"If you believe in evolution, you must also believe that Auschwitz and Hitler's Germany is equal to mad cow's disease. Because there is no difference in cattle and a person besides opposable thumbs and reason...so the slaughtering of cattle and the slaughtering of Jewish folks in Auschwitch MUST BE DECLARED EQUAL."
---------------------------
Gregg Matte is the senior pastor of First Baptist Church of Houston, and the elected president of the Southern Baptist Convention Pastor's Conference this week at the SBC Annual Meeting in Houston.In his June 2nd sermon entitled "Connecting the Dots Worldwide", Matte addresses the essential importance of a Christian believing in creationism and rejecting evolution.
But to try to make his point, Matte makes an idiotic, nonsensical argument that evolution will lead people to not being to ascertain between right and wrong - in fact he declares:
That’s what evolution is all about…if man is the highest thing, then man gets to decide whatever he wants to do and then there is no longer anything called ‘sin’. There is not anything wrong, there is not anything right…here’s what happens: if you believe in evolution, you must also believe that Auschwitz and Hitler’s Germany is equal to mad cow’s disease. Because there’s no difference in cattle and a person besides opposable thumbs and reason. They’re all living creatures, so the slaughtering of cattle and the slaughtering of Jewish folks in Auschwitz must be declared equal.What is he talking about? We CAN and DO judge morality and immorality separate from the issue of creationism vs. evolution. People of faith, and people of no faith together, can rightly judge immoral acts like Hitler slaughtering Jews. We can rightly judge moral issues like adultery or murder or theft. Duh.
If any person of faith - or an atheist or agnostic - believes in evolution vs. the biblical account of creation - they most certainly don't have to equate slaughter of Jews to slaughter of cattle. That's an offensive idea to begin with, that a person's view on the origin of the universe might render them completely incapable of seeing the atrocities of Hilter's regime. This idea that Matte puts forth is sick.
It is too bad guys like Matte don't realize that this kind of nonsense drives people - especially young people - away from Christianity. A young person who is struggling with their faith and is thinking through matters like creationism vs. evolution and hears Matte's rubbish, they will likely reject the faith altogether.
Listen to the above quote in the entire context of his argument, and it becomes even nuttier.
AGAIN...another off message speaker!?! Amazing how many "small time, back woods, country preachers" there are who are Never caught saying such Stupid stuff. Probably because they spend their time in the word/ loving on their people/ and personally winning souls VS trying to impress people and be the next 6 figure mega preacher.
ReplyDeleteNot only does this type of nonsense drive young people (with a good measure of intelligence) away from the church, but keeps unbelievers from coming in.
ReplyDeleteWhere do we get these guys? :(
Who's monitoring them???
I may have phrased it differently, but his point is correct. If you believe in evolution as normally thought of, then humans are nothing but the latest in a chain of ever evolving creatures. The result is there is no objective basis for right or wrong. Watchdog, you said it correctly, OUR laws decide what is right and wrong. However, if we are still evolving OUR ideas of right and wrong can and do as well. In addition, if evolution is correction, then there is nothing special about humans. We are just one in a long line of ever evolving creatures. Therefore, hurting or killing animals is just as bad as hurting or killing animals. At least that is what many of of animal rights activists would have us believe.
ReplyDeleteI hate, you believe A and now therefore you must believe B.
ReplyDeleteThere is a lot to type, but I will simply say two things. Over simplifying things, natural selection is the driving force behind the Theory of Evolution. Human beings slaughtering humans or cows is not natural selection, it is unnatural selection.
Two, what IS does not determine exclusively what one DOES.
Three, "Believe in Evolution" is overly simplistic. What IS is true, whether you believe it or not.
Is that why many Orthodox Jews accept evolution? Is that also why they regard the creation account in Genesis as metaphorical for at least 900 years?
ReplyDeleteNote: For full disclosure, I disagree with both evolution and old-earth theories. However, for someone to compare the Holocaust to evolution is sickening.
That's the stupidest sermon I have ever heard....where do they get these guys?
ReplyDeleteRecon he got this off the internet?
ReplyDeleteDo these guys even listen to themselves? Seriously! Talk about logical fallacies! Worst of all, their sheeple eat it up, bones and all.
ReplyDeleteGod save us from such illogic!
Just a reminder. Mega means millions. The only thing mega about a mega-church is the salary and benefits paid to the pastor! And then they deliver this kind of tripe that would get a high school student a failing grade for the total lack of logic.
ReplyDeleteI just love how preachers come to a church, preach one Sunday, and then plant people in the audience to "come get saved" the next Sunday. What a scam. The second Sunday, these hucksters will plant (usually 3) people to "get saved" at the alter call. It gets the people believing that God is using the "man o' gawd", and assures him a job as pastor. Nothing but a scam and a religious show.
ReplyDeleteAnon 10:24,
ReplyDeleteThe Theory of Evolution does not necessarily imply that all flora and fauna are equal. Just because, I share a common ancestor with poison ivy, does not mean that I get to kill people like I joyfully kill poison ivy. Likewise, with just fauna or more specifically Animalia, just because I share a common ancestor with a tapeworm does not mean that I if I take deworming medicine, I can kill my neighbor.
On objective morality and our ideas of right and wrong evolving, they evolve regardless of one's point of origin. Culture naturally changes our morals for both better and worse. The biggest example that I like to give is marital rape. Thirty years ago, the Moral Majority argued that though the practice is abhorrent it should remain legal. Walk into Thomas Road today and survey the people. I bet you will not find many that hold that viewpoint. Likewise, our viewpoints are evolving on capital crimes and punishment in general.
Consider mutilations, it used to be moral to try remove body parts to curb homosexuality. Claiming objective morality has not stopped these positions from evolving.
"A young person who is struggling with their faith and is thinking through matters like creationism vs. evolution and hears Matte's rubbish, they will likely reject the faith altogether"
ReplyDeleteJust one comment. If one actually adheres to sound doctrine then one must understand faith is not something that a lost, rebellious sinner has, struggles with, and can ultimately forfeit based upon a sermon by a certain preacher.
The statement I quoted above is a rather uninformed statement which, in my opinion, stems directly from a "seeker" based mindset.
In reality...faith is a gift from God to those who have been regenerated: For it is by grace you have been saved, through faith—and this is not from yourselves, it is the gift of God— not by works, so that no one can boast. For we are God’s handiwork, created in Christ Jesus to do good works, which God prepared in advance for us to do.(Ephesians 2:8-10)
Also, repentance must be granted by God: Opponents must be gently instructed, in the hope that God will grant them repentance leading them to a knowledge of the truth (2Timothy 2:25
To assert that a lost person HAS the gift of faith and HAS the ability to decide to repent or not based upon his own whim is a contradiction to those passages of Scripture as well as other Scriptures such as: All those the Father gives me will come to me, and whoever comes to me I will never drive away. (John 6:37) And He was saying, "For this reason I have said to you, that no one can come to Me unless it has been granted him from the Father." (John 6:65); The person without the Spirit does not accept the things that come from the Spirit of God but considers them foolishness, and cannot understand them because they are discerned only through the Spirit.(1 Corinthians 2:14)
And there are many more. The point is, I assert it to be disingenuous to point to a message by the preacher at topic as having the ability to actually drive away the faith of one who is struggling with some particular doctrinal issue. Such a grandiose appeal is no less egregious to the Truth than what is being charged against the preacher at topic.
Moses Model...
ReplyDeleteYou state that evolution is a "theory"; how so?
The definition of a theory is as follows: a coherent group of tested general propositions, commonly regarded as correct, that can be used as principles of explanation and prediction for a class of phenomena (dictionary.com)
Evolution is no less a belief system based upon faith as is any worldview. There exists within the evolutionary-based worldview no "coherent group of TESTED propositions" as a proper understanding of the term theory demands.
If you are going to argue your point then be honest and consistent with your worldview.
Further, I would ask you to provide a list of moral guidelines based strictly upon evolutionary thought. From where do you personally draw your standard of goodness?...and how do you know that standard is correct for everyone? Upon what do you base your understanding of absolutes? How do you account for the observable uniformity in nature?
All this just wears me out.
ReplyDeleteI don't think it's anything like what Jesus intended church to be.
I'll just stay a member of THE church, not A church.
And please don't worry, I "assemble" with other believers on a regular basis.
All this just wears me out.
ReplyDeleteI don't think it's anything like what Jesus intended church to be.
I'll just stay a member of THE church, not A church.
And please don't worry, I "assemble" with other believers on a regular basis.
AMEN!!! More and more of us believe like this. A sovereign God, of sovereign grace needs no religious system to do His work through His people.
Anons 4:01 and 5:54, couldn't agree more. Well said.
ReplyDeleteAll these grand pronouncements from preachers (and a those parroted back by lay people, as evidenced by this blog and even this topic), reminds me of a song that says -
"I'm tired of great big men, with ego kingdoms in mind, trying to tell me how to spend my money and time.
You can't market Truth, wrapped up in happy lies."
Keith,
ReplyDeleteYou stated that “[t]here exists within the evolutionary-based worldview no ‘coherent group of TESTED propositions’ as a proper understanding of the term theory demands.”
Like all scientific theories, the Theory of Evolution must make testable predictions. Let’s start with Darwin. Darwin was presented with an orchid from Madagascar which had no known animal with a proboscis long enough to reach the nectar. Given what Darwin knew about the evolutionary relationships between orchids and pollinators, he hypothesized that a creature with a proboscis long enough must exist. 21 years after his death, such a moth was discovered.
My creationist world views class challenged the idea that paleontologists could know so much about Pakicetus even though the only fossil at the time was a back of a skull and a piece of a jaw. However given evolutionary principles of homology, the paleontologists were able to hypothesize that Pakicetus was a mammal, had 4 limbs, a tail, and was a carnivorous ungulate. A more complete confirmed all of this.
More importantly, whales had been hypothesized in the 19th century to have descended from some type of quadruped mammal. If this was correct, we should expect to find some whale attributes in quadruped mammals. Pakicetus had an ear that until that point had only been seen in whales. From Pakicetus, it was hypothesized that there should be other genera with whale ears and 4 limbs. Eventually more genera were found, Ambulocetus, Kutchicetus, Maiacetus…
Whales were thought to have descended from mesonychids until genetics proved they were more closely related to hippos. The hypothesis was partially falsified, but whales were still related closely to ungulates. Whales could have been more closely related to primates or carnivores especially since the ungulate hypothesis was based purely on fossil evidence. Paleontologists just had the wrong kind of ungulate.
Can you tell that I find predicting extinct animals interesting? In the late 80’s, paleontologists confirmed that Basilosaurus and Dorudon had hind limbs and toes. Manatees were hypothesized to have a 4 legged ancestor also. In the 90’s, Pezosiren was discovered.
I could go on, if you need more evidence that I am being honest.
You stated, “Further, I would ask you to provide a list of moral guidelines based strictly upon evolutionary thought.” I can’t do so. I stated earlier that what IS does not determine exclusively what one does. While I think that sometimes an IS can give guidance to an OUGHT, I think we are on shaky ground. Plus, most of my life has been governed by a YEC framework. Only in the last several years have I given the Theory of Evolution a serious look over. I am largely a creature of my upbringing. Honestly at this point, I am baffled by my moral source. I think that I get my morals from God, but so do many who disagree with me. The same path I follow to God leads me to think that marital sodomy should be legal and marital rape should not. Not that many decades ago, I would have found myself at odds with my religious compatriots. How can we be so different? Why did it take TRBC and FBD until 68 to integrate their congregations?
My standard of goodness has unfortunately become like my standard for obscenity. I might know it when I see it. Removing micro pensises from infants, in most cases is most likely wrong. I cannot point to a chapter and verse or a large moral paradigm on that one. Decades ago, I would have been at odds with most of America. At this point, I think that it is “good” to take openly gay teenagers to youth camps. Blasphemy should be legal. I confess that I am obviously an outlier in Christianity.
Let me briefly address absolutes. I don’t find them too useful. Let’s take the first commandment, “Thou shalt have no other gods before me”. OK, I accept that absolute, now what. Once you accept the command is an absolute, you are immediately left with how to follow the absolute and what the absolute means.
These dissertations are a beating. And I don't think they change anyone's mind.
ReplyDeleteAnonymous 10:24AM
ReplyDeleteI think that you misunderstand how theistic evolutionists approach the matter. They believe in miracles. For example, they believe that God created the heavens and the east ex nihilo (out of nothing.)
More importantly, they believe that God, at some point in time, gave man in immortal soul. Just because one believes in evolution does not mean that they deny miracles and creation.
Anon 3:06 PM. You can't have it both ways!!!!
ReplyDeleteAre you required to reject logic, reason, and being able to make logical conclusions in seminary these days?
ReplyDeleteSure, it's not hard to make some logical conclusions about believing in evolution versus believing in creationism. However, to make the claim that believing in evolution automatically makes slaughtering humans akin to slaughtering sick cattle is absurd.
I would have hit the roof during the sermon.
Good discussion here on all sides. Fwiw, my take is this: I agree that atheists have no "objective" morality, and that belief in evolution is part of that. But two things: one, atheists manage to behave, on the whole, at least as well as self-proclaimed Christians, if not better. Just look at the rates of atheism plotted against rates of murder in different countries, and you will see that the largely Christian USA doesn't look too good. I'll take nice behavior over nice beliefs any day.
ReplyDeleteTwo: I don't see how even literal belief in the Bible, say, can be called "objective". What exactly does "thou shalt not kill (or murder)" mean? Christians have famously not been able to agree about such things. Sure, you can claim that God knows in every case what's right and what's wrong, but obviously no human being is privy to that knowledge. That being the case, who can claim to have "objective" morality on their side?
Me, I'm a pragmatist. I don't care what people believe, as long as they behave nicely. And luckily enough, our heritage as social animals, products of culture, and rational beings, leads to a concept of what "niceness" means that has a great deal of agreement: pretty much everyone wants to eat, to have a roof over their head, and to live free from fear. Even religions are largely in consensus about this.
cheers from sunny Vienna, zilch
"We CAN and DO judge morality and immorality separate from the issue of creationism vs. evolution. People of faith, and people of no faith together, can rightly judge immoral acts like Hitler slaughtering Jews. We can rightly judge moral issues like adultery or murder or theft"
ReplyDeleteWould you agree that the foundation of right and wrong is entirely different between creationism and evolution?
The atheist (evolutionist) cannot justify right and wrong, he knows right from wrong but has no justification for them.
I guess Benjamin Breckinridge Warfield, a influential exponent of inspiration or inerrancy wasn't a Christian. He believed in theistic evolution. I am saddened that helter skelter everything a conservative evangelical or politician doesn't agree with is tied to the Nazis. Probably because Nazism is such a black mark in history. Just because Nazism is evil doesn't make pinning everything viewed as negative to Nazism true, nor is it honest to pin every negatively viewed philosophy or scientific hypothesis to Nazism. In the past I have seen feminism attached to Nazism. If a person reads histor, the Nazis wanted women to stay at home, be Mothers, and have children.
ReplyDelete