Brian McLaren and Son

nytimes has a write up about Brian McLaren's homosexual son's marriage. Even more saddening, after the wedding ceremony, "Later in the day, the Rev. Brian D. McLaren, Mr. McLaren’s father and the former pastor of Cedar Ridge Community Church in Spencerville, Md., led a commitment ceremony with traditional Christian elements before family and friends at the Woodend Sanctuary of the Audubon Naturalist Society in Chevy Chase, Md."

Tuesdays with Blaster at Tree & The Seed: TMWAJ - Linear Notes

I am going to blog through the songs and lyrics of Blaster the Rocket Man’s album Blaster the Rocket Man in "The Monster Who Ate Jesus". Blaster was a punk rock band formed in the 1990s. They were from Indiana. I started listening to their records in middle school, while they still performed under their original moniker Blaster the Rocketboy. Their name changed to Blaster the Rocket Man for their 1999 release TMWAJ.

TMWAJ is my favorite Blaster record. Unarguably a punk rock record, but it has influences ranging from country/western to surf rock. Some of the songs from TMWAJ can be streamed on the band's myspace page. Finally, the following excerpt is from the album’s linear notes.

"These pages rustle with the stealthy movements of strictly orthodox, old-fashioned monsters: werewolves and horrors spawned by the great deep; quasi-humans and robots, vampires and fearsome survivors from the dark abysm of the remote past, abortions from the scientist’s laboratory. Such creatures present a wholesome, indeed a cheerful contrast to the psychological deformities of contemporary sick humor, the pretentious sadism of the latest modern Gothic tale, the revolting hokum of television.”

So said Clifton Fadiman in his foreward [sic] to the 1967 anthology, Famous Monster Tales. In the same spirit, Blaster offers these humble and horrific songs of wholesome, orthodox monsters to cheer you and, hopefully, to edify you as well. These stories are essentially creature features that eerily illustrate a simple fact: human beings are creatures designed by a Creator. “Then God said, ‘Let Us make man in Our image, according to Our likeness.’ So God created man in His own image; in the image of God He created him; male and female He created them.” (Genesis 1:26-27)

Because we are created in His image, we understand that God is Holy and Just and that we have become abominations in His sight because of our sin. “There is none righteous, no, not one . . . for all have sinned and fall short of the glory of God.” (Romans 3:10, 23) “All we like sheep have gone astray; we have turned, every one, to his own way.” (Isaiah 53:6)

All we like monsters have shed innocent blood. “Their throats are open graves. The poison of vipers is on their lips. Their feet are swift to shed blood. There is no fear of God before their eyes.” (Romans 3:13-18)

But thankfully, He is the God who loves monsters. “God demonstrates His own love toward us, in that while we were still sinners, Christ died for us.” (Romans 5:8) “For God so loved the world that He gave His only begotten Son, that whosoever believes in Him should not perish but have everlasting life. For God did not send His Son into the world to condemn the world, but that the world through Him might be saved. He who believes in Him is not condemned; but he who does not believe is condemned already, because he has not believed in the name of the only begotten Son of God.” (John 3:16-18)

These words were written concerning the real, historical Jesus of Nazareth, who walked the Earth in space and time. “For I delivered to you first the of all that which I also received: that Christ died for our sins according to the Scriptures, and that He was buried, and that He rose again the third day according to the Scriptures.” (I Corinthians 15:3-4)

Thus, those monsters who have confessed their sin to God and believed in His Son, Jesus Christ, have become truly Orthodox Monsters. They are the New Creatures, the Unvamps, the Aliens and Strangers. Indeed, I am the monster who ate Jesus. For He said, “Whoever eats My flesh and drinks My blood has eternal life, and I will raise him up at the last day. For My flesh is food indeed, and My blood is drink indeed. As the living Father sent Me, and I live because of the Father, so he who feeds on Me will live because of Me.” (John 6:54-57) This saying offended the people of Jesus’ day and is still doing so today. Nevertheless, we love and serve the Living Lord of the universe, Jesus Christ, because He first loved us. What are you eating? (What’s eating you?) “If you confess with your mouth the Lord Jesus and believe in your heart that God raised him from the dead, you will be saved.” (Romans 10:9)

Next Tuesday I will blog through the TMWAJ's first three tracks: Deploy All Monsters Now!, It Came From Down South, and Hopeful Monsters are Dying Everyday.

An Introduction to Systematic Theology - Van Til

Beginning to read through Van Til's An Introduction to Systematic Theology. The plan is to jot down brief thoughts, quotations, etc. I do not intend for this to be a review per se, therefore, it will probably be a fragmentation of loose thoughts.

Preface

This book is a published syllabus that "has an apologetic intent running through it. A Reformed theology needs to be supplemented by a Reformed method of apologetics. This involves relating the historic Christian position to that of modern philosophy, as well as theology" (12). Author admits his indebtedness to Louis Berkhof, Herman Bavinck, and Abraham Kuyper.

Chapter 1

Systematic theology seeks to teach truth about God taught in the Bible in a unified system. Theology is about God, that is, the Trinity, therefore, it theology should be God-centered (contra Barth's Christomonism).

Exegesis takes the Scriptures and analyzes each part of it in detail. Biblical theology takes the fruits of exegesis and organizes them into various units and traces the revelation of God in Scripture in its historical development. It brings out the theology of each part of God's Word as it has been brought to us at different stages, by means of various authors. Systematic theology then uses the fruits of the labors of exegetical and biblical theology and brings them together into a concatenated system. Apologetics seeks to defend this system of biblical truth against false philosophy and false science. Practical theology seeks to show how to preach and teach this system of biblical truth, while church history traces the reception of this system of truth in the course of the centuries (17).

Van Til clearly believes in doctrinal development. However, for this to occur the exegetical and systematic work must be accomplished up front, leading to additional clarity and precision to the creeds of the church. Doctrinal development is invalid if it is "retrogressive", a stripping away creedal tenets.

Ministers need to be students of the Bible and systematics. "But systematics helps minsters to preach the whole counsel of God, and thus to make God central in their work" (22). And, "Well-rounded preaching teaches us to use the things of this world because they are the gifts of God, and it teaches us to possess them as not possessing them, inasmuch as they must be used in subordination to the one supreme purpose of man's existence, namely the glory of God" (22).

Commenting on modern antithesis, "The fight between Christianity and non-Christianity is, in modern times, no piece-meal affair. It is the life-and-death struggle between two mutually opposed life-and-world views" (22). We must know our systematics because "When the enemy attacks the foundations, we must be able to protect these foundations" (24). Therefore, ministers and theologians must "undertake [their] work in a spirit of deep dependence upon God and in a spirit of prayer that he may use [them] as his instruments for his glory" (25).

Logan & Modern Theology

My brother in law, Logan Hoffman, graduated from Princeton Theological Seminary in the Spring, and last month he and my sister relocated to New Zealand to be Wesleyan church planters. You can keep tabs on them at The Well. Before leaving Logan told me about a new book co-edited by Bruce L. McCormack, the well known Barth scholar who teaches at PTS. The book is Mapping Modern Theology: A Thematic and Historical Introduction. This week I read the first four of the book's fifteen chapters. It is a slam dunk. So much information and the articles are really well written, complicated information but clearly communicated.

Steven R. Holmes' contribution maps the modern development of the doctrine of the divine attributes. At points a mind-bender, and at other points your skin crawls as he talks through some of the blasphemies of modern theology. What a brain full of information to process. And as if that wasn't enough, Daniel J. Treier's chapter on scripture and hermeneutics is easily the best summarization I have read; again, what a brain full of information to process.

The title really does describe what the book aims to accomplish . . . thus far the authors really do "map out" for the reader the past 200 years of theology. I am looking forward to the remainder of this book.

Call to Confession for September 30, 2012

Proverbs 20:22 – Do not say, "I will repay evil"; wait for the LORD, and he will deliver you.

In our passage of confession this morning we are told to not repay evil with evil but to wait on the Lord who is our deliverer. Because of our sinfulness and corruption, our natural instinct when someone has wronged us is to act in kind, to complete the circle, as it were, and to repay them the evil that they first paid us.

In the third chapter of 1 Peter, the Apostle Peter, who initially is addressing husbands and wives but then expands his exhortation to the entire body, urges them to “live in harmony with one another; be sympathetic, love as brothers, be compassionate and humble,” and, echoing our passage of confession from Proverbs, he instructs them, “do not repay evil with evil or insult with insult, but with blessing, because of this you were called so that you may inherit a blessing.”

This is not only Godly instruction but it is wise counsel for people who live at length and for duration within close proximity of one another. For example, if you have a family, and you repay a family member's evil with evil, then you are not only being disobedient before God but you are also setting yourself up for hard times. You do, after all, live in shared quarters with that family member. The same can be applied to our relationships with our neighbors. Unless one of you pulls up roots and leaves the community you will for all intents and purposes remain neighbors (geography being the static thing that it is), and if you repay evil with evil to your neighbors, then you are setting yourself up to be locked into the determinism of “feuding families”--and anyone who has read any of the books by Mark Twain which depict such things knows that this quickly becomes nonsensical.

See, the issue is this. When we repay evil with evil and think to ourselves, “I'm going to complete the circle, I'm going to finish this,” what we are actually doing is perpetuating the presence of evil. Christians, however, are called to break this cycle. We don't return evil but blessing. Why? Because that is what God has done towards us. We were evil, we betrayed God. God, however, gave us Christ. He gave us The Blessing. When family or neighbors, government or foreign nations, when the world gives you evil, do the right thing and be a Christian—be shaped by the activity of God—don't respond with evil, rather, give a blessing and wait on God's deliverance, wait on God's providential justice. All of us have failed to do this perfectly, and this reminds us of our need to confess our sins, so if able, please kneel as we confess our sins together.

Bad Postmodern Models by Christians

From William Edgar's Introduction to the Second Edition of Van Til's An Introduction to Systematic Theology: Prolegomena and the Doctrines of Revelation, Scripture, and God:

Various post-evangelical Protestants espouse their own versions of these schools [Christian alliance with kinds of post-Kantian views, that is, postmodern philosophy]. Stanley Grenz was drawn to postmodern models advocating, as he did, a christological center and a "non-linear" outline for redemption, over against the older creation-fall-redemption ground motive. The problem with such accommodations is that they are not able to relate the human creature with God the Creator in objective categories. Lacking a true theology of the Creator-creature relationship, they cannot assert the historical nature of the fall into sin from the state of integrity. And because of this they cannot fully appreciate the moral revolution that led to the fall, and so the problem in the human condition is not so much moral guilt as it is finitude, at least to some extent. As a result, redemption is not fully of God's mercy, with a transition from wrath to grace in history, through Christ. Instead they must grope after divine liberation, turning revelation into a project of the self, rather than seeing it as God's merciful self-disclosure to fallen humanity (3).

OT: Christ Jesus

Christ Jesus said in Matthew 5:17, "Think not that I am come to destroy the law, or the prophets: I am not come to destroy, but to fulfill." Christ is the fulfiller of Law and Prophets. Christ is the Prophet of Prophets. There is a need, therefore, for us to keep Matthew 5:17 in our minds whenever we take up and read the older Testament, for it was "God, who at sundry times and in divers manners spake in time past unto the fathers by the prophets, hath in these last days spoken unto us by his Son" (Hebrews 1:1, 2a).

Joseph Addison Alexander noted, in the Introduction to his translation and commentary of Isaiah, that the role and function of a prophet was tied to the general design of the old economy; the office/institution was "no after-thought" but was provided for by the Law. Deuteronomy promises that in time a prophet like Moses will come--Deuteronomy 18  "comprehends the promise of a constant succession of inspired men, so far as this should be required by the circumstances of the people, which succession was to terminate in Christ" (Isaiah: Translated and Explained, 3). Christ is the Prophet of the constant succession of Prophets tied to the general design of the old economy, whose message was, as John Frame has said, "God is Lord"--that message dovetailing into the newer Testament's message "Jesus is Lord!"

Christ Jesus is Lord. Lordship is the final reference point in all predication (Van Til), therefore, Christ is Center. If Christ is not at the Center, if Christ is not the hub of the wheel whose stories/spokes connect back to the Center, then we have made a grave mistake, and this mistake can occur even when the storytellers tell the individual stories about the world, which include the stories about the prophets (e.g.,  Joshua, the prophets of the Book of Judges, the prophetic ministry of the "eminent prophet" Samuel, the establishment and disestablishment of the Monarchy, and the exile in to and return from Babylon) chronologically! We may know all of words to the song, we may understand the Syntax just fine, but if Christ is not Center then our Semantics are off, our meaning is off, and this means the tune is off, too.

The Old Testament is never just a story about God revealing himself to Israel in such and such a fashion at such and such a time. The message and oracles of the older Testament was revealed to Israel by prophets who were servants of and whose office terminated in the Prophet of Prophets. Many teachers of the Bible today do not have Christ at the Center, and this is why they think Scripture is inharmonious, fraught with errors, not inerrant/not infallible, self-contradictory, etc. Utter nonsense, that. If you understand that the linear and merciful story of the law and prophets terminate in Christ Jesus, if you understand that the old economy was designed with the institution of a a succession of prophets that both developed and applied the law/grace of the old economy, and if you understand that in the old economy everything pointed towards the prophet greater than Moses, the Person in whom the prophets terminated and were fulfilled, it is only then that you can rightly read and interpret History, the stories about the linear and merciful Story of King Jesus and His beautiful, perfect Bride, the Church.

American Churches: Unchurch Christians

From the Conclusion to Part I - Empires in Scripture:

God's empire is founded on the self-sacrificial death of Jesus and of the firstfruits of His people. It is renewed by ritual commemoration of Jesus in Eucharist, which forms a community readied for martyrdom [Leithart uses this term in its original sense of "witness"]. God's empire is not a transhistorical aspiration, an ideal, or a sentiment of fellow feeling among nations. It takes concrete form in a catholic church, where rival rulers and emperors, rival nations and empires, become table fellows and, under the church's discipline learn the Lord's ways of peace and justice. Under Jesus and filled with the pentecostal Spirit, the ecclesial empire is a historical form of international community. The church is the eschatological empire already founded (52).

 From the Conclusion to Part II - Americanism:

Checks and balances among the branches of the federal government are an inadequate guarantor of liberty. No American church is allowed to become independent or powerful enough to challenge American policy effectively; few try. . . . When was the last time an American politician was excommunicated? When was the last time an excommunication had any effect on American politics? . . . Individual Christians do not have the virtues necessary to function as citizens of God's imperium because American churches have discipled them to function as citizens of the American imperium instead (111).

Americanism: Freelance Imperialism

In Chapter 5 ("Chanting the New Empire") of Between Babel and Beast, Leithart strings together a summary of the American "small wars" (e.g., the multiple U.S. Marine landings/deployments of the 1800s, the Commercial Wars/Barbary Pirates, and the 19th century "butcher and bolt" South Pacific hostilities), ending the survey with a sobering reflection (partially comprised of a quotation from Boot's Savage Wars): "'No matter how tiny, the navy had little trouble overawing pirates and tribesmen with its vastly superior technology and training. With the navy's help, U.S. exports soared from $20 million in 1789 to $334 million in 1860. In short, naval captains were doing more or less the same job performed by the World Trade Organization: integrating the world around the principle of free trade.' Freelance imperialism has been a recurring feature of American history" (103).

American Eschatology: Nationalist Typology That Infused American Rhetoric and Damaged Catholicity

"By the time of the Revolution, the residual ecclesial sensibility among the original Puritans had nearly vanished. A sense of national unity was strengthened by the Great Awakening and the French and Indian Wars, and the possibility that the church might function as a counterweight to national sentiment or state power was drowned in waves of revivals, each of which further damaged the catholicity of American Christianity" (Peter J. Leithart, Between Babel and Beast: America and Empires in Biblical Perspective, 72).

LOL: Collective Soul Cat

I was a teenager in the late 1990s and listended to Indianapolis based alternative rock radio station X103. Collective Soul was one of my favorite bands. This video makes me laugh so hard.

Peter J. Leithart: Trinity Institute

Peter J. Leithart just announced that he will be relocating to Birmingham, Alabama, to assist others with the founding of the Trinity Institute ("a study and theological training center"). Go here to read the announcement published on his personal blog.

Book: This Is My Body: The Presence of Christ in Reformation Thought by Thomas J. Davis

I just finished This is My Body by Thomas J. Davis. It is an "academic" book; the author has taken a series of prior essays, presentations, and articles and redrafted and compiled them for publication in a single volume. The book does not, however, feel regurgitated. As I read each of the chapters got better and better.

The last chapter, Hardened Hearts, Hardened Words: Calvin, Beza, and the Trajectory of Signification, is absolutely fantastic. Davis' aim is to "undercut stereotypes" of Reformers (Calvin, Beza, & al.) by arguing that "a basic change in the orientation of signification occurred . . . as early as the thirteenth century . . . which did not begin the process of gaining cultural hegemony until the fifteenth and sixteenth centuries." Which means that "[s]ignification made a shift toward the literal, where direct lines were drawn between sign and thing signified, and both were drawn into closest relationship until one observes almost a collapse of distances between sign and thing signified" (172). Interestingly, Davis appeals to and comments at length on the woodcuts and paintings of Albrecht Durer, Leon Battista Alberti, and Leonardo da Vinci as evidence of his thesis.

This chapter alone is worth the cost of the book.

The Minister as Mirror

"As God is loving, as God is paternal, as God moves in all gentleness, so too should the minister mirror all that, so that not only the words but also the life of the minister reflect God's goodness as in a mirror" (Thomas J. Davis, This is My Body: The Presence of Christ in Reformation Thought (Baker Academic, 2008), 125).

The Christ Who is Present

"Christian preaching cannot be about a future that does not impinge on the present. Eschatology is less about the future per se than it is about how God's future works itself into present experience and expression. I think this corresponds well to Calvin's understanding: in the Christ who is present, Christ's past action is wed to his future kingdom, and the Christian finds oneself in a community living out God's purpose with Christ as one's head" (Thomas J. Davis, This is My Body: The Presence of Christ in Reformation Thought (Baker Academic, 2012), 111-112).

America

"Whatever has happened since Obama took office, America is still everywhere with its fingers in nearly everything, and that gigantic fact about our world is not going to change anytime soon" (Peter J. Leithart, Between Babel and Beast: America and Empires in Biblical Perspective (Cascade Books, 2012), x).

 

Woot, Woot! I ordered this book a couple weeks ago and today it finally arrived in the mail. I have no idea how the USPS crammed the Amazon package into my mailbox, but I was able to extract it successfully. Score: 1 to 1. Therefore, I will dedicate all of my posts to the USPS.

Socialism: Bury the Carcase?

Gary North, a prolific author, began An Economic Commentary on the Bible in 1973. In 2012, he finished the series. Quite the providential Prolegomenon to The Affordable Care Act.

The Bible is hostile to all forms of socialism and the welfare state. I have spent over three decades proving this, verse by verse. So far, Christian socialists refuse to present detailed exegetical support for their case. They do not respond to me. Meanwhile, socialism has visibly died. Communism is defunct. There was never an intellectually coherent theoretical defense of socialism, and now it has failed visibly. It impoverished those nations that adopted it. Socialism is a dead mule. It was always sterile. It is time to bury the carcase (Gary North, Wisdom and Dominion: An Economic Commentary on Proverbs (Point Five Press, 2012), 3).

 If Socialism is a dead mule, then what is The Affordable Care Act? The "last hurrah"? A funeral dirge sang drunkenly graveside of said mule? Perhaps. 

Evolution, Again

I found the following section, from the ARJ article referenced in my prior post, illuminating.

In general, creationist research into the area of human-chimp genome similarity has been largely limited to the interpretation of claims made in evolutionary research without fully addressing the highly selective methods used or the non-alignable data that is often omitted. Nevertheless, many important points and discoveries have been brought to light.

Prior to the completion of the chimpanzee genome project, molecular biologist David DeWitt points out that despite the supposed high DNA similarity between human and chimp, significant differences exist in cytogenetics, types and numbers of transposable elements, insertion and deletion events, gene expression patterns and mRNA splicing (DeWitt 2003). In a later report, DeWitt also demonstrates that if a 5% genome-wide difference is accepted, this level of similarity is still insufficient to support various hypothetical models for selection and common ancestry consistent with evolutionary timelines (DeWitt 2005). The rate of mutational buildup in the genome of humans was further tested in computer simulations by Sanford et al. (2008) and found to represent a serious challenge to Darwinian evolutionary timelines irrespective of reported human-chimp genome differences.

Many mutations (DNA sequence differences) separating human and chimp from a common ancestor are thought to take place in regions where the genome is non-coding, a finding recently confirmed by an evolutionary report (Polavarapu et al. 2011). While evolutionary reports of non-coding DNA differences between humans and chimps continue to emerge, the logical association between these differences and the now well-documented functional and feature-rich nature of the entire non-coding region of the human genome is dramatically down-played. The wide diversity of research into the Encyclopedia of DNA Elements (ENCODE) has spectacularly confirmed the many critical features of non-coding DNA (The ENCODE Project Consortium 2011). In the area of creationist research, biologists Woodmorappe and Batten were some of the first creationist authors to illustrate how a diversity of data in the field of non-coding DNA provided support to the genome-wide function of a wide variety of important non-coding sequence classes and DNA features (Batten 2005; Woodmorappe 2004). In a recent comprehensive review that discusses a wide variety of design features in non-coding DNA, molecular biologist and intelligent design proponent Jonathan Wells thoroughly debunks the fraudulent concept of junk DNA (Wells 2011). For a brief review on the subject associated with a summary of Wells’ book see the recent article by Tomkins (2011b).

Perhaps the greatest ongoing discrepancy between human and chimp that does not fit with the so-called high similarity claims, is the marked differences in behavior and anatomy as summarized by creationists Anderson (2007), Purdom (2006) and Wieland (2002). These obvious differences between human and chimp do not seem to correlate with the supposed claims of nearly identical DNA similarity between the taxa. In fact, a secular science writer for the BBC has recently published an entire book documenting this paradox titled Not a chimp (Taylor 2009).

While many creationist authors tentatively accepted the standard evolutionary claims regarding human chimp DNA similarity, a number of reports indicated that the “nearly identical” dogma was not as clear-cut as it seemed to be. In fact, it was indicated that evolutionary data reports on human chimp DNA similarity largely represented pre-screened data that is already know to be homologous (similar in sequence) at some level, such as highly similar protein coding sequences shared among the taxa (Tomkins 2009a, 2009b). In addition, a recent literature review combined with a bioinformatics research project, evaluated the hypothetical fusion of two chimp-like chromosomes (2a and 2b) to form human chromosome 2. This project showed that the evolutionary primate fusion paradigm was seriously flawed in a number of key respects, further discounting nearly identical DNA claims (Bergman and Tomkins 2011; Tomkins 2011c; Tomkins and Bergman 2011).

Evolution, Again

Here is an article from 2011 in the ARJ (Answers Research Journal). The author discusses some of the most relevant and famous human-chimp genome studies, contrasting those findings with his own research, which shows that,

. . . a very conservative estimate of human-chimp DNA similarity genome-wide is 86–89%. Results from this study unequivocally indicate that the human and chimpanzee genomes are at least 10–12% less identical than is commonly claimed. These results are more clearly in line with the large anatomical and behavioral differences observed between human and chimp.

The article is technical yet well written, and even a non-specialist can follow it. The above quote is seminal, but not as much as this closing quote from the Conclusion.

The conservative nature of these estimates is further noted by the fact that the 40,000 sequence chimp sequences that were tested, represent pre-selected homologous sequence already known to align to the human genome [emphasis CCS]. 

Evolution: Much Ado About Nothing

Yesterday Mashable posted an article about YouTube channel EvolutionDocumentary, which has assembled 300+ YouTube videos on Evolution. The Mashable article ends on a rather, how shall I put it, hubristic note.

We're not sure about the rights arrangement here [I assume he means copyrights and intellectual property rights of the various BBC, PBS, Discovery Channel, National Geographic videos utilized for this YouTube channel] . . . It's great for students, folks who want to brush up and perhaps those who need a little convincing that science is, you know, real.

Come again? ". . . those who need a little convincing that science is, you know, real." Alright. I'm game. I'll give this a quick whirl. Come along with me, click the EvolutionDocumentary link.

The opening video is "Comparing the Human and Chimpanzee Genomes" and the narrator begins by saying,

Humans and chimpanzees parted company in evolution about 6 million years ago from a common ancestor [CCS|Tree & The Seed is already suspicious].

The narrator goes on to discuss the similarities between the human and chimpanzee genomes. He points to a visual display that has symbols representing the genome data. They've created a matrix with series of parallel rows, a running comparison of the human genome against the chimpanzee genome. The columns are populated with elements/entries which symbolize the various human and chimpanzee genome data.

As you run your finger across the parallel rows you see that there are similarities down the columns. "T-T", "A-A", "C-C", etc. However, differences between the human and the chimpanzee genomes are offset, represented by a new image. Instead of a connecting "|" line, there is a picture of a man. Very cute. A man swimming around in a sea of human and chimpanzee alphabetic-symbolism.

The presuppositions are glaring. Just let the tape roll and you will catch them. The Narrator says,

 All away along here they are identical. . . . Follow along this row here--chimp/human, chimp/human--identical, identical, identical, there's a difference. . . . all the same, all the same, no difference at all between the human and the chimpanzee . . . now we see a difference . . .

Identical? Identical? Difference? Identical? Identical? No difference at all . . . now we see a difference? Hold the phone. Let me get this right. You're telling me that something can be both identical and different? I thought those were mutually exclusive? So you dump all of this data on me and, Wham!, I'm just suppose to believe in Evolution? And if all of this isn't already confusing enough, the Narrator closes with an absolutely startling, jaw-dropping presuppositional disclosure. He says,

 Almost all of the human genome and the chimpanzee genome is identical. A tiny number of differences account for all of the really quite large differences that we see between humans and chimpanzees.

I am not a prophet or the son of a prophet, but I will tell you what all of this means. It means that the argument for evolution, from the genome standpoint, has nothing to do with "science that just looks at the hard facts," which is a mythical idea if there ever was one. When this guy talks we learn more about what he thinks and what he presupposes to be true than what we learn about genomes. This Narrator is a talking head for EvolutionDocumentary. "Hard facts" did not convert him to be so inclined towards evolution. "Hard facts" are a laughable concept, but for the sake of argument, assuming there is such a thing as a "hard fact", then rest assured readers, and know that it was not genome"hard facts" that convinced this man. Yes, proof is in the pudding, but it aint' here. Rather, he already presupposed the truthfulness of evolution (contra the Narrator, I presuppose that God created the world in six days, that there was a real, literal Adam and Eve, etc., and I believe all of that on the authority of God's word--I believe it because God cannot lie).

The Narrator carries his presuppositional sensibilities with him. He is a walking (upright), presupposing interpreter, and a technical education can't change that for anyone, not one lick. A "blank slate" has never walked up to human genomes and chimpanzee genomes and thought out loud, "Well, let's figure out what we have here?!?"

The Narrator said, "A tiny number of differences account for all of the really quite large differences that we see between humans and chimpanzees" . . . and in the face of all of the "quite large differences" he suggests that this means that 6 million years ago we shared a common ancestor. The theory of evolution presupposes that a mythical, common ancestor existed, so I am not surprised that an evolutionist sees genomes and thinks "common ancestors"--to the guy with a hammer, everything is a nail. If only a small number of differences account for the really quite large differences, then why go to such lengths, and attribute importance to, discussing the large number of similarities? Isn't it just a wash or moot point? Seems to me that quantity doesn't determine quality, and if that is the case, then couldn't someone argue this from the other direction? E.g., "Well, such-and-such a things have next to nothing in common, well, that is, except for these few similarities which account for the really large number of defining attributes, and since they have that minority in common with one another it means that this carrot and the Sun have a common ancestor 6235697891 years ago. It has to be true. They are both the color Orange." Yes, consciously hyperbolic, that.

I will not watch the 300+ videos. I may watch a few of them, but not all. This opening video is not compelling. Logically this stinks. Please bear with me, the end is near. We will use symbols. Human genome = H. Chimpanzee genome = C.

H = H
C = C

Pretty basic. However, there is one more thing. The Narrator in his own words said that the human genome is not the same as the chimpanzee genome. He said there are tiny differences that account for all of the really quite large differences we see between humans and chimps. This means that . . .

H ≠ C

The human genome is not the chimpanzee genome. Yes, I know there are similarities. But as a whole they are not identical. They are not exact. If you look at two things that are not exact in order to argue that the similarities between the two inexact things infers that so many millions of years ago there was an exact common ancestor, then you are wasting my time. Give me a break. You want me to place my faith in your judgment? I do not think so. In the words of my two year old, "No, Not! No, Not!"

If H ≠ C, then what you have is 0 identicalness. That is a zero. It is meaningless to look at similarities between two inexact things and deduce a common ancestor 6 million years ago. To quote Ayn Rand, who was addressing a totally different topic, "If you write a line of zeroes, it's still nothing." Got that? Evolution is nothing.

0 identicalness + 0 identicalness + 0 identicalness + 0 identicalness +  = nothing identicalness

However, today we see Much Ado About Nothing . . .

0 identicalness + 0 identicalness + 0 identicalness + "scientific" interpretation of genomes by a God-hater-who-does-not-take-God-at-his-word = 6 Million Year Old Common Ancestor Identicalness