In a thought-provoking exchange, Bob Enyart examines how theistic evolutionists blur the lines between science and faith, essentially stripping Genesis of its foundational truths. Through a series of seven observations, we expose the lack of a viable secular theory of origins, offering a critical view that theists often overlook. This discussion extends to biblical creation narratives and their implications on human consciousness, challenging listeners to consider the theological compromises made by educational institutions. Bob poses an assertive argument: without God’s special creation, the field of origins holds no credible ground.
Greetings to the brightest audience in the country and welcome to Bob and your live today. We are playing the first portion of my father and predecessor Bob in yards video trading Genesis trading Genesis for secular origins. This was a presentation that he gave at Pepperdine University in in California and it’s so sad to see that many major Christian denominations many major major christian schools and colleges they have traded away genesis because the thought is oh genesis is not scientific genesis does not match up with current modern science and so they trade genesis away for secular origins However, the sad thing about this is when you look at secular scientific theory, they have no theory of origins. The best that they can come up with is abiogenesis, which is that, hey, maybe life came from non-life and the entire field of abiogenesis, all of that research that has been done, it’s come up as a dead end. They can’t figure out how to get life coming from non-life after… millions of dollars spent, years of research. And the more they study, the bigger of a problem it becomes. And so Christians, what we have done is we have traded Genesis and we have gotten nothing in return. So that was the premise of this presentation that Bob gave at Pepperdine University in California. We’re going to play just the first portion of this here today. If you want to get the entire thing, you can find that by going to rsr.org. That stands for Real Science Radio. rsr.org and click on the store. Check out Trading Genesis. You won’t regret it. Let’s jump right into the broadcast.
SPEAKER 02 :
A year ago, during the Pepperdine Bible Lectures, professors at the university presented a six-part series on theistic evolution. Yet the Church of Christ School refused to allow some of their alumni to present a class on biblical creation. So a year later, Real Science Radio received an invitation to come to this short-changed, though absolutely gorgeous, Pepperdine University campus to participate in a Bible and science event to respond to those theistic evolution classes. Greetings to the brightest audience in California. I am Bob Enyart, and Fred, he’s my co-host, Fred Williams. He’s the funny-looking one there on the right, a software engineer and creation speaker. For our Real Science Radio Caveman show, we took this publicity shot at Red Rocks Park just down the road from our studio in the foothills of the Rocky Mountains. When the Pepperdine administration traded away the literal reading of Genesis for the secular explanation of origins, what did they get for that trade and what did they give up? And it’s not only the administration, it’s the staff too, including the affable Professor Chris Hurd, who I met briefly today. I mentioned the public invitation in this week’s Malibu Times for folks to attend our Creation Science event here on the Pepperdine campus, and I extended a personal invitation to him. And Dr. Hurd said that he couldn’t make it today, but that he may be able to attend our dinosaur soft tissue presentation tomorrow morning. That’d be great, of course. So there’s Chris Hurd and his fellow theologian, Professor Chris Duran, and the biology professor here, Rodney Honeycutt, and then also Rich Little, the senior Church of Christ minister at Pepperdine. I’m going to argue that they got nothing for that trade, and they gave away a lot more than just the age of the Earth. Regarding the scientific study of origins, theistic evolution, as held by its leading proponents, is virtually indistinguishable from atheism. Did you know that the theistic evolutionists typically reject intelligent design? Let that sink in for a moment. Especially the leading theistic evolutionists, they reject even intelligent design. And did you know that old earth Christian colleges also deny the global flood? So theistic evolutionists reject intelligent design and old earth Christian colleges deny the global flood. compromise is never satisfied. It’s one thing to compromise on the literal reading of Genesis and so you become a theistic evolutionist, but then they can’t even accept that there’s evidence for God the designer in biological life. That’s what I mean by compromise is never satisfied. As soon as you compromise at one level, you will be then enticed to compromise again. If Christian colleges were to teach the truth, their students would learn that science agrees with the straightforward reading of the Bible. But instead of siding with Moses with his account in Genesis, Pepperdine University has chosen instead to side with the secular world stories of origins. Atheists claim that God doesn’t exist, but what actually doesn’t exist is a secular theory of origins. That does not exist. They don’t even have a theory for Pepperdine to side with. I’ll give you seven observations to establish my point that secular theories of origins, like on the origin of species, or the origin of stars, or the origin of life, or the origin of the universe, I’ll give you seven observations to make my point that if you abandon Genesis, no theory of origins even exists for you to side with. The last two of these seven perhaps require discussion because these first five I can just list because they should be obvious to anyone even casually familiar with the state of secular science. So number one, the origin of species for Darwinists begins with species already in existence. So as with all of these observations, they’re not explaining the origin if they begin with that thing already in existence. So again, number one, the origin of species for Darwinists begins with species already in existence. And number two, based on everything actually proposed in the literature. The origin of genes begins with a modification of existing genes. And number three, the origin of stars begins with the explosion of existing stars. I just read this again in National Geographic’s latest Space Atlas, where a couple hundred pages. And when they get to the formation of stars, they say there’s a gas nebula in space. and a star explodes, and that explosion creates a pressure wave that condenses the gas so it could form a star. And as I’m reading, I’m thinking, aren’t you guys cheating? Because if you’re going to explain the origin of stars, you can’t begin with stars already existing. And that’s our third observation, the origin of stars begins with the explosion of existing stars. The origin of life on Earth is claimed increasingly to have come from pre-existing life on other planets. Number five, the origin of the universe is increasingly explained to have come from a pre-existing multiverse. Those five observations disprove the belief that secular theories of origins even exist Atheists say that God does not exist. In reality, their theories of origins do not exist. And so apart from the special creation revealed in Scripture, there are no theories of origins. And the few hypotheses that have circulated for a while are in full retreat. So that’s five, but we still have two more observations to go, which will further the point that Pepperdine, by abandoning the plain reading of Genesis, doesn’t even have a theory of origins to side with. The sixth observation regards consciousness, and the seventh regards a scheme, a biological information scheme. For realize that just as old earth Christian colleges also deny the global flood, so too the leading theistic evolutionists even reject intelligent design, for compromise is never satisfied. For example, the BioLogos organization, founded by the famed theistic evolutionist Francis Collins, they are staunch opponents of intelligent design. As with so many leading theistic evolutionists, they insist on something called methodological naturalism. That is the atheist claim that it’s against the rules even to look for the existence of a creator. It’s against the rules even to look at, say, biological organisms for evidence of intent, of will, of design, of purpose. Collins has written that evolution is how God created life. And so he came up with the name for his group, BioLogos, to be a synonym for theistic evolution. Bio for evolution, and logos, well, because, and our k ain’t no logos, kai ho logos, and pros ton theon, kai theos ain’t no logos. In the beginning was the word, and the word, logos, was with God, and the word was God. and the word became flesh and dwelt among us. So that’s his purpose for biologos, theistic evolution. So back to consciousness, our sixth observation. If there is no special creation of biological life, as asserted by all secular scientists and many leading theistic evolutionists, then there certainly is no secular theory of origins for anyone to side with. because human consciousness is part of existence, perhaps the most extraordinary part. And if your theory doesn’t explain our consciousness, then not only don’t you have a robust theory of origins, you don’t even have a working hypothesis to explain where we’ve come from. So as with many other religious institutions, because Pepperdine is not the only one, of course, sadly, Pepperdine has discarded God’s special creation and therefore has sided with a position that doesn’t even exist. For the choice has always been and always will be either God or nothing. If you side with God and his word, you have the truth. Let God be true and every man a liar. So if you trade in God’s word for something else, the only thing you can get in return is nothing. For again, theistic evolution in practice is indistinguishable from atheism. And why is that? The theory of evolution is claimed to answer not the why question, but the how question. And its central answer to the how question is its only non-negotiable answer. And that is the diversity of life arose, and this is their non-negotiable, from a non-directed process. That’s it. The diversity of life arose from a non-directed process. So if theistic evolution were to propose a directed process directed by God, then that would entirely gut the theory of evolution, for you can’t have a directed, non-directed process. So because you can’t have both, which one do you think will win out? Well, even the term theistic evolutionist, that’s an adjective and a noun, or theistic evolution. So the substantive, the noun, wins out. these evolutionists, they give the credit to their methodological naturalism, and then there’s not much left over for their theism to explain. Charles Darwin cheated with the title of his book on the origin of species, for he began with species already in existence. For propaganda purposes, to sell atheistic origins to the general public and to gullible academia, Darwin exploited the number in the word species, for it takes the same form whether singular or plural species. So with that title, the origin of species, millions of people since 1859 have assumed that Darwinists have scientifically explained the origin of life. But they haven’t. and they won’t because they can’t. Life is information-based, and information is not physical. Awareness is not physical. So consciousness requires a soul. God gave to plants a body, to animals a soul, and to men a spirit. God gave to plants only a body. So plants cannot feel pain. They cannot have relationships. They can’t disapprove of the plucking of their fruit. And neither can a tree grieve the lopping off of its boughs. To some animals, God gave a body and a soul. a nephesh, a soul, of varying depths and quality, so that many animals can feel pain, relate, and can even have rudimentary emotions. To Adam and Eve, God gave a body, a soul, and a spirit, so that we can experience the full range of awareness, passion, and relationship, and especially so that we could come to know our Creator God. The magazine founded by Billy Graham, which has become increasingly worldly, Christianity Today, they promote theistic evolution. In their cover story titled The Search for the Historical Atom, which we reviewed on the air at Real Science Radio, you can hear that online at rsr.org, Christianity Today denies that God made Adam of the dust of the earth. Instead, they claim that Adam was a barrel of monkeys, literally. Well, they no longer take God’s word literally, but they sure do take theistic evolution literally. And so they claim that about 200 ape-like creatures following Francis Collins and Biologos and the theistic evolution camp in many Christian circles They claim that about 200 ape-like creatures had evolved sufficiently by strictly natural means, of course, to where God could then put a spirit into them, and so Adam was really 200 ape men who all became human. That’s what’s being taught at our Christian colleges, and that’s what was promoted by that issue of Christianity today. World-famous atheists have pointed out that such a claim destroys the gospel itself. And these are atheists pointing this out. Because if there was no curse at the tree, then why would Jesus become a curse on a tree? And if sin didn’t enter the world through the first man, then the epistles are wrong on that too. Eight times the New Testament mentions Adam by name. by the inspiration of the Holy Spirit, by three different New Testament authors. That’s eight times. Twice, the Bible records Jesus Christ discussing the making of mankind, quote, at the beginning of creation. And by the way, not after millions of years, but at the beginning of creation, as Jesus said. And also, regardless of what perversion may be forthcoming from the U.S. Supreme Court regarding their current case, we’re expecting their opinion in June, Jesus said that God made them male and female. at the beginning of the creation, male and female. There’s so much truth, of course, in the words of the Lord. And just as the leading theistic evolutionists even reject intelligent design for compromise is never satisfied, so too Old Earth Christian colleges also deny the global flood, even though the New Testament presents Noah’s flood as a historical event. The apostle Peter recalled that the Lord waited patiently, quote, in the days of Noah while the ark was being prepared, in which a few, that is eight souls, were saved through water. Now, the Roman Catholic Church wrongly claims that Peter was a pope. Yet because the Vatican rejects special creation, they also reject the flood. even ignoring their so-called first pope, who wrote, again, now in his second epistle, that God, quote, did not spare the ancient world, but saved Noah, one of eight people, a preacher of righteousness, bringing in the flood on the world of the ungodly. And Peter then essentially warned Pepperdine and all the churches of Christ and all the denominations and believers who named the name of the Lord. Peter warned all of us that in the last days, scoffers will claim that all things continue as they were, That sounds like Charles Lyell and Charles Darwin’s uniformitarianism. All things, scoffers will claim, that all things will continue as they were, for this they willfully forget, that the world that then existed perished, being flooded with water. The epistle to the Hebrews reminds us that, quote, Noah, being divinely warned of things not yet seen, moved with godly fear, prepared an ark for the saving of his household. Wow. Jesus himself described the world before the flood. With the majority ignoring God until, as the Lord said, until the day that Noah entered the ark. This is Jesus speaking. Until the day that Noah entered the ark and… the flood came and took them all away. In fact, Jesus referenced each of the first seven chapters of Genesis, taking them literally, while every single author of the New Testament Every one of them referred to at least one of the first 11 chapters of the book of Genesis. So when you step back, even if you are an unbeliever, you should be able to see that the secular world certainly doesn’t have any robust theory of origins. And in fact, the few hypotheses that they did have are in full retreat. And if you are a Christian, or at least claim to be a Christian and step back to take in the big picture, you should be able to see that you have traded away God’s special creation for what? for nothing, because without God there is nothing. Now for the seventh observation that makes our point that there are no secular theories of origins. And this one regards a scheme, a biological information scheme, in very general terms, by way of, again, what they call methodological naturalism, What is the materialist theory for how to originate the scheme to encode a protein sequence onto a DNA molecule? And that’s supposed to be an instruction set for building that protein. Atheists have nothing to explain how that would have originated. You could search the literature all you’d like. You could immerse yourself in the RNA world. You could think of nothing but adenine and cytosine. The secular evolutionists, and thus also the leading theistic evolutionists, have not taken even a first baby step. In more than a half century since the DNA double helix was discovered, they have not taken even a baby step toward explaining how a symbolic scheme can arise from only matter and energy, by which information then could be encoded. Atheists and therefore all methodological naturalists, including Francis Collins and Biologos and Pepperdine, they have nothing. and without God’s special creation. They will forever have nothing because an understanding of physics and information affirmatively demonstrates that the laws of physics do not include symbolic logic functions. Information is not physical and hence strictly material systems cannot give rise to information systems. Here’s another way of stating this. Real Science Radio asserts that not a single journal paper has ever proposed even a vague theoretical method of how a scheme of biological information could have arisen by material processes. Now how can we say that? Have we surveyed the millions of published peer-reviewed papers? No, of course not. But we say that because just like it is impossible to even to think about how to give consciousness to a computer because it’s such an impossible absurdity that it is literally unthinkable. You can’t even think of how to do it. Okay? Give consciousness to a computer. So too, the idea of matter giving rise to a symbolic coding scheme is such an impossible absurdity that it is literally unthinkable. It is impossible even to propose a possible solution. So that goes beyond just saying that it’s impossible. You know, it’s impossible for someone to jump to the moon, right? But science fiction writers, they could imagine how to do it if it could be done. They’d get some super strong guy like the Hulk and have him jump as hard and as high as he can and aim for the moon. His leg muscles just need to generate an absurd amount of force and there he goes. Now let those same secular science fiction writers imagine how to give consciousness to a computer. I’m not saying that they haven’t thought up plenty of hows and datas and Frankensteins, but I am saying that they have no way of even thinking about the problem of what you would have to do to bring consciousness, which is not physical, to a strictly material entity. They don’t even know how to think about the problem. And likewise, they simply can’t even think of how matter and energy can originate a symbolic information scheme, such as how to code the amino acid sequence of a protein into a database. Can’t even think, begin to think of the solution to that problem from an evolutionary perspective. Before Matter could even try to come up with the scheme itself, and I realize all the absurdities in this, as though Matter is gonna try to do anything, but that’s part of their problem. Before Matter could even have the opportunity to come up with the scheme itself, the symbolic scheme of encoding information, here are three prerequisites it would need to begin with. First, it would need a protein or some other life-enabling device. Second, it would need a database like an information molecule that could contain the instructions for building that protein. And by the way, it takes, what is it, now they’ve identified about 150 proteins to make one protein. So how do you solve that problem if you’re an atheist or, like the professors at Pepperdine, if you’re a methodological naturalist? How do you evolve some kind of stepwise problem process to create a protein when you need 150 proteins to make one protein. But anyway, so first you need a protein, then you need a database, and then three, you need a mechanism to implement the instructions to build the protein. So you need those prerequisites. And they are prerequisites because what could bring a genetic code into existence if no protein existed for it to build? And after all that, you still wouldn’t have the symbolic code itself, even if you had all that. the symbolic code, the scheme that we’re talking about, the manner of representing in the information molecule the instructions for building the protein. Materialists cannot answer this question because it is unanswerable, because information is not physical. Therefore, they don’t even know how to think about a solution, let alone actually solving the problem. The nucleotides in our DNA, the rungs of the DNA ladder, they are genetic letters. They’re not like letters. They are letters. They are genetic letters. And the order of those letters are not determined by the laws of physics, but by the…
SPEAKER 01 :
Stop the tape. Stop the tape. Hey, we are out of time. If you want to get the entire presentation, Trading Genesis, you can find that at rsr.org and then click on the store and check out the Trading Genesis video. You won’t regret it. Hey, may God bless you guys.
In a thought-provoking exchange, Bob Enyart examines how theistic evolutionists blur the lines between science and faith, essentially stripping Genesis of its foundational truths. Through a series of seven observations, we expose the lack of a viable secular theory of origins, offering a critical view that theists often overlook. This discussion extends to biblical creation narratives and their implications on human consciousness, challenging listeners to consider the theological compromises made by educational institutions. Bob poses an assertive argument: without God’s special creation, the field of origins holds no credible ground.
