Though I have some level of concern about my stewardship of the environment as an outworking of the dominion mandate in Genesis 1, I am convinced that the hurricane force of the current global warming frenzy is unbiblical. Some of our politicians and the news media have elevated global warming to a virtual apocalyptic nightmare that may have some drastic influences on our standard of living. Since all of life is in the hands of an absolutely sovereign God, the heavens and earth will not be destroyed until he choses (2 Pet 3:12). However, until that time, let me suggest that we attempt to think biblically. For example, Genesis 8:22 contains a divine promise: “While the earth remains, seedtime and harvest, cold and heat, summer and winter, day and night, shall not cease.”

Since I am somewhat cynical about global warming (for more on my cynicism about anthropogenic global warming, click here and here), I have been sardonically following this frenzy for some time and have noticed that the news media does not generally promote sources that work against the doomsday approach of the global warming activists like Al Gore. Here is an article that provides some caution that will hopefully take some of the force out of the hurricane of global warming.

On May 18, an article by S. Fred Singer was posted on the web about the misplaced and potentially costly results from the current Global Warming scare. Singer’s purpose “is to show that this concern is misplaced, that human activities are not influencing the global climate in a perceptible way, and that, in any case, very little can be done about global climate change. It is unstoppable; we should not even try to influence it. Climate will continue to change, as it always has in the past, both warming and cooling on different time scales and for different reasons, completely unrelated to any human action.” He further argues that modest warming has beneficial effects. Singer insightfully points out that “many climate scientists, including those working on the report of the UN-sponsored IPCC [Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change] have pointed out that the greenhouse computer models all show a global temperature increase. But the two dozen or so major GH models in the world all give different warming rates, depending on the assumptions that are fed into the model.”

It is disappointing that few have observed the obvious disparity between the computer-generated patterns and those that are observed “and drawn the obvious conclusion that current climate models cannot simulate properly the processes of the real atmosphere and that the anthropogenic effect on climate predicted by models are still too small to be noticeable.” To get the full impact of this article, continue reading Dr. Singer’s “The Global Warming Debate” (HT: John Hinderaker).

After my conversion in the late 1960s, I remember hearing Dr. R. C. Sproul speak on a number of occasions. Back in those days as a Freudian Psychology major in college, Sproul’s Calvinistic teaching was something of a theological electroshock therapy for my man-centered perspective on life. Since then, I have profitably read a number of Dr. Sproul’s books. For many years, I was under the impression that he was sympathetic to the framework hypothesis. However, my impression was corrected in 2001 when I read the July issue of Tabletalk, which focused on the subject of creation. In an article entitled “Galileo Redux,” Sproul stated that, after reading Douglas F. Kelly’s Creation and Change, he became convinced that God recently created the universe in the literal creation week described Genesis 1.

If you are interested in a summary of R. C. Sproul’s interpretation of biblical creationism and how he became convinced that God recently created the heavens, the earth and all things therein in the space of six days, I highly recommend that you read Tas Walker’s “Famous Evangelical Apologist Changes His Mind.“

Yesterday, I was privileged to speak about “Two Contrasting Worldviews” at the Campus Bible Fellowship at Wayne State University. Inter-City Baptist Church in Allen Park, MI is the local church partner for Campus Bible Fellowship at WSU. CBFWSU was given charter recognition in February of 2005 by Campus Bible Fellowship (to read more, click here).

The following picture is from my conclusion contrasting a Biblical-Creation Worldview with that of an Evolutionary Worldview.

I gave a 30 to 35 minute presentation followed by a time for questions and answers. The men who met with us gave me their undivided attention. With my conclusion, I challenged the men to take up their cross and follow Christ. After my presentation, we had a Q & A session. Some very good questions were asked. The following picture is of the men during my lecture.

Since people from every tribe and nation are found in the university setting, this presents a great evangelistic outreach for Campus Bible Fellowship (see Rev. 5:9). Some remained after our Q & A session and we gathered for one final picture.

Because our news media has a humanistic, evolutionary worldview, it is virtually impossible for the average American to see a healthy interview on television with anyone who supports a recent creation model of origins of the earth (the earth is thousands of years old and not billions). If you are objective, you would have to say that “Darwinian evolution (specifically, neo-Darwinism or the synthetic theory) has enjoyed elite status when it comes to the discussion of origins. As more is discovered about the basic components of life and how they interact, however, it has become increasingly clear that random genetic mistakes and natural selection could not possibly be biological mechanisms that over time would turn bacteria into people–i.e., simpler life forms into more complex life forms.”

Many scientists are caught up in an academia-politicio maze that does not objectively promote looking at those interactions with the basic components of life that would challenge them to think outside the evolutionary box. The truth of the matter is that an evolutionary view of origins is a system of belief and not objective science. “And like other systems of belief, it has its clerics (those invested as scientific authorities), its adherents (e.g., the education system and the media), its mission (to apply its ‘truth’ to every sphere of human endeavor through research in the fields of biology, geology, cosmology, psychology, etc.)–and, of course, its heretics. Enter the evangelists of evolution, troubleshooters who step in to defend the evolutionary community from ‘the ignorant, the stupid, or insane.’” This article will take a brief look at three prominent purveyors of the evolutionary creed.” To identify and find out more about these three purveyors of evolutionary doctrine, continue reading “Evolution’s Evangelists.”

Ben Stein is Fox News’ Power Player of the Week. To check this out go to foxnews.com and scroll down to view the video about Ben Stein. While the interview provides some intriguing background information about Stein, my point in calling this to your attention is that his documentary “Expelled: No Intelligence Allowed” is attracting considerable interest (see my earlier post). Though Stein’s “Expelled” ranks 12th among documentary films, the anti-Darwinian nature of this film has brought on the wrath of the scientific community. To read about the scientific community’s outrage over “Expelled” as well as some beneficial reactions to their disdain, read “Darwinist Intolerance Continues Unabated after Expelled.”

Is it optional how Christians interpret the early chapters of Genesis? “I’m convinced,” argues John MacArthur, “the opening chapters of Genesis are not optional. They establish the vital foundation for everything that we believe as Christians.” Over the past few years, Pulpit Magazine has posted a number of articles by John MacArthur’s on current issues related to creationism. In his last post on Genesis, Dr. MacArthur clearly argues that the early chapters of Genesis, especially Genesis 1, has an impact on how we interpret the rest of Scripture: “In Scripture the Creator Himself has revealed to us everything essential for life and godliness. And it starts with an account of creation. If the biblical creation account is in any degree unreliable, the rest of Scripture stands on a shaky foundation.” To read the full article, go to “One Last Post on Genesis.”

In conjunction with the subject of creationism, another helpful source that I have been able to positively recommend in the biblical creationism classes that I have taught over the last five years or so is John MacArthur’s The Battle for the Beginning. This book gives a clear exposition of the first three chapters of Genesis and how these chapters should challenge believers to reject the naturalism that is so prevalent in our age. This is another source that would be helpful for you edification.

Since last week, Pulpit Magazine has posted a few articles by John MacArthur supporting a literal interpretation of Genesis 1 (for these previous articles, go here and here). Earlier this morning Pulpit Magazine continued this series by posting MacArthur’s short critique of the framework interpretation of Genesis 1. As I have previously noted in an earlier post, the framework interpretation is rapidly growing in popularity among evangelical educators and students. Based on my own studies, I wholeheartedly agree with MacArthur when he states that “the simple, rather obvious, fact is that no one would ever think the time-frame for creation was anything other than a normal week of seven days from reading the Bible and allowing it to interpret itself. The Fourth Commandment makes no sense whatsoever apart from an understanding that the days of God???s creative work parallel a normal human work week.” Since we live in a day of great compromise on biblical authority, especially as it relates to Genesis 1, you need to be informed about the framework interpretation and a great way to start is by reading “Gensis 1: Fact or Framework?.”

On April 29, I posted a blog entry about the Texas Higher Education Coordinating Board’s denial of the Institute for Creation Research Graduate School’s request to grant degrees in Texas. In response to this denial, ICRGS on May 2 issued this press release: “Administration officials at the Graduate School of the Institute for Creation Research (ICRGS), a California-based institution, have released documents pertaining to its application to grant degrees in the state of Texas where it has sought to move its academic offices.” For more information, read ICR’s Press Release 05 02 2008 (to stay current with ICR’s ongoing press releases, click here). If allowed to stand, Texas’ denial of ICGRS’s academic freedom has potential long-term ramifications for other Bible-believing institutions in other areas besides biblical creationism.

The above picture is taken from FreeFoto.com.

With John MacArthur’s fifth blog entry in his series on evolution’s incompatibility with biblical creationism, do not miss reading today’s post “Is Evolution Compatible with Christianity?.”

After the Institute for Creation Research’s move from Santee, California, to Dallas, Texas in 2007, the Site Team from the Texas Higher Education Coordinating Board (THECB) evaluated the Institute for Creation Research Graduate School (ICRGS) and gave their initial approval for this Graduate School to receive a Certificate of Authority so that they could grant degrees in Texas. This initial approval was affirmed in December 2007 by THECB Advisory Committee. Despite both approvals, the THECB Commissioner Raymond Paredes “rejected both reports as ‘flawed’ and instead convened a separate panel of scientists and science educators that advised him not to approve the ICRGS application. ICRGS scientists and faculty were not included in or allowed to respond to this panel.” On Wednesday, April 23, 2008 Commissioner Pardes recommended that ICRGS be denied Texas’ Certificate of Authority. On the following day, THECB unanimously voted to follow Pardes’ recommendation.

If you look at ICRGS’ purpose, philosophy and the academic qualifications of its professors, IMNSHO, it looks like THECB’s denial of ICRGS’ request to grant degrees in Texas is inconsistent with its earlier decision to approve ICRGS and a denial of their academic freedom. For more on this, read “Texas Education Officials Strike Blow to Academic Freedom” (to see ICRGS’s press release on April 25, click here).