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.
skip to main |
skip to sidebar
A blog dedicated to exposing, discussing and, we pray, undoing the Anglican Diocese of Sydney's drift into heresy. "nam error circa creaturas redundat in falsam de Deo sententiam" Aquinas ...wrong thinking about creation will lead to wrong thinking about God... "I’m going to be faithful to the word of God, even though in terms of the popular culture I’m a villain..." Peter Jensen (!)
Search This Blog
Posts
Read These First!
Articles on Creation
Blogs We Watch
-
-
-
Some other blogs & sites15 years ago
-
Just up at The Best Schools blog12 years ago
-
Joe Rogan and Today’s Sermons14 hours ago
Origins Related Sites
- Spetner: no chance!
- SAH Blog Files
- Origin Persective
- One Small Speck: contra evolution!
- On Genesis
- Language of Canaan
- Institute for Creation Research
- Genesis: A Biblical Theology
- Genesis Sources
- Creation: Australian Site
- Creation Science Movement UK
- Creation Research Society
- Creation Links
- Berlinski article
Blog Archive
-
▼
2008
(172)
-
▼
July
(8)
- K-D: THE CREATION OF THE WORLD Part 10 Last
- K-D: THE CREATION OF THE WORLD Part 9
- K-D: THE CREATION OF THE WORLD Part 8
- Simple, beautiful and not influenced by the spirit...
- K-D: THE CREATION OF THE WORLD Part 7
- "When Your Number Is Up" or "Sydney Episcopalian D...
- Bavinck: In the Beginning...book extracts
- Dead Duck
-
▼
July
(8)
Labels
- Genesis (144)
- Interpretation (104)
- Leupold (70)
- Theistic Evolution (47)
- Evolution (29)
- Evangelism (24)
- History (22)
- Atheism (20)
- Science (20)
- Creation (17)
- Jensenism (17)
- Bizzare (13)
- Moore College (13)
- Darwin (12)
- Time (12)
- SADism (9)
- Baddeley Award (8)
- Sydney Anglicans (7)
- Death (6)
- Richard Dawkins (6)
- natural theology (4)
- philosophy (4)
- Calvin (2)
- John Dickson (2)
- Adam (1)
- Barr (1)
- Broughton Knox (1)
- Cape Town Commitment (1)
7 comments:
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?
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
You have one thing right Dave you sure have been a source of entertainment.
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.
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.
(Head)CASE hasn't a clue. For one thing, Ken Ham is with AiG, not CMI, twit.
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.
Post a Comment