T-Bone

Maybe you're confusing what people teach and do with the end result [the fruit] of what they teach and do - the fruit on a tree is the culmination of its work - and can only produce the type of fruit peculiar to its species. I guess you want to complicate or deviate from Jesus' SIMPLE instructions. Identify false prophets and wolves in sheep's clothing by their fruit! What has been the fruit – the end result – of VPW's teaching and practices? Impressive fruit – yeah right – a hodge-podge of erroneous doctrines, numerous victims of his sexual advances and an organization that carries on his legacy of using people for the sake of its own existence! I am appalled that you would put VPW in the same category as the writers of Scripture. Okay – we're talking about humans here – everyone sins – yup, yup. Why look at old David – he committed adultery and orchestrated the death of the woman's husband. The apostle Paul claimed he was the chief of sinners. But in these or the other writers – I don't see a lifestyle DOMINATED by sin! When the Bible slaps a label on someone I think it's because their life is so dominated by what they do – it is in essence what they have become – someone is termed an "adulterer" or a "murderer" or a "thief" for example... When is a thief not a thief? Do you say when he's not stealing? Well - I say maybe he's sleeping or lacks opportunity to steal at the moment.I get the idea from the Bible [like Ephesians 4:28 he that steals – stop stealing – start working that he may have to give] a thief is no longer a thief when he becomes something else – a worker that gives to someone in need….When was VPW not a sexual predator? …Let's make this real easy – stand back from the tree – especially all you tree-huggers out there - just enough so you can look at the fruit.

So you disagree with what Jesus said in Matthew 7: 15-20 15 Watch out for false prophets. They come to you in sheep's clothing, but inwardly they are ferocious wolves. 16 By their fruit you will recognize them. Do people pick grapes from thorn bushes, or figs from thistles? 17 Likewise every good tree bears good fruit, but a bad tree bears bad fruit. 18 A good tree cannot bear bad fruit, and a bad tree cannot bear good fruit. 19 Every tree that does not bear good fruit is cut down and thrown into the fire. 20 Thus, by their fruit you will recognize them. I know this is a rather simple idea to grasp – but I'll risk pointing out the obvious for the benefit of those want to cut through the smokescreen of hypocrisy prevalent in some religious outfits. In the above verses Jesus did not say we're to go through each piece of fruit on a particular tree and determine if the tree is overall good or bad. His instructions were a lot simpler than that – look at the type of fruit on the tree – that indicates what type of tree it is. Especially noting verse 20 – by their fruit you will know them. In my opinion – Jesus' instructions appear to lend themselves to being an extremely easy process for determining CONCLUSIVELY whether or not one is dealing with a false prophet or wolf in sheep's clothing. I know – a little too simple for some people's taste. But if you consider how simple Jesus' criteria for judging people is [verses 21-27] – those professing to do work in His name and those building a house – He says nothing about what these people taught. 21 Not every one that saith unto me, Lord, Lord, shall enter into the kingdom of heaven; but he that doeth the will of my Father who is in heaven. 22 Many will say to me in that day, Lord, Lord, did we not prophesy by thy name, and by thy name cast out demons, and by thy name do many mighty works? 23 And then will I profess unto them, I never knew you: depart from me, ye that work iniquity. 24 Every one therefore that heareth these words of mine, and doeth them, shall be likened unto a wise man, who built his house upon the rock: 25 and the rain descended, and the floods came, and the winds blew, and beat upon that house; and if fell not: for it was founded upon the rock. 26 And every one that heareth these words of mine, and doeth them not, shall be likened unto a foolish man, who built his house upon the sand: 27 and the rain descended, and the floods came, and the winds blew, and smote upon that house; and it fell: and great was the fall thereof. It appears to me that the Master's criteria is a simple standard of whether or not someone is DOING the will of the Father and if they hear Jesus' words and DO them…Which kind of brings me back to thinking about the beginning of Matthew 7. Perhaps Christians are to keep in mind the Lord's criteria for judging people and reflect on how our own lives stack up to that. Maybe we wouldn't fall into hypocritical judging so easily. True – only the Lord knows the answer of where someone is at [according to verses 21-27] – we cannot see into another person's heart or even understand our own sometimes. Perhaps that is why He gave a very simple method for discerning false prophets and wolves in sheep's clothing – we don't look on the inside [the heart] but on the outside [the fruit].

I used to follow that same line of reasoning when I was in TWI. Now, I'm not saying there's anything really wrong with that line of thought…but I think it tends to blur the issues. Especially so after reading Matthew 7 – a WHOLE chapter of the Master teaching discernment – laying out various categories and reference points for comparing things that differ. I know this is not Doctrinal so I'll try to be as brief as possible…Matthew 7: 1, 2 "Do not judge lest you be judged. For in the way you judge, you will be judged; and by your standard of measure, it will be measured to you." In my opinion this is one of the passages that some mistakenly interpret as prohibiting all moral judgment. However, when read in the context of the whole chapter – it is one item of a discourse on discernment. The first section [verses 1-20] call for us to make a decision, a judgment, between things that differ. Then verses 21-27 indicate Jesus' criteria – how He judges people. Furthermore, note Jesus' qualifying term in verse 5 "You hypocrite, first take the log out of your own eye, and then you will see clearly to take the speck out of your brother's eye." It appears to me what Jesus is forbidding is hypocritical judging. In fact, He said you can help your brother with his little problem once you remove your own BIG problem. And skipping to verses 15 and 16 for another item relevant to your statement - consider the warning to beware of false prophets and that they are identified by their fruits – that is something you can see – and the Master said we're to make a judgment call – is their fruit good or bad? ...In fact – I don't really see any verses in this chapter where the Master tells us to compare our lives and walks to Him. I agree there is no comparison with our feeble attempts at doing good and His walk on earth. I am tempted to think when religious leaders pull out the we're-not-to-judge-others-card they are really not wanting anyone to scrutinize their own lives. In the memories of my TWI experience there is something so disturbingly incongruous between the pulpit preaching and behavior modeling of VPW. It's flat out horrifying how VPW would yell at responsible adults in the Way Corps for failing to put God first by not coming to the Rock or Corps week – putting them down because their job had a higher priority. Yet the sexual predator log in VPW's one good eye seemed to be his highest priority – whether he was sabotaging the morals of his leadership-in-training by showing his favorite doggie porn video or drugging up the next victim for his other log.

This is a great move on NASA's part - seeing how we're rapidly depleting our cheese resources!

Great posts everyone! keep it coming...I really wasn't concerned about limiting this thread to journaling - the main thing was self-awareness - whatever facilitates the process. WaterBuffalo - that book sounds interesting - I'll have to check it out. ...ooops - almost forgot - the reason I started this in About the Way - was also for thoughts about doctrines, programs and practices in TWI that hindered the self-awareness process.

Oh I disagree - what if the clothing store sales manager also happened to be the TWI-man-of-god-for-your-area!

Thanks for your post, George – at least I know I’m not going crazy! Most of the time Tonto does the shopping – man she’s got grocery shopping down pat. Occasional I’ll go – but not without her “holding my hand” via cell phone – there’s just too many well-guarded secrets know only to the fully initiated ones. Ages ago, I’m in Sam’s looking for Cheer laundry detergent. Up and down the isle with all types of cleaners – around and round I go – finally I’m on the phone “I’m telling yah, there ain’t no laundry detergent here by the name of Cheer – they’ve got this stuff ColorGuard Cheer – and I’ve looked on every side of the damn box – it doesn’t say what this stuff is.” Her response “Uh huh – that’s it.” Doggone it - if they ain’t gonna have truth in labeling – how about a little hint!

I have recently gotten into journaling after some encouragement from Bagpipes. And the more I thought about it I realized similarities with some processes at work with journaling and posting/reading at Grease Spot Café. For me it has a lot to do with developing self-awareness. I have to confess I was hesitant with getting back into journaling – I did it religiously in the Way Corps. And in reviewing those old journals I am disappointed by how superficial they are and exhibit more traits of self-delusion than self-awareness… Wikipedia says self-awareness is a unique type of consciousness in that it is not always present, and something usually not sought after. http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Self-awareness The Dictionary of Psychology by Arthur & Emily Reber defines self-awareness as the sense of having a relatively objective but open and accepting appraisal of one's true personal nature. I think part of self-awareness would encompass reflecting on things like my intentions, actions, and emotions. While in TWI, especially during my Way Corps training I never saw the need to concern myself with any of that – since I was too busy "learning how to move the Word." And really considering the hectic pace maintained in the Way Corps program - there wasn't much time for anything as frivolous as thinking about myself. …And in thinking about having so little personal time in residence, burdened with umpteen tasks/busy work and the lack of self-awareness I found an interesting article by Gaia Vince of a study on the brain switching on/off self-awareness: "Everybody has experienced a sense of "losing oneself" in an activity – being totally absorbed in a task, a movie or sex. Now researchers have caught the brain in the act. Self-awareness, regarded as a key element of being human, is switched off when the brain needs to concentrate hard on a tricky task, found the neurobiologists from the Weizmann Institute of Science in Rehovot, Israel. The team conducted a series of experiments to pinpoint the brain activity associated with introspection and that linked to sensory function. They found that the brain assumes a robotic functionality when it has to concentrate all its efforts on a difficult, timed task – only becoming "human" again when it has the luxury of time." Above excerpt from: http://www.newscientist.com/article.ns?id=dn9019&feedId=online-news_rss20

Welcome to Grease Spot, Motherof2. The first cup of Cappuccino is on me…This thread will probably be moved to Doctrinal – but I will give my short answer here: Reading VPW's JCNG after I left TWI I find his handling of Greek words clumsy and his documentation inadequate. And personally – not sure exactly where I stand on the Jesus is God/not God issue - - but will no longer condemn someone for which side they fall on. I tend to lean towards Him being God – but not God the Father – I don't pretend to understand the Trinity or try to reconcile my beliefs with mainstream Christianity - - or even try to define or articulate exactly how I perceive my Lord. But I'm not too worried about that – I'm not the head of some religious group, or writing books on the subject. I'm more concerned with how to please my Lord – and figure if He was that concerned about the issue He would have made it so clear in the Bible that even a dummy like me could figure it out :) . I started a thread awhile back in Doctrinal over this issue called, "With Apologies to Jesus and the Trinity, What's the big deal in the Jesus is God/not God debate?" http://www.greasespotcafe.com/ipb/index.ph...st&p=220633 I recommend you use the Search feature of GSC. You can look up lots of topics. You'll find there's a broad spectrum of beliefs here at GSC on any given subject. And that's what's great about this place. Freedom to think!

Happy Birthday, Medic...you are a brave soul...This is the only way I'd come over there and do that:

I was thinking physical death was a normal occurrence back then – and perhaps Adam and Eve witnessed it happening in the animal kingdom all the time. Perhaps the tree of life was only for humans…There's a lot of things to consider with the curse, the earth, changes in nature. Besides the first humans being pristine models right out of the factory so to speak – I imagine there diet was more conducive to good health…and even imperceptible changes – like in the atmosphere. Some people suggest a water canopy surrounded the earth…a big greenhouse effect – which later collapsed around Noah's time. If that was indeed the case – without that protective filter…perhaps allowed a greater concentration of harmful UV rays – another one of the many factors contributing to a shorter lifespan. …It is a lot of fun to talk about this stuff. I learn quite a bit from threads like this. Something that has really struck me on this one with talking about the Bible and Science – is the value of other viewpoints and the power of critical thinking…Last night I read from the beginning of this thread and took up Garth's suggestion to Google that Kent Hovind guy – holy cow! He ain't helping the creationist's cause any! Man if that guy doesn't sound like he came out of the same type of TWI-whacko-mold as UNdoctor VPW – then I'll eat my Grease Spot T-Shirt! Now what am I saying about viewpoints and critical thinking? That it's important to know that my viewpoint acts as a filter when taking in data – the Bible or science stuff. Critical thinking – ideally should help keep me aware of that filter – maybe at times changing it or removing it. Maybe it helps in understanding someone else's viewpoint too. …What have I gotten out of this thread so far – a number of things. I no longer have such a harsh view of evolutionists. Thinking about Garth's post # 72, Viewpoint is a big deal – it has a significant role in how we process incoming info – whether it's how we interpret a passage of Scripture or scientific evidence. What Garth said got me to stop and think about a lot of things. I was royally pi$ $ ed off when he would rant about idiots like Hovind – I felt like he was lumping all creationists in the same pile. But I realized I was doing that with my view of evolutionists.

Thank you all for coming to our guitar fellowship this morning. Remember our meeting always starts in ¾ time on your Guitar Watch unless otherwise specified by our fellowship conductor. Please turn on your Amplified Bibles so we can play something from Genesis – and while they’re warming up [some of us old timers still have tube amps] let’s sing an old favorite hymn of mine “Amazing Crates how sweet the sound that saved a Gretsch like me.”

…Thinking out loud here…The first mention of death is in Genesis 2:17 – the penalty for eating of the tree of the knowledge of good and evil. Some people [myself included] interpret that to mean a spiritual death [a separation from God]. We read in Genesis 3:22-24 God drives Adam and Eve out of the garden of Eden and posts cherubim and a flaming sword to block access to the tree of life, verse 22, “…lest he put out his hand and take also of the tree of life, and eat, and live forever…” …So I wonder – maybe it wasn’t that they were built not to die – but that they had the potential to live forever if sustained by the tree of life. I think the death in Genesis 2:17 refers to a spiritual death [separation from God] and Genesis 3:22-24 refers to a physical death [separation of life-force from the body]…I dunno – just speculation…

Pretty cool...the Trunk Coordinator visiting the twigs.

Tune it may concern, I think it's about time you wind it up on this Guitar Watch business. Perhaps I'm sticking my neck out here - but surely there's something more productive we can do with hour time.

Whew - that's good - do you think anyone will notice the reference to the pick up on the Guitar?

Got it! So it's sort of been an evolution of the evolution theory…My intent wasn't to debunk anything – like I said earlier – I'm explaining why I don't buy it …You're darn right I'm slipping up… My two greatest fears in regards to this subject are that my belief system will slowly evolve into something Darwinesque or I'll be re-incarnated in the next life as an evolutionary biologist.

What makes you think that?

Have you tried looking in Pawn Shops - to see if you can pick up a Guitar Watch second hand.

Happy Birthday, Ron !!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!! The above part of an FBI sting operation - airborne division.

What I think is funny – the quotes from that link I gave came from some respectable people in the fields of paleontology and evolutionary biology. Thought I'd just mention a couple below along with their quotes. Wikipedia gives this of Stephen Jay Gould Stephen Jay Gould (September 10, 1941 – May 20, 2002) was an American paleontologist, evolutionary biologist, historian of science, and professor. He was an influential and widely read writer of popular science of his generation; commentators called him "America's unofficial evolutionist laureate." Gould spent most of his career teaching at Harvard University and working at the American Museum of Natural History in New York. And more info on him at: http://www.annonline.com/interviews/961009/biography.html From (Gould, Stephen Jay, The Structure of Evolutionary Theory, 2002.): "...the tale itself illustrates the central fact of the fossil record so well [the] geologically abrupt origin and subsequent extended stasis of most species...Anatomy may fluctuate through time, but the last remnants of a species look pretty much like the first representatives." (p. 749) "...the greatest and most biologically astute paleontologist of the 20th century...acknowledged the literal appearance of stasis and geologically abrupt origin as the outstanding general fact of the fossil record and as a pattern which would 'pose one of the most important theoretical problems in the whole history of life.'" (p. 755 quoting George Gaylord Simpson) "...the long term stasis following geologically abrupt origin of most fossil morphospecies, has always been recognized by professional paleontologists." (p. 752) "The great majority of species do not show any appreciable evolutionary change at all. These species appear in the section (first occurrence) without obvious ancestors in the underlying beds, are stable once established and disappear higher up without leaving any descendants." (p. 753) "...but stasis is data... Say it ten times before breakfast every day for a week, and the argument will surely seep in by osmosis: 'stasis is data; stasis is data'..." (p. 759) Gould debunks the: "exceedingly few cases that became textbook 'classics' of coiling of Gryphaea and the increasing body size of the horses etc." (p. 760). "Indeed proclamations for the supposed 'truth' of gradualism - asserted against every working paleontologist's knowledge of its rarity - emerged largely from such a restriction of attention to exceedingly rare cases under the false belief that they alone provided a record of evolution at all! The falsification of most 'textbook classics' upon restudy only accentuates the fallacy of the 'case study' method and its root in prior expectation rather than objective reading of the fossil record." (p. 773) Niles Eldridge Niles Eldredge has been a paleontologist on the curatorial staff of the American Museum of Natural History since 1969. His specialty is the evolution of trilobites—a group of extinct arthropods that lived between 535 and 245 million years ago. Eldredge's main professional passion is evolution. Throughout his career, he has used repeated patterns in the history of life to refine ideas on how the evolutionary process actually works. The theory of "punctuated equilibria," developed with Stephen Jay Gould in 1972, was an early milestone. Eldredge went on to develop a hierarchical vision of evolutionary and ecological systems, and in his book The Pattern of Evolution (1999) he unfolds a comprehensive theory (the "sloshing bucket") that specifies in detail how environmental change governs the evolutionary process. Concerned with the rapid destruction of many of the world's habitats and species, Eldredge was Curator-in-Chief of the American Museum's Hall of Biodiversity (May, 1998), and has written several books on the subject—most recently (1998) Life in the Balance. He has also combated the creationist movement through lectures, articles and books—including The Triumph of Evolution...And The Failure of Creationism (2000). An amateur jazz trumpeter and avid collector of 19th century cornets, Eldredge has turned his evolutionary approach to cornet history—and to the comparison of patterns and processes of material cultural and biological evolution. A critic of gene-centered theories of evolution, Eldredge's Why We Do It (2004) presents an alternative account to the gene-based notions of "evolutionary psychology" to explain why human beings behave as they do. Eldredge is the Curator responsible for the content of the major exhibition Darwin, which opened at the American Museum of Natural History in New York on November 19, 2005. The exhibition travels to Boston, Toronto and Chicago before going to the Natural History Museum in London in time to celebrate the 200th anniversary of Darwin's birth in 2009. His book Darwin. Discovering the Tree of Life (2005) accompanies the exhibition. http://www.nileseldredge.com/biography.htm "Paleontologists ever since Darwin have been searching (largely in vain) for the sequences of insensibly graded series of fossils that would stand as examples of the sort of wholesale transformation of species that Darwin envisioned as the natural product of the evolutionary process. Few saw any reason to demur - though it is a startling fact that ...most species remain recognizably themselves, virtually unchanged throughout their occurrence in geological sediments of various ages." (Eldredge, Niles, "Progress in Evolution?" New Scientist, vol. 110, 1986, p. 55.) "Darwin's prediction of rampant, albeit gradual, change affecting all lineages through time is refuted. The record is there, and the record speaks for tremendous anatomical conservation.. Change in the manner Darwin expected is just not found in the fossil record." (Eldredge, N. and Tattersall, I., The Myths of Human Evolution, 1982, p. 48)

I do not subscribe to the "gap theory" between Genesis 1, verse 1 and 2. As I said in post # 64 – I understand Genesis 1:1 to be a summary statement for the beginning of all matter, energy, space, and time. Genesis 1:2 "Now the earth…" indicates a shift in the reference points of time and location…a shift from talking about the very beginning of the cosmos to a point further down the timeline and a single planet in the cosmos. Unfortunately, for all the chronology buffs no dates are mentioned in the text. I lean towards what the astrophysicists, astronomers, geologists, paleontologists, etc. say about the age of the cosmos and the earth. [it's kinda old]. You'll have to talk to those who believe in the 6,000 year old thing and work out that dilemma with them. I cannot speak for other Christians – or for anyone else for that matter when it comes to interpreting Scripture. I can only speak for me. I'm not perfect – I may be whacked out on some theories I hold. I expressed some of my thinking process in my previous post when it comes to relating my faith to reality – when I gave my reasons for leaning towards the Big Bang theory of the beginning of the cosmos. I analyzed all the data available to me and chose what I thought integrated best with both faith and reason. Garth, I liked what you said about "There are a good many Intelligent Design advocates who do this, as well as Christians who accept evolution as the physical means of creation. Ie., God did it, but He didn't do it according to the literal Genesis account or He did it via evolution." I don't have a problem with that. I could be wrong on some of my interpretations of Scripture. I am not arguing that my way is the right way – I'm explaining my way. That's what I've been doing over this evolution thing. I don't subscribe to it because somebody in Christendom labeled it taboo. From what I understand of the Scriptures and science – I don't buy it.

I never asserted that evolution is based on a materialistic philosophy. Although that's probably a logical connection with what I said. The reason I think Darwinism is based more on a viewpoint rather than facts is because he made inferences that were actually opposite from the evidence. Which I will pick back up on in a minute after - - LindyHopper - I understand what you're saying about the process of science being to understand and explain things by what it can see, measure, test, etc. "You cannot blame a scientist for not considering God in their equation for life because God is not something they can test and observe. God is faith based and science is based on empirical data." I agree. I admit that is something that I do as a Christian when assessing scientific information. For instance, looking at what's been written on the Big-Bang theory compared to the steady-state theory of the universe – I lean towards the Big-Bang theory – not only because I think the data is more consistent with the laws of physics and astronomical artifacts [like background radiation, expanding universe] but because it points to a singular-event beginning of the universe as described in Genesis 1:1. - - now back to Garth - The only evidence for or against evolution is the fossil record. The argument for evolution is based on what could have happened. We don't have any video footage via extreme-time-lapse-photography showing how all these things came about. As I mentioned in my post # 64 Darwin admitted there lacked supportive evidence for his theory in the fossil record. What does the fossil record suggest? Species do not arise gradually. They just appear on the scene. Most species appear to look the same from appearance to disappearance. http://www.genesispark.com/genpark/after/after.htm

Darwin's viewpoint pops up intermittently throughout his body of work – not just elsewhere in Origin of Species - as can be seen from this excerpt from Darwin's the Descent of Man, chapter 21, General Summary and Conclusion: http://www.literature.org/authors/darwin-charles/the-descent-of-man/chapter-21.html "The moral nature of man has reached its present standard, partly through the advancement of his reasoning powers and consequently of a just public opinion, but especially from his sympathies having been rendered more tender and widely diffused through the effects of habit, example, instruction, and reflection. It is not improbable that after long practice virtuous tendencies may be inherited. With the more civilised races, the conviction of the existence of an all-seeing Deity has had a potent influence on the advance of morality. Ultimately man does not accept the praise or blame of his fellows as his sole guide, though few escape this influence, but his habitual convictions, controlled by reason, afford him the safest rule. His conscience then becomes the supreme judge and monitor. Nevertheless the first foundation or origin of the moral sense lies in the social instincts, including sympathy; and these instincts no doubt were primarily gained, as in the case of the lower animals, through natural selection. The belief in God has often been advanced as not only the greatest, but the most complete of all the distinctions between man and the lower animals. It is however impossible, as we have seen, to maintain that this belief is innate or instinctive in man. On the other hand a belief in all-pervading spiritual agencies seems to be universal; and apparently follows from a considerable advance in man's reason, and from a still greater advance in his faculties of imagination, curiosity and wonder. I am aware that the assumed instinctive belief in God has been used by many persons as an argument for His existence. But this is a rash argument, as we should thus be compelled to believe in the existence of many cruel and malignant spirits, only a little more powerful than man; for the belief in them is far more general than in a beneficent Deity. The idea of a universal and beneficent Creator does not seem to arise in the mind of man, until he has been elevated by long-continued culture." End of excerpt I don't consider this a desperate attempt to tie evolution to some secular or atheistic philosophy. I'm just making some observations – and just thinking out loud about what was his thinking process. When I consider the evidence [the fossil record, physical laws of science, experimentation by breeding, genetic research, etc.] – I come to a different conclusion on HOW these things came to be. A person's viewpoint is going to come out in their work – it is after all a governor of HOW we process information. That leads me to your statement: "Or what about all the geological/archeological/astronomical evidence/information that directly counters and contradicts the biblical account?" You need to be more specific. As I said in post #64 – from my viewpoint [pointing out the obvious] I don't see any contradictions between the Bible and true science [the study of the physical world]. But I don't think the purpose of the Bible was ever to promote science or to teach man scientific information – in my opinion the Bible is for those on a spiritual quest. I believe God has left man free to explore this world, to discover things, invent things, to grow, to advance – honoring His gift of the world to man in Genesis 1:28 telling him to fill the earth and subdue it. As a modern man I am, technologically speaking, more informed than the people of the biblical time period. This of course plays a part in my viewpoint when reading Scripture. Just as the lack of advanced science and technology played a part in the viewpoint of the writers of Scripture. So in Genesis, we find a description of the creation in unscientific terms – so the main idea given is not to declare all the laws of physics, genetics, etc. – but simply that the creation is attributed to God. In Job 26:7 we read "He spreads out the northern skies over empty space; he suspends the earth over nothing." Guess if God told me to write about that – I'd feel I'd have to dress it up for our audience with reference to the gravitational forces He set up in the universe. Or If I had to write Isaiah 40:22 where it reads, "He sits enthroned above the circle of the earth, and its people are like grasshoppers…" wouldn't impress most folk today unless I had a satellite picture of the earth next to my text.

Perhaps these definitions would help.The following from: http://skepdic.com/materialism.html "philosophical materialism (physicalism) Philosophical materialism (physicalism) is the metaphysical view that there is only one substance in the universe and that substance is physical, empirical or material. Materialists believe that spiritual substance does not exist. Paranormal, supernatural or occult phenomena are either delusions or reducible to physical forces. Materialists are not necessarily atheists, nor do they deny the reality of such things as love or justice, beauty or goodness." The following from http://www.thefreedictionary.com/philosophical+materialism "The theory that matter and energy are the only objects existing within the universe, and that mental and spiritual phenomena are explainable as functions of the nervous system of people. Same as materialism." With the above definitions in mind and reviewing Origin of Species – I would say that the term is applicable to Darwin – being how the main thrust of his work was natural selection. He denies the work of a higher power - as seen in the following last paragraph of the introduction of Darwin's Origin of Species – a key phrase I put in bold: http://www.literature.org/authors/darwin-charles/the-origin-of-species/introduction.html "No one ought to feel surprise at much remaining as yet unexplained in regard to the origin of species and varieties, if he makes due allowance for our profound ignorance in regard to the mutual relations of all the beings which live around us. Who can explain why one species ranges widely and is very numerous, and why another allied species has a narrow range and is rare? Yet these relations are of the highest importance, for they determine the present welfare, and, as I believe, the future success and modification of every inhabitant of this world. Still less do we know of the mutual relations of the innumerable inhabitants of the world during the many past geological epochs in its history. Although much remains obscure, and will long remain obscure, I can entertain no doubt, after the most deliberate study and dispassionate judgement of which I am capable, that the view which most naturalists entertain, and which I formerly entertained — namely, that each species has been independently created — is erroneous. I am fully convinced that species are not immutable; but that those belonging to what are called the same genera are lineal descendants of some other and generally extinct species, in the same manner as the acknowledged varieties of any one species are the descendants of that species. Furthermore, I am convinced that Natural Selection has been the main but not exclusive means of modification."