This letter was written in 1999 to the Sydney Morning Herald, following an article by the religious affairs editor, Chris McGillion:
Chris McGillion in his piece on 'creation science' neglected one key point, in my view.
He told us that it is "bad science and bad theology", but by using bad philosophy and bad biblical analysis. Apart from skirting, rather than addressing, the issues raised, he forgot to tell us he was equivocating in his use of 'science' throughout the article.
No one disputes that all biological systems are similiar and we share a common chemistry of life, but it begs the question to say that this assures us that 'grand story' evolution really happened. By the fact of common habitat life chemistry must be common between all life! It could not be otherwise. Nor does anyone dispute that we see change in and of species.
The dispute is that the totalising 'grand story' evolution meta-narrative is anything more than a construction of religious materialism in its assertion that everything comes from nothing. It is thus in direct conflict with the non-materialist theism of Christianity.
That many Christians don't realise this comes as no surprise, as Christianity habitually chases after pagan intellectual fashions in the follorn hope of gaining a hearing, much to its shame, and with a dismal track record.
Subscribe to:
Post Comments (Atom)
Posts
9 comments:
I picked up Hank Hanegraaff's 'Counterfeit Revival' from Basement Books the other week. Although he's not saying anything new, the book did manage to reacquaint me with just how mad these churches are that profess such occurrences as slaying in the Spirit as being works of God.
Question: What have the Toronto Blessing churches and the Sydney Anglican Diocese got in common?
Well, both have effectively banned me.
Back to the book.
I found two relevant quotes in Hanegraaff's book.
Creationists have long wondered why it is so hard to communicate with SADs and how hard it is to move them away from their heresy. Mark Twain seems to offer us a clue. He wrote: "[How easy it is to make someone] believe a lie and how hard it is to undo that work again."
Evolution and long ages are that lie that SADs hold onto and aren't willing to give up despite what the Bible and science say about them.
The other thing that I've noticed is the degree that the SADs come to "stand up for each other", irrespective of where the truth lies. Concerning this Packer (that's J.I., not the Scientologist!) wrote,"We are not entitled to infer from the fact that a group of people are drawing nearer to each other that any of them is drawing nearer to the truth."
John, why would they give up evolution and long ages? This belief allows them to stay in with the world. Just remember the world is a sweet lover, always embracing and so often coming with a kiss. This sort of affection is really quite alluring.
Credibility, that's another attraction for holding to that belief. Gone are the days of theological institutions being concerned only for doctrine that sets it apart, even accused of foolishness for Christ Jesus. Theological institutions want to hold their head up (or is it down in the same trough?) with secular institutions.
No, the world wins and the revelation of Jesus Christ runs second.
Neil Moore
I was thinking of the polarities in belief the other day. Here are some contrasts: I went to a talk a few years ago at the Humanist Society. It was on evolution or creation?. The speaker, I think he was from Sydney Uni, spoke long and well, and was congratulated by the president. His talk opposed evolution and supported biblical creation.
Another time I went to a debate in Bankstown; it was at a church. Three speakers for biblical creation, three for materialist evolution. Both sides had book tables, and for we Christians, there were some great warm conversations with unbelievers.
I remember one older man, one of the Rationalists puzzled over the conjunction of God and suffering. He wondered how children could be allowed to suffer. I joined and wondered at the futility of ending life with death: what we all face as we age (he was quite old). His philosophy gave him no help. I talked about the hope I have not only becuase God who is love created, but he whi is love has acted to unite us with him across the divide of alienation and death.
Another time I went to a debate (at Christ Church St Ives) where the topic was biblical creation. The minister, Dr Woodhouse debated with Carl Wieland of Creation Ministries on the Bible's teaching on creation. Woodhouse gave a great display of shifting hermeneutics and strange biblical thinking. He talked about 'multiple creation accounts' (he was refering to biblical references to the single creation account in Genesis 1 and 2). Carl on the other hand, stood in the Reformed tradition, and took the Bible for what it said.
Now, the contrasts: I saw hearty open and honest talks and debates with the Humanist Society and the Rationalists. From SADists I saw equivocation, absurd special pleading and a veiled supercilious truculance.
Woodhouse is now principal of Moore College: I wonder what it will be turning out: more North Shore parish disaster mongers?
Critias,
I agree with your statements regarding the conversations which flowed from being biblically honest with atheists etc. I had that experience too at uni. I never had a problem with the atheists etc when I declared myself anti-evolution. The only problem I ever had was with the Moore College inspired groups on campus who were off in pixie land and regarded it as a distracting side issue.
Bloody side issue! Bloody side issue! Mad they were, totally bonkers!
You can talk all day about the cross but if the message ain't biblically whole and Jesus isn't presented as Lord and Creator, then it's not the Gospel. Paul, John, the writer of Hebrews - have I forgotten anyone? - again and again present Jesus as the Creator.
Critias, when was the last time you went to an Anglican church and heard the minister give the title of Creator to our saviour? Me? Never! Not once!
So the question is why? It's obvious! Because Moore teaches that Jesus isn't creator because evolution does the Lord's work. The Moore sycophants rant and rave and then run away to their mummies when we say this but it's true: Peter Jensen decreed that evolution was how God worked. This is in print so the dishonest men at Moore and who elsewhere live to protect the "reputation" of their alma mater, can't just deny it. I've quoted the offensive blasphemy previously. Peter Jensen is a pagan in disguise. It's a simple equation really.
Come to think of it, I've never heard that in an Anglican sermon, but I'd not made the connection that Jesus is being undermined. I'm not surprised, mind you, because once one mixes with materialism, its not materialism that is lifted to godliness, but that godliness is undone and the golden calf is rebuilt each time.
Good grief, John's gospel starts off by showing that Jesus is God and Saviour (John 1:1–3). See also CMI's article "Christmas and Genesis" http://creationontheweb.com/content/view/5535
I wonder how they deal with Hebrews 11, where the starting point of faith is the creation!
Or that the first three in the Hebrews "Hall of faith" are Abel, Enoch and Noah, since Moorites act as if biblical history begins only at Genesis 12.
Post a Comment