Gist: Clarifying a very popular view about the topic Article 13 (from my latest book, A Controversial Clergyman) It is too widespread a confusion for me to leave it unchallenged. I am talking about the claim that belief is inferior to knowledge (without more, as lawyers would say). Michael Abrahams’ column in the Gleaner yesterday (July 9, 2018) betrayed this confusion and I had to deal with it in passing in a public forum at UTECH in 2001 involving Dr. Leahcim Semaj and Mutabaruka. Every statement purporting to be fact or true is a belief. Indeed, if you call to mind the basic moods in English language sentences, then if it is not a question (interrogative mood), a command (imperative mood), a wish (subjunctive mood), then it is in the indicative mood (an assertion, claiming something). Every such assertion or claim qualifies as a belief, but since some beliefs are quite… read more
Apologetics
Check out the new book, A Controversial Clergyman, by Rev. Dr. Clinton Chisholm. Now available on Amazon.com. A Controversial Clergyman showcases, provocative Newspaper Articles to Foster Critical Thinking on Social, Societal, Legal, Church and Public Speaking Matters. Promoting Critical Thinking Everywhere In the Caribbean, no commentator or journalist arrives at the level of sophistication represented by Clinton Chisholm. His evaluations of things theological, political and cultural, stand leagues above average fare. Those outside the Caribbean would learn much reading him. His new book is simply “must†reading for anyone who wishes to think seriously about contemporary issues in light of classical values. John Warwick Montgomery, Ph.D., D.Th©ol., LL.D. Professor Emeritus of Law and Humanities, University of Bedfordshire, England Gain experience in critical thinking from the Caribbean’s finest apologist, Rev. Dr. Clinton A. Chisholm. who is at his provocative best in A Controversial Clergyman. This book has 33 of his best… read more
The more popular claims of borrowing or influence between Christianity and the mysteries pertain to the birth/death/resurrection of Jesus Christ. What were the mystery religions? The mystery religions (contrary to George James’ book Stolen Legacy: Greek Philosophy is Stolen Egyptian Philosophy) were really Hellenistic religions, called ‘mystery’ because they involved secret ceremonies that were thought to bring their initiates some special benefits. They were more or less based on the annual vegetation cycle of life (spring) and death (fall). Each religion originated from different areas. From Mesopotamia—Tammuz or Dumuzi (the Sumerian version); from Egypt—the cult of Isis and Osiris (later called Serapis); from Greece—the cults of Demeter and Dionysus which later developed into the Eleusinian and Orphic mystery religions; from Phrygia in Asia Minor—the cult of Cybele and Attis; from Syria/Palestine—the cult of Adonis and from Persia (modern Iran)—the cult of Mithra (twin brother of the Zoroastrian god Ahura Mazda). Before responding… read more
The Bible is probably the only ancient text that any Mike, Mary or Marcia waxes warm about despite stark ignorance of the book’s actual texts and historical contexts (plural). The lay critic may be very educated but (s)he and even most Christians need to understand how to read an ancient text from a different linguistic and cultural milieu than ours. I illustrate the need with the issue of slavery in the Bible, an issue I had to deal with in a Barbados newspaper years ago in response to a learned critic there. Said critic charged that “Slavery is justified in both principle and practice throughout the Old and New Testament.†Most of us learned in English literature class the basic point that a text must be read in light of its context. What contextual cues do we need to bear in mind to read the Bible responsibly? Well for starters we need to… read more
Scientific Problems for Atheists ‘Village atheists’ and the more educated ones need to read and properly digest the contents of Antony Flew’s last book. The late world renowned British Philosopher and ‘most notorious atheist’ Antony Flew in his last book gave details of the thinking that led him to abandon atheism. The book published in 2008 was titled There is a God. One of the three cardinal issues that made Flew abandon atheism was a critical event which he said could not at all be explained from a naturalistic or materialistic base but which made sense if you invoke God. Drawing on the work of fellow philosopher David Conway, Flew raises the first of three challenges to Darwinian naturalism. He says, “The first challenge is to produce a materialistic explanation for ‘the very first emergence of living matter from non-living matter. In being alive, living matter possesses a teleological [purpose-driven]… read more
Any statement about causation or origin which uses the word chance is worthless, philosophically. The academic credentials or prestige of the person making such a statement is unimportant, the statement is still worthless. Take for example the basic belief held by most Astronomers and atheists prior to Vesto Slipher’s expanding universe discovery in 1913, “the Universe simply exploded into being, by chance, at the big bang and thus there’s no need for any God.†Or ponder the words of the Nobel scientist Jacques Monod in his book Chance and Necessity, “…chance alone is at the source of every innovation, of all creation in the biosphere. Pure chance, absolutely free but blind, at the very root of the stupendous edifice of evolution…†(page 112) Let me alert you to the fact that though we tend to use the word ‘chance’ loosely, chance is not a substance or entity that can… read more
A popular view among many people today is that all truth is relative; no truth is objective. By objective is meant true by means independent of the person asserting any truth-claim. For example, if someone says, “Fish is my favorite meat†that statement would be true relative to the experience of the speaker. In contrast, if someone should say, “All living things have encoded biological information in their DNA†that statement would not be relative to the speaker’s perception for it would be true regardless of who made the statement. Objective truth then, is truth beyond mere opinion. It is truth verifiable and undeniable as fact by rational beings other than the one making the claim. Strangely then, despite so much talk about living in an Age of Science & Technology that is remarkable, the belief is so common that ‘all truth is relative’. Indeed, this notion prevails not only… read more
It may be rebutted but it cannot be refuted that no one can live and no academic discipline can operate without faith, properly defined! Faith, like its twin sister hope, is fragile but is a fundamentum in life, by that I mean it is absolutely foundational to life. So you ask me what then is faith in my book? As I have argued in lecture theatres and urged in sermons, faith is belief, based on but slightly in excess of evidence. Hope, if you must know, is confident assurance about the ‘not yet’. Those who are familiar with Hebrews 11.1 may be wondering about the nature of my definition. For those who lack familiarity with the Bible I’ll quote that text then explain the difference between it and my approach to faith. Heb. 11:1, from the New Revised Standard Version reads, “Now faith is the assurance of things hoped for,… read more
Ancient books are not always, if ever, easy to read properly, unless one can find helpful background information. The Herods in the New Testament are not clearly differentiated, so we read about King Herod in Mt. 2:1(re the nativity of Jesus) then there is a King Herod in Mk. 6:18 (the one whom John rebuked for marrying his brother’s wife) and there is yet another King Herod in Acts 12:1-2(who had James the brother of John killed). Same guy? No. The King Herod of the nativity accounts was King Herod the Great, that master-builder who was appointed puppet King of the Jews in 40 BC and who ruled as King of Judea from 37 BC until his death in 4 BC. When Herod the Great died in 4 BC the territories under his jurisdiction were divided among his sons. So [Herod] Archelaus (called ‘Herod the Ethnarch’ on his coins) ruled… read more
I found an article written by the “Script Howard News Service” with the following heading: “Bush is of Two minds, One is Wrong.” As I read on I notice they say: “When it comes to science, President Bush is of two minds, one of which is wrong.” “Concerning the space shuttle program, he defers to the views of experts.” “In a conversation with Texas reporters, he said that ‘the experts at NASA’ will determine whether the shuttle should be retired before 2010.” “But when it comes to science education, he unfortunately sees no need for experts. Answering a question about evolution vs. intelligent design, he said it was a question for local school districts, but he felt ‘both sides ought to be properly taught.’” And he added, ‘so people can understand what the debate is all about.” “But among experts, there is no debate worth mentioning. The theory of evolution… read more
The simplest conceivable life form has about 600 protein molecules. The chance that even a SINGLE molecule could form by chance arrangement of the sequence of the amino acids in it would be between 10^450 and 10^600, depending on whose data you study. How many INCHES LONG do you suppose it is from one end of the universe to the other, at least with our present astronomical knowledge? Can you guess? It is about 10^28! That seems a small number, but consider that the distance is in INCHES. And to form ONE molecule the probabilities are from 10^450 to 10^600? How outrageous does the data have to get before it becomes laughable? Remember that the theory of evolution says that this happened not once, but again and again and again. It seems apparent to me that we are dealing not only with a ridiculous theory, but with a sick theory,… read more
There is also a theory out that, as an embryo develops, its many appearances at different times reflect its `evolution`. This applies to all embryos, whether it be a bird, as turtle, or a human. I was taught this theory in college. Do you know when this theory was proven wrong? Back in the 1920`s. As someone once said, `There is nothing more fun than to watch an intelligent man expound on a stupid idea`. So what can you say? The above theory was called the `Biogenetic Law`, and it has been proven wrong or proven totally implausible so many times that it is ridiculous to even consider it. “This theory is now completely discredited by most embryologists.” – Dr. Jeffrey Bryne Over fifty years ago, Dr. Waldo Shumway [sp] of the University of Illinois said: “Experimental embryology demands that this hypothesis be abandoned.” If that’s the case, why is… read more
Lets talk about creationism versus the theory of evolution in regard to the various disciplines of science. We have already spoken of the astronomical side of this question. We will now consider the study of cells. These cells make up every living thing. What evidence is there in this area, which will settle the question of evolutionism versus creationism? If the theory of evolution is correct, then the accidental synthesis of the DNA molecule had to have taken place. As biological science learns more and more about the complexity of the cellular structure, the realization that this feat is impossible has set in. The DNA molecule can only be replicated in the presence of certain enzymes; numerous, complicated enzymes. Those enzymes themselves can only be replicated in the presence of DNA molecules. So, which came first, the chicken or the egg? It is not enough to `simply` synthesize the DNA… read more
Next we will discuss “The Religion of Evolution”. First, a definition from Webster`s New World dictionary: Religion – a. A belief in a supernatural power; b. an expression of this belief in conduct or ritual; c. a specific system of belief or worship involving a code of ethics; d. an object that is zealously pursued. Obviously, if you are a creationist, one or more of these definitions would apply to you. You would probably believe that this supernatural power created all things. You should have a code of conduct that you try to make an integral part of your life, as outlined in the Bible, at least for all of us in attendance here. Also, you should also believe that this supernatural power, having created this magnificent universe, also has the power to override what we would call infallible physical laws. These “overrides” are called “miracles” by most people. Does… read more
Next we will consider the fossil record. If there is anything that can tangibly “prove” the theory of evolution, the fossil record would be the most likely. Fossils can of course be seen, handled, and examined. It has been instilled into this generation that the age of anything can be absolutely proven. As we have seen from our study of the various dating methods, there is very little that is absolute in the `science` of dating. The methods and results are at best questionable. Recent advances in science has shown that there are questions regarding things once thought absolute. I have read that scientists have discovered that the speed of light is slowing down. There is evidence that atomic clocks do not run at a constant rate. They, too, are slowing down. Concerning the fossil record, let me read what a leading scientist has said: “The fossil record reveals the… read more
Now let`s consider the demands of creation versus the demands of the theory of evolution. First, creation demands the presence of a Creator. The theory of evolution demands the absence of a creator. Second, creation demands the creation of matter. The theory of evolution has no explanation for the origin of matter. Third, as for the time span of the existence of the universe, creation demands the time span of recorded history. The theory of evolution demands eons of time, billions of years. Fourth, creation demands a `spirit world`. That is, the presence of a `higher power`, one who created this universe and governs its operation. This `higher power` is the giver of life. The theory of evolution does not allow for a higher power or a giver of life. The theory of evolution says life emerged spontaneously from non-living matter. Fifth, there is the fossil record. Creation demands a… read more
The Bible teaches that the Heavens, Earth, and all life on Earth was created by direct acts of God during a relatively short period, calculated to be sometime between 5,700 and 10,000 years ago, by Biblical scholars. The Genesis accounts of Creation teaches us that God created the Earth in six 24-hour days, taking a literal interpretation of the Genesis accounts of creation. The evolutionary consensus, supported by a 2006 statement by 68 national and international science academies, is that it is “evidence-based fact” that the universe has existed for around 15 billion years, that the Earth was formed about 4.5 billion years ago with life appearing at least 2.5 billion years ago. Evolutionist would go as far as to laugh at those who believe that the earth is much younger than what we have been taught under the guise of science. Now, 5,700 to 10,000 years is a very,… read more
One of the things we have been pounded with is the amount of time necessary to allow mutations to produce modern-day species. The evolutionists are desperately looking for time, because if you can produce enough time, you can hide the many weaknesses of the theory of evolution. But eons of time are an absolute necessity, simply because of the amount of mutations necessary, as we saw in the previous post. There are a number of `clocks` that are used to judge the age of the universe. We will see whether or not these `clocks` are reliable. We will see whether or not the universe is really as old as the theory of evolution postulates. The first is radio-metric dating. Potassium argon or uranium lead is used to determine how old something is. Carbon-14 is radioactive carbon. Carbon normally has 12 electrons, but occasionally a carbon atom has 14… read more
I recently read that if you took one chromosome from a human and stretched it out, it would be seven feet long. ONE chromosome. It would be so thin you could not see it even with an electron microscope. If you took ALL of the chromosomes in the average human body and stretched them in a chain, they would extend back and forth to the moon 200,000 times. I want you to know that there is an enormous amount of genetic information in the human body. If you took the genetic information in your body and entered it into your computer word processor, it would require enough paper to more than fill the Grand Canyon. It takes an enormous amount of information to produce a human from the sperm and ovary. It takes a gigantic amount of genetic `instructions` to produce a human. The theory of evolution says that by… read more
I want you to know that the theory of evolution looks pretty good if you look at it from a distance. When you get right down to the `nuts and bolts` of evolution, it is in deep trouble. One of the leading scientists of this age has called evolution `incredible`. The definition of `incredible` is not `amazing`. `Incredible` literally means `without credibility`. He said that “the problem is, the only alternative is creation.” In effect he meant that since he `knew` creation is `wrong`, he HAD to believe evolution. This was not a man making fun of creationism. This is a scientist, and true scientists all over the world realize that the theory of evolution is in deep trouble. Yet they cling to it, because to do otherwise would be to admit the existence of God. In the 1800`s and in the past, we knew so little about the life… read more
In accepting the theory of evolution, we are asked to accept as fact many other theories. Evolution is not one theory, but a complex series of theories. It is based upon many preconceived `facts`. Any time someone begins piling theory upon theory, the stack of theories becomes like a chain. The failure of any one theory can easily nullify the others. In `believing` in evolution, we are asked to believe that all of the different forms of life on earth began from a `primeval soup`. No one knows where this `soup` was, or what happened to it. No one can say what happened to suddenly bring forth life from the `soup`. What evidence is there to prove or disprove the theory of evolution? Is evolution a workable explanation for the origin of the Universe, the planet Earth or Life? Were The Universe, The Solar System, The Earth, and Life… read more
Evolution for the most part is based on one’s interpretation of sedimentary strata and the fossils found therein. Those who believe in Evolution appear to be convinced that the fossils found in rock layers all over the earth are the definite proof that creatures have been evolving upward into higher life forms over hundreds of millions of years. Evolutionists declare this process has been taking place through “natural selection” and “mutation”, which leaves behind in its wake, the old models, so to say, which are replaced by higher forms of life. You will find that the mindless processes that are alleged to take place in and through Evolution are nothing more than a fantasy that has been thought out by men who have rejected the Bible and the one and only true God of Creation. Below we will discuss a few of the fossil evidences and a few biological facts… read more
What is life? Is it just having the right combinations of proteins in just the right order? Is a man nothing more than a collection of substances and chemicals that happened to somehow `become alive`? Evolutionists claim that the process of life was started by some unknown process, millions (or billions) of years ago. This is the foundation of the evolutionary theory. Is there proof that this is really what happened? One of the greatest weaknesses of evolutionary theory is that there are too many forms of life to have happened by chance, and the building blocks of life are too complex to have just somehow `happened`. Could a cell by chance come into being that “has the DNA instructions to fill one thousand 600-page books?” -(National Geographic). Examples: 1. Research has shown that the requirements for life are so complex that chance and even billions of years could… read more
The Bible is not primarily a book of science, but it does contain numerous scientific facts. We laugh at some of the scientific data that was available  just a few hundred years ago. If man alone were the author of the Bible, we would expect to find many such errors contained in it. However, if we examine the scientific data of the Bible and find it to be accurate to present-day scientific laws, then we have powerful evidence for divine inspiration given by God to the authors. The scientific data found in the Bible are not only accurate, but were revealed thousands of years before man discovered them for himself. The Bible does not contain any errors typical of the time in which it was written. Would we expect anything less from a book inspired by God? The scriptures are replete with statements suggesting scientific knowledge which predates the corresponding… read more