It's come up at least once before on this blog: various SADs, have not wanted to repeat the church's mistake made when it rejected Galileo's work and so reject the truth content of Genesis 1, but here we go again, just for the slow learners in St. Andrew's House, Moore College and the rest.
In trying to avoid the church's mistake back then they are doing precisely what the Roman church did; repeating the mistake (thus 'slow learners'). They are adopting the current popular philosophical view and rejecting observational science!! They are absorbing the speculation and rejecting what refutes it.
Hop over to the ABC Morning Interview (big file) where Throsby adulates (as she does) Dr Peter Slezak of UNSW, a lecturer in the phil. of science.
The interview celebrates the restaging of the trial of Galileo. Slezak chats on about this and other things.
He tells us about the role of dissidents in advancing science, that Galileo ran up against the Aristoteleans (not the church) who wanted to stick with their 'common sense' view of the world (common sense then, but not regarded as common sense now, only going to show how even the ordinary person is influenced by the ideas of the day); and importantly makes this remark, paraphrased:
"it wasn't the church that was resistant, as is the popular view, but the philosophers who refused to take seriously his observations".
The problem was, the church had read the philosphers' presumptions back into the Bible, just like theistic evolutionists do, in their philosophical juvenescence. Just like the SAD does, reading the Bible and making their theology on the basis of a world view in basic conflict with that of the Bible.
The story is more complex, of course, but I'll leave that research to you, dear reader.
Good one!
Subscribe to:
Post Comments (Atom)
Posts
8 comments:
Thanks Eric.
It's pitiful how the church today repeats the same error as the church in Galileo's time yet feels it is doing quite the opposite.
They will remain in this blind ignorance because, for the most part, they won't even read the literatur of their Christian bethren and when they do read it they do so with an intention to attack it.
For so many, sin sticks like glue.
I think that they see the Bible as a book that is only about the 'upper storey' of reality: not a reality that we live in, reality, but not as we know it; so its statements that serve precisely to place us in the real setting in which we transact with God are pummelled to be about something else.
Critias' words " ...Bible as a book that is only about the 'upper storey' of reality: not a reality that we live in, reality, but not as we know it;" take on an aura of a fictitious Spock telling a fictitious Captain Kirk that "there is life there but not as we know it" on some fictitious star or planet.
It may be that recent generations of Moore College graduates borrow theological perspective from earlier generations of Trekkies.
No, Sam, they plagiarise their thinking and language right from the atheists and liberals.
Yes, I know, and there is not much thought involved or, rather, not much critical analysis if any at all.
Got it in one Sam. I think that they are theological trekkies!!
Eric, it appears to me that most people prefer error to historical reality. This topic is an excellent example of this. The idea it was the Church which was resistant to Galileo is contradicted by historical fact as you point out. This has been pointed out countless times before but still the unfactual story is common. And held to with ardour and vigour!
Is it that many people live in such darkness that the light of truth does not reach them?
It's the same with evolution or theistic evolution in that those who defend such a belief use examples which they believe prove their point. However in reality these examples have been shown to be false (often by evolutionists) but still they come!
On another blog a regular comment is the belief that adaptation or survival of the fittest is evolution therefore it is proven that one kind (e.g. reptile) has evolved into another e.g. bird. When asked how this could happen they do not have a clue but continue attempting to defend error.
People just prefer darkness.
I remember years ago when Carl Wieland from CMI met up with a SAD scientist, after an inner city presentation. The scientist (though a Christian) was convinced the Biblical creation view was false and evolution a fact. They sat debating for quite a while and Dr Wieland was able to demonstrate that what the scientist promoted as fact was in reality belief. His nonBiblical view was demolished. I would like to say he saw the light, and as a Christian decided to give God the benefit of the doubt. Not that any existed. Sadly he wandered off still convinced his story was truth.
In his case, and many others, they do not have the courage to defend Scripture against the atheistic scientists they work with, so crumble and join the wolves.
Thankfully though many other scientists have seen, and continue to see the truth.
On the other site I mentioned, a man who blogs there, considers my view of Genesis to be that held only by fools. Apparently if I had a little more education I would toss Genesis out.
And they calls themselves Christians. I dont think they see the irony in calling themselves Christian while rejecting what Jesus the Creator says about creation. None so blind as those who will not see!
CMI has a recent piece Galileo Quadricentennial: Myth vs fact. But SAD prefers to swallow the discredited humanist revisionist historiography that even this secular historian rejects.
Post a Comment