Category: Uncategorized

Contradiction between Evolution and the Idea of Inevitability of Progress

Given Darwin’s mantra of “survival of the fittest,” it is clear that Darwinian evolution is a worldview that intrinsically requires a “conflict of interest.” In point of fact the whole notion of a “harmony of interests,” would be bad news in a climate that insisted that advance is only achieved by the survival of the fittest. When one combines this with the reality that there is no mind behind the unwinding of evolution one must add that the survival of the fittest is a survival that happens completely by chance in a random universe.

Further, because of the randomness necessary in a mindless universe all “facts,” are uninterpreted facts and therefore are brute meaningless facts with no stable meaning. These brute facts, like the survival of the fittest, are facts without relation to any other facts as they likewise struggle to exist. Facts can be wiped out just as species can be wiped out.

Conflict is thus inherent and is the substance of worldview Darwinian evolution. Whether the conflict for survival among the fittest or the conflict among various facticities conflict of interest is the mother’s milk of Darwinian evolution.

But here we come face to face with another key doctrine of humanism and that is the idea of the inevitability of progress. If “conflict of interest” is characteristic of worldview Darwinism then how can progress be inevitable? Indeed, in a mindless world governed by time + chance + circumstance how can progress even be measured or determined? In a mindless world where fact itself is in a contest of survival, how can humanists even be sure that the inevitability of progress is a warranted good to be desired?

If evolution is mindless and governed only by time + chance + circumstance then any notion of progress is itself subject to evolution. Progress at one point of the march of evolution might be Stalin’s Holodomor while progress at another point of the march of evolution might be Huxley’s “Brave New World.” Because of this to speak of the inevitability of progress is an automatic non-sequitur in Evolution’s own world and life view.

Only Christianity posits a sovereign creator God who orders all things to the end and purpose of a harmony of interest found in glorifying God in all things (Romans 11:33-36). Only Christianity holds to all of the creation longing to glorify God (Romans 8:19f). Only Christianity envisions all things enjoying the service of the interests of God anticipating that day when Christ so reigns so that all things are put under His feet so that all things serve His interests. This is the inevitability of progress that Christianity presupposes.

So, advance by the conflict of interests is contrary to Christianity except as that advance is characterized by defeating those interests which are in conflict with God’s harmony of interests. Since those things that make for conflict of interests in God’s cosmos are doomed for failure we can anticipate the one-day dawning of the postmillennial vision where the harmony of interests that is a metaphysical reality by nature of God’s rule will overcome the conflict of interests introduced into God’s reality by man’s ethical attempt to overthrow Christ’s Kingship. This is the Christian reason for embracing the inevitability of progress.

Reformed Baptist Ironies (or) Things we’d Like Reformed Baptists to Think About

There is an inescapable irony to tell people that grace is irresistible and unconditional only to tell people that infants can’t be baptized because they aren’t old enough to meet the condition of showing that irresistible grace wasn’t resisted.

A Few Observations on the Jared Taylor vs. E. Michael Jones Debate

There is an interesting debate on the issue of race over here;

https://odysee.com/@gtk:4/thegreatdebate:3?fbclid=IwAR0xl7-cS7L9J95A40jVwvbhwctyyV8Bk3Yd1T8tNNTrCAHddU1jPX4pwn0

The question being debated is “Is Race an Important Reality or is it a Fiction.” Jared Taylor argues that Race is an important reality and Dr. E. Michael Jones takes the position that Race is a fictional reality. One would have to view the debate to get the gist of Taylor’s and Jones’ distinction.

Contra both E. Michael Jones and Jared Taylor the white man is who he is because of his genetic legacy and because of the grace of the God of the Bible who has ordained civilizational Christianity as authored and carried by the Christian White man. To suggest, as Jared Taylor does, that the White man is what he is only because of genetics is rank materialism. On the other hand to suggest, as E Michael Jones does, that the White man is what he is only because of his “culture, language, and religion,” is embracing some kind of environmentalism. This Gnostic type of reductionism can be seen in this quote from the debate from Dr. Jones;

“What is the vehicle for the continuity of the Irish people? It’s not DNA. It is language, religion, and culture. That is the vehicle and that has in the past absorbed all different kinds of DNA (among the Irish).”

Jones here has completely dismissed genetics as having any influence on people and people groups opting instead to assert that people and people groups are only products of their environment.

In the end, in my estimation, Taylor vs. Jones in this debate reduces down to nurture (Jones) vs. nature (Taylor) argument. All a Biblical Christian can say to such a debate is “a pox upon both your houses.”

Man is a modified unichotomy — which is to say that man is body and soul that exists as united in life with each aspect identifiable as distinct but as so intertwined that only at death does a divorce take place.

It does us no good like Jones and Taylor to try and play man’s material reality against his spiritual reality. Man is a modified unichotomy and can not be understood outside of his modified unichotomous reality.

It is interesting that the Alienists in our discussions with them years ago made the same mistakes that Jones makes in his debate with Taylor while Taylor makes the same mistakes that the Marxists make when debating with Kininsts. So far as I know only Kinists — being Biblical Christians — understand that man is a modified unichotomy that must not be reduced to either only his corporeal side or only his spiritual side. Man is indeed influenced by his religion, culture, history, language as Jones maintains but man is not only influenced by his environment. Man is a corporeal being and that corporeality contributes to the identity of people and people groups.  In point of fact, it could be argued that environment (Jones) and genetics (Taylor) provide a kind of information loop that reinforces the influence of each — a loop that sinful man can only rise above by a supernatural conversion that has the ability to alter both nurture and nature.

If E. Michael Jones had his way there would be little diversity (maybe language) in Unity. If Jared Taylor had his way there would be little if any unity in diversity. Jones’ gives us the vision of a “Christianized” John Lenon. Taylor gives us the vision of Madison Grant.

There are some areas in which I think that Dr. Jones was correct. You go ahead and view the debate and tell me where I might agree with Jones.

McAtee Contra Littlejohn on Nationalism

“Nationalism can also err by defining the boundaries of the nation too narrowly—identifying a part of the nation with “the true nation,” and ostracizing the rest. This is one possible error of Christian nationalists if they allow themselves to think their unbelieving neighbors are not really fellow Americans; it is also the error of “white nationalism,” which conflates national identity with race. National identities may involve race and religion—and indeed many nations have historically been quite racially or religiously homogenous—but American national identity is necessarily looser and more varied.”

Brad Littlejohn

1.) Dr. Littlejohn needs to keep in mind the etymological definition of the word from whence “Nation” comes. That word is “natal.” Per the 1828 Webster dictionary “Nation as its etymology imports, originally denoted a family or race of men descended from a common progenitor, like tribe.” So contra the esteemed Dr. Littlejohn nations cannot be nations unless they are both racially and religiously homogenous. The lack of such homogeneity presages conflict and friction in the geographic area mistakenly being called a “nation.” So, Dr. Littlejohn is simply in error here.

2.) As to “unbelieving neighbors,” I would still consider them Americans though their embrace of different faith will work to the end of their ostracizing themselves from the larger community just as I am now ostracized from America because I do not embrace humanism which is the current religion of America. I am a historic American by race but not a current American because of religion.

3.) Dr. Littlejohn says that “National identities may involve race and religion.” This implies that National identities may not involve race and religion which is just utter nonsense. A nation that does not share a common race (it may be the common race of no race or all races such as is the modern multicult America currently) and a common religion (it may be the common religions of no and all religions as is the modern multicult America now) cannot possibly be a nation.

4.) Dr. Littlejohn ends by saying; “American national identity is necessarily looser and more varied.” First, I would say that historically this just is not true. America was made for the descendants of Europe which is explicitly stated in the US Constitution when the White Christian European founders inked;

We the people of the United States, in order to form a more perfect union, establish justice, insure domestic tranquility, provide for the common defense, promote the general welfare, and secure the blessings of liberty to ourselves and OUR posterity, do ordain and establish this Constitution for the United States of …

POSTER’ITY, noun [Latin posteritas, from posterus, from post, after.]

A. Descendants; children, children’s children, etc. indefinitely; the race that proceeds from a progenitor. -Webster’s 1828 Dictionary

Keep in mind that whether in the Continental Congress who inked the Constitution nor in the State Conventions that ratified the Constitution could you find anyone except White Europeans — and most of those were Christian.

The fact that we were not organized as “loosely and more varied,” as Littlejohn has it is seen in the writings of more than one founder. Here is John Jay;

“Providence has been pleased to give this one connected country to one united people,” a people descended from the same ancestors, speaking the same language, professing the same religion, attached to the same principles of government, very similar in their manners and customs.” –

John Jay
1st Chief Justice of the Supreme Court

Then there is The Naturalization Act of 1790 (1 Stat. 103) which provided the first rules to be followed by the United States government in granting national citizenship. This law limited naturalization to immigrants who were “free white persons” of “good moral character.”

So, whatever may be the case now, historically Littlejohn is in gross error to say that Americans have a National Identity that is necessarily looser and more varied.

Next, I would say that current America is NOT looser and more varied in terms of National Identity. In order to be a current American, you have to own a National Identity that finds unity in the fact that America now will always be a mutt nation with mutt religion. To insists that America should not be mutt in race or religion makes one effectively non-American. I see little of Littlejohn’s “looser and more varied,” in American identity today.

Thinking About Becoming Muslim

 “It’s our belief that one day mujahideen will have victory, and Islamic law will come not to just Afghanistan, but all over the world. We are not in a hurry. We believe it will come one day. Jihad will not end until the last day.”

Taliban commander to CNN Reporter

(The gospel age) “will finally result in the complete destruction of the church as a mighty and influential organization for the spread of the Gospel. For, finally every tribe and people and tongue and nation will worship antichristian government.”

William Hendricksen
More Than Conquerors p. 178

“God is not redeeming the cultural activities and institutions of this world… Those who hold a traditional Protestant view of justification consistently should not find a redemptive transformationist perspective attractive.”

David Van Drunen — Westminster Seminary California Professor
“Living in God’s Two Kingdoms”, pp. 13–21.

Of course, I am kidding about thinking about becoming Muslim. The point I am obviously making is that Islam has the advantage of not holding to a pussified religion such as we often see among putatively Reformed clergy. (Their name is legion.)  The Reformed faith, characterized as it is by the militant amillennialism of R2K glories in defeat.

Keep also in mind that in order for R2K to work as a social order religion that allows people from all different faiths to live in a common realm that is unaffected by religion what is required is all other religions to have their own version of R2K. Read that Taliban quote again. Does it sound like Islam is ever going to put up with a common square?

Modern Reformed Christianity is the religion of a sick and dying people.