianity and Christians.