Vatican Astronomer: Creationism is a Destructive Myth

Believing that God created the universe in six days is a form of superstitious paganism, the Vatican astronomer Guy Consolmagno claimed. Brother Consolmagno, who works in a Vatican observatory in Arizona and as curator of the Vatican meteorite collection in Italy, said a "destructive myth" had developed in modern society that religion and science were competing ideologies. He described creationism, whose supporters want it taught in schools alongside evolution, as a "kind of paganism" because it harked back to the days of "nature gods" who were responsible for natural events.

Consolmagno, a former teacher at Harvard and MIT, became a Jesuit in 1989. Since then, his studies have focused on, among other things, the origin and evolution of small bodies within the solar system. In an interview given in 2005 to Astrobiology magazine, Consolmagno stated,

Science has to start with an assumption. Newtonian physics started with the assumption that everything is due to cause and effect. And, lo and behold, it seems to prove that everything is due to cause and effect. But it's not a proof, it's just recovering your assumption. Quantum theory says everything is chance. And by golly, you can show that according to quantum theory, everything is chance. No, you don't prove it; it's an assumption that allows you to get a handle on the universe. You can say that the universe works the way it does because of a beneficent creator -- that's a perfectly reasonable way to start out looking at the universe, but it's no proof. It's your assumption.

Poor, silly King David. What was he thinking when he wrote passages like:

The heavens declare the glory of God;And the firmament shows His handiwork. (Ps. 19:1,NKJV)

and:

I will praise You, for I am fearfully and wonderfully made; Marvelous are Your works, And that my soul knows very well. (Ps. 139:14,NKJV)

It's painfully obvious that David was a simple farmer who never taught at Harvard or MIT.


In the end though, if Consolmagno ruffles feathers at the Vatican, it may be for other reasons:

Brother Consolmagno, who gave a speech at the Glasgow Science Centre, entitled "Why the Pope has an Astronomer", said the idea of papal infallibility had been a "PR disaster". What it actually meant was that, on matters of faith, followers should accept "somebody has got to be the boss, the final authority".

"It's not like he has a magic power, that God whispers the truth in his ear," he said.

Holland To Allow ‘Baby Euthanasia’

In 1999 I picked up a book in a bargain bin entitled Seal Of Gaia by Marin Maddoux. Maddoux was a bit of a conspiracy theorist who ran a syndicated daily talk show called "Point of View." Seal of Gaia was a below-average Christian fiction book giving Maddoux's view of what the end times may look like. What the book lacked in literary quality it made up for in providing a frightening view of the future: a one-world religion based on radical environmentalism, bodies harvested for organs, and "deactivated" children. The latter caught my attention. Jack Kevorkian had just been convicted, and the topic of euthanasia was being debated across the nation.

In Seal of Gaia, the "deactivation" of children up to the age of three was allowed. If a child was ill or a parent was unable to provide a child with a quality, loving environment, a parent could take their child to a deactivation center. Here nurses dressed as clowns administered lethal injection with balloons and cartoons in the background. Back in 1999, this seemed a bit far fetched. Now, I'm not so sure.

The London Times today posted an article concerning the legalizing of child euthanasia in Holland.

When Frank and Anita’s daughter Chanou was born with an extremely rare, incurable illness in August 2000, they knew that her life would be short and battled against the odds to make it happy. They struggled around the clock against their baby’s pain. “We tried all sorts of things,” said Anita, a 37-year-old local government worker. “She cried all the time. Every time I touched her it hurt.”

Frank and Anita began to believe that their daughter would be better off dead. “She kept throwing up milk that was fed through a tube in her nose,” said Anita. “She seemed to be saying, ‘Mummy, I don’t want to live any more. Let me go’.”...

Eventually, doctors agreed to help the baby die at seven months. The feeding was stopped. Chanou was given morphine. “We were with her at that last moment,” said Anita. “She was exhausted. She took a very deep last breath. It was so peaceful. It made me feel at peace inside to know that she wasn’t suffering any more.”

Each year in Holland at least 15 seriously ill babies, most of them with severe spina bifida or chromosomal abnormalities, are helped to die by doctors acting with the parents’ consent. But only a fraction of those cases are reported to the authorities because of the doctors’ fears of being charged with murder...

Things are about to change, however, making it much easier for parents and doctors to end the suffering of an infant... A committee set up to regulate the practice will begin operating in the next few weeks, effectively making Holland, where adult euthanasia is legal, the first country in the world to allow “baby euthanasia” as well.

When Eduard Verhagen, clinical director of pediatrics at the University Medical Center in Groningen, Holland was interviewed, he explained:

"We say that deliberate ending of life is never a must. But it can be an option...At some point, we will have to decide whether it is pointless from a medical point of view and whether we should not prolong treatment... Is there any difference between watching someone drowning without doing anything and pushing them into the lake? "

I highly recommend reading the entire article. Currently, the governing guidelines for the procedure will be that the child must be "untreatably ill". The problem with opening this Pandora's box will undoubtedly be that, as times change, the rules will as well. Who is to say that Maddox's vision might not one day become a reality?

NRB To Robertson: Five Strikes And You're Out?

The same group that named Pat Robertson "Christian Broadcaster of the Year" in 1989 has decided to drop him from their board of directors.

Robertson, founder of the Virginia Beach-based Christian Broadcasting Network, was one of 38 candidates for 33 board seats during the NRB's recent convention. The group represents mostly evangelical radio and TV broadcasters. NRB President Frank Wright said there was no broad effort to distance the group from Robertson. But "there was broad dismay with some of Pat's comments and a feeling they were not helpful to Christian broadcasters in general," he said in Wednesday's Washington Post.

Both sides insist that that the decision to for Robertson to leave the position he had held with the National Religious Broadcasters for 30 years was "amicable".

The press has had a field day with Robertson over the past year over statements he has made on his "700 Club" program. Many evangelicals have attempted to distance themselves from him, while some have issued public statements of rebuke. Here are five of his most controversial statements:

• ''You read the Bible and he says 'This is my land,' and for any prime minister of Israel who decides he is going to carve it up and give it away, God says, 'No, this is mine.''' -- Pat Robertson, suggesting Jan. 4 that Ariel Sharon's stroke was divine retribution for ''dividing God's land''

• ''I'd like to say to the good citizens of Dover: if there is a disaster in your area, don't turn to God. You just rejected Him from your city.'' -- Robertson in November 2005, chastising a Pennsylvania town that had ousted school board members for advocating the teaching of ''intelligent design''

• ''If he thinks we're trying to assassinate him, I think that we really ought to go ahead and do it. It's a whole lot cheaper than starting a war.'' -- On Venezuelan President Hugo Chavez in August 2005 (Robertson later apologized, saying he was speaking out of frustration)

• ''I think the gradual erosion of the consensus that's held our country together is probably more serious than a few bearded terrorists who fly into buildings.'' -- On whether ''activist judges'' are more of a threat than terrorists, May 2005

• ''Maybe we need a very small nuke thrown off on Foggy Bottom to shake things up.'' -- Referring to the State Department's location while criticizing the agency, October 2003

It amazes me is that someone like Ward Churchill can equate the men, women, and children killed in the World Trade Center bombings to Nazis who deserved to die, and we are told to "respect his right to free speech." Let a well-known religious figure make statements of a simular nature, and he is considered a threat to world peace.

Still, words have impact. The wrong words can destroy. Hugo Chavez used Robertson's words to demand that evangelical groups leave Venezuela. God informed Job that words without wisdom "darken counsel".(Job 38:2) Enough said.

If You're Happy And You Know It...

The Pew Research Center recently released a study of happiness in America.

Americans have always had a thing about happiness. We all have certain unalienable rights, declares our Declaration of Independence, among them "life, liberty and the pursuit of happiness."

So then, a couple of centuries into the chase, how are we doing?

Alas, only so-so. Just a third (34%) of adults in this country say they're very happy, according to the latest Pew Research Center survey. Another half say they are pretty happy and 15% consider themselves not too happy. These numbers have remained very stable for a very long time.

The study in its entirety is interesting, but when delineating between people of faith and those without, the numbers were significant.

People who attend religious services weekly or more are happier (43% very happy) than those who attend monthly or less (31%); or seldom or never (26%)... The same pattern applies within all major religious denominations. For example, 38% of all Catholics who attend church weekly or more report being very happy, while just 28% of Catholics who attend church less often say they are very happy. The survey also finds that white evangelical Protestants (43%) are more likely than white mainline Protestants (33%) to report being very happy, but this difference goes away after taking frequency of church attendance into account.

So the world has all of the fun, eh? Maybe not. Perhaps the writer of Psalms 144:15 had it right: "Happy is that people, whose God is the LORD."

Where Were You on Evolution Sunday?

Over 455 churches in 49 states agreed to participate in "Evolution Sunday" on February 12. Over 10,000 men and women of the cloth signed a statement declaring:

Within the community of Christian believers there are areas of dispute and disagreement, including the proper way to interpret Holy Scripture. While virtually all Christians take the Bible seriously and hold it to be authoritative in matters of faith and practice, the overwhelming majority do not read the Bible literally, as they would a science textbook. Many of the beloved stories found in the Bible - the Creation, Adam and Eve, Noah and the ark - convey timeless truths about God, human beings, and the proper relationship between Creator and creation expressed in the only form capable of transmitting these truths from generation to generation. Religious truth is of a different order from scientific truth. Its purpose is not to convey scientific information but to transform hearts.

Baptist, Methodist, Catholic, Presbyterian, Church of Christ, Lutheran, Disciples of Christ, and clergy of other denominations affirmed their belief in sermon on the infallibility of Darwin and his theories. As Brian Bauknight, a Methodist minister from Bethel Park, Pennsylvania said:

I've told you before and I want to say this again: I take the Bible very seriously; but I do not always take it literally. I never have. In particular, I have never taken Genesis 1 and 2 literally. I believe that Abraham and Jacob and Joseph and Moses and Joshua and David and Solomon were real historical figures. But Genesis 1 and 2 is made up of parables—reverent images. They proclaim a great truth without being history. I believe what they say, but I don't believe they are documented history.

I'm assuming that man being made in the image of God (Gen. 1:26) is an ongoing metaphor used throughout the Bible (Gen. 9:6, I Cor. 11:7, Col. 3:10, and Jam. 3:9).

Who are we to believe? The Bible or Darwin?

A zookeeper came across an orangutan reading two books. One was the Bible; the other was Darwin’s Origin of Species.‚“Why are you reading such opposite books?” the zookeeper asked. Replied the orangutan, “Well, I’m trying to figure out if I’m supposed to be my brother’s keeper or my keeper’s brother.”

Anglican Church, WCC "Stick It" to Israel

The AP ran an interesting article on Saturday about a subject that has gotten more and more coverage within the church world: investments in Israel.

A wide-ranging, global gathering of Christian leaders has become a forum for a question that one delegate calls a religious minefield: Should churches use their investment portfolios to protest Israeli policies toward Palestinians? The debate cuts across ethics, interfaith ties and Holy Land politics and has taken on an even sharper edge since the Church of England approved a motion for "morally responsible investment" earlier this month. It could lead the church to eventually reshuffle its $1.53 billion in stocks away from companies it considers aiding or profiting from Israeli control of Palestinian territories.

There have been numerous documented cases of Israeli atrocities in the Palestinian territories. For example, the Israelis for years bulldozed the houses of families of suspected militants. Imagine your grief if your child, perhaps against you wishes, blew themselves up in an Israeli diner or bus. As you walk home from a memorial service, you are confonted with this:

The Church of England will examine whether to sell Caterpillar stock, valued at roughly $4.4 million. Pro-divestment campaigners allege its construction equipment is used to demolish Palestinians homes. Caterpillar says it adheres to all "local, U.S. and international laws and policies" where it sells products.

Israel was commanded when they first arrived in Palestine thousands of years ago: "Thou shalt not oppress a stranger: for ye know the heart of a stranger, seeing ye were strangers in the land of Egypt." (Exodus 23:9) It is extremely distressing to see the "pro-Israel at any cost" attitude of many Evangelical Christian groups that turn a blind eye to wrongs committed by Israel. Wrong is wrong, regardless of who commits it. However, I'm not sure going after Catepillar, an American-based company, will resolve anything.

The real issue, however, is one not approached in the article. What exactly is a church organization doing with 4.4 million in stocks in a company? Come to think of it, what is a group claiming to follow a man who didn't own a roof to cover His head (Luke 9:58) doing with over 1.5 billion in unused funds? The Anglican church has over half of its 80+ million membership in Africa. Many of these live in some of the poorest parts of the continent, in areas stricken by AIDS, poverty, and war.

The Bible teaches that one of the signs of the anointing of the Spirit is that the poor have the gospel preached to them (Luke 4:18). When Paul was commissioned by the Apostles to go to the Gentiles, the only admonition gave him was, "Remember the poor" (Galatians 2:10). Jesus in Matthew 25:31-46 indicated that how we respond to the needy was an indication as to whether or not we were indeed His followers. James went so far as to say that, if we see a fellow believer destitute and naked, and did nothing, we are "useless" (2:15,16).

1.5 billion in investments. Millions of members in poverty. You do the math.

St. Thomas: Patron Saint of the Skeptical

"Now that I am a Christian I do have moods in which the whole thing looks very improbable: but when I was an atheist I had moods in which Christianity looked terribly probable."- C. S. Lewis

I was raised in an environment in which questioning what one believed and why the believed it was synonymous with unbelief. Upon attending a small seminary in Missouri, I quickly fell at odds with at least a couple of my instructors. Much of it stemmed from my constant asking of a single question: "Why?" We constantly sang songs with phrases in them such as "I have no doubt", "I don't need to understand, I just need to hold His hand", and other statements of unshakable faith. Outside of the churchouse, however, I heard a different tune. "Why did God let this happen to me?" "Why do evil people get off scott-free?" Many other questions in a similar vein were voiced by those who claimed unshakable faith in both song and statement.

I heard numerous sermons on "the sin of unbelief". Ironically, while the Bible had some pretty strong things to say about doubt, this phrase was never found in Scripture. Nor was another sermon I hear a great deal of: "Doubting" Thomas. Of all of the Apostles, Thomas was maligned second only to Judas Iscariot. Such has been the tradition of many Christian writers for centuries.

In truth, Thomas was probably a bit more of a realist than many of the Apostles. Consider Simon Peter: "I would die with you!" (Mat. 26:35). Thomas made a similar statement: "Let us go, that we may die with him." (John 11:16). The difference is that one comment was made as a brash statement, while the other was made in resignation to the obvious: Jesus was going to Jerusalem, and he intended to die.

Quite frequently, the Apostles didn't quite "get it", but were afraid to ask (Mar. 9:32). Thomas, on the other hand, was in part responsible for one of the most awesome answers Jesus ever gave. Consider this passage in John 14:5-7 :

Thomas said to Him, "“Lord, we do not know where You are going, and how can we know the way?" ”Jesus said to him, "“I am the way, the truth, and the life. No one comes to the Father except through Me.If you had known Me, you would have known My Father also; and from now on you know Him and have seen Him."(NKJV)

In the end, Thomas believed no more or no less than any of the other Apostles. After all, what did he not believe? Ten other men who had seen Jesus die just as he had. These were the same men who didn't believe Mary Magdalene when she claimed to have spoken to a risen Jesus (Mark 16:11). So why do we treat Thomas differently?

Men have long questioned God, His plans, and His ways. Consider Job, Moses, or Jeremiah. (If Jeremiah was still alive, you'd have a hard time convincing me that he didn't plagiarize his prayer in chapter 12 from my journal.) Sometimes God never answered their questions. Sometimes, with men such as Thomas, He did.

Perhaps Tennyson put it best: "There is more faith in honest doubt, believe me, than half the creeds." I am grateful to a God who has grace for the seekers who, like Thomas, refuse to accept things just because they were told to accept them.