Search This Blog

Tuesday, July 1, 2008

Dead Duck

From ON LINE, another in the vein of Bozarth: is the SAD listening? This is a representation of the general cultural view of origins and Genesis:

ON LINE opinion - Australia's e-journal of social and political debate

The Christian Doctrine of Creation: dead duck or saving truth?

By Peter Sellick

Posted Thursday, 8 January 2004

It seems to the modern mind that the Christian doctrine of Creation is a dead duck. This follows from the geology of Lyle and the evolutionary theory of Darwin. While the former extended geological time far beyond the biblical time scale, the latter explains the existence of life on earth in terms of sheer chance. The offence to the religious mind of Darwin is not that we are descended from apes but that our presence has come about by accident; there is no grand design, humanity is not at the centre of creation, we are but linguistic animals. Thus the Christian doctrine of creation, which presumes a purposive creator, is seen to be forfeit. This leaves such a wound in the body of Christianity that one wonders if it can survive. For this is no peripheral doctrine, it is central to Christian faith.

Any defence of the doctrine of creation cannot rely on the fuzzy logic that tells us that God was a player in the evolutionary process (if He was what did he contribute?), or by pushing the activity of God back to the big bang. Both of these solutions dispose of God.

7 comments:

Anonymous said...

From ON LINE, another in the vein of Bozarth: is the SAD listening?

I can help you here, NO! We are not listening to you — we're ignoring you by and large. You guys are internet trolls, and we've basically bored of entertaining you.

As for the rest of the article... it's a false dichotomy. The bible says God sent a rainbow to Noah. Does the fact that we understand the process of light refracting and splitting in a cloud of water molecules change the fact that God was behind all the processes? This author is suffering a "God of the gaps" theology that has no truck with the bible. See "Unnatural Enemies" by Dr Kirsten Birkett from Matthias media.

Or is the SAH not listening?

Ktisophilos said...

Lankshear fails to see the difference between origins and operational science. The creationist Sir Isaac Newton saw no problem with pointing out that white light was a mixture of colours. So these are complementary explanations.

But when it comes to origins, evolution is diametrically opposed to Genesis in just about all possible ways:

* Time frame is different
* Order of events is different
* Genesis says sin came before death "the last enemy"; evolution says that the last enemy was an important part of the process long before man arose

Warwick said...

You have one thing right Dave you sure have been a source of entertainment.

John said...

Birkett's book...oh please, David.

It's kindergarten stuff. And she gets her explanations mostly wrong. As I recall several people have critiqued her book and found egregious errors.

One can be found here:
http://creationontheweb.com/content/view/3462

But as you demonstrated a preference to live in self-imposed ignorance, David, I'm not putting this link for you but to the others just to show that your stellar whiz kids are neither.

CASE - now with holiness said...

Creation on the Web - thats an intelligent source.

Better yet, lets hear Ken Ham give a lecture on the black hole information paradox.

People that are ignorant of scientific hypotheses which are supported by evidence and inconsistent with the Bible are not valid sources for criticisng the hypotheses. Thats just illogical.

Ktisophilos said...

(Head)CASE hasn't a clue. For one thing, Ken Ham is with AiG, not CMI, twit.

Warwick said...

Ktiso Case is working on the Anglonasty principle of never ruining a good story with facts.

I wonder if Case has heard of Dr John Hartnet.