The similar phrase 'Worldly Christianity' is one used by Bonhoeffer. It's J Gresham Machen that I want to line up most closely with. See his Christianity and culture here. Having done commentaries on Proverbs (Heavenly Wisdom) and Song of Songs (Heavenly Love), a matching title for Ecclesiastes would be Heavenly Worldliness. For my stance on worldliness, see 3 posts here.
Showing posts with label Creation. Show all posts
Showing posts with label Creation. Show all posts

To the man called Belmonte I say Yes!

Rare pic found in the book (CHS on his 39th)


I bought this book because of its lovely cover and the fact that Spurgeon's name appears on it. I don't always read books I buy straight away but I am glad I did this one as it is very much a book for reading on holiday and although officially holiday is over for me the memory is still lingering at least until September arrives. I think all the material in the book is available elsewhere but it has been put together well and demonstrates that Spurgeon loved his holidays and was a great believer in reading the book of nature as well as the book of Scripture. Wonderful little hardback. Thank you Mr Belmonte.

10 Things about climate change



Just before lockdown I read a little booklet on climate change. At least ten things come out of it. Here they are.
  1. The climate is changing
  2. The climate has changed in the past
  3. There is no universal agreement on what is causing climate change
  4. There is no universal agreement on what to do about climate change
  5. There is a difference between observable science and historical science. Your view of historical science will affect how you interpret observable science
  6. Calculating an average global temperature is very difficult
  7. No global temperature figures are available from before 1880
  8. In the 1970s the media was concerned about global cooling rather than global warming!
  9. Some 31,000 scientists agree that there is no convincing scientific evidence greenhouse gases are causing or will cause catastrophic heating of earth's atmosphere or disruption of earth's climate
  10. It cannot be proved that the and the rise in temperature are related

Three Books


These three books have nothing in common beyond the fact that I have read them recently.

1. The band played on by Steve Turner has sat on my shelf for some time. It is a beautiful hardback full of pictures that came out a few years ago on an anniversary of the Titanic disaster. (It must have been as far back as 2011, the centenary). Anyway it focuses on the band and is full of human interest. It is published by Thomas Nelson and is written by a Christian but does not stress that. Great read. I like Steve Turner's stuff.
2. A pocket guide to Climate Change. This little guide from Answers in Genesis written by various authors does not toe the accepted line, as you might expect but takes a creationist and moderate approach, accepting that the climate is changing but urging no panic. It's a complex subject but the writers are all scientists and it was good to get some scientific light on the subject. It is interesting to know that 31,487 American scientists,including 9,029 with PhDs, have signed a petition opposing the Kyoto agreement. It would seem that people don't decide on this issue simply by looking at the science.
3. The boy, the mole, the fox and the horse by Charlie Mackesy. This hardback is a work of art with writing rather than a book in the usual sense. It came into our house as a present from one son to another recently. There was great disappointment on the part of my dyslexic son that he had been given a book but once he sat down he had it read in no time. (It only took me 15 or 20 minutes I would guess - it is there to be savoured). One has mixed feelings about it. On its own terms it is lovely and kind but maybe God (the creator of all boys, moles, foxes and horses) is conspicuous by his absence and there is a certain starkness, even loneliness that stalks the book, despite its positivity. A little research reveals, however, that Charles Mackesy is an atheist turned evangelical so perhaps this is just overhang from his past rather than anything else or perhaps I am just far too harsh on people, always expecting too much.

Great quote - Thomas Carlyle on Charles Darwin


Subsequent to my trip to Carlyle's house I came across this. Fascinating.

Thomas Carlyle made the the following biting remarks to a friend who visited him a short time before his death:
"The so-called literary and scientific classes in England now proudly give themselves to protoplasm, origin of species and the like, to prove that God did not build the universe. I have known three generations of the Darwins - grandfather, father, and son, atheists all. The brother of the present famous naturalist, a quiet man, who lives not far from here, told me that among his grand-father's effects he found a seal engraven with this legend: Omnia ex conchis  (everything from a cockle shell)! I saw the naturalist not many months ago; told him that I had read his Origin of Species and other books; that he had by no means satisfied me that men were descended from monkeys, but had gone far towards persuading me that he and his so-called scientific brethren had brought the present generation of Englishmen very near to monkeys. A good sort of man is this Darwin, and well-meaning, but with very little intellect. Ah! It is a sad and terrible thing to see nigh a whole generation of men and women professing to be cultivated, looking around in a purblind fashion, and finding no God in this universe! I suppose it is a reaction from the reign of cant and hollow pretence, professing to believe what in fact they do not believe. And this is what we have got. All things from frog-spawn; the gospel of dirt the order of the day. The older I grow - and now I stand upon the brink of eternity - the more comes back to me the sentence in the Catechism which I learned when a child, and the fuller and deeper its meaning becomes: ' What is the great end of man? To glorify God and enjoy Him for ever.' No gospel of dirt, teaching that men have descended from frogs through monkeys can ever set that aside."

Stephen Lloyd Adam and death

It was good to be at the Westminster Fellowship again yesterday. There was a good turn out to hear Stephen Lloyd on creation issues. The bones of what he had to say can be found here. This article has now been produced as a booklet called Adam or death: which came first? Stephen Lloyd is always worth hearing. He is constantly thinking over these issues with a theological and scientific apporach that is both accessible and thought provoking. For more on such matters see here.

10 Unpopular things that I believe in

It is easy to feel isolated and unpopular to some extent. I suppose some of us should expect this considering what we believe. Here are ten unpopular things that I basically line up with. Not many of you will agree with me on all ten, I guess.
 
1 The inerrancy of Scripture
2 Six day creation
3 The independency of the local church
4 The baptism only of believers
5 An educated ministry
6 The sanctitiy of the first day of the week
7 The priesthood of all believers
8 Male headship in the home and the church
9 The preferability of a republican state government
10 The disestablishment of the Church of England

The quest for the historical Adam

This big tome from William Vandoodewaard, a church history professor at Puritan Seminary, is a very thorough text book borne of much study that meticulously charts the history of the exegesis of the opening chapters of Genesis from the early church to the present day, seeking in particular to plot the existence of a continuous acceptance of the traditional view.
It demonstrates well Vos's contention that heresy only comes in when people deliberately raise the so-called results of science to a place above Scripture. Meanwhile a multiplicity of interpretations have grown up, especially in the last 150 years that have clearly been suspect if not actually heretical in Vosian terms. Vandoodeward cites and demonstrates encouraging evidence that there is a return to a more traditional approach but there is no shortage of candidates (Alexander and Sailhamer for example) keen to find a new way through.
It is interesting that where an institution such as Southern Baptist Seminary has faced a fight with liberalism it has tended to move into a more conservative position on creation as well as everything else. This can be seen on a smaller scale at Westminster Seminary following the Enns saga. Certainly the idea that creationism is the preserve of fundamentalists is quietly debunked in this book. Whitcomb and Morris get perhaps surprisingly little coverage and are even criticised to some extent. Oh yes, and great title! (Someone very kindly passed this volume on to me so I'm not sure if it is expensive).

Sounds like design to me

An item on the BBC news this morning said that scientists have recently found that eyelashes on animals all appear to conform to the same ratio (a third of the width of the eye). They didn't suggest it was due to their being designed that way but it makes you wonder, eh? (If you have an open mind that is). More here.

Politicians

These are not easy times in our democracy for those who love the truth. The big topic at the moment is schools and extremism. Many things being said leave one uneasy.
For example, former Home Secretary and education secretary David Blunkett sought to end an interview on the subject on Radio 4 on Monday with a reassuring note by saying "... After all we had to take on the issue of creationism and people who wanted to set up trusts and sponsor chains whose aim was to teach a particular completely bizarre form of Christianity ..."
Meanwhile, last Saturday The Times told us that "the Conservatives will go into the next election pledging to eradicate illiteracy within a generation, ... A commitment in the party’s manifesto would ensure that all children leave school with strong reading and maths skills." It trails a speech by education secretary Michael Gove in which they say he would frame his plan as a moral crusade to “save lives which are currently wasted”. Salvation by education then. I thought that had been tried.

Evangelical Seepage

I think of myself as rather cynical but now and again I catch myself out being naïve. I am always surprised by departures from evangelical truths by evangelical men, even though they come at regular intervals. I was just reading the review article in the June Banner of Truth magazine by Bill Schweizer of Bruce Waltke's collection of articles The Dance between God and Humanity. Schweizer is particularly concerned with Waltke's concessions on the matter of evolution and women ministers but is also anxious about the whole drift in Waltke's approach which does not bode well.
Even more disturbing to read is a review article in the current Themelios (here) by Bob Yarbrough of a work edited by Wheaton scholars Christopher Hays and Christopher Ansberry (Evangelical Faith and the Challenge of Historical Criticism) that is even more radical in its concessions to liberal scholarship. It is depressing to know of such slippage. Yet it is the sort of thing that has happened down the years and the very thing we are warned about again and again in Scripture.

10 famous apparently creationist early scientists

1. Johann Kepler (1571–1630) Scientific astronomy
2. Blaise Pascal (1623–1662) Hydrostatics; Barometer; Mathematics 
3. Robert Boyle (1627–1691) Chemistry; Gas dynamics
4. Isaac Barrow (1630–1677) Professor of Mathematics
5. Isaac Newton (1642–1727) Dynamics; Calculus; Gravitation law; Reflecting telescope; Spectrum
6. Gottfried Wilhelm Leibnitz (1646–1716) Mathematician
7. John Flamsteed (1646–1719) Greenwich Observatory Founder; Astronomy
8. Carolus Linneaus (1707–1778) Taxonomy; Biological classification system
9. William Herschel (1738–1822) Galactic astronomy; Uranus (probably believed in an old-earth)
10. John Dalton (1766–1844) Atomic theory; Gas law

Flat earth

I was preaching at a church a while ago and I got chatting to a man who told me he was a creationist and interested in the  subject. I was pleased to hear that as I am a creationist too. He then went on to talk about how he was increasingly attracted to the geocentric view. I clarified with him what he meant by that - rather nervous by now - and he was suggesting that in fact the sun goes round the earth!
Flat earth The History of an infamous idea by Christiane Garwood came out a few years back and is a fascinating read. Before she comes to the modern movement of the last 200 years or so she works hard to scotch the idea that before Columbus everyone thought the earth was flat. Her caution about that idea and the whole idea of the Dark Ages makes for encouraging reading. When we come to the modern flat earthers her thesis is more disturbing as practically all of them at least claimed to be in line with Bible teaching. Her willingness to then lump flat earthers in with creationists was annoying but understandable. What she could not see was that the new atheists make just as obvious targets.
The book also explained why some are so keen to accept conspiracy theories about why the moon landings never really happened.
As for my geocentric friend (geocentrism being an allied issue here - she says that 55% of Americans have no grasp of the solar sytem idea) I can see more clearly now why he might wrongly be draw in that direction.
Apparently kids under 10 are often not sure if the world is flat or not. The book was a reminder of how much we rely on  others and how there are man things we believe but that we cannot actually prove.
I would urge all creationists to read this book. It was so stimulating I wrote out some 15 conclusions that I will perhaps post another time. At over 400 pages it is a little longer than one would have liked but it is a pretty thorough job. See more here.

Lord's Day March 3 2013


Good day yesterday beginning with communion and the start of a new series on 1 Corinthians. We just looked at the first nine verses. Dr Andy McIntosh was in the congregation en route to America so I had him up to say something about creationism, which was appreciated. This is a big issue for all of us, the younger you are the more so. My 14 year old spent all lunch time talking it over with creationist (Muslim) and evolutionist friends in school.
We were a bit thin in the evening but not too bad. We looked at Numbers 25, the Baal of Pero and Phinehas's bold execution of the Israelite and the Maobite woman.

Carey Conference 2013 02

Our second paper at Carey this year was from Professor Andy McIntosh who spoke on reaching people today on the matter of creation.
He had three points
1. What is 21st Century culture?
He spoke of postmodernism and atheism and all the other aspects of the general culture around us. He highlighted two quotations from scientists, for it is on scientists that postmoderns ironically lean to bolster their case.
“Every atom in your body came from a star that exploded. And, the atoms in your left hand probably came from a different star than your right hand. It really is the most poetic thing I know about physics: You are all stardust. You couldn’t be here if stars hadn’t exploded, because the elements - the carbon, nitrogen, oxygen, iron, all the things that matter for evolution and for life - weren’t created at the beginning of time. They were created in the nuclear furnaces of stars, and the only way for them to get into your body is if those stars were kind enough to explode. So, forget Jesus. The stars died so that you could be here today.” Lawrence M Krauss
(Lawrence Maxwell Krauss is a Canadian-American theoretical physicist and cosmologist who is a professor of physics, Foundation Professor of the School of Earth and Space Exploration, and director of the Origins Project at Arizona State University.)
"Evolution is unique amongst the sciences because it strikes people in the solar plexus of their faith; it strikes them in the idea that they are specially created by God, because evolution says you're not. It says that there is no special purpose for your life, because it's a naturalistic philosophy, we have no more extrinsic purpose than a squirrel or an armadillo. And it says that morality does not come from God, it's an evolved phenomenon. And those are three things that are really hard for humans to accept, particularly those brought up in a religious tradition." Jerry Coyne
(Jerry Allen Coyne is an American professor of biology, known for his commentary on the intelligent design debate. A prolific scientist, he has published dozens of papers, elucidating on the theory of evolution.)
Having established the basic anti-biblical mindset that prevails today he went on to deal with the particular subject of
2. Where do you put death and suffering?
He began by speaking about theistic evolutionists attempt to avoid this issue but by quotation of several Scriptures was able to demonstrate that there is both a spiritual and a physical death and that sin comes first. He ended this section with a quotation from Al Mohler
"What is most lacking in the evangelical movement today is a consideration of the theological cost of holding to an old earth position. The position seems to be at an insoluble collision with the redemptive historical narrative of the Gospel. The cost to the Christian church, in terms of ignoring this question or abandoning the discussion, is just too high. The cost of confronting this question is also costly. It can be very expensive because it can create intensity and conflict and controversy, but I would suggest that the avoidance of this will be at the cost of our own credibility."
3. Authority and true history
Dr McIntosh closed with more biblical material, underlining the biblical truth of creation. He began with New Testament references to creation being through Christ and moved on to the resurrection and nature miracles to remind us of the power of God in Christ. He also went directly to the whole issue of 24 hour days and the old chestnuts about the sun being created on the fourth day and 2 Peter 3:8.
He closed with charts on the Bible's chronology, the only religious text with a coherent chronology.
This worthwhile session focused only on biblical matters rather than science. Although Dr McIntosh was very thorough and said nothing objectionable, I wonder if it might be better for him to speak about science rather than the Bible, although his scientific background does give him a certain leverage and it was good to hear him.

Creation and the Apostle Paul

A bit behind again but I do want to say that we had an excellent time last Saturday with Steve Lloyd, pastor at Gravesend and speaker for the Biblical Creation Ministries. We were between 25 and 30 present altogether, including folk from other churches, which was great. Steve gave us two sessions, the fiorst arguing the case for creation from the New Testament teaching about Adam and death. He then covered more traditional ground talking about Genesis and the flood and evolution, etc.
I also want to say that I was at the TSG at the John Owen Centre last Monday where we were considering the new book by Jeremy Walker and Rob Ventura A Portrait of Paul which is chiefly an exposition of Colossians 1:24-2:5. What made it very special was having Jeremy himself there. That meant to say that where we had niggles he could usually explain why that was the case. Overall we were happy with the book but would like the print slightly bigger, clearer indications of who wrote what and slightly briefer quotations. Some felt that the book didn't quite take off in the first three chapters and they were apparently written in a different way and there was no time to revise. Some didn't like the use of the AV not just because they don't like the AV but because they thought it jarred with the style elsewhere. Anyway, we meet again in 2012 looking at a book called Is God a moral monster? Making sense of the Old Testament God by Paul Copan.

Westminster 09 2b

It was my privilege to chair in the afternoon the session on Darwin. Ken Brownell spoke on the attitudes of C and A A Hodge and Warfield (no time for Machen) to evolution. It was a fascinating, informative and challenging paper. The discussion was rather wide ranging and ran over slightly but was very stimulating. Here are Ken's five concluding principles.
1. Like old Princeton we must be committed to a high doctrine of Scripture and as infallible and inerrant word of God. The Bible is in the end our touchstone but while we must have the same high view of Scripture we will have differing legitimate interpretations. In relation to science we may have to revise our interpretations as the church has done before, but only cautiously and after long reflection. As Charles Hodge said there will be a struggle in this, but we can trust the Holy Spirit to guide us. But here we need to do better than the Princetonians. In this area they were strangely weak in their exegesis of the relevant Biblical passages in spite of having such a high view of Scripture.
2. Like old Princeton we must be robustly and enthusiastically Calvinistic in theology, not only in understanding how God saves, but also in how he works in the world. The Princetonians’ doctrine of providence and the absolute sovereignty of God helped them in their assessment of the idea of evolution. Likewise a Calvinistic view of reality will help us face many of the challenges of science today.
3. Like old Princeton we should have a deep respect for the scientific enterprise.
I sometimes get the impression that some Christians are deeply suspicious of science. That is not something Hodge and company could understand. Perhaps they had a too high an estimation of the objectivity of scientists, but some Christians may have too low an estimation. While sin affects the scientific enterprise as much as everything else, God’s common grace is operative. There needs to be respect for scientists, support for Christians working in science and respectful dialogue particularly in this area of evolution.
4. Like old Princeton we must engage in this dialogue with courtesy and respect for those with whom we disagree. Nothing brings more discredit on evangelical Christianity than the intemperate way in which we sometimes deal with our opponents. The Princeton theologians always dealt with those they opposed with courtesy and respect; they were gentlemen controversialists and we should be as well. Among other things that means being fair in the way we assess the views of those we oppose. A good example of this in another area of controversy is the way John Piper evaluated N T Wright’s views in his book on justification.
5. Like old Princeton we must remember that the big battle is not on the details of how God created things, but with naturalistic materialism that has no place for God. This was the big issue for old Princeton and it must be for us. Whatever our specific views on many aspects of the evolution debate all Christian theists need to stand together to contend for the Christian worldview. He closed with a quote from Kuyper on evolution
Evolution is a newly conceived system, a newly established theory, a newly formed dogma, a newly emerged faith. Embracing and dominating all of life, it is diametrically opposed to the Christian faith and can erect its temple only on the ruins of our Christian confession… And therefore against that system of the aimlessly and mechanistically constructed cosmos we set our full-fledged resistance. We must not only defend ourselves against it but attack it… Over against Nietzsche’s Evolution-law that the strong must tread the weaker we cling to the Christ of God who seeks the lost and has mercy on the weak. Over against the undirected mechanism of evolution we present faith in that Eternal Being who “has worked and continues to work all things after the counsel of His will” [Eph. 1:11]. Over against the selection that selects the species and neglects the individual, we cling to Election… Over against the annihilation of the individual person in the grave we continue to testify to the coming judgment and of an eternal glory. And over against the altruism that is nothing more than a “transformed” and therefore disguised egoism we raise up the fire of eternal love that burns in God’s Father-heart, a holy spark of which has leaped to our own… And so I conclude by returning to what was, is now, and ever will be the starting point of the Confession for the entire Christian church on earth, by maintaining over against Evolution the first of all articles of faith: I BELIEVE IN GOD ALMIGHTY, CREATOR OF HEAVEN AND EARTH.

Darwin's monstrous fable

I recently came across this from Darwin's autobiography here.

One little event during this year has fixed itself very firmly in my mind, and I hope that it has done so from my conscience having been afterwards sorely troubled by it; it is curious as showing that apparently I was interested at this early age in the variability of plants! I told another little boy (I believe it was Leighton, who afterwards became a well-known lichenologist and botanist), that I could produce variously coloured polyanthuses and primroses by watering them with certain coloured fluids, which was of course a monstrous fable, and had never been tried by me. I may here also confess that as a little boy I was much given to inventing deliberate falsehoods, and this was always done for the sake of causing excitement. For instance, I once gathered much valuable fruit from my father's trees and hid it in the shrubbery, and then ran in breathless haste to spread the news that I had discovered a hoard of stolen fruit.

Darwin's son Francis writes a note just before thi saying
Rev. W.A. Leighton, who was a schoolfellow of my father's at Mr. Case's school, remembers his bringing a flower to school and saying that his mother had taught him how by looking at the inside of the blossom the name of the plant could be discovered. Mr. Leighton goes on, "This greatly roused my attention and curiosity, and I enquired of him repeatedly how this could be done?" - but his lesson was naturally enough not transmissible.

The more one learns about Darwin the less attractive a character he becomes.

52 JC No 40

Calvin on why animals suffer (Zephaniah 1:2, 3)
But it may be now asked, why God pronounces his vengeance on the beasts of the field, the birds of heaven and the fish of the sea? For no matter how much the Jews may have provoked him by their sins, innocent animals ought to have been spared. If a son is not to be punished for the fault of his father (Ezekiel 18: 4) but the soul that has sinned is to die, why did God turn his wrath against fish and other animals? This seems to have been a hasty and unreasonable infliction.
But first, let this rule be borne in mind - that it is preposterous in us to estimate God's doings according to our judgement, as perverse and proud men do in our day. They are disposed to judge God's works with such presumption that whatever they do not approve, they think it right wholly to condemn. But it behoves us to judge modestly and soberly, and to confess that God's judgements are a deep abyss. When a reason for them does not appear, we ought reverently and with due humility to look for the day of their full revelation.
This is one thing. Then also it is right at the same time to remember that as animals were created for man's use, they must undergo a great deal in common with him. God made both the birds of heaven and the fish of the and all other animals subservient to man. It is no matter for wonder then that when he is condemned who enjoys a sovereignty over the whole earth, it should extend also to animals.
We know that the world was not made subject to corruption willingly - that is, naturally but because the contagion from Adam's fall diffused itself through heaven and earth. Hence the sun and the moon, and all the stars and also all the animals, the earth itself and the whole world, bear the marks of God's wrath, not because they have provoked it through their own fault but because the whole world is involved in man's curse.
The explanation then is that all things were created for the sake of man. Hence there is no ground to conclude that God acts with too much severity when he executes his vengeance on innocent animals for he can justly involve in the same ruin with man whatever he has created for his use.

Review of Creation


I haven't seen my copy of October's Evangelical Times yet but I believe a review by me similar to this one appears there

Creation is the title of a new feature film currently showing in British cinemas, a film that undoubtedly will catch the attention of many thoughtful people. The “creation” of the title is not God's creation as such but the creation of a book written 150 years ago this year that continues to have a tremendous effect around the world to this day. The book, The origin of species was written by Charles Darwin and the film, based on the book Annie's Box by Randal Keynes, traces the story of its writing.
While using flashbacks to build up the biographical picture, the film focuses chiefly on the final year or so of writing the book and sending the manuscript off. Darwin is pictured as an attractive even heroic, though flawed, individual. Various factors combine to first delay then spur him on to publication. Though encouraged to publish by friends like Hooker and Huxley, the blessing of a wife, finally reconciled to the idea is much more hard won. A letter from Alfred Wallace outlining the same theory, what seems to be a psychosomatic illness and the fear that he is unleashing something that would destroy society and even God himself are also strong factors in Darwin's decision. Interwoven with this is his relationship with a favourite daughter whose death profoundly affects him.
A film about a man writing a book is a potentially dull subject but those involved in this production are seasoned professionals, such as Jon Amiel. The combination of skilful writing full of drama, fine acting, especially from lead actors, husband and wife team Paul Bettanny and Jennifer Connelly, beautiful sets, excellent filming, good music and very high production standards make this a powerful film indeed.
One may want to quibble with certain anachronisms, doubtful dramatic devices and even straight errors in the film but a production of this sort is intended to create an impression rather than to get every detail just right. No, the film needs to be criticised chiefly for its thesis regarding the theory of evolution. It appears to be saying that, yes, there are extremists in the scientific world and among evolutionists. Thomas Huxley, for example, is presented in a very unattractive way. But then there are extremists among those who follow religion, too. Rev Innes, the vicar of Downe, is caricatured as a man who eventually will not even speak to Darwin and who at one point makes Annie kneel in rock salt, scarring her knees, as a penance for believing that dinosaurs existed!
But most of us, so the thesis goes, are somewhere in the middle. On one hand, there are people like Darwin himself and his close friend Joseph D Hooker, who are eminently reasonable. They have no desire to cause trouble. They simply want to know the truth. Sometimes they are fearful of public reaction and can suffer greatly for their commitment to truth but they often show a quiet courage that does not lead to murder in the streets but to a great deal of enlightenment.
Then on the other hand, there are people like most readers of this newspaper, no doubt, - religious people, gentle and pious people, who respect the minister and read Pilgrims Progress to our children, as Darwin's wife does in the film. Yes, we may feel quite estranged from the scientists and their strange ideas at times but if we will only consider then we will see that they are right. Like Mrs Darwin, who reads the manuscript of Origin of Species right through when it is finished then gives her husband her blessing, we too ought to see the truth of evolution and stop carping about it being evil and untrue.
Well, that is how, it seems to me, the film wants us to see it. It is important to remember, however, that life as portrayed on the screen, is often inaccurate and untrue. The fact is that though Charles Darwin, by God's common grace, no doubt had many attractive features, his theory of evolution was wrong. Not only is it wrong but it has an evil anti-God core and many of the terrible things that Darwin no doubt dreaded have come to pass, partly fuelled by acceptance of evolutionary theories.
What the late Henry Morris referred to, in a book about the history of evolutionary theories, as The long war against God is continuing and this film is simply the latest widespread piece of propaganda in that war. We need to point out to the uninitiated what is going on and resist the false caricatures that people this piece.