In this chapter, we go into detail about how the NAS writers smear the lipstick of liberal, apostate Christendom all over their atheist hog, seducing millions of church-goers in the process. The seduction works like this:
Evolution comes to the door of a Christian church. Knock! Knock! The pastor answers the door.
EVOLUTION: Hello, Pastor. I’m Evolution. May I come in?
PASTOR: I don’t think so. You kind of frighten me.
EVOLUTION: No need to be frightened, Pastor. Science approves of me.
PASTOR: Well, in that case, you can come in. But wait, Atheism isn’t with you, is he?
EVOLUTION: Oh no, Pastor, I wouldn’t associate with Atheism.
PASTOR: Fine, then. Come on in. We’re happy to have you. I’m teaching today on the serpent as a symbol of evil, and of Satan, the Adversary.
EVOLUTION: I’m sorry, Pastor, but that won’t do. We’re all descended from serpents through chance and natural selection. No one life form is any more special than any other. Blaming the serpent is not politically correct.
PASTOR: Are you sure Atheism didn’t sneak in here with you?
EVOLUTION: Oh no, Pastor. Atheism is nowhere around here. I wouldn’t lie to you.
PASTOR: Well then, I’m going to teach on the truth of Noah with his ark saving humanity through the Flood.
EVOLUTION: No, Pastor, you can’t do that. I’d be a mess if there had been such a Flood. It didn’t happen. Stories like that are all metaphors. They mean anything you want them to mean. Trust your own mind. That’s how you tell what’s true and what’s false.
PASTOR: You know, Evolution, you said Atheism isn’t with you, but you haven’t said how God fits into your ideas.
EVOLUTION: Who?
Does that sound far-fetched to you? It shouldn’t. On a full page, the NAS book draws special attention to a letter signed by more than 10,000 “Christian” clergy members who have welcomed molecules-to-man evolution into their churches. The headline at the top of the page reads: “Excerpts of Statements by Religious Leaders Who See No Conflict Between Their Faith and Science.” By “Science,” of course, they mean evo-atheism.
The obvious problem here is that it is simply not possible to be a Christian in any meaningful sense of the word, and at the same time, embrace the tenets of atheistic evolution. On His Father’s side, the Scriptures refer to Jesus Christ as the “Son of God.” On His mother’s side, the Scriptures refer to Him as the “Son of Man,” not as the son of reptiles. Christ maintained that the Word of God is truth. Evo-atheism contradicts the Word of God. How can one have any kind of faith in a Christ who lies about the inspiration of the Scriptures by God, and lies about his descent from Adam through Noah?
And yet, as of this writing, 1,500 more “Christian” clergy members have signed this letter that is the centerpiece of The Clergy Letter Project.
Michael Zimmerman, Dean of the College of Liberal Arts and Sciences at Butler University, is the brains behind the project. It began in the fall of 2004 when Zimmerman worked with clergy in Wisconsin to prepare and present a statement supporting evolution to the school board in Grantsburg that was considering the authorized mention of creationism in science classes. According to Zimmerman:
The response was overwhelming. In a few weeks, nearly 200 clergy signed the statement, which we sent to the Grantsburg school board on December 16, 2004. Additionally, groups of educators and scientists sent letters to the Grantsburg School Board and to the Superintendent of Schools protesting these [creationist] policies. In response to all of this attention, as well as the efforts of others, the Grantsburg School Board retracted their policies. The outpouring of support from clergy around the country encouraged me to make this a nationwide project . . . By doing so, we are educating thousands and elevating the world-wide discussion of this important topic.
Zimmerman’s avowed effort is to clear up “one of the most basic misconceptions about evolution . . . that it conflicts with Christianity and thus Christians have to choose between their religion and modern science.” No misconception needs to be cleared up. “Modern science,” Zimmerman’s euphemism for evo-atheism, conflicts with Christianity at the most basic level. And yet, thousands of gullible “Christian” pastors have quickly jumped on the bandwagon and signed the letter. Zimmerman describes them as “fully comfortable with their faith and evolution.” These pastors ignore these specific warnings from the apostle Paul:
Yet from profane prattling stand aloof, for they [the prattlers] will be progressing to more irreverence, and their word will spread like gangrene. . . (II Timothy 2:16).
O Timothy, that which is committed to you, guard, turning aside from the profane prattling and antipathies of falsely named “knowledge,” which some are professing. As to the faith they swerve (I Timothy 6:20-21).
The Greek word translated “prattling” in the above passages is keno-phonia, empty-sound. Remember the empty bushel baskets from Chapter 3? In this case, the “profane prattling” is the sound of the evo-atheists, tirelessly insisting that they have evidence, echoing back from the empty baskets.
According to the Scriptures, who are these thousands of apostate pastors who have opened the doors of their “Christian” churches to Darwinian evolution and atheism? In II Thessalonians 2:3, the apostle Paul refers to them as part of a genuine “apostasy” and predicts its coming to fruition. Apostasy comes from the Greek word apo-stasis meaning from-standing. Nominal Christians stand away from the teaching of the Scriptures as the Word of God, and bring in contradictory man-made beliefs to which they give the dominant credence.
Paul described some specifics of the apostasy in these passages:
Now the spirit is saying explicitly, that in subsequent eras some will be withdrawing from the faith, giving heed to deceiving spirits and the teachings of demons, in the hypocrisy of false expressions, their own conscience having been cauterized . . . (I Timothy 4:1-2).
For the era will be when they will not tolerate sound teaching, but their hearing being tickled, they will heap up for themselves teachers in accord with their own desires, and, indeed, they will be turning their hearing away from the truth, yet will be turned aside to myths (II Timothy 4:3-4).
We saw in Chapter 3 that there is no real evidence for molecules-to-man evolution. This makes it a myth, just as Paul writes.
In his epistles, Paul refers to Adam, Eve, and Noah as historical ancestors of mankind. Paul also refers to the transgression by the first couple in Eden and to Noah’s Flood as historical events. Molecules-to-man evolution denies that humanity originated in Eden with Adam and Eve, and it denies Noah and the world-wide Flood which Moses, Jesus, and Peter, in addition to Paul, assert actually occurred. The evo-atheists of the NAS, and now more than 11,500 “Christian” pastors believe that all of humanity is descended by chance from reptiles, and beyond that, from a single-celled randomite (we can’t call it a creature because that implies creation) which emerged by chemical chance from some kind of “primordial soup” two billion years ago. The two teachings are utterly incompatible.
The differences go way beyond origins. Evo-atheists and apostate Christians (also now evo-atheists) do not look to Paul or Christ for the truth but to Darwin and “science.” It is a simple question of authority. They stand away from God and His Word, and toward men—Darwin and the hierarchy of the NAS. They abandon trust in the Creator and His Son for trust in men. We read in Proverbs 30:5-6:
Every word of God is pure: he is a shield unto them that put their trust in Him.
Add thou not unto his words, lest he reprove thee, and thou be found a liar.
These thousands of apostate pastors add the words of Darwin and the NAS to their idea of what they hypocritically refer to in their Clergy Letter as “Holy Scripture” and thus identify themselves as liars.
These thousands of apostate pastors deny II Timothy 3:16: “All scripture is inspired by God, and is beneficial for teaching . . .” Just what, then, is Christian about their ministries?
During his earthly ministry to Israel, Jesus often experienced the attacks of religious leaders who claimed their man-centered authority trumped His. According to the Scriptures, Jesus is the Son of God in Whom “all the treasures of wisdom and knowledge are concealed” (Colossians 2:3). Jesus confronted the Pharisees who challenged His authority, calling them blind and stupid (Matthew 23 and elsewhere). I am part of the body of Christ and I believe in the authority of the Scriptures. So the NAS, by trotting out statements from apostate Christians in their defense, is basically saying to me and all others who share my views, “Look at all the spiritually blind and stupid people we have on our side!”
The Greek word translated as stupid is moron, where we get our word for a mentally dull and sluggish person. In my judgment, only morons—more than 11,500 morons in this case—could sign a letter maintaining that the “timeless truths of the Bible” are compatible with the billions of unpredictable aberrations of evo-atheism. What do these apostate morons celebrate at their Sunday services, the lies about humanity’s origins told by Moses, Jesus, and Paul?
Jesus also referred to the Pharisees who challenged His authority as “Serpents! Progeny of vipers!” (Matthew 23:33). Isn’t it revealing that today’s “Christian” apostates welcome the idea that they themselves, and their flocks, are the progeny of reptiles?
Paul urged believers to follow him as he followed Christ. As we shall see, the Clergy Letter urges “Christians” to follow Michael Zimmerman as he follows the religious doctrines of the evo-atheist hierarchy of the National Academy of Sciences.
Zimmerman claims that he did not write the letter himself, but rather commissioned a minister from the United Church of Christ to write it. I asked Zimmerman to please identify this letter-writer so I could contact him with my many questions. Zimmerman refused. I also asked the professor to reveal his own religious persuasion. Again, he refused, writing, “I’m unwilling to discuss my own religious affiliation because it is absolutely irrelevant to the work of the Clergy Letter Project.” So, we have a letter signed by 11,500 “Christian” clergy, commissioned by a man who refuses to reveal his religious affiliation, and written by a man whom we are unable to identify.
In responding to the authors of the Clergy Letter sentence by sentence, below, we’ll gain more insight into the muddled thinking patterns of the evo-atheists and their liberal, apostate “Christian” buddies. Sentences from the Clergy Letter appear in italics.
Within the community of Christian believers there are areas of dispute and disagreement, including the proper way to interpret Holy Scripture.
Men’s biases have gotten in the way of letting the Scriptures speak for themselves since they were first written. Mistranslation causes big problems. The disputes and disagreements concern differences in men’s teachings, not contradictions in the Word of God itself. The risen Christ called and saved the apostle Paul on the road to Damascus, taught him, and appointed him “a teacher of the nations in knowledge and truth” (I Timothy 2:7). Paul explained to Timothy how to be sure the true teaching remained intact:
And what things you hear from me through many witnesses, these commit to faithful men, who shall be competent to teach others also (II Timothy 2:2, my emphases).
That’s all you have to do: teach what Paul taught, and follow him as he follows Christ. You may run into some things that require more time for study, but overall, if you stick to Paul, your teaching will be fundamentally truthful and accurate. The problem is that you don’t have any idea what Paul taught, and this isn’t the place to explain his teachings to you in any detail. One thing Paul did not teach, however, was that mankind evolved out of slime by mindless chemistry and then through rodents and reptiles as a result of millions of genetic copying errors, or unpredictable aberrations.
Neither one of you is in the least way competent to teach anyone about the true teaching for Christians today. And yet, your entire letter is a presumption on your part that you are indeed competent to explain “the proper way to interpret Holy Scripture,” all the while ignoring the teachings of the apostle appointed by Jesus Christ Himself for that purpose. You’re off to a bad start.
While virtually all Christians take the Bible seriously and hold it to be authoritative in matters of faith and practice, the overwhelming majority do not read the Bible literally, as they would a science textbook.
Tens of millions of Christians read the Bible literally; that is, as the truth—whether expressed as matters of fact or in figures of speech. A Gallup poll of the American people, taken before you published your letter, revealed that 45% of the American people are creationists. When pollsters asked whether humans were created in a form much as they are today, within the last ten thousand years, they said yes. Mr. X, you didn’t do any research and instead expressed a vague feeling of yours as a fact. You made up a fact to support your apostate point of view. Your “overwhelming majority” is more than a gross exaggeration; it is flat wrong. By “overwhelming majority” you mean the overwhelming majority of your pals inside your liberal, apostate bubble.
We can see by looking at your language in this sentence that you express an obvious contradiction. How is it possible to take the Bible seriously and authoritatively, yet not take it literally; that is, as truth?
Because a few people, or a great many people claiming to be Christians do not read the Bible literally in no way indicates that it is not meant to be taken literally, as absolute truth. That determination must be made on the basis of what the Scriptures say about themselves, and they say over and over again that they are the Spirit-breathed words of the Creator, and they are not to be adulterated.
Where do you get the idea that science textbooks can be taken literally, as truth? The key operative principle of molecules-to-man evolution, natural selection, is itself an un-literal figure of speech. I don’t have a science textbook in front of me, but I do have the NAS book from which the textbooks take their cue, and it consistently uses the decidedly un-literal subjunctive mood.
Tiktaalik [a fish fossil from which we are allegedly descended] may have lived somewhat before or somewhat after the ancestral species that gave rise to all of today’s limbed animals, including humans. The evolutionary lineage that contained Tiktaalik may have gone extinct, as shown in this diagram by the short line branching from the main evolutionary lineage, or it may have been part of the evolutionary line leading to all modern tetrapods (animals with four legs) (my emphases).
Is that what you two call literal language? You don’t find such iffy language in the Scriptures. Also, look up on the Web “Ernst Haeckel’s Fake Drawings” and the “Peppered Moth Hoax.” These still appear in many science textbooks, as does that fanciful drawing of a fish crawling out of the water and turning into a man. These things are not literal; they’re not figurative either: they’re just phony. Just for fun, Google “evolution hoaxes” and see what else you find.
I know, Zimmerman, as a result of our email correspondence that you and Mister X think most of what is written in the Scriptures is metaphorical. As you wrote: “. . . the power of metaphor in the Bible is so much more important than the ‘facts’ that are included.” Whom were you quoting, Paul or Jesus?
I think I can say without fear of contradiction that the Bible contains more figures of speech than any other book. These include metaphors, similes, parables, implications, allegories, visions, signs, shadows, metonymies, synecdoche, condescensions, hyperboles, ironies, and personifications.
When the Lord God says, “The heavens are My throne, And the earth is My footstool” (Isaiah 66:1), we know that it is not literal. But yet the magnificence of God represented in this combination metaphor (likeness), association (the throne is associated with rule), and condescension (ascribing what is human to the Deity), is not false. When Jesus told his disciples that He was about to wake Lazarus out of sleep, they initially took it literally, but it wasn’t meant that way. This figure of speech, not true as to fact, foreshadowed the great truth that the death of Lazarus was like taking a nap, and that Christ would soon rouse him from it. Discerning Christians understand the difference between figurative and literal language.
Most scriptural passages are unequivocally literal. When, in praying to His Father, Jesus says, “Thy Word is truth” (John 17:17), it is meant quite literally. So are the passages pertaining to the original creation, the making of Adam “of soil from the ground,” and Noah’s making of the ark from sulphur wood.
Unbelievers such as the two of you typically dismiss the Scriptures as all metaphorical, so that no “facts” remain for you to consider.
By the way, do you both enjoy helping the NAS smear the lipstick of liberal, apostate Christendom all over their atheist hog? It is your atheist hog, too, isn’t it? Even with all the lipstick you’re haphazardly slapping on it, the atheist hog is still just as repulsive as ever.
Many of the beloved stories found in the Bible—the Creation, Adam and Eve, Noah and the ark—convey timeless truths about God, human beings, and the proper relationship between Creator and creation expressed in the only form capable of transmitting these truths from generation to generation.
How are you able to embrace the Darwinian notion that you are basically pond scum rearranged over countless eons by chance, and yet find the Genesis creation account to be “beloved,” or dear to your hearts? You don’t believe the account of the serpent deluding Eve in the Garden of Eden, bringing death to all humanity, and you don’t believe the account of all mankind, save eight souls, drowning violently in a world-wide deluge, yet you dearly love both of these “stories.” Why? What’s to love?
We’re not talking about Aesop’s Fables or Mother Goose rhymes here. The Word of God claims to be “living and operative, and keen above any two-edged sword, and penetrating up to the parting of soul and spirit, both of the articulations and marrow, and is a judge of the sentiments and thoughts of the heart” (Hebrews 4:12). Zimmerman, your first name, Michael, is derived from that of God’s messenger to Daniel during the Babylonian captivity. This book is published in 2008 because it has been 2008 years since Christ’s birth. Your cavalier dismissal of the truth of the Scriptures is unwise and unscholarly.
If you were students in my class, I’d assign you this task for homework: List fifty of the “timeless truths about God” found in the Bible, to which you refer. Would these be among them?
All good giving and every perfect gratuity is from above, descending from the Father of lights, in Whom there is no mutation or shadow from revolving motion (James 1:17).
Now no one can be slaving for two lords, for either he will be hating the one and loving the other, or will be upholding one and despising the other. You cannot be slaving for God and mammon (Matthew 6:24).
No, the above verses would not appear on your list, neither would any other Scriptures for that matter. I’d be especially interested in your specific “timeless truths” about “the proper relationship between Creator and creation,” because a few sentences later you assert that what man thinks trumps what God says. Your love for the “timeless truths about God” revealed in the Bible is a condescending sham.
Religious truth is of a different order from scientific truth. Its purpose is not to convey scientific information but to transform hearts.
The same God Who created nature also inspired the Sacred Scriptures. There is no contradiction between the Scriptures (in the original languages) and nature. When in Genesis 1:11, God says: “Verdant shall become the land with verdure; and with herbage seeding seed for its from-kind and for its likeness, and with the fruit tree whose seed is in it yielding fruit for its from-kind, on the land,” we are learning about the generation of plants and trees. When we read in Job 26:7 that God “stretched out the north over the chaos, hanging the earth upon nothingness,” we are learning something about the solar system and gravity.
When Jesus tells us, “God is Spirit” (John 4:24), and then Paul writes that all is out of Him (Romans 11:36), we are learning about the very foundation of matter itself. When we read in Genesis 1:31 that God is creating “great monsters,” we are learning about the existence of dinosaurs before Noah’s Flood. When God refers to Himself in Isaiah 40:22 as “sitting over the circle of the earth,” we are learning about the shape of our planet. When we read in Genesis 7:11 that, pertaining to the beginning of Noah’s Flood, “rent are all the springs of the vast submerged chaos,” we are getting a geology lesson. When Paul tells us that Christ now is “making His home in light inaccessible” (I Timothy 6:16), we realize how limited our perceptions are, and how feeble our abilities to measure all that lies beyond the senses.
And please don’t try to portray the Scriptures as merely appealing to the emotions with the “transform hearts” bit, since you both fall into the category of those who have become vain in their reasonings, and whose unintelligent hearts have been darkened (Romans 1:21). Is “the peace of Christ arbitrating in your hearts,” (Colossians 3:15) or is it the dogma of evo-atheism? And speaking of the heart as a moral center, why should a person descended by chance from reptiles and worms be subject to any moral restraints?
We the undersigned, Christian clergy from many different traditions, believe that the timeless truths of the Bible and the discoveries of modern science may comfortably coexist.
By the “discoveries of modern science” you mean the claims the evo-atheists make about humanity’s origins. That’s what this Clergy Letter is all about, not improvements in laser surgery. Again, your avowal is that the supposed evolution of mankind over millions of years through reptiles, rodents, dogs, and apes is compatible with certain, yet again unspecified, “timeless truths of the Bible.”
That God created Adam in an ancient paradise and “breathed into him the breath of the living” can’t be one of those truths. That Noah, a descendant of Adam, brought himself, seven other humans, and hundreds of pairs of animals through a world-wide flood lasting nearly a year can’t be one of those truths. That Jesus Christ was descended on his mother’s side from Adam through Noah can’t be one of those truths. Darwinism insists that Christ’s mother, Mary, and Christ Himself on His mother’s side, did not come through Noah and Adam but rather, through rodents and reptiles. I ask you again, what “timeless truths of the Bible” are you referring to?
Your choice of the word “coexist” is interesting, because this is basically true, except for the “comfortably” part. The Word of God and evo-atheism do coexist, but only in the sense that light and darkness coexist. They are opposite and incompatible, but they do coexist. Darkness is the absence of light. Light, figuratively, is that which enables spiritual sight. You reject Paul’s teachings, and, thus, that he was commissioned by Christ to open the eyes of the nations, and “to turn them about from darkness to light” (Acts 26:18), preferring instead the unfruitful works of evo-atheistic darkness.
You two, however, have convinced thousands of pastors, and in turn, many members of their flocks, that human evolution from reptiles is light. Jesus said, “If, then, the light that is in you is darkness, how dense is the darkness!” (Matthew 6:23). May God grant you repentance to sober up out of the trap of the Adversary.
We believe that the theory of evolution is a foundational scientific truth, one that has stood up to rigorous scrutiny and upon which much of human knowledge and achievement rests.
We’ve seen that the evolution of all life from a single cell from two billion years ago allegedly consists of genetic copying mistakes operated upon in some undefined way by the figure of speech known as natural selection. In Chapter 3, we saw that there is no evidence for this. There is nothing rigorous at all about speculation, and that’s what it is. And Mr. X, your many factual, logical, and contextual errors show that your own letter does not stand up to slapdash scrutiny, much less “rigorous scrutiny.” You are obviously not a “rigorous scrutiny” kind of guy, so how would you know what standards of fact and accuracy molecules-to-man evolution meets or does not meet? Who told you evolution stands up to rigorous scrutiny? Zimmerman?
Darwin and his theory of evolution do nothing but obscure knowledge and take false credit for achievements in real science. Complete this sentence: If it weren’t for Darwin’s theory of molecules-to-man evolution, mankind wouldn’t . . .
To reject this truth or to treat it as “one theory among others” is to deliberately embrace scientific ignorance and transmit such ignorance to our children.
You exalt evolution above all. Has believing in it become the new greatest commandment, displacing the foremost precept as expressed by Christ in Mark 12:30?
You shall be loving the Lord your God out of your whole heart and out of your whole soul, and out of your whole comprehension, and out of your whole strength. This is the foremost precept.
You can offer no evidence for your premise that evolution is valid and true, so you try to bring into disrepute the character of those who disagree. According to the two of you (an atheist and an apostate), by believing and upholding the Word of God, I and many others are “deliberately” transmitting ignorance to our children. Once again, you have it backwards. What kind of monster parents teach their children that they’re descended from rodents and reptiles?
We believe that among God’s good gifts are human minds capable of critical thought and that the failure to fully employ this gift is a rejection of the will of our Creator.
Let’s make a bet. I’ll give you a million dollars for every passage of Scripture you find that states or infers that God desires that we exalt our flesh-minds and/or our wisdom over Him and His Word. You give me just $100 every time I produce a passage from Scripture that says the wisdom of God is supreme to the thinking and “wisdom” of men. Which of us do you think will have a million dollars first?
I draw your attention to this Scripture:
. . . the disposition of the flesh is enmity to God, for it is not subject to the law of God, for neither is it able. Now those who are in flesh are not able to please God (Romans 8:7-8).
Your Clergy Letter reads as if this may be found in the Bible:
Thus saith the Lord, “I give unto thee critical thought, so that ye may criticize my word, and ye may usurp the authority of the apostle Paul, but yeah and verily, thou shalt not criticize evolution for it is the ultimate theory-fact, and not merely one among many.”
The Scriptures admonish us over and over to have no confidence in the flesh. You and your apostate letter-signers urge putting all confidence in the flesh. Again, you have it just backwards. Feasting upon human reason leads away from truth, not toward it.
If you accept molecules-to-man evolution, you’ve got to believe you came into being by chance. What’s “the will of our Creator” doing as a phrase in your letter? Where did He come from?
To argue that God’s loving plan of salvation for humanity precludes the full employment of the God-given faculty of reason is to attempt to limit God, an act of hubris.
I’m self-taught in the ancient literature field, so it surprises me that with your liberal academic background, Zimmerman, you don’t understand what hubris is, because it originated as an ancient Greek concept. Hubris is self-pride and overbearing arrogance, an abject lack of humility. Proverbs 16:18 sums up the ancient and modern understanding of hubris: “Pride goeth before destruction, and a haughty spirit before a fall.” You have it just backwards again. You are maintaining that hubris is the failure to exalt oneself and the reasonings of one’s mind over God.
Hubris was considered the greatest sin in the ancient Greek world. Achilles’ treatment of Hector’s corpse, dragging it around the walls of Troy, is a classic example of it. The words of the Bible claim to be “Spirit and Life.” By denying the Bible’s inspiration, you kill it, and like Achilles, you drag its deadened content before men, pumping your fists and proclaiming from your chariot of reason the superiority of the mind of man over the Word of God.
To reason means to lay facts in relation to one another so as to be the basis of opinion. The Word of God claims to be absolute truth, and in no way mere opinion. What you are saying about our faculty of reason is the opposite of what of what the Scriptures say about it:
All be doing without murmurings and reasonings, that you may become blameless and artless, children of God, flawless, in the midst of a generation crooked and perverse . . . (Philippians 2:14).
I am intending, then, that men pray in every place, lifting up benign hands, apart from anger and reasoning (I Timothy 2:8).
You mention “God’s loving plan of salvation.” Do you even know what that is? Paul expresses how we are to approach others with God’s salvation message:
For Christ, then, are we ambassadors, as of God entreating through us. We are beseeching for Christ’s sake, “Be conciliated to God!” For the One not knowing sin, He makes to be a sin offering for our sakes that we may be becoming God’s righteousness in Him (II Corinthians 5:20-21).
You two, and all the signers of your letter, are ambassadors for Darwin and evo-science. The Scriptures speak of mankind’s conciliation to God through Christ. Mr. X, you preach conciliation to the evo-atheists at the National Academy of Sciences through Zimmerman. Also, Mr. X, you know that God commissioned Christ (John 11:42), and that in turn, Christ commissioned Paul (Acts 26:17). Zimmerman commissioned you, but who commissioned Zimmerman? Who is entreating through him, and for what purpose?
We urge school board members to preserve the integrity of the science curriculum by affirming the teaching of the theory of evolution as a core component of human knowledge.
That part of the “science curriculum” concerning molecules-to-man evolution is nothing more than empty seduction. There is no “integrity” (veracity, reliability, or uprightness) in duping school boards, educators, teachers, and students. Evolution is arrant speculation, not knowledge. It is not the “core component” of anything real.
We ask that science remain science and that religion remain religion, two very different, but complementary, forms of truth.
I have no clue as to what you are trying to get across here, in this last sentence of your letter. Throughout, you’ve been trying to make the case that Christian churches ought to welcome molecules-to-man evolution as part of their beliefs. Now you want them to remain separate somehow?
Why don’t you quote some Scripture in your letter? I know why: there’s not a single verse you can cite that backs up your position. You’d think that a letter about doctrine written by a “Christian” clergyman would mention Jesus at least once.
The evo-atheists at the NAS really appreciate you guys. They even invited all the Clergy Project Letter people in the Washington, D. C. area to their January party announcing the publication of their new book. Your contribution to the evo-atheist NAS hierarchy is two-fold: you help them keep the valid God hypothesis out of the science classroom, while at the same time helping them introduce the poison of their atheism into America’s churches. I can’t give you the total credit for seducing all of the signers of your letter, however, because most of them had to come to you willing to be seduced. Still, all you’ve really done is spread a whole lot of liberal, apostate Christian lipstick on an ugly atheist hog. You haven’t succeeded in covering up the atheist hog: you’ve just smeared lies all over it.
I thought at first that the phenomena I was observing here—11,500 ministers holding two conflicting spiritual ideas in their minds at the same time—was something akin to cognitive dissonance. But as I looked deeper into it, I learned cognitive dissonance carries with it an uncomfortable tension, which is completely absent here. It must be cognitive obliviousness, then. These pastors cannot possibly understand the moral and spiritual implications of signing your letter, can they? Darwin seated with Christ on His throne is too blasphemous a picture to contemplate.
Let me close my response to your letter, and this chapter, by speaking directly to the pastors who have signed your letter.
How many of you pastors who have signed the Clergy Letter can say “Jesus is Lord”? If you can say that, why do you allow Zimmerman, on behalf of the evo-atheists at the National Academy of Sciences, to usurp His authority? I don’t feel sorry for you, but I do feel sorry for the children in your congregations who are being fed a steady diet of lies and confusion, and who are not being taught the difference between good and evil. If you can’t say “Jesus is Lord,” do the right thing and change the name of your church. Take any mention of Christ out of it, and henceforth do not refer to yourselves as Christians. The children deserve that much.