Quote from the 'Big Questions' in Spectrum (SMH) Oct 4-5, 2008, in answer to the question "What's the point of the common cold"?:
"...in nature, nothing is for anything."
Obviously!
Now the typical SAD response: pained quizical expression casts over face, and the traditional 'well, yes, but" response is prepared..."you see, God really created, he tells us so in Genesis 1, but he doesn't tell us how, and that's where science steps in to tell us that we evolved..."
But, for the average person who has no commitment to the Bible, he just hears about evolution and doesn't see a need for the 'god hypothesis' and so just sits with "in nature, nothing is for anything".
Subscribe to:
Post Comments (Atom)
Posts
1 comment:
One of the accusations against we RBCs (rapid biblical creationists) is that our theology of creation comes only from Genesis 1, and we are the poorer for it. An example of this can be found at http://levellers.wordpress.com/2007/11/09/creation-and-evolution-3-creation-psalms/ for instance.
I may develop a post on this (my long list of posts to do is getting longer by the month), but the short of it is that all the talk about God's being creation's author but that his 'method' is either not known, not knowable, or not important, fails to deal with the biblical data. The whole idea of 'method' being beside the point is a real furphy, IMO, as it is used to bend the Bible to materialism, not some neutral 'science', at all. The point is, method is God's word; anything else takes us up the path to either gnosticism, or deism; both a path ultimately away from God. Something the recent history of the church attests in spades.
Nevertheless, there always remains to be done more work in theology of creation, I'd never deny that, I think.
Post a Comment