Cool Mac Gear

The letters keep pouring in about the "Objective Christian Ministries" Web site with its anti-evolution and onti-Macintosh commentary.

I would again like to thank everyone who has written. I have been very interested in reading all of the points of view presented, and extremely gratified by the civil and thoughtful tone of this thread of exchanges, regardless of the perspective being asserted. I wish all Mac Web controversies could be conducted in as civilized and mutually respectful a manner. Congratulations to everyone.

Charles W. Moore

"Christian" hoax site

From Wayne Jimerson

Charles,

I wholeheartedly agree with your assessment that the "OBJECTIVE: Christian Ministries" website is an elaborate hoax. I must confess that even though I, like yourself am a Christian, on first blush I assumed that the article on the site was just a grossly missinformed, over-the-top diatribe by a (hopefully) sincere individual. As I continued to read however, I came to realize what you discovered, that the entire site is a hoax, evidently constructed entirely to propagate the mindset that all Christians are misguided, bigoted fools.

It does seem to be working, at least on some level though, because I have read several articles on Mac websites (even your excellent Applelinks) written by "web journalists" that I would hope, want to be taken seriously by at least the Mac web community, who took the article at face value and ran with it. (Evidently "As The Apple Turns," one of my favorite sites, and one that obviously has no desire to be taken seriously, was deluged with emails about this, and fell for it hook, line and sinker, even after evidently spending "the better part of nine straight hours trying really hard to see this as a joke."

Of course I realize that, being fallible human beings, Christians, and Christian ministries do stupid and ridiculous things at times in the name of God. And, sad to say, there are bigots and prejudiced people in the Christian world as well, which leaves the door open for the site in question, and the person or persons who created it to promote this type of subtle ridicule and thinly-veiled hatemongering and have it accepted by otherwise reasoning individuals. Seeing someone hawking underwear with abstinence slogans on it and "baby Jesus dolls" with glow in the dark halos and stars painted on their eyes, in addition to the ridiculous items you mentioned should have been a clue that things weren't as they seemed at first glance. But, like I said, the door was left opened and they stepped in.

It amazes me that someone would go to the trouble of registering domain names, building this entire site (actually a group of several interrelated sites), and perpetrating this hoax. They even have links to several real Christian sites to ad an air of legitimacy. Evidently they hope to be taken seriously by at least some people and portray Christianity as a ridiculous set of values for simple-minded folk. My personal belief is that this group of sites was conceived and implemented by a person or persons who had been involved in a Christian ministry at some point and was hurt, rejected, or disillusioned by an individual, minister, or ministry, and was so embittered by the experience that they concluded all Christianity must be a lie. It seems as if they decided to construct these sites as a way to ridicule the Christian faith, promote hatred and prejudice against it, and at the very least revel in individuals who were taken in by this site and make them the butt of their jokes. I believe that as a Christian it is my responsibility to pray for whoever is doing this, in the hope that if they have indeed been hurt or disillusioned, they may be healed. Or if they are simply doing this out of ignorance, hate, or intollerance, that they can come to a better understanding of what true Christianity is about.

I apologize for the length of this letter, and I hope that there aren't too many typos, but I wanted to thank you for taking the time and effort to do what evidently, no one else was willing to do, and analyze this hoax site. With the high volume and quality of your writing, it is amazing to me that you were able to find the time to get to the bottom of this. I consider myself a fan, keep up the good work.

God bless,
Wayne Jimerson

Hi Wayne;

Your assessment matches mine to a "T". I think that non-Christians would (and did) have a very difficult time discerning the fallaciousness of the material presented on the site, particularly if they were, as so many people are these days, predisposed to believing the worst of fundamentalist and evangelical Christians.

Charles

Thank you

From Brad Kellam

Charles,

You're one of my favorite authors writing in for the Mac Web. Your thoughtful article about the anti-Apple hoax is just the latest reason why.

I was pleased to find out that this was a hoax -- Christians have a bad enough reputation among the technologically elite as it is.

Thanks again,

Brad Kellam

Hi Brad;

Thank you for your kind words.

Charles

Anti-apple/Anti-Christian Website

From Conrad Gemp

With you all the way.

I was going to write to "Dr Paley" and gently point out some things, but reached a similar conclusion to yours -- either it was a hoax or he's too far gone to listen to anyone.

Good on you for standing up; I'm sure that there are folks who'll read it and think to themselves "so not ALL Christians are loonies... the two don't HAVE to go together".

Dr Conrad Gempf
former AppleLinks contributor
lecturer in New Testament and webmaster
http://www.londonbiblecollege.ac.uk/

Richard Paley

From Arno Wouters

Dear Charles,

In your article

"I have been involved in evangelical Christianity for over 30 years, >and I had never heard of Richard Paley, or the institution where he >supposedly teaches Divinity and Theobiology: Fellowship University ("theobiology" -- gimme a break!)."

I presume that the name Paley is derived from the influential English theologian and philosopher William Paley (1743-1805). His *Natural Theology* (1802) is an ode to the creation, to the purposiveness of life, and, ultimately, to the Creator. In Paley's view, the mechanical organization of organisms demonstrates that they are the products of intelligent design. When Darwin (who, by the way, was not an anthropologist but a naturalist by hobby, and a theologian by training) was a student in Cambridge, he had to read Paley's book for his B.A. examination and he was very impressed. In the first chapter of the book Paley draws a parallel between an organism and a watch. He argues that if someone found a watch while crossing a heath, a close inspection of the way in which the several parts are framed and put together would reveal that the watch has been made for a certain purpose, even if the finder has never before seen a watch. The rest of the book is meant to show that organisms are mechanisms, just like the watch, and, hence, reveal both the fact that they are created and the nature of their creator.

The Darwinist and sociobiologist Richard Dawkins addresses Paley's Argument in "The Blind Watchmaker" (1986). Dawkins pictures the process of natural selection as the creator of Paley's watch and answers the question how complex and integrated mechanisms can be produced by such a blind watchmaker. Perhaps, the 'Richard' of 'Richard Paley' hints to this book?

Yours sincerely,

Arno Wouters.
http://www.knoware.nl/users/arnow/

Hi Arno;

I'm inclined to think it does.

Charles

Not Quite

From Scott

Mr. Moore,

I just finished reading your article on the Anti-Apple Christian site and I agree with you that the site is a hoax. I must disagree that the points you describe as being "human" and not shared with other animals, are valid. I will take your examples one at a time.

Self-Concious: This one is the easiest. Great apes are also self aware. Other intelligent animals may be as well, but we have no way of measuring the self-awareness of something like an Octopus (Octopods are actually very intelligent). It says something for evolution when Great apes are our closest relatives and the ones who break this point.

Capable of Laughter: Laughter is an expression of emotion, and is quite a bit more natural than you think, almost instictual. Human babies can laugh, this almost certainly means that all higher primates feel the emotions which produce laughter in humans. They may express the emotion in other ways but the emotion is the same. Remember, great apes dont have the same speech capabilities we have due to the physical structure of the larynx.

Aware of imminent death: Youd have to get pretty far down on the food chain to find an animal who wasnt aware of imminent death. It is one of our MOST basic instincts, though you'd be hard pressed to prove that with Opossums :-)

Human capabilites are a matter of degree, NOT divine spirit. With a few exceptions, the chimpanzee shares nearly all of our capabilities with the exception of speech (communication is possible through signing though). This dosen't disprove God, or Christianity. The Spirit of God is in YOU not some biological process. Jesus never commented on Evolution, his message was about love for each other and love for God.

Its high time we left Old Testament Mythology and Roman additions (St. Augustine) to Christianity behind. Let science be science and find faith in your heart.

Scott

Hi Scott:

1. No animal, including the great apes, is self-conscious in the sense that humans are self-conscious. For the Biblical perspective on this, see Genesis 3: 6-11. Animals have no sense of shame, no moral consciousness, and no knowledge of good and evil. They may be conditioned to fear consequences as a result of certain behaviors are patterns, but that is not the same thing.

2. While animals certainly feel emotions, they do not at the same level humans do. There is no evidence that I'm aware of that animals have a sense of humor, a sense of the ridiculous, or any expression remotely equivalent to laughter.

3. I can't imagine where you're coming from on this one. Very small human children can conceptulize death, including their inevitable own death. Are you suggesting that an animal at any age can anticipate its ultimate mortality? An animal that is sick is presumably conscious that something is wrong, but I disbelieve that any animal, including the higher (non-human) primates, can conceptualize its impending death, even instinctively.

Animals operate on instinct. They are capable of a degree of affection and attachment. Our cat, Tibbs, for instance, is very fond of my wife, obviously in part because my wife is the one who usually feeds her, but there is more to it than that. Tibbs does appear to suffer a degree of anxiety and distress when my wife is away, for instance, although that passes after a few days. She is also obviously happy when my wife is around, but I would suggest that is only because my wife pays more attention to her and is more solicitous of her than anyone else in the household. Some might say that the cat loves my wife. In an animal context, I guess she does, but it is something entirely different, and on a vastly lower plain than human love.

Charles

Your comment on the web page

From Juha Santala

Hi,

Just to say a great thanks on the comment on that stupid web page... As I read it I was thinking who is this...

OK. I by myself work for local IFES movement as staff worker and funny enough I had yesterday evening on this subject...my thinking goes a line lot of with Philip E. Johnson et al (Intelligent Design...http://www.discovery.org).

But anyway ... Thank You very much for pointing out that this www page was another hoax...and blessiings in Christ

Juha Santala
Student secretary

And a happy Mac user (Cube G4 a.k.a. Trinity).

Thanks Juha, and blessings to you too.

Charles

Christian Anti-Mac Site

From David Malone

Hi Charles,

I read your article in which you reassessed your opinion of the Christian "Anti-Mac" website and declared it a hoax. I finally took a look at the site, and I wouldn't be so quick to call it a hoax. I clicked on several of the banner ads on the site, and they seemed to link to legitimate, if not unusual, Christian businesses.

There was a Christian Mime site, a Christian plastic surgeon site, and a site where you could buy blueprints for church buildings. All the sites linked had their own domains, so if it is a hoax, they've really put a lot of effort into not only their website, but all the other banner sites.

One thing that was interesting about the "Mac/Darwinism" article was a link at the very bottom of the article, in the footnotes, that transferred you to a page on the Church of Satan website. Apparently the Church of Satan had a run-in with Apple's attorney's regarding a parody of the "Think Different" posters featuring the founder of the Church of Satan. Obviously too different even for Apple.

So, even Satan has problems with Apple's legal department. Not what you would expect from a company promoting evolution and Godless Communism!

Dave Malone

Hi Dave;

I didn't check all links, and it wouldn't surprise me a bit if some of them were genuine. That would just make the hoax more convincing. Whoever did this it is quite knowledgeable about the fundamentalist Christian subculture.

However, I stand by my assessment that the site itself is completely bogus. Search engines bring up nothing about Richard Paley or Fellowship University.

Charles

Well done

From Duncan Babbage

Greetings,

I don't usually send emails to the authors of web sites that I read, but I thought that your current article "Anti-Apple “Christian” Web Site A Hoax" was particularly well done.

I also read the web site in question, as an interested Christian and long-time Mac user and fan. Perhaps to my discredit, I assumed the web site was a genuine, though terribly misguided, example of American Christian Fundamentalism at its worst. I guess it is easier to assume from a distance that the stereotypes are reality.

Thanks for putting out there a more rational and real Christian voice on the Mac web. Good has come out of this all I feel.

Regards,
Duncan Babbage.
Palmerston North, New Zealand.

Hello Duncan;

Good to hear from a Mac fan in New Zealand. My colleague, Dr. Dirk Pilat, over at Low End Mac, just moved to New Zealand and reports that Macs are a bit thin on the ground there.

I was fooled at first by the Objective Christian Ministries site too. It is extremely well done parody.

I too hope something good does come from this.

Charles

Christian parody site

Creation

From Kevin Edwards

Charles,

It is a shame to see someone claiming to be an evangelical discrediting God's Word. If we can't have faith in the Creator of the beginning of the Bible, then at what point in the Bible do we begin to believe in the God of the Bible? If God couldn't create, maybe Christ couldn't save? It is sad to see someone with the platform that you have into the lives of many people who might not otherwise hear the Gospel, discarding God's Word in favor of your own personal best guess. All Scripture is God-breathed. Worship God by believing it all and by preaching it.

If we throw out the creation account, we have to also throw out other parts of the Bible - parts where the Genesis account is asserted, by even Jesus himself. The article below points out a few of those. The Gospel itself is unbelievable if the biblical account of creation is also unbelievable.

Have you read Darwin's Black Box by Michael Behe? This book by a secular microbiologist points out how current data from detailed cellular microbiology shows how the theory of evolution simply can not be true. I would encourage you to read this book.

The Gospel Evidence For Creation
http://www.answersingenesis.org/docs/1198.asp

From a missionary giving his life for the proclamation of the Word,

Kevin

Kevin Edwards
Grace Ministries International
http://www.gracechurch.org

Hi Kevin;

Sorry you think I don't believe God's Word.

I believe implicitly that God created the heavens and the earth and all that is in them. I just don't believe He did it in six 24 hour days five or six thousand years ago. He could have, of course, but I am convinced that He created the natural world and its processes for a reason, and works within those processes except in extraordinary circumstances, such as various miraculous events documented in the Bible, which I believe really happened.

I respect and admire the evangelical work you are doing, and you're almost certainly a better Christian than I am. I may be wrong about the chronology of Creation. I don't think I am, but I contend that nobody's salvation is compromised by their position vis a vis young earth/old earth Creation -- regardless of who turns out to be objectively correct.

Charles

Cool

From James Gill

I too am an evangelical Christian and express delight at your finding Christ in InterVarsityChristianFellowship. My wife is a staff worker for them now and I grew a lot in college through their ministry. I'm glad when I see it mentioned because it's not very well known among Christians, yet I think it's one of the better campus ministries around.

God Bless,
Jim Gill

Hi Jim;

It certainly was an excellent one back in the early '70s when I was involved with it. I'm still close friends with many fellow IVCFers and converts from that era. IVCF provided us with a wonderful grounding in the faith, and I am eternally (literally) grateful for the their ministry.

Charles

InterVarsity

From Brian Braunschweiger

"I became a Christian through evangelical ministry (specifically Inter Varsity Christian Fellowship) 31 years ago.

It's interesting following the various threads that began with the hoax site under discussion. You continue to drop little insights into your past. I had not known about the InterVarsity connection. Did you ever attend an Urbana convention sponsored by InterVarsity every three or so years over Christmas on the University of Illinois campus in Champaign-Urbana?

Brian

Brian Braunschweiger
Missionary with Arab World Ministries
http://www.awm.org

Hi Brian;

Regrettably, I never made it to Urbana, although I am aware of the Urbana conferences.

I was involved with IVCF in Atlantic Canada, mainly the group at Dalhousie University in Halifax, Nova Scotia. 1971-'73.

Charles

Appreciation

From Earl Ruley

Hi Charles,

I briefly read through the posts on the evolution/web site hoax and was impressed by the overall level tone of the discussion. As a scientist (molecular biology) and Christian I would add a few comments. First, the Genesis was written well over 2000 years ago and devotes fewer than 900 words to the subject of our origins.

One could hardly expect the technical details to be complete especially since the author focuses on more important issues. It would be interesting to see how current scientific theories of our origins (quantum hiccup?) fare after 2000 years.

Second, both camps rely more on orthodoxy rather than reason in arguing their causes. This well illustrated by the Boston Globe science writer who once declared, "evolution is a fact like gravity".

This is ironic since the mechanism that allows every speck of matter in the universe to attract instantaneously all other specks has not yet been established. Reason will admit the inadequacies of the so-called facts. (Last time I checked, the fundamental forces and units of matter could be modeled as strings vibrating in ~13 dimensions.

However, one wonders if the math could be made to work on any arbitrary units of matter if given enough dimensions). This also makes for bad science education which emphasizes the so-called facts of what the student should believe (or memorize) rather than the reasons/evidence for believing them.

On the other side, some Christians in their zeal make claims for the Bible that the Bible does not make for itself. The God who could raise stones to be children of Abraham is capable of anything, even a big bang or an old earth.

Third, neither side has more faith--defined as belief in something you can't prove--than the other. Does God exist? I can't prove it. Does God not exist? I can't prove that either. I can assemble evidence pro and con and adopt a reasoned faith. Clearly faith is an essential component of rationality. Surprisingly many of my scientific colleagues announce they have no "faith". If true, they are guilty of what is known as "blind faith". They believe things that can't be proven, but have not devoted the time and thought to identify the objects of their faith.

Of course I am speaking only in material terms. As Christians we know there is a supernatural component to faith as a gift from God. With regards to salvation, it is not my faith that saves, but the object of my faith, Jesus Christ.

Anyway thanks for your postings.

Best wishes,
Earl Ruley

Hi Earl;

We are pretty much on the same page. I find faith in scientism a much more credulous "religion" in many contexts than faith in God.

Faith is the substance of things hoped for; the evidence of things not seen.

Charles

"Dr. Paley"

From Terry

Mr. Moore,

I appreciate your well thought out article on this particular site and its rants. I was about to post a comment disavowing this "individual" and supposed expert knowledge. But you have done the job for me. I am a missionary with Youth With a Mission in Tyler, Texas and we use Apple products almost exclusively. This guy's commentary was just another reason for people to think Christians were off their collective rocker. But you have done a thorough job of bearing out the reality of said individual. But those facts aside, his diatribe is rather amusing.

On a separate note, you had indicated that you were of the opinion that mankind biologically is a product of evolution while still having elements of extra divine endowing, or something to that effect. While I also have a hard time accepting that the earth is only 5-6000 years old, a book that I have recently read really gave me some insight into the mountains of obstacles that the "theory" of evolution has to scale in order to really get out of the muck and mire of only being a "theory". The book is called Darwin's Black Box by Michael J. Behe. Behe, if I recall correctly is a catholic of sorts who is a microbiologist. In his book he outlines in fairly lay terms the difficulties that even rudimentary existence (read, cell life forms) require from evolution, to say nothing of the more complex forms of animal species. What I appreciate most about his work is that it is from an "objective" scientific perspective and not that of a christianized spiel (sp?). He takes a little time, in fact, to state that he works from a more scientific perspective because he is a scientist. I have not taken a lot of time to check his credentials, but all in all, he seems to be fairly credible and honest. He does not say that evolution is impossible, He only says that it has some serious problems to grapple with.

Hope you find this intriguing enough to read the book. If nothing else, it is more food for thought.

Sincerely,
Terry Sallee

Hi Terry;

Sounds like an interesting perspective. I have read a lot on this topic over the years, from both polarities.

I don't accept the natural selection theory as it is broadly applied by hard-core evolutionists. However, I also don't accept that some sort of evolutionary process did not take place, and that human biology (although not our soul or humanity) is not a product of it.

Charles

Re: Fundamentalism and the Mac

From George Woodrow III

I really appreciate your comments. I consider myself a Christian, although I no longer belong to any religious organization. I did spend some time in a theological school (Methodist) and seriously considered returning at one time.

My opinion is that the Bible was written by a group of people (mostly men) largely in response to a series of religious experiences (especially the NT and exemplified by the letters of Paul), but also to codify social and political practices. Genesis, for one has at least two different creation stories, only partially consistent, and I am sure that there were more. The Gilgamesh epic also has elements of the same cultural milieu, and there are others less accessible to non-specialists.

The point is that these are works inspired by God, but written by men (some women, as well), using the cultural conventions of the time they wrote. Even today, 65 million years has no meaning to the vast majority of people -- how can a people who were inventing the very notion of 'history' have any concept of time before the beginning of the births of their grand parents or great grandparents.

The great lesson of science (and history, etc.) is that we as a species know almost nothing. Even though it may seem like we know a lot compared to what our great-grandparents knew, it is almost nothing compared to the vast ocean of knowledge lying unacknowledged before us. (Thanks to Newton for the metaphor.) How can we then presume to have absolute knowledge of *anything* especially something as all encompassing as God?

As someone has said (I've forgotten who), the Bible is a big hint about our relationship to each other and God, not a blue print for how the world is organized. To presume that anyone knows the will of God, or has, in any way, made a 'deal' with God is ure folly.

I like your distinction between biology and what makes human 'human'. Even though I do a bit of work in AI, I know that we are essentially clueless about what constitutes the human mind. That it has a physical matrix is obvious, but I do not think that the mind can be reduced to synapses.

I think that people embrace fundamentalism because of a natural desire to be able to hold onto something as absolutely certain. Some look to science or mathematics for this absolute, although culturally, and historically, religious absolutism is the more common fundamentalism. It's all an illusion.

In my personal pursuit of meaning, I've had to give up most of the absolutes that have comforted me in the past. As Jesus said, if your hand is an occasion for sin, then it is better to cut it off than to continue in sin. I can live with ambiguity in my dealing with the Bible, and not recognize it as 'authoritative' because to do so would be an impediment to my personal experience of god (I use the term as one of convenience, because, for me the god of Christendom is dead -- I have no term for the 'god beyond god'.)

In this context, I think that the Fundamentalists are wrong, not because they reject evolution, or because they cannot regard homosexuals as 'real people', or on any number of other issues. They are wrong because their quest for absolute certainty has perverted the true meaning of Jesus's message. I cannot argue with a fundamentalist because my understanding of this 'true' meaning is ambiguous and I am mostly groping for the proper expression.

I also believe that there are a million paths to God, and what is the best path for me is not going to work for everyone. If an absolute conviction is what some need to get to God, then it cannot be bad. What is bad is to then say that this is the only way to God.

Viewed against this background, and question of Mac vs PC, or most of our other daily concerns really seem to be silly.

George

Hi George;

Thanks for your thoughtful comments. Your theology is dissonant from mine on certain points, but I've got my hands full with this evolution thing at the moment and am not inclined to open up any more points of controversy. ;-)

Re: fundamentalism; Christianity is full of paradoxes (viz: Matthew 16:25; Romans 5: 20-21). A mentality that demands that everything be neatly tied up and packaged is going to retreat into simplistic formulae.

Charles

Evolutionism Debate

From Anthony DeCrescenzo

Charles --

Fantastic! What a can of worms you opened up, and I'm happy for the distraction!

Here's my $0.02.

I, like you, have little trouble reconciling the evolutionist theory WITH the creation theory. Here's why (you Christians who are on the fence with the Creation story but have little problem with the *rest* of the Bible, take note):

When discussing, many moons ago, the creation story and how it seemingly collides with biological and geological reason, an old mentor of mine very simply brought up the wedding feast at Cana. "What was the miracle there?" he asked, and I replied, of course, the changing of water into wine: Christ's first miracle. "But what kind of wine?" he pressed, and I eventually arrived at the answer, "The choice wine." The logical follow-up question posed was what is wine but a product with a history, and the choice wine would have probably been the equivalent of a fine vintage wine -- arguably older and most "aged" of all.

So Christ turned water into a product with a long, rich, "aged" history. "The best wine" he created.

So, too, could God create a world with a rich, multi million year "history" --- fossils, protozoa, evolved forms of life, the works. I truly don't see why you can't have your Darwin and -- forgive the stretch -- eat it too. After all, Darwin offered nothing definitive in the actual origins of things larger than man.

Agree? Disagree?
I'd be interested in hearing your thoughts or those of your readers.

Again, thanks for a most interesting thread (and, yes, the Christian Anti-Apple website is TRULY too kooky to be real.)

Anthony DeCrescenzo

Hi Anthony;

I had never heard that particular spin before. As I mentioned to another reader yesterday, I have no problem believing that God *could* have created an apparently aged earth that was actually new if He wanted to. I just can;t imagine why He would.

There was a reason to make "good stuff" out of water at the Cana wedding. I don't perceive a reason fr doing so analogically with the apparent age of the earth. But maybe He did. There is of course no way we can determine whether He did or not on this side of the veil.

Charles

"Christian web site"

From Shades

That's what happens when I am too old to move fast. I had briefly looked at the site when Wired had a link yesterday. But the site had an odd feel to it - and I do love my Mac! By the time I read your article today, the link to the Web site no longer worked. And a search of the Web turned up nothing.

Since the Web site is non-existent, perhaps many will deny that any such site ever existed! ;-)

Now we will have to rely on the tradition of those who have seen. (Of course, the manuscripts will be maintained on the Macs!).

From a fellow orthodox, evangelical, catholic, conservative Christian who was amused by the whole thing.

Keep up the good work, Charles.

Thanks;

I'll try. :-)

Charles

"Objective" web site

From Alan Crabtree

Dear Mr Moore

I have just read with interest your article on the hoax anti-Apple / anti-Christian site; thanks for clearing up the mystery as to what on earth this was all about!

Perhaps it's a British perspective, but I was all too ready to think this site was for real (sorry, that's not supposed to be anti- American, but we've all got our stereotypes to live with!).

That aside, I was particularly interested in your comments on the evolution vs creation / young Earth debate. You've put in a nutshell the way I've felt for years; we surely cannot ignore the scientific evidence, but our faith can (must) allow for a control by God as He breathes life into us. Thanks for a thought provoking article.

God Bless.
Alan Crabtree

Hi Alan;

I'm actually a Canadian, but we have American-style fundamentalism here too.

Charles

Comments about the hoax site

From Jeff Reynolds

Charles,

I found it interesting that after all of their UNIX bashing, their site is being served up by

Apache/1.3.22 (Unix)

go figure...

have a great day.
Jeff

Hi Jeff;

I'm sure the UNIX-bashing is just part of the joke. These guys probably all use Macs.

Charles

Re:"Christian" Web site Hoax

From James Rae Smith

Hello Charles

A few brief points

1. This web site was extremely funny. I was laughing too much to notice that it was a hoax but I don't think that invalidates the exercise.

2. The humour was anticlerical (if one can use this description of lunatic fundamentalists) rather than anti religion or even anti Christian let alone anti Mac. If you have any humility you should be able to laugh at the mess mere humans make of their attempts to build religious organisations (while at the same time believing this task worthwhile).

3. Creationism is about as intellectually respectable as Senator MacCarthy's theories about the massive communist conspiracy in the 1950s. All intelligent people have a duty to hold Creationist's views up to ridicule. These people have no right to be taken seriously. Also not doing so blights the reputation of intellectually respectable and rigorous Christian thought.

3. A sense of humour, like an appreciation of beauty is mysterious and magical, so I could never believe in a God that had no value for such things.

4. Lighten up - its a joke

James

PS. Will someone please put this site up somewhere else - it was just too good to vanish overnight.

Hi James;

I thought it was funny too -- and indeed referred to it as a hoot in my two initial reports.

However, I have to disagree with your assertion that it wasn't anti-Christian. There is a mean-spirited edge undere the humor.

Define "Creationist." I consider myself a Creationist in that I believe the universe was created by God. I dispute the timeline asserted by young earth Creationists, but not their belief in divine Creation.

Charles

Apple is Anti-Christian discussion

From Christopher Plummer

Mr. Moore,

This is somewhat related to the Apple is Anti-Christian discussion. I respect your devotion to your religion. You are a highly insightful person. You beliefs about evolution and creation reach a logical balance of religion and science but get there in an unconvincing way. Some of your readers chimed in with their comments, but they too seem misguided in their evolution vs. creation conclusions. The debate always boils down to "Is the Bible right?" vs. "Is science right?" The answer to that is unattainable. Let me explain.

The Bible is a product of the times in which it was written (the late classical period and revised up through the Middle Ages). The Bible therefore reflects the world in which it was written. The Bible should not be construed to represent any scientific knowledge greater than that of it's authors. To say that the Bible is a scientific study invalidates it. The Bible tells a story of creation that is a product of it's times. Since then new scientific discoveries have changed. If the Bible were written today it would have a different story. 2000 years from now there would be another story of creation.

The Bible is not and must not be taken as a scientific text. If it is taken as a scientific text whose science will it adopt? Today's? Tomorrow's? 1500 years ago? Science is ever changing but the moral and religious standards with which the Bible is concerned are unchanging.

For example: the Bible expresses that the earth is flat, that it is in the center of the universe, and makes no mention of gravity. These are all things we can accept as false, but they are a precise reflection of the scientific beliefs of the times. If we accept these as scientific fact, as many accept creation as scientific fact, than we destroy both the religion and the science.

Quranic scholars and theologians have acknowledged that the Quran is not a scientific text. If they were to do so it would undermine both the religion and science. I don't know why Christians feel so compelled to treat the Bible as a study of the universe. If the Bible is truly a flexible, timeless text than it can't lcko itself into a given time.

Christopher Plummer

Hi Christopher;

I agree that the "Bible vs. science" polemic poses a false dichotomy. I waill again offer this quote:

As Eastern Orthodox scholar Fr. Anthony Coniaris notes: "The Bible is inerrant (without error) when it speaks to us of God and His will for us. It is not inerrant when it speaks to us of geology or biology. Its purpose is to tell us WHO created the world (theology) not HOW the world was created (geology)."

Charles

To further stir the pot...

From Greg

Charles -

I enjoyed how you moderated the letters in response to the anti-Apple hoax site.

As a personal recommendation, you might enjoy the Reasons to Believe web site, specializing in scientific Christian apologetics: http://www.reasons.org/

They specialize in creation analysis along with Biblical theology. If you pick up a few books by Hugh Ross (astrophysicist), you may well reconsider whether the Genesis account is metaphorical. Hugh and his group are "old-earth" creationists, but show how this can be reconciled with the Genesis account with basic Hebrew study. The word "YOM" which is translated "day" in Genesis can mean 24-hour day, daytime (daylight hours), or indeterminate periods of time. Fundies of course, insist on the prima facie reading of the passage and often viciously deride anyone who proposes a day-age viewpoint as heretical or even Satanic.

Well, I'll get off my soapbox. I have a number of titles to recommend with regard to creation, evolution, and other science-related apologetics books. I stick with the ones which are well-reasoned, and don't require you to believe some grand conspiracy among all scientific disciplines to obscure the truth of the Bible. I teach an apologetics course in my home to high school and college kids every Saturday night, so I have to stay on my toes.

Best regards,
Greg

Hi Greg;

Thanks for the link.

A clarification, I did mention metaphor as being something one encounters in the Bible, but I did not intend that to be perceived as meaning that I think the Genesis account is necessarily metaphorical.

Hugh Ross's theory sounds pretty much like what I provisionally believe.

Charles

Anti-Mac site/creation etc.

From Scott Francken

Charles,

I just read an excellent book dealing with the whole evolution/creation and science/religion debate. I highly recommend it. It's a very quick read, but gives a lot of information in language that is easy to understand. "The Unrandom Universe" by Sigmund Brouwer. One of the things he points out several times is that very often the apparent dichotomy between science and religion is really a lack of understanding of science or religion or both.

Science, in fact, confirms the Bible quite often. One of the reasons that evolutionists say that science proves the Bible wrong is that they are drawing incorrect CONCLUSIONS from factually correct data. In other words, they look at the data, make the assumption that there cannot possibly be a divine Creator, and then interpret the data to fit that assumption. To be fair, Christians do that all the time too.

Johannes Keppler proposed that planets had elliptical orbits. The Church at the time "knew" that all planets must have a perfectly circular orbit, because circles were a perfect, Godly shape. So they persecuted Keppler for his heresy. Oddly enough, we now know that planets DO have elliptical orbits. In both cases, there was a lack of understanding of science and the Bible. Brouwer also points out that

Christians often make the mistake of using the Bible as a science book. It is not. The Bible tells us about God's plan of salvation. On the evolution issue, I would suggest that you do some research into the actual data. Science does not really support evolution, at least as far as Darwinian evolution. The scientists that talk about evolution as fact are widely ignoring some of the glaring problems in their own data. There is, in fact, no evidence to support the idea that one species can evolve into another. There is a lot of evidence in other branches of science that contradict the idea. The most common being the 2nd Law of Thermodynamics. Another being the idea of irreduceable (sp?) complexity. Now, there is plenty of evidence of adaptation, sometimes called micro-evolution. There would have to be if Noah took only one pair of each kind of animal on the ark. The wide variety of animals we have today had to come from those basic pairs. And we see that all the time in nature. But it still doesn't prove macro-evolution. Because there is no scientific evidence for it. I also don't think the Bible supports an idea that God used evolution to create life on Earth. Genesis says that God created man from the dust of the earth, not from a monkey.

Okay, okay. I'll get off my soapbox now. Sorry for the long post. Once I get going, it's hard to stop. Do read that book, though. You will find it very interesting reading.

Cheers,
Scott Francken
Christian Mac-user

Hi Scott;

I'll see if I can find it.

I agree that arguing science based on the Bible is misapplication.

I believe that truth is objective and absolute, and that, if, as I believe, the Bible is the revealed Word of God, true science will ultimately not contradict it. Nor will a correct interpretation of what the Bible teaches contradict true science, which is the noble search for objective truth, not to be confused with the Baconian scientific method, which is a circumscribed methodology of some utility, or provisional conclusions derived from its application.

Charles

Christianity and evolution completely incompatible

From Dan Snodgrass

Dear Charles,

As much as many Christians would like to believe that they can reconcile current evolutionary thinking and Scriptural teaching, it is simply not possible. Either Evolutionists are right or the Bible is. There is no middle ground.

It shouldn't need to be said but it seems that people forget that down through history, scientists have been wrong about many things. Evolution is just the latest example. To wit: at one time the Earth was thought to be flat. This was stated as "scientific fact". If the scientists of that day had read the Bible they would have learned otherwise from the book of Isaiah. For most of recorded history people (scientists and laypersons alike) believed that the oceans were just big lakes; meanwhile the Bible spoke of the "currents" of the oceans. The apostle Paul wrote of the material world as being made up of things too small to see, this at a time when the scientists of the day believed that everything was composed of four basic elements; earth, wind, fire, and ether. The examples are endless of where the Bible makes routine statements of scientific fact that were otherwise completely contrary to contemporary scientific thinking of the day but have turned out to be perfectly accurate. It is only the arrogance of today's science community that assumes the Bible is suddenly wrong on issues of science and they are the ones who have become infallible.

Several letters on your site have writers pondering the issue of whether God created with the appearance of age and whether this might be some kind of elaborate divine deception. This is a presumptuous question akin to asking "When did you stop beating your wife?". Just because we do not understand geological processes does not mean that God is deceiving us. Now, clearly God created Adam without starting him out as a zygote so Adam was created with the appearance of age. The Garden of Eden had fully grown trees, and Christ turned water into wine without waiting for the fermentation process. Does anyone think these were deceptive acts? These things were created "old" from the get go.

What we are really talking about is the appearance of age in the GEOLOGICAL and ASTRONOMICAL realm. But is what we see in these areas really old or do we just think it is old because we have been told that this is what "old" looks like? I lived in Portland, Oregon during the many eruptions of Mt. St. Helens in the early 80's. I knew what it looked like around the base of the mountain before the eruption and I saw it afterwards. To this day many tours go up to the Toutle, the river that flows down from the famous Spirit Lake at the north side of the volcano. It amazes people to learn that what looks like millions of years of sedimentation along the banks of the Toutle were layers that were laid down IN JUST THE FEW HOURS AFTER THE ERUPTION! Why do people think that the Toutle River canyon is old? Because they've been taught all their lives that this is what "old" looks like. Did God make these river banks look old in the few minutes after the eruption? Of course not. This was a natural hydrological process that is easily documented and empirically verifiable.

It is only our own narrow, myopic view of what we think is old that leads people to conclude, improperly, that sedimentation or global erosion must happen over millions of years. Just pose this hypothetical scenario to any objective geologist: What would a world wide flood have done to the landscape of an otherwise smooth earth surface? Imagine the entire Earth covered in water and then imagine that the water drained off rapidly into the depths of newly created ocean canyons over just a few days. The Noahic flood would have left the very sedimentation and erosive effects we see around us today. In fact, the very existence of fossils bears witness to the quick burial of living plant and animal life in a huge flood. Fossils simply do not form from animals lying on the floor of an ocean or a river valley. The fact that anyone believes that they are formed in this manner is testament to the effectiveness of evolutionary teaching techniques.

We have been deceived about what looks like an old earth but not by God. We have been taught all our lives that a canyon is old because the little stream running along the bottom of it eroded it down over millions of years. Never does a geologist mention that it might have been a rushing torrent that eroded it over a short amount of time just a few thousand years ago. So we naively accept that the little stream eroded the canyon and the craggy look and the sedimentation layers of the canyon walls are evidence of this. This is folly and should be examined for what it is, ignorance.

If evolutionary thinking is based on shifting sand why should we as Christians buy into it? Paul states unequivocally in a letter to the Corinthians, "For since death came through a man, the resurrection of the dead comes also through a man." I Cor 15:21. This is the central thesis of Christianity and one that drives a stake through the heart of theological evolutionism. The central belief of evolutionists is that through the death of millions of animals over millions of years, eventually man arose. But Paul just told us that death did not occur until a specific man sinned. This was not some spiritual death but actual physical death brought into the world the day Adam ate the pomegranate.

Christ physically died in order to conquer death itself. There is no way to wriggle around this theological Truth. Either Adam's sin brought death into the world or Paul is lying to us and Christ died for nothing. This is why the teaching of evolution is so favored by the enemies of Christ. Those who understand the basic doctrines of the Bible know that "original sin" is a fundamental doctrine of the Faith. Therefore, all one has to do to attack the heart of Christian thinking is to claim that death has pretty much been around forever and therefore, it could not have been sin that caused it. Ergo, Christ paying the penalty for Adam's sin was a vain and senseless act and this, in and of itself, is proof that He wasn't God after all.

People may believe in evolution if they wish but they shouldn't try to reconcile it with Biblical teaching. It just doesn't work. Remember, scientific evidence can be interpreted in many more ways than people have ever interpreted Scripture. Evolutionism is a scientific heresy. A well entrenched one to be sure, but one that wil, one day, go the way of the flat earth theory.

Best,

Dan Snodgrass
G4 Dual Ghz in the office
(but writing this on a 500 Mhz iBook from home)

Hi Dan;

To save redundant typing, please see my reply to Anthony DeCrescenzo above.

We are in agreement on the centrality of the Incarnation as the remedy to original sin, which is what we should really be focusing on rather than debating the chronology of creation.

Thanks for sharing your thoughts.

Charles

Paley site

From Christian Loweth

Hi Charles,

Evidently, I didn't peruse the Paley site as thoroughly as you. I took it at face value. Boy, do I feel dumb!

However, I was moved to write to the "author". As you may surmise, I did write it in a facetious vein. Thought you might get a chuckle out of it.

Dear Dr. Paley,

Thank you for writing such a thorough, intelligent and thought provoking article at:
http://members.truepath.com/objective/propaganda.html

It is evident that you have spent considerable time and effort thinking through these issues. However, I urge you to consider a broader perspective. Back when Jobs/Wozniak were first developing the "MacOS", they provided a copy of it to another young hippie type, Bill Gates, in the hopes that he would develop compatible applications for the then new operating system. He did more than that. Having gained access to the innermost secrets contained in the MacOS code, he developed his own operating system called "Windows".

It too runs on a "hidden" underlying program called "DOS". Have you ever considered what this acronym stands for? Allegedly, is stands for "Disk Operating System", but for those who have studied it's underpinnings and it's development background have learned the real meaning, "Devil's Own Seduction" (or seducer).

Consider for a moment that Bill Gates is the world's richest man. How did he arrive at such a position? It's clear that it wasn't through the superiority of his products. Many analysts attibute Microsoft's success with it's ability to market it's products. However, that leaves a large blank to account for the company's astounding success. The missing ingredient? Bill Gates made a pact with the devil. Remember the ad slogan, "Where do you want to go today?". If Bill has his way, straight to hell.

Armed with the mystical power of "DOS", and privy to the inner workings of "MacOS", Gates developed a dynamic synergy of the two to which he gave the innocuous name "Windows". Have you ever noticed that "Windows" takes over the computer, almost giving it a life of it's own? It does things that are outside of your ability to control or manage. It's insidious. It changes settings, files, directories all without any user input. Why does it do this? It's due to a very diabolical programming language that updates it's true purpose every time the user installs or updates a program. And, as you most likely know, updates are a frequent occurance. So, thru the dynamic synergy of the two operating systems, Gates has developed a truly powerful means of control.

People spend hours gazing at their computer screens. Seemingly almost in a trance. I'm confident that you have observed this phenomena. They are ushered into another level of consciousness by doing so, it's inescapable. But how and why? Embedded within the "Windows" operating system is a means of influencing the user. It's akin to subliminal messaging, but on a much more sophisticated level. Only the most devout Christian who has unequivocably given his life over to our Saviour, Jesus Christ can hope to resist this diabolical subliminal barrage. The frequent updates are necessary to further the goals of the "Fallen Angel" in order to make them most effective based on the current world situation. Additionally, as more people are entranced by the "suggestions", updates are neccessary to draw them farther into the diabolical web woven by "Windows".

Over 90% of personal computers use "Windows". With the introduction of various schemes to further entrench it's position such as "Office", "Internet Explorer", "X box" and the ".Net" initiative, Microsoft has served it's master well. Gate's goal is total world domination by acting as a proxy for the "Evil One". One tactic that recently came to light was "MSN's" attempt to block out all browsers other than "Internet Explorer". One must use "IE" to gain access to "MSN". What does this mean? "IE" runs on several platforms. It's Microsoft's attempt to insinuate itself onto other operating systems. That seems innocuous enough on the surface. But, armed with the information we now have, we can realize it's true purpose. "Internet Explorer" also is equipped with the diabolical technologies integrated into "Windows". As a result, as the user of another OS continues to use "IE", he too is subjected to the subliminal messages contained therein.

I believe that it is of the utmost importance that this information, some of which obtained at great risk, be spread throughout Christendom. Good Christians must be notified of this threat to their faith. I plead with you to further investigate this cunning and insidious assault on the values, beliefs, and yes, the very souls of the faithful. Knowlege is one way to defeat the Devil. He thrives on ignorance. Investigate my assertions for yourself. As you dig further into it, I'm confident you too will find the truth of the matter.

Best regards as your brother in faith,

Christian Loweth

Hi Christian;

Good letter. :-)

I was fooled too at first.

Charles

CM

Charles W. Moore

Cool Mac Gear