Mark Baddeley, recently a commenter on this blog, has posted a number of long pieces on his own blog (Reflections in Exile) in critique of what he terms 'creation scientists'.
I think he means 'biblical creationists' but let's not quibble.
He's put a fair amount of work into his posts, which is very encouraging to see. Something to actually engage with! For this he receives the inaugural Baddeley Award. No other of our interlocutors gets an award, regrettably, as they've not bothered to address issues, no matter how obvious the discussion is.
Now, to much of what Mark says, we would take alternative views, and reason to those views. We would like to take up the discussion on his blog, but as internal commenting may be the way to go, we'll do it on this blog instead. Hope you don't mind, Mark.
Eric, and the rest of the team here at SAH.
Subscribe to:
Post Comments (Atom)
Posts
12 comments:
On the CMI site today: Is Genesis poetry / figurative, a theological argument (polemic) and thus not history? Critique of the Framework Hypothesis.
I'm looking forward to the crit. of Baddeley's work. Especially the bit where he claims there is no 'creation theology' in the creation 'movement'. But, on the other hand, how can there be a genuine theology of creation if the only information about creation in the Bible is claimed to not represent the truth? That is, if it didn't happen, how can a theology be pinned on the creation account? Everywhere the Spirit talks about God's record, its about what has happened, never about what didn't happen. There is an historical flow which underpins theology from dot to now. Cut off theology from the historical flow, and it ain't theology anymore, but theology-fiction.
I'm really enjoying reading the blog. Mark is a very concise and articulate writer and it has helped me with issues I've been trying to work out regarding creation and the Genesis accounts.
But Geoff, is Mark correct?
It is clearly obvious from my conversations here and with Anglos "out there" that they really haven't read anything on the modern scientific investigations for a young world and for Noah's Flood. I know this is a fact because their complete lack of knowledge of even the most basic data that are now so clearly pointing to a young world etc hits me every time I have a conversation with them.
That these men like Mark want to reject a young world without even addressing any of the scientific evidence only shows what sort of people they are. An honest person would address the scientific claims for a young world and then attack these arguments using sound counter-arguments.
Although my discipline isn't science, I have been exposed to their research and hung around enough scientists who stand by the biblical account of origins to know that they are not intellectual pygmies and that their data are pretty impressive.
So, are you sure Mark and his ideas are sound?
Mark Baddeley admitted previously that he hadn't given the subject a lot of serious study.
Now he is posting his 'five minutes worth of attention' with Geoff and others who came and ran from here falling down in praise.
Laughable if not very sad for the future of the Sydney Anglican Diocese. What an affliction on the church the present generation of clergy and adherents are.
Neil Moore
I remember reading somewhere that one view of Gen1 is that it represents a 'polemic' against ANE creation myths. That is, it is of the form "my story is better than your story" (see one of the comments on CosmicChrist blog (at http://cosmicchrist.blogspot.com/2005/11/genesis-debate.html).
However, if it is just another story, and not the truth, then it is not much of a polemic, but more of a 'creative writing' class contest. Its as though Goebbels and not Moses wrote it.
On the other hand, if it relates what really happened, it is not just a polemic, but a 'blow them out of the water' bombshell, setting their whole world view on its ear and having revolutionary implications for their view of self and society.
Hi John
I don't know if Mark is correct. He states in one part he has no problem with a 6 literal day creation, but the problem is Creation Scientists tend to miss the theology in Genesis 1 and 2
I've found some of the things really fascinating and have learnt a bit. In particular the significance of "Water" in Genesis, and how it Water in Genesis and the flood suggests the End of creation. The floodgates (where are those gates, anyway?)opening that held the water that was there since the seperation of the two waters. Really cool. So Mark said it was not simply a huge natural catastrophe, but much bigger, the UNDOING of creation, returning to it's formless and void state I've never heard that before, fascinating stuff. So Mark could be right about that.
I've also never noticed that Genesis 1 and 2 seem to have different chronilogical accounts, something I've never thought about. In Gen 1 Plants and Animals precede humans, in Gen 2 it's the other way around.
There's other stuff too. I'm looking forward to reading PWCS 4 and 5 as he tackles death before the fall. Should be an interesting read.
So still still don't know where I stand on old or young Earth, but I am learning a lot about the Creation accounts reading Mark's blog.
AND I DIDN"T KNOW YOU GUYS WERE COMMENTING ANONYMOUSLY! How did you come up with the names? So Eric, Neil, Sam, Gwen, they aren;t your real names?
Chees
geoff
GeoffC, it is hardly news to creationists that God's judgment is often a reversal of creation. E.g. in one of CMI's core books, The Creation Answers Book, they answer the gap theory in Ch. 3:
In fact, Jeremiah 4:23 is known as a literary allusion to Genesis 1:2—the judgment would be so severe that it would leave the final state as empty as the earth before God formed and filled it.
...
This is in line with the common biblical principle where a judgment is a reversal of creation.
Jeremiah 4:23 is taking the land back to its unformed state, unfit for man to live in. Similarly, the Flood took the world back to its condition on Day 2, before the land and water had separated.
And of course if you and Baddeley had done the intellectually honest thing amd bothered to read creationist literature, you would know that the boring old canard of Gen. 1&2 "contradictions" had long ago been addressed. E.g. in the same book, Ch. 2:
Genesis chapters One and Two are not different accounts of creation
and they are not contradictory. Genesis 1 deals with the creation of everything, the universe, the ‘big picture’ (see Genesis 1:31–2:4a).
Genesis 2 recaps the creation of the man and woman, providing details not provided in the first chapter and particularly their situation in the special garden God prepared for them. Chapter 2 is not another creation account: there is no mention of the creation of the earth, sun, moon, stars, seas, land, sky, sea creatures, creeping things, etc.
Some cite an apparent difference in order of creation between chapters one and two, claiming a problem with the plants and herbs in Genesis 2:5 and the trees in Genesis 2:9, which in some English translations seem as though they came into being after Adam, supposedly contradicting the order in Genesis 1 (plants on Day 3, people on Day 6). But Genesis 2 focuses on issues of direct importance to Adam and Eve and the garden, not creation in general. Notice that the plants and herbs are described as ‘of the field’ in chapter 2 (compare 1:12) and they needed a man to tend them (2:5). These are clearly cultivated plants, not plants in general. Also, the trees (2:9) are only the trees planted in the garden, not trees in general. These events relate to God creating the garden, not creation in general.
The mention of the forming of the ‘beasts of the field’ and ‘birds of the air’ in Genesis 2:19, before the creation of Eve, is also supposedly a problem.
The supposed contradictions fall away when we realize that Hebrew has no specific verb form to indicate the pluperfect (‘had formed’, ‘having formed’). A number of Hebrew scholars and commentators, such as Keil & Delitzsch and Leupold, have recognized that the context of Genesis Two suggests the pluperfect tense for these events—they are being recounted for the purposes of Chapter 2. For example:
‘Now the Lord God had formed out of the ground all the beasts of the field…’ (2:19, NIV). Such a translation, which is valid, removes any hint of contradiction.
There is no need to conclude that Genesis 2 contradicts Genesis 1 and so this is not a valid argument against taking Genesis 1 as straightforward history.
Genesis chapter 2 is not a different account of creation—it is a more detailed account of the sixth day of creation.
"And of course if you and Baddeley had done the intellectually honest thing amd bothered to read creationist literature"
I think it's time for me to leave this site. I can't handle the general nastiness towards those with a different point of view. I'm dialoguing with a creationist at the moment via e-mail, and his language is quite strong, and believes that if we want to hold to the word of God as truth we must by faith accept the literal 6 days as the creation account.
I've asked him this question now about Gen 1 and 2, waiting for a reply. But I can guarantee he won't have the same negative response I see here frequently. In my post I said I had never noticed it before, and was something I had never thought of. I didn't know that this therefore made me intelectually dishonest? I didn't even say I had confirmed it as TRUTH! I said I had noticed it, and got an answer then, from you.
Maybe to you it makes me weak, or afriad of the truth, or something else which I'm sure you'll say, but I cannot handle dialogue here. I will remain in dialogue with other creationists to inquire of the issue, who respond with much more gentleness and love.
Bye, Geoff or is it someone else who had been on here under another name previously because your comments on some things are identical in approach to a few before.
In all honesty - many of you guys are real 'wooses' You take offence (or are waiting to take offence) at the slightest criticism. What would you do if someone called you a "white washed tomb" - crucify him?
Sam
Geoff, critics of biblical creation do themselves no favours when they show that they are ignorant of what they criticise!
I see that like a good little boy Geoff has gone straight home. He immediately commenced posting on Mark Baddeley's blogspot.
Sam
Post a Comment