The Preterist Blog ~ 100% Hyperpreterist Free|we can haz rezurekshun?

For those who might be sitting on the fence regarding JL Vaughn’s agenda, I think this recent quote of his should remove any doubt.

 

 

Those who claim to be anti-evolutionists, are actually hyper-evolutionists. They have nothing against evolution. They are against long ages.

For example, YECs believe that dogs and foxes came from a common ancestor, the “dog-kind” on the ark..

Evolutionists believe that dogs and foxes came from a common ancestor, the “archaic canine” (which just means old dog-kind). At this level, YECs and evolutionists believe the same thing. Dogs and foxes “evolved” from an ancient dog-kind.

Neither group has fossil evidence for this claim. Both their views require an ancient “dog-kind,” therefore both hypothesize it. Both then assume it proven true by necessity.

Their primary disagreement with evolutionists is the timing.

Evolution vs. Creationism is nothing of the sort. It is slow evolution vs. hyper-fast evolution. They are all evolutionists

http://deathisdefeated.ning.com/profiles/blogs/who-are-they-evolutionists

The intellectual dishonesty of Vaughn is best manifested in his final 2 statements above where he states the only difference between one who avows the Biblical account of creation and the evolutionist is timing.  However, for those who believe in the Biblical account the linking of the common understanding of “speciation” is fundamentally different than Darwinian evolution.  Philip E. Johnson points out,

…everyone agrees that microevolution occurs, including creationists.  Even creation-scientists concur, not because they “have tightened their act,” but because their doctrine has always been that God created basic kinds, or types, which subsequently diversified.  The most famous example of creationist microevolution involves the descendents of Adam and Eve, who have disverisfed from a common ancestral pair to create all the diverse races of the human species. (Darwinism on Trial, Phillip E. Johnson, Intervarsity Press, pg 68)

Vaughn confuses the issues, suggesting the recognized “evolutionary” process that enables the diversity within a kind to develop is the same thing as Darwinian Evolution.  Herman Bavinck points out what occurred with Darwin that changed the issues, something Vaughn isn’t honest about.

….in the eighteenth century evolution was torn from its basis in theism and creation and made serviceable to a pantheistic or materialistic system….step by step this evolutionary theory was so refashioned that it led to the descent of humanity from animal ancestry (Reformed Dogmatics, Herman Bavinck, Baker Academic, pg 513)

The recognition that God had created the kinds of animals with the inherent capability to adapt to their environment isn’t the issue.  Heck breeders for years have known by breeding two types of the same kind of animal will produce new characteristics in their offspring.  The issue with Darwinian Evolution was the suggestion new “kinds” of animals could be produced resulting in the “theory” through the evolutionary process man came from subhuman life.  This is the concept JL Vaughn is attempting to insert although he isn’t openly telling his readers his intention.   JL Vaughn’s entire motivation is to suggest Adam was not the progenitor of humanity, a position not held within Christianity, a position which originated in paganism and continues on today in modern science through their advocacy of materialistic humanism.