Posts Tagged ‘Evolution’


Dear Dr. Barrick:

We at The Domain for Truth would like to express our sincerest gratitude to you for taking the time out of your busy schedule to do an interview with us.  It was not too long ago since we first fellowshipped together at the Shepherds’ Conference.  For our readers, I think it is important for them to be informed that you contributed to a recent book entitled, Four Views on the Historical Adam and many other works that are immense blessings to God’s people.

For those of you who are not acutely aware of Dr. Barrick and his ministry—He is a husband, grandfather, an elder at his local church, adjunct professor at the Master’s Seminary, and an author.  For more information about him, please see these links for a brief description about him and his ministry:

Without further ado, here are some questions we have for you, Dr. Barrick:

  1. What should our readers be aware of concerning the accommodation of evolutionary science being used as a method to argue for the historical Adam?

We all need to think clearly about the logical result of accommodation to evolutionary science. Peter Enns writes in his book The Evolution of Adam, that “evolution requires us to revisit how the Bible thinks of human origins” (82). Where does that path take him? In his own words, “If evolution is correct, one can no longer accept, in any true sense of the word ‘historical,’ the instantaneous and special creation of humanity described in Genesis, specifically 1:26–31 and 2:7, 22” (The Evolution of Adam, xiv). I disagree quite strongly with Enns, but I admire his intellectual integrity. He sees quite clearly where such accommodation leads. Unfortunately, many evangelical Christians choose to take the path of accommodation without facing the reality of its serious implications and results. Evolutionary science is antisupernaturalistic and dominated by secular humanism. It comprises a direct attack on biblical inerrancy, integrity, and authority. Evangelical scholars sometimes deny that their rejection of literal six-day creation or of a historical Adam has anything to do with evolutionary science. However, I suspect that they started down those paths of rejection in an attempt to try to find some way to hold to both secular evolutionary science and the Bible.

  1. In the Four Views book you mention that it is important for evangelicals to uphold the uniqueness of the Genesis record and give it priority over the ANE (Ancient Near Eastern) materials and modern science.  Can you elaborate on this?

Too often scholars assume that the ancient Hebrews were merely a primitive agricultural people dominated by the literature and philosophy of the pagan cultures around them. We need to understand that those Hebrews who truly believed in Yahweh held to views antagonistic to the surrounding cultures. Yahweh instructed them to avoid the idolatry and false religions of the nations (Exod 23:13, 24, 32-33). No matter what any ANE religion proclaimed, Yahweh’s people were strictly commanded to adhere to the biblical view that He had created the heavens, the earth, the sea, and all that is in them in just six literal days (Exod 20:11). Therefore, they were to work for six days and then rest on the seventh. That command was inscribed by God Himself on the stone tablets that Moses took up with him on Mt. Sinai. Therefore, God Himself bears witness to the accuracy of the six literal days of creation in Genesis 1. The Genesis record is unique in that it came from an eyewitness to the creation—God Himself. No man was there as an eyewitness. No scientist was there to be an eyewitness—and no scientist can reproduce the creation in any lab setting. Both ANE literature and modern science depend solely upon human thought and reasoning; the Scriptures depend upon divine revelation. God did not commit His revelation to unbelieving Hebrews who were uncommitted to His covenant—He gave it to righteous believers who would preserve it and convey it faithfully and who would adhere to the identification of the Creator and the truth of His words. Sometimes modern evangelicals depart from the uniqueness of the Genesis record by forcing it into the mold of ANE literature and thinking. Sometimes they accept what the Bible says only if they can find confirmation of its words in ANE literature (especially ancient histories) or in archaeological evidence. That approach subordinates the Bible to both ancient and modern secular historians.

  1. There seems to be four dominate views on the historic and biblical Adam.

There are actually more than the four views presented in the book. These four were selected as being representative of the most widely held views.

A.  Denis O. Lamoureux (Evolutionary Creation View that denies the historical Adam), John Walton (Archetypal Creation View), C. John Collins (Old Earth Creation View), and William D. Barrick (Young Earth Creation View).

B.  Since it may be a good idea for our readers to read the book to get further details, could you briefly explain which view is the good, the bad, and the ugly?

Obviously, I would claim that my view (Young Earth Creation View) is the “good” view, because I believe it to be the most biblically consistent. The view that is less “good,” but not totally “bad,” would be that of C. John Collins (Old Earth Creation View). John Walton’s view (Archetypal Creation View) would be the “bad” and Denis Lamoureux’s view (Evolutionary Creation View) would be the “ugly.”

C.  Is there a particular view in the Four Views book that you would consider unorthodox   and/or liberal?

I would definitely put Lamoureux’s view in the “unorthodox” camp. Because of his theological position on Christ and salvation, I would have a hard time placing him in the “liberal” camp. In fact, I would be reluctant to label any of the other three men as “liberal” in their theology. Although I believe that their views on Adam and Creation are unsound at times and have serious implications regarding biblical inerrancy, they all claim to be evangelicals. I doubt the degree to which Lamoureux and Walton might be truly evangelical, but I need to leave room for the possibility that I might have misunderstood portions of their views or that they might have inadequately explained their views.

  1. We would like to do a separate interview with you concerning inerrancy since it is such a pertinent and hot issue at the moment.  I know that Shepherds’ Conference will have a summit on this topic next year.  But since inerrancy is inseparable from this topic at hand, can you please explain how one’s view concerning the topic of the historical and biblical Adam may determine if one upholds inerrancy or not?

When the entirety of Scripture (Old and New Testaments) give clear testimony to the historicity of Adam as the singular progenitor of the human race, any denial of that testimony implies that the biblical witness cannot be trusted. It implies that the Scripture writers have not accurately conveyed the facts—in other words, that the Bible is mistaken, in error. Some biblical scholars will say, “Yes, the Bible presents Adam as the single originating head of the human race, but I cannot accept that because . . . .” In my thinking, they cannot honestly sign the inerrancy statement of the Evangelical Theological Society, because of their reservations.

  1. Does the denial of the historical Adam impact any biblical doctrines?  If so, which doctrine/doctrines? In addition, how severe are its implications for the church?

The implications arising out of a denial of the historical Adam mount up quickly, but the three major ones include the following:

        • The inerrancy, integrity, authority, and sufficiency of Scripture are placed in question.
        • The universal fallen nature of man cannot be held if Adam is not the single progenitor of the human race.
        • The necessity for the Second Adam to become the historical substitutionary sacrifice for the sins of mankind becomes a moot point if there was no historical First Adam.
  1. What book or resources concerning this topic would you recommend reading?

Of course, the Four Views book itself.

C. John Collins, Did Adam and Even Really Exist?:Who They Were and Why You Should Care (Wheaton, IL: Crossway, 2011).

Andrew S. Kulikovsky, Creation, Fall, Restoration: A Biblical Theology of Creation, Mentor (Geanies House, UK: Christian Focus, 2009).


The Domain for Truth

Read Full Post »

Richard Wurmbrand was a Lutheran minister in Romania and the founder of Voice of Martyrs. He is a criminal according to the atheistic-communistic Romanian government at that time. Wurmbrand’s crime was preaching Biblical Christianity. He was sentenced to 8 years in prison the first time and 25 years the second time.  Learn more about Richard from Tortured for Christ. They will sent you his book free of charge.

Contrary to everything in the above paragraph, we go to UCLA.

Communist UCLA professor who lives in Beverly Hills (did I say Beverly Hills?). He lives comfortably in the Hills, teaches at a state university and discipling the next generation of communist. The government is not making plans to arrest him, the US government had never sentenced him to prison for his communist or atheistic beliefs or told to stop propagating atheistic-communistic philosophy by the university board. Yet, this professor and his followers which spread all the way to the campus of Pasadena City College would condemned Christians and comparing Evangelical Christians to the infamous Westboro Baptist group who protest outside of military funerals or the Jesus Camp (summer charismatic camp).

Let’s compare Richard Wurmbrand’s atheistic-communistic tyrant and Westboro Baptist or the Jesus Camp group.

Almost no Evangelicals endorse the way Westboro Baptist protesting outside military funerals however, they do not propagate killing atheists or imprisoning atheists. The Jesus Camp which had been closed down indoctrinate children in moral values is said to be  extreme and a laughing tool. But what about Hitler’s Youth Camp or Putin’s Youth Camp.

Btw, for those who have visited UCLA campus, remember the two guys selling newsletter in the evening on Bruin walk? These two are communists and one works as an accountant. A communist who is an accountant? and communists selling newsletter? Communist making money through a capitalistic society and selling instead of sharing newsletter. Can communism stand on his own two feet? Francis Schaeffer’s quote is timeless, “feet planted in mid air.”

Richard Wurmbrand’s Testimony before US Senate Judiciary Committe-1966.




Read Full Post »

This quarter I’m enrolled in a sex and gender class, thinking I would be forcing myself to grow stronger in my studies about the biblical role of men and women.

Instead I find myself studying about evolution, and the support for evolution in the first chapter of the textbook. Listening to lectures covering fossils such as “Java man” and “Lucy”, and watching a full hour or so of a DVD from the History Channel about the 1850’s to present search for the missing link.

I haven’t had a chance to study any of it yet but feel overloaded with more and more things to research and refute. I’ve been writing some paragraphs in my lecture notes on the side and with possible leads for future study. However, I am still trying to catch up to my school work. Hopefully this weekend, I’ll write a bit of what I’ve been thinking about as a post.

This coverage of Evolution has increased my desire to study a biblical view of anthropology and geology but it’ll probably have to wait till after I graduate.

Read Full Post »

Today I happened to be flipping through TV channels and came across Hannity & Coles, on Fox News, in which the host was interviewing a scientist who was fired after disclosing in conversation that he didn’t believe in evolution, specifically the common ancestor theory. The host, pointed out that the job description explicitly states that they need an evolutionary mindset. The former employee responded by pointing out that the job description the host was reading was reposted after they fired him.

What I found so hilarious was the host concluded by saying that’s all we have time for, and said next, they were going to talk about a country star and his new CDs. Though I’m not surprised at all by the news media’s tendency to switch to different topics in order to cover everything who are the ones that select which stories to talk about? Why do they even bother bringing people to be interviewed when they don’t spend enough time for the person to speak out anyways? Instead of talking more about the case, and getting the facts straight, the host decides a country star and his CDs are more important?

I personally think that if TV news were ever to become extinct it would be from lack of interest in their shows. Gone is the time of national and global news report. Instead it is replaced with what appears to be such, but inserted with interviews of country star singers, a recently passed away Broadway writer, coverage of Britney Spears child custody, discussion about Paris Hilton’s stay in jail, or Lindsey Lohan’s latest car accident. Instead of increased coverage time on other parts of the world it seems that American media finds interviewing reporters in the midst of a hurricane, coughing on forest fire smoke, interviewing people rescued from the forest, or interviewing Anna Nicole’s friends and doctor will keep the American public from changing channels.

Why interview an USDA representative on updates on bad Spinach when you know there’s nothing new they can talk about? Why pose questions to the local police or sheriff’s investigation you know they can’t answer? Why throw reporters into a hurricane who can only tell you that it’s really windy and call that reporting? Why ask mine representatives if they think anyone survived, when the situation hasn’t changed- that is they can’t say yet! Instead of spending coverage time with idle conversation about what you think, and what some special consultant thinks why not just do your job and report on what you do know, or if you already did that report on something else? Why loopback video feeds of fires and a mall during a mall shooting and have a reporter do side commentary that only he cares about? Or ask pointless questions that the sheriff can’t answer?

Am I ranting? I think so. Frankly, I think the people who pick the stories for American media have a poor taste in stories, and to put it bluntly are idiots.

Thus, enters in the new age of internet news. Instead of listening to stories by people hoping to keep you on their television channel, website, or radio station internet, we now have bloggers and enterprising video productions producing something that rather than trying to catch everyone, focus on the stories and specific interests instead. If you are interested being green, stay a few seconds watching ZapRoot. Interested on stories on Iraq mainstream news took weeks before covering visit Amy Proctor’s blog. Interested on the other side of a story that news covers, drop by Michelle Malkin. Gone is the day in age of having to listen to what the news media hopes the majority of people will be interested in.

The story I mentioned above is worth discussing, but at this point in time, I just feel like poking the eye of today’s TV news media. I hope they go extinct. Personally, I think that as the internet becomes more and more pervasive in society, being accessible everywhere on everything, the static news programs from radio and television will be replaced by more dynamic news sources picked out by the individual. I think mass media’s attempt to reach the masses will always fail because the mass don’t all have the same interests. Maybe some enterprising president of one of the giant news conglomerates will see that and survive the extinction of today’s news dinosaurs.

Read Full Post »