Recently in the comments section of a blog here I mentioned the Lord Jesus Christ's healing of a man who had been lame for 38 years (John 5).
Subsequent to that comment the following article appeared in the Sydney Daily Telegraph on 21 May 2011:
A PARAPLEGIC man has stood up unaided, moved his legs voluntarily and walked, with help, on a treadmill after neurosurgeons implanted electrodes in his lower spine.
The world-first therapy has been hailed as an exciting advance in the quest to overcome crippling spinal cord injuries.
The electrodes then sent electrical signals to mimic those sent down the spine by the brain to begin movement.
Mr Summers can push up with his legs and reach a standing position, and support his own weight for up to four minutes at a time.
'For someone who for four years was unable to move a toe, to have the freedom to stand on my own is the most amazing feeling,' he said.
Compare the situation of the early Judean man and the Sydney Daily Telegraph's reported lame man. We don't know how the former was made lame. Potentially, he suffered a similar spinal cord injury to the latter day man. Notwithstanding the extent of damaged body parts, each man was completely lame.
Improvement came to both but look at the stark contrast in the time frame and the completeness of healing. The gap is huge and, as I indicated earlier, the healing and recreation wrought by the will of our Lord Jesus Christ was beyond all our capacity to comprehend via modern medical science.
There some 2,000 years ago in Judea, moving among the people, was the Creator of the universe who creates and recreates in an instant.
If only degenerate pseudo-evangelicals of today had more faith in Jesus Christ than they do Charles Darwin and Charles Lyell.
Sam Drucker
Showing posts with label Creation. Show all posts
Showing posts with label Creation. Show all posts
Sunday, May 29, 2011
Sunday, January 9, 2011
Smiling Assassins of Dialogue
It is so sad, it is just so sad. More than that is is also frustrating in the extreme.
Time and time again, any attempt to engage in conversation, to open dialogue with Sydney Episcopalians on their reading of the biblical creation account ends in early closure - a prompt shut-down of the subject.
More than that, they shut you down with a cool, precise, we-are-nicer-than-you way but the effect is still the same slamming of the door in you face as if they had raged at you before doing so.
This barrier to engagement and the veneer of niceness has an ill effect on those who attempt to redress the error pervading the Episcopalian Diocese on the subject of origins.
It draws serious rebuke as occurred in comments of the topic "Evangelical Courage" of 14 Nov at www.markdthompson.blogspot.com/
This is all unhelpful.
For the record, Dr Thompson did not post my reponse to his irrelevant questions so I provide what I said now:
Mark, I was walking but you called to me. I will respond.
Nowhere did I say that you had denied the office of Jesus Christ as Creator nor had I said you failed to attribute to him the glory that is his due as the one for whom and by whom the universe was created.
I don't believe you have asked the appropriate question(s).
You shut down the conversation before I could make a thorough examination of your position.
Off to the CMS Summer Camp, I suppose?
Sam Drucker
Time and time again, any attempt to engage in conversation, to open dialogue with Sydney Episcopalians on their reading of the biblical creation account ends in early closure - a prompt shut-down of the subject.
More than that, they shut you down with a cool, precise, we-are-nicer-than-you way but the effect is still the same slamming of the door in you face as if they had raged at you before doing so.
This barrier to engagement and the veneer of niceness has an ill effect on those who attempt to redress the error pervading the Episcopalian Diocese on the subject of origins.
It draws serious rebuke as occurred in comments of the topic "Evangelical Courage" of 14 Nov at www.markdthompson.blogspot.com/
This is all unhelpful.
For the record, Dr Thompson did not post my reponse to his irrelevant questions so I provide what I said now:
Mark, I was walking but you called to me. I will respond.
Nowhere did I say that you had denied the office of Jesus Christ as Creator nor had I said you failed to attribute to him the glory that is his due as the one for whom and by whom the universe was created.
I don't believe you have asked the appropriate question(s).
You shut down the conversation before I could make a thorough examination of your position.
Off to the CMS Summer Camp, I suppose?
Sam Drucker
Friday, July 16, 2010
Finding of Science Once Again Affirms Bible
The discovery announced by British Scientists yesterday that the "Chicken came before the Egg" will come as no surprise to Biblical Creationists.
Had the scientists come and asked Biblical Creationists some time ago a lot of money and time would have been saved because advice given would have enabled scientists to direct money and time on researching the chicken for the answer while discarding the egg as the origin source.
The Bible says that the creatures were made as they were with capacity to reproduce after their kind. Obviously, the chicken came before the egg. We knew all that!
Neil
Had the scientists come and asked Biblical Creationists some time ago a lot of money and time would have been saved because advice given would have enabled scientists to direct money and time on researching the chicken for the answer while discarding the egg as the origin source.
The Bible says that the creatures were made as they were with capacity to reproduce after their kind. Obviously, the chicken came before the egg. We knew all that!
Neil
Sunday, June 27, 2010
Jehovah Jireh
It's been a while since I posted here but couldn't help thinking when reading the following words in Deuteronomy 6:10 to12:
When the Lord your God brings you into the land he swore to your fathers, to Abraham, Isaac and Jacob, to give you—a land with large, flourishing cities you did not build, houses filled with all kinds of good things you did not provide, wells you did not dig, and vineyards and olive groves you did not plant—then when you eat and are satisfied, be careful that you do not forget the Lord, who brought you out of Egypt, out of the land of slavery.
Everything was provided by God for Israel complete, intact, functioning when entering and commencing life in the Promised Land. Reminds me about the Creation where everything was provided by God for man complete, intact, functioning at the commencement of life on earth.
Gwen
When the Lord your God brings you into the land he swore to your fathers, to Abraham, Isaac and Jacob, to give you—a land with large, flourishing cities you did not build, houses filled with all kinds of good things you did not provide, wells you did not dig, and vineyards and olive groves you did not plant—then when you eat and are satisfied, be careful that you do not forget the Lord, who brought you out of Egypt, out of the land of slavery.
Everything was provided by God for Israel complete, intact, functioning when entering and commencing life in the Promised Land. Reminds me about the Creation where everything was provided by God for man complete, intact, functioning at the commencement of life on earth.
Gwen
Wednesday, December 2, 2009
The Battle for the Truth
There's just no let up is there? Scientists who are Biblical Creationists are continually excluded from having research published in major scientific journals then confronted with charges of not having research peer reviewed; often denied data by their opponents; accused of taking their opponents' research or statements out of context or, when flaws in their opponents' research are exposed, cover-ups are employed to guard the primary axiom of Evolution against criticism.
The battle for the truth on Origins is fought with many tactics and strategies. Biblical Creationists are even, at times, likened to "Holocaust Deniers" so as to put them 'way out there' in their belief.
The tactics have all been on display in recent days commencing last Sunday on a Sydney radio program. Comments along the lines of the following were aired:
"Scientists had their research published but leading scientists of the opposing view contacted the publisher, ridiculed their work and had them dropped from the science magazine."
"The scientists are dismissed as having no credibility because their work is not peer reviewed."
"Exposed mistakes of their opponents are covered up."
"Their opponents' work had data cut off when it showed a contrary view to that which they wanted known."
"Freedom of Information requests for their opponents' data were denied and email requests were destroyed."
"The leaking of emails revealing all these tactics resulted in a response from their opponents' to the effect that the emails were taken out of context."
So what's new? Well, in this instance the subject was not Creation/Evolution Debate but Climate Change and the battle for the truth between advocates of human induced Climate Change and those labelled as Climate Change Skeptics.
"The George & Paul Show" on Sydney Radio Station 2UE last Sunday afternoon interviewed Melbourne journalist Andrew Bolt who is a critic of human induced Climate Change. The discussion centred on the leaked emails from the University of East Anglia's Climatic Research Unit and the tactics employed by advocates of human induced Climate Change against critics within the scientific community.
Biblical Creationists will chuckle at the 'goings-on' because they are quite familiar with the tactics employed.
However, human induced Climate Change Skeptics are outraged. Sydney Daily Telegraph journalist, Piers Akerman, entered the fray yesterday. I provide an extract of his column:
"Excerpts of the emails detailing deception practised by the scientists, the methods they used to ensure no voices other than theirs were heard, that only those who agreed with their theories would be included in peer reviews, are circulating widely on the internet.
They illustrate a contempt for science or at least an abuse of practice.
They are the work of true deniers. They are the work of vandals. They are like indelible graffiti left by idiots.
They betray the work of the Renaissance. They undermine the Enlightenment.
A disgusting venality is also revealed in the emails, a vile spirit of hatred for those who hold the truth to be dear."
Welcome, Piers Akerman, George & Paul and Andrew Bolt to much of what passes for science today. The truth is not pursued with rigor or is not received with objectivity if it does not conform to the Primary Axiom.
Be prepared for a long fight and for many and varied insults cast your way. Be prepared for people to give you 'short shift' as you attempt to present your argument. You may even, as recently occurred in Australian Federal Parliament, be referred to as "Holocaust Deniers".
Biblical Creationists are battle hardened, fit for their long fight and will prevail because the "truth will out". It remains to be seen whether there is as much fight in Skeptics of human induced Climate Change.
Just as an aside, I wonder what's going on in the minds of those groups in many nations who formed themselves into associations many years ago and called themselves "Skeptics" (or "Sceptics") and focused their attention on denying the supernatural. Right now, in Australia at least, the term "Skeptic" is the subject of much ridicule and scorn.
Sam Drucker
The battle for the truth on Origins is fought with many tactics and strategies. Biblical Creationists are even, at times, likened to "Holocaust Deniers" so as to put them 'way out there' in their belief.
The tactics have all been on display in recent days commencing last Sunday on a Sydney radio program. Comments along the lines of the following were aired:
"Scientists had their research published but leading scientists of the opposing view contacted the publisher, ridiculed their work and had them dropped from the science magazine."
"The scientists are dismissed as having no credibility because their work is not peer reviewed."
"Exposed mistakes of their opponents are covered up."
"Their opponents' work had data cut off when it showed a contrary view to that which they wanted known."
"Freedom of Information requests for their opponents' data were denied and email requests were destroyed."
"The leaking of emails revealing all these tactics resulted in a response from their opponents' to the effect that the emails were taken out of context."
So what's new? Well, in this instance the subject was not Creation/Evolution Debate but Climate Change and the battle for the truth between advocates of human induced Climate Change and those labelled as Climate Change Skeptics.
"The George & Paul Show" on Sydney Radio Station 2UE last Sunday afternoon interviewed Melbourne journalist Andrew Bolt who is a critic of human induced Climate Change. The discussion centred on the leaked emails from the University of East Anglia's Climatic Research Unit and the tactics employed by advocates of human induced Climate Change against critics within the scientific community.
Biblical Creationists will chuckle at the 'goings-on' because they are quite familiar with the tactics employed.
However, human induced Climate Change Skeptics are outraged. Sydney Daily Telegraph journalist, Piers Akerman, entered the fray yesterday. I provide an extract of his column:
"Excerpts of the emails detailing deception practised by the scientists, the methods they used to ensure no voices other than theirs were heard, that only those who agreed with their theories would be included in peer reviews, are circulating widely on the internet.
They illustrate a contempt for science or at least an abuse of practice.
They are the work of true deniers. They are the work of vandals. They are like indelible graffiti left by idiots.
They betray the work of the Renaissance. They undermine the Enlightenment.
A disgusting venality is also revealed in the emails, a vile spirit of hatred for those who hold the truth to be dear."
Welcome, Piers Akerman, George & Paul and Andrew Bolt to much of what passes for science today. The truth is not pursued with rigor or is not received with objectivity if it does not conform to the Primary Axiom.
Be prepared for a long fight and for many and varied insults cast your way. Be prepared for people to give you 'short shift' as you attempt to present your argument. You may even, as recently occurred in Australian Federal Parliament, be referred to as "Holocaust Deniers".
Biblical Creationists are battle hardened, fit for their long fight and will prevail because the "truth will out". It remains to be seen whether there is as much fight in Skeptics of human induced Climate Change.
Just as an aside, I wonder what's going on in the minds of those groups in many nations who formed themselves into associations many years ago and called themselves "Skeptics" (or "Sceptics") and focused their attention on denying the supernatural. Right now, in Australia at least, the term "Skeptic" is the subject of much ridicule and scorn.
Sam Drucker
Saturday, July 11, 2009
A question of history
There must be some point to history!
By history I mean the actual events that preceeded us and by their arrangement explain our situation. I also must mean the record of those events, and the attempt at elucidating their meaning: writing about history; but mainly, of course, I have in mind the stream of real events, rather than their recounting. But, of course, we only know of them by their recounting.
Christian faith is embedded in history: it is events in the past that bring us to Christian understanding. It was young Michael Jensen’s recent post that lead to my further thoughts on this topic. (Also see cyberpastor's comments on this blog)
So, naturally I turn my mind to the creation account and its reflection throughout Scripture.
That he is creator is frequently used by God as his identifying act (e.g. Isaiah 40:28, Isaiah 43:1, Isaiah 43:14-16, Isaiah 44:24, Isaiah 51:13, Psalm 115:15, Jeremiah 10:16, Hosea 8:14, John 1:1-3 and Acts 17:24 for example).
God clearly declares that he is creator. He is referring of course to his statements of his creative acts set down in Genesis 1 and 2.
Now, to hold out that he is creator, in reliance on his previous word to that effect, the word must have meaning within the world in which it is spoken. So ‘creator’ means the one who did the things related in Genesis 1. But then, these acts so accounted must have also had the meaning given in their account. I think this because if the words made no reference to actual events in time and space, in the time and space we inhabit, and therefore in the continuity of our temporal-spatial definition, then they could not mean ‘creator’ in any real sense; it could not mean creator as being the one from whose will by the stated actions (words) the world we know was brought about.
Without a connection of fact bedded in our real world, the reference to creative actions would have no credibility and would not place God as creator in relation to us; but as story with none but a cute mythic type non-relation to us. Not grounded in the event continuum that we are in would be equivelent to not a set of events at all. So the cosmos would have to be otherwise accounted for and God’s representation of himself in relation to use would break down.
So, God’s claim to be creator must make sense in the world in which he makes the claim. That is, he must be referring to things he really did: they must be real events as related. We have no other possible reference for the events and so must either reject that God is creator, or accept that he has validated his claim by telling us the terms of his acts. This indicates that the detail of the account in Genesis is significant.
The historical framing twins the events in their place (earth) and their temporal contiguity with our frame: they all happened, like all events happen, and all have a temporal reference that makes sense against the temporal referencing that dominates our lives and times.
God drives this twinning by giving time and place coordinates for them: he uses historically referenced language to describe them, not the a-temporally vague references that characterise myth and prevent the subjects of myth from having real interaction with us.
Saying it another way, the Bible sets out the historical credentials of the creation in valid historical terms (see also this post on time); if these terms are made rubbery, mythic, a-historical or otherwise non-real, in our current frame of reference, then the creation, God’s image making, the creation’s very-goodness, and the fall have no meaning because they are not referenced in our frame of action; this undermines salvation history at its heart and makes Christ’s sacrifice to be nonsense, with it resting on a salvation non-history, but just an arbitrary story which in fact tells us nothing about our creator.
On this last point I know that many commentators tell us that Genesis does not teach us details but that God was our creator. However, this irrationally misses the point. God teaches us that he is our creator by telling us what he did, not what he didn’t do.
By history I mean the actual events that preceeded us and by their arrangement explain our situation. I also must mean the record of those events, and the attempt at elucidating their meaning: writing about history; but mainly, of course, I have in mind the stream of real events, rather than their recounting. But, of course, we only know of them by their recounting.
Christian faith is embedded in history: it is events in the past that bring us to Christian understanding. It was young Michael Jensen’s recent post that lead to my further thoughts on this topic. (Also see cyberpastor's comments on this blog)
So, naturally I turn my mind to the creation account and its reflection throughout Scripture.
That he is creator is frequently used by God as his identifying act (e.g. Isaiah 40:28, Isaiah 43:1, Isaiah 43:14-16, Isaiah 44:24, Isaiah 51:13, Psalm 115:15, Jeremiah 10:16, Hosea 8:14, John 1:1-3 and Acts 17:24 for example).
God clearly declares that he is creator. He is referring of course to his statements of his creative acts set down in Genesis 1 and 2.
Now, to hold out that he is creator, in reliance on his previous word to that effect, the word must have meaning within the world in which it is spoken. So ‘creator’ means the one who did the things related in Genesis 1. But then, these acts so accounted must have also had the meaning given in their account. I think this because if the words made no reference to actual events in time and space, in the time and space we inhabit, and therefore in the continuity of our temporal-spatial definition, then they could not mean ‘creator’ in any real sense; it could not mean creator as being the one from whose will by the stated actions (words) the world we know was brought about.
Without a connection of fact bedded in our real world, the reference to creative actions would have no credibility and would not place God as creator in relation to us; but as story with none but a cute mythic type non-relation to us. Not grounded in the event continuum that we are in would be equivelent to not a set of events at all. So the cosmos would have to be otherwise accounted for and God’s representation of himself in relation to use would break down.
So, God’s claim to be creator must make sense in the world in which he makes the claim. That is, he must be referring to things he really did: they must be real events as related. We have no other possible reference for the events and so must either reject that God is creator, or accept that he has validated his claim by telling us the terms of his acts. This indicates that the detail of the account in Genesis is significant.
The historical framing twins the events in their place (earth) and their temporal contiguity with our frame: they all happened, like all events happen, and all have a temporal reference that makes sense against the temporal referencing that dominates our lives and times.
God drives this twinning by giving time and place coordinates for them: he uses historically referenced language to describe them, not the a-temporally vague references that characterise myth and prevent the subjects of myth from having real interaction with us.
Saying it another way, the Bible sets out the historical credentials of the creation in valid historical terms (see also this post on time); if these terms are made rubbery, mythic, a-historical or otherwise non-real, in our current frame of reference, then the creation, God’s image making, the creation’s very-goodness, and the fall have no meaning because they are not referenced in our frame of action; this undermines salvation history at its heart and makes Christ’s sacrifice to be nonsense, with it resting on a salvation non-history, but just an arbitrary story which in fact tells us nothing about our creator.
On this last point I know that many commentators tell us that Genesis does not teach us details but that God was our creator. However, this irrationally misses the point. God teaches us that he is our creator by telling us what he did, not what he didn’t do.
Sunday, June 7, 2009
Disbelief
"There is one race of men, one race of gods; both have breath of life from a single mother [Gaia]" Pindar, Nemean 6.
The question of origins is at root a question of belief.
The ancient Greeks, who invented evolution: that is, what is seen was prepared from things which are visible had to, as they saw their gods as also being within their world; within the cosmos.
Theistic evolution borrows this from materialism which starts from the same place as the ancient Greeks: but without the god bit.
The actions that God takes with his people are uniformily presented as immediate actions: Christ's work was accomplished on the cross at the moment of his death; his status as first born the moment he resurrected; we have new life at the moment of belief as a gift from God; the return of Christ will be an event, not a process, as I take it the Bible says of the bringing of the new creation.
Of course, the creation also was done quick smart (in 6 days, which Augustine thought was rather too long!) too. But this is denied widely in SAD in lieu of the position that derives from non-belief. Ultimately, the SAD, on this point, has to set aside belief on a number of grounds: that God is a reliable propositional communicator, that words have meaning, and that as he refers to the creation as his chief credential in relationship with us. Disbelief here is more complex. God represents his creation as coming from his will (and nothing else, no system or operation, no elaborate machine, which reeks of paganism, not the majesty and power of God). And then going back the other way, consideration of the creation (except that which at first denies God, but even this must finally fail to achieve credibility), leads to recognition of the creator.
But if consideration of the creation leads one to think that the creation could reasonably have made itself, we have come, not to the God of Abraham, but the gods of the Greeks: gods within the cosmos, not independent of it!
The key point at which creation is represented as not possibly being confused for the work of the creation itself, and non-god, is that we are told it happened in 6 days. There's the recipe for creating a cosmos: 6 steps not able to be achieved by other than God. This stands directly in the path of materialist-naturalist alternatives. Which alternatives the SAD seems to seriously entertain as being in the stream of the history of salvation! Well, gag me with a spoon!
To set this as naught, which is the habit in SAD, is to disbelieve God: to disbelieve that he can tell us what he did (ref. Numbers 12:8a), that what he tells as and what he did is unimportant in detail, and finally indistiguisable from that done by non-God.
That sounds a lot like rejection of God, to me!
The question of origins is at root a question of belief.
The ancient Greeks, who invented evolution: that is, what is seen was prepared from things which are visible had to, as they saw their gods as also being within their world; within the cosmos.
Theistic evolution borrows this from materialism which starts from the same place as the ancient Greeks: but without the god bit.
The actions that God takes with his people are uniformily presented as immediate actions: Christ's work was accomplished on the cross at the moment of his death; his status as first born the moment he resurrected; we have new life at the moment of belief as a gift from God; the return of Christ will be an event, not a process, as I take it the Bible says of the bringing of the new creation.
Of course, the creation also was done quick smart (in 6 days, which Augustine thought was rather too long!) too. But this is denied widely in SAD in lieu of the position that derives from non-belief. Ultimately, the SAD, on this point, has to set aside belief on a number of grounds: that God is a reliable propositional communicator, that words have meaning, and that as he refers to the creation as his chief credential in relationship with us. Disbelief here is more complex. God represents his creation as coming from his will (and nothing else, no system or operation, no elaborate machine, which reeks of paganism, not the majesty and power of God). And then going back the other way, consideration of the creation (except that which at first denies God, but even this must finally fail to achieve credibility), leads to recognition of the creator.
But if consideration of the creation leads one to think that the creation could reasonably have made itself, we have come, not to the God of Abraham, but the gods of the Greeks: gods within the cosmos, not independent of it!
The key point at which creation is represented as not possibly being confused for the work of the creation itself, and non-god, is that we are told it happened in 6 days. There's the recipe for creating a cosmos: 6 steps not able to be achieved by other than God. This stands directly in the path of materialist-naturalist alternatives. Which alternatives the SAD seems to seriously entertain as being in the stream of the history of salvation! Well, gag me with a spoon!
To set this as naught, which is the habit in SAD, is to disbelieve God: to disbelieve that he can tell us what he did (ref. Numbers 12:8a), that what he tells as and what he did is unimportant in detail, and finally indistiguisable from that done by non-God.
That sounds a lot like rejection of God, to me!
Saturday, November 22, 2008
"You Foolish Anglicans"
How wonderful man is - taking just a minute glob of chemicals he has been able to create a new windpipe for a needy woman, Claudia Castillo.
Part of a windpipe had been taken from the dead body of a 51 year old woman, it was washed to remove all her own cells. At the same time stem cells were taken from Ms Castillo's own bone marrow and grown to produce about six million cartilage cells, which were grown on the scaffold that was the part of the windpipe taken from the dead woman and had been grafted into Ms Castillo.
In a short space of time, the long term bedridden and breathing afflicted Ms Castillo was able to breath normally and resume a normal life.
I repeat, how wonderful man is! This is the herald of many body part creations we will see in coming years.
Contrast this wonder of man with the stumbling, bumbling, time consuming, frustration, death, disease and mutation riddled manner used by the 'god' of the bible many Theistic Evolutionists of the the Sydney Anglican Diocese present to the world as the creator of life.
What a sham! Who in their right mind could believe in such a god when man will able to do far better in shorter time. Nothing will be beyond man as he accelerates the arranging and rearranging of globs of chemicals. Man is the master of his own destiny. He has destroyed any slender reed of credibility that had been given to metaphysical source of origins. All religions will have been consigned to the heap of invention of primitive man bereft of understanding.
As one Theistic Evolutionist once said "Jesus didn't have the scientific knowledge we now have!"
You foolish Anglicans! Who has bewitched you?
Can't you even see the true God when He has revealed so much of Himself to you? Reflect for a moment what was done to Ms Castillo to retrieve her stem cells. Doesn't it take your mind back to the Genesis 2 incident when God created woman in the first place. God put Adam to sleep and took one of his ribs. Why? Because within the marrow of Adam's rib were his XY chromosomes. All God had to do was remove the Y chromosome and what happens? The X chromosome repeats itself and there you have woman - Eve. Additionally, if God, when removing Adam's rib, 'peeled' it out of the periosteum and left the periosteum intact then Adam's rib would have regrown.
The aforesaid criticism of Theistic Evolutionism is a simplistic observation but remains the valid vacuum Theistic Evolutionists will find themselves in.
On a greater level, stem cell research and manipulation makes it abundantly clear that life is much more than a minute glob of chemicals - despite the contention of Darwinists that life arose from the latter base ingredients.
The DNA that rides on stem cells is an ordered information system - a code for life - the genetic code. A fixity of code that makes it possible for researchers to conclude prospects for success in Ms Castillo's case. Had there not been any fixity, had there only been prospects of randomness then what would be the hope of pursuing this operation? Darwinism's key foundation is randomness. The genetic code is ordered to a certain fixity - it does allow variation within a kind - and it is why women don't give birth to crocodiles or other species.
When have you ever seen a coded system (ie information system) arise without an intelligent mind behind it? eg Morse Code, Rosetta Stone, music score, language, computer software/hardware and building plans. How much more then is it necessary for a super mind to be behind the genetic code for all living things?
Whoever heard or saw an intelligent mind purposely order through a process of redundancies? Yet such is what Theistic Evolutionists attribute to their creator. To these I say consider what the Lord Jesus Christ was doing when turning water into good quality wine in an instant through only a thought. Consider also the feeding of the 5,000 and the 4,000. Behold here is your Creator! In Him all things hold together (Col. 1:17).
You Theistic Evolutionists need to consider very carefully what you are doing. The creator you present to the world is not the true Creator. What you are doing is degrading Jesus Christ.
You are there among those who spat on the Lord Jesus Christ when He was under assault from the world.
Neil
Part of a windpipe had been taken from the dead body of a 51 year old woman, it was washed to remove all her own cells. At the same time stem cells were taken from Ms Castillo's own bone marrow and grown to produce about six million cartilage cells, which were grown on the scaffold that was the part of the windpipe taken from the dead woman and had been grafted into Ms Castillo.
In a short space of time, the long term bedridden and breathing afflicted Ms Castillo was able to breath normally and resume a normal life.
I repeat, how wonderful man is! This is the herald of many body part creations we will see in coming years.
Contrast this wonder of man with the stumbling, bumbling, time consuming, frustration, death, disease and mutation riddled manner used by the 'god' of the bible many Theistic Evolutionists of the the Sydney Anglican Diocese present to the world as the creator of life.
What a sham! Who in their right mind could believe in such a god when man will able to do far better in shorter time. Nothing will be beyond man as he accelerates the arranging and rearranging of globs of chemicals. Man is the master of his own destiny. He has destroyed any slender reed of credibility that had been given to metaphysical source of origins. All religions will have been consigned to the heap of invention of primitive man bereft of understanding.
As one Theistic Evolutionist once said "Jesus didn't have the scientific knowledge we now have!"
You foolish Anglicans! Who has bewitched you?
Can't you even see the true God when He has revealed so much of Himself to you? Reflect for a moment what was done to Ms Castillo to retrieve her stem cells. Doesn't it take your mind back to the Genesis 2 incident when God created woman in the first place. God put Adam to sleep and took one of his ribs. Why? Because within the marrow of Adam's rib were his XY chromosomes. All God had to do was remove the Y chromosome and what happens? The X chromosome repeats itself and there you have woman - Eve. Additionally, if God, when removing Adam's rib, 'peeled' it out of the periosteum and left the periosteum intact then Adam's rib would have regrown.
The aforesaid criticism of Theistic Evolutionism is a simplistic observation but remains the valid vacuum Theistic Evolutionists will find themselves in.
On a greater level, stem cell research and manipulation makes it abundantly clear that life is much more than a minute glob of chemicals - despite the contention of Darwinists that life arose from the latter base ingredients.
The DNA that rides on stem cells is an ordered information system - a code for life - the genetic code. A fixity of code that makes it possible for researchers to conclude prospects for success in Ms Castillo's case. Had there not been any fixity, had there only been prospects of randomness then what would be the hope of pursuing this operation? Darwinism's key foundation is randomness. The genetic code is ordered to a certain fixity - it does allow variation within a kind - and it is why women don't give birth to crocodiles or other species.
When have you ever seen a coded system (ie information system) arise without an intelligent mind behind it? eg Morse Code, Rosetta Stone, music score, language, computer software/hardware and building plans. How much more then is it necessary for a super mind to be behind the genetic code for all living things?
Whoever heard or saw an intelligent mind purposely order through a process of redundancies? Yet such is what Theistic Evolutionists attribute to their creator. To these I say consider what the Lord Jesus Christ was doing when turning water into good quality wine in an instant through only a thought. Consider also the feeding of the 5,000 and the 4,000. Behold here is your Creator! In Him all things hold together (Col. 1:17).
You Theistic Evolutionists need to consider very carefully what you are doing. The creator you present to the world is not the true Creator. What you are doing is degrading Jesus Christ.
You are there among those who spat on the Lord Jesus Christ when He was under assault from the world.
Neil
Friday, September 5, 2008
A Roman Catholic view
This page from the Kolbe Centre for the Study of Creation is worth a look. It is a defense of the traditional doctrine of creation (TDC...good abbreviation).
Friday, August 1, 2008
God's use of evolution
In his article "Darwin, Mind and Meaning" (a good read, I might add), Alvin Plantinga makes the following comment: "There is nothing in current evolutionary science to show or even suggest that God did not superintend evolution."
Now, it's part of a longer argument, so I won't take issue with it, but it got me to thinking: what of it if someone claims that 'evolution' was God's method of creating; what do we make of that; was it? (or more accurately, is it, as evolution, according to the standard theory, remains underway).
I do think there is ample material in the Bible to say that God did not use evolution.
A quick run down:
The obvious one: evolution requires that kinds of organisms derived from other kinds over great periods of time. God says he made them by speaking 'and it was so' on a day, which indicates the contrary.
Evolution requires that one kind of organism gave rise to another. In Genesis 1 we are told that to the contrary, God created each kind to reproduce after its kind: not after some other kind. (See also this article).
Evolution requires that what is was made out of what is seen. Hebrews 11:3 denies this: By faith we understand that the universe was formed at God's command, so that what is seen was not made out of what was visible.
Evolution requires great globs of time between the start and man's appearance. Jesus tells us that God made us male and female from the beginning. Evolution also has it that the first few million years creatures were asexual.
Evolution tells us that the spectrum of animals came into existance over great periods of time, and not all together. Genesis 1 tells us they came all together: on day 6 (even if not in a 'day', it certainly portrays them as coming all together, as Adam named them all together).
Evolution tells us that first there was nothing, then everything: that's how Dawkins can be an 'intellectually fulfilled atheist'; God tells us he was, then he spoke, and light (energy) came to being.
Evolution tells us there is no purpose; God tells us his acts were purposeful.
Evolution starts and ends with the material; God starts and ends with love.
So, what was God's method of creation? Speaking!
Now, it's part of a longer argument, so I won't take issue with it, but it got me to thinking: what of it if someone claims that 'evolution' was God's method of creating; what do we make of that; was it? (or more accurately, is it, as evolution, according to the standard theory, remains underway).
I do think there is ample material in the Bible to say that God did not use evolution.
A quick run down:
The obvious one: evolution requires that kinds of organisms derived from other kinds over great periods of time. God says he made them by speaking 'and it was so' on a day, which indicates the contrary.
Evolution requires that one kind of organism gave rise to another. In Genesis 1 we are told that to the contrary, God created each kind to reproduce after its kind: not after some other kind. (See also this article).
Evolution requires that what is was made out of what is seen. Hebrews 11:3 denies this: By faith we understand that the universe was formed at God's command, so that what is seen was not made out of what was visible.
Evolution requires great globs of time between the start and man's appearance. Jesus tells us that God made us male and female from the beginning. Evolution also has it that the first few million years creatures were asexual.
Evolution tells us that the spectrum of animals came into existance over great periods of time, and not all together. Genesis 1 tells us they came all together: on day 6 (even if not in a 'day', it certainly portrays them as coming all together, as Adam named them all together).
Evolution tells us that first there was nothing, then everything: that's how Dawkins can be an 'intellectually fulfilled atheist'; God tells us he was, then he spoke, and light (energy) came to being.
Evolution tells us there is no purpose; God tells us his acts were purposeful.
Evolution starts and ends with the material; God starts and ends with love.
So, what was God's method of creation? Speaking!
Monday, July 14, 2008
Simple, beautiful and not influenced by the spirit of man
A friend sent me a paper recently. I found this extract very sensible and wanted to share it.
"This argument had been advanced by P. H. Gosse in his book, Omphalos: An Attempt to Untie the Geological Knot which was published in London in 1857. Dabney does not refer to it and probably had not seen it. Gosse’s book is quite summarily dealt with by Bernard Ramm in his recent book, The Christian View of Science and Scripture (1954). Ramm makes no mention of Dabney. He prefers to give the scientists all the time that they want to develop a cosmos by what practically amounts to a uniformitarian and naturalistic method, despite the fact that he declares himself to be a supernaturalist. Against such a view Dabney argues: “Why should the Theistic philosopher desire to push back the creative act of God to the remotest possible age, and reduce his agency to the least possible minimum, as is continually done in these speculations? What is gained by it? Instead of granting that God created a cosmos, a world, some strive continually to show that he created only the rude germs of a world, ascribing as little as possible to God, and as much as possible to natural law. Cui bono; if you are not hankering for Atheism? Is a completed result any harder for infinite powers than a germinal one? What is natural law; and what is its source? It originated in the creative power, and is maintained, energized, and regulated by the perpetual providence of God. Do you crave to push God away, as far as possible? It does not help you to say, natural law directed the formation of this mass of marble instead of supernatural creation; for God is as near and as infinite in his common, natural, as in his first, supernatural working.”"
"This argument had been advanced by P. H. Gosse in his book, Omphalos: An Attempt to Untie the Geological Knot which was published in London in 1857. Dabney does not refer to it and probably had not seen it. Gosse’s book is quite summarily dealt with by Bernard Ramm in his recent book, The Christian View of Science and Scripture (1954). Ramm makes no mention of Dabney. He prefers to give the scientists all the time that they want to develop a cosmos by what practically amounts to a uniformitarian and naturalistic method, despite the fact that he declares himself to be a supernaturalist. Against such a view Dabney argues: “Why should the Theistic philosopher desire to push back the creative act of God to the remotest possible age, and reduce his agency to the least possible minimum, as is continually done in these speculations? What is gained by it? Instead of granting that God created a cosmos, a world, some strive continually to show that he created only the rude germs of a world, ascribing as little as possible to God, and as much as possible to natural law. Cui bono; if you are not hankering for Atheism? Is a completed result any harder for infinite powers than a germinal one? What is natural law; and what is its source? It originated in the creative power, and is maintained, energized, and regulated by the perpetual providence of God. Do you crave to push God away, as far as possible? It does not help you to say, natural law directed the formation of this mass of marble instead of supernatural creation; for God is as near and as infinite in his common, natural, as in his first, supernatural working.”"
Thursday, May 8, 2008
Leupold on Genesis, from his introduction.
Some snippets from Leupold's commentary on Genesis. Its an oldie but a goodie, and only goes to show that the SADist position is one that is well known and discredited.
The issue involved briefly stated is: Have we history or legend in Genesis? A notable array of famous scholars can be cited in support of what the great majority of writers on the subject in our day regard as the only tenable view, namely Genesis is legend. From Wellhausen down outstanding names are Gunkel, Jeremias, Driver, Skinner, Procksch, etc., etc. However, we are not impressed by this array of learning, which we must without reservation class as pseudo-science on matters of this sort. Strong dogmatic presuppositions are too definitely displayed by these scholars: miracles are considered as practically impossible; so is plenary inspiration; Israel’s history can rise to no higher levels than the Babylonian or the Egyptian; an arbitrary evolutionary standard is to be employed in measuring historical evidence. Besides, the following facts of Israel’s history are overlooked:
a) the utter dissimilarity of the Genesis record and the legends of the nations (the sober common sense of average Christians has always been able to detect this difference much more clearly than the overtrained scholar, who often loses entirely his sense of perspective);
b) the clear distinction preserved by Israel’s sacred records of the successive stages of revelation (4:26; 17:22-27; Exod. 6:3; Exod. 20; Deut. 18:15,19; I Sam. 3:1, etc.);
c) the accuracy of Israel’s historical tradition (13:10; chapter 14; 20:20-24; chapter 25; 26:1; cf. also chapter 5 and chapter 10);
d) distinct efforts by the patriarchs to perpetuate the remembrance of events of outstanding religious importance (12:7; 13:18; 21:33; 33:20);
e) the sober tone displayed in recording the most exalted revelation (we refer to the following chapters 12, 15, 18, 22, and 32:23-32);
…
We may at this point take issue with the claim commonly raised in our day that Genesis, as to its contents, as well as other older Biblical books falls in the category of poetry rather than history. Apparently, they who take this position are reluctant about claiming that such books are legendary in character. That would seem derogatory to their distinctive character. Yet they would prefer not to be bound to accept the Creation account, the record of the Fall, and the like as literal history. Then these ancient tales would be a grand poetic conception, involving a deeper view of truth yet allowing for a great variety of interpretations such as may be suited to the fancy of the individual. We are utterly out of sympathy with such an attitude; for it does not conform to the facts of the [matter].
It is rather a straightforward, strictly historical account, rising, indeed, to heights of poetic beauty of expression in the Creation account, in the Flood story, in the record of Abraham’s sacrifice of Isaac, in Judah’s plea before Joseph, and the like. But the writer of speech, grammatical and rhetorical uses no more of figurative language than any gifted historian might, who merely adorns a strictly .literal account with the ordinary run of current figures.
…
There are several modes of interpretation current in our day that deserve to be stigmatized as inadequate and unsatisfactory. Some still prefer to allegorize portions of Scripture rejecting the literal sense and seeking a hidden spiritual meaning, although hardly any would venture to follow this procedure exclusively and consistently. In rejecting this type of interpretation we do not question the validity of the interpretation that sees types of Christ in outstanding Old Testament characters especially where the New Testament suggests such a use. Much more common in our day is the fault of attempting to press Old Testament Scriptures down to the level of the sacred writings of the heathen, making them to be works patterned particularly after Babylonian source material.
…
In a general way it would be correct to say that this book is singular in its kind, for it offers the only correct and satisfactory information that we possess concerning prehistoric times and the Urgeschichte ("history of the primitive ages"). It goes back beyond the reach of available historical sources and offers not mythical suppositions, not poetical fancies, not vague suggestions, but a positive record of things as they actually transpired and, at the same time, of matters of infinite moment for all mankind.
…
Before God can be known as Saviour, He must be understood as the Creator of humankind and of the world. Just what manner of Father and Creator He is we find displayed in the two Creation chapters, Genesis I and 2. In like manner no adequate and correct conception of man is possible without a knowledge of the essentials concerning his creation, his original state, the image of God, and the like. Again, the problem of sin will constitute much more of a problem if the origin of sin, that is to say, the Fall into sin be not understood.
On comparison with other cosmogonies
This account of creation is so pronouncedly different from the Biblical account that the points of difference completely overshadow the incidental points of resemblance. To speak of a "striking resemblance between the two cosmogonies" certainly is a partisan overstatement of the case; and to go on to say that "the cosmogony of Genesis I rests on a conception of the process of creation fundamentally identical with that of the Enuma elis (the opening words of the Chaldean Genesis) tablets" is simply a distortion of the truth.
The issue involved briefly stated is: Have we history or legend in Genesis? A notable array of famous scholars can be cited in support of what the great majority of writers on the subject in our day regard as the only tenable view, namely Genesis is legend. From Wellhausen down outstanding names are Gunkel, Jeremias, Driver, Skinner, Procksch, etc., etc. However, we are not impressed by this array of learning, which we must without reservation class as pseudo-science on matters of this sort. Strong dogmatic presuppositions are too definitely displayed by these scholars: miracles are considered as practically impossible; so is plenary inspiration; Israel’s history can rise to no higher levels than the Babylonian or the Egyptian; an arbitrary evolutionary standard is to be employed in measuring historical evidence. Besides, the following facts of Israel’s history are overlooked:
a) the utter dissimilarity of the Genesis record and the legends of the nations (the sober common sense of average Christians has always been able to detect this difference much more clearly than the overtrained scholar, who often loses entirely his sense of perspective);
b) the clear distinction preserved by Israel’s sacred records of the successive stages of revelation (4:26; 17:22-27; Exod. 6:3; Exod. 20; Deut. 18:15,19; I Sam. 3:1, etc.);
c) the accuracy of Israel’s historical tradition (13:10; chapter 14; 20:20-24; chapter 25; 26:1; cf. also chapter 5 and chapter 10);
d) distinct efforts by the patriarchs to perpetuate the remembrance of events of outstanding religious importance (12:7; 13:18; 21:33; 33:20);
e) the sober tone displayed in recording the most exalted revelation (we refer to the following chapters 12, 15, 18, 22, and 32:23-32);
…
We may at this point take issue with the claim commonly raised in our day that Genesis, as to its contents, as well as other older Biblical books falls in the category of poetry rather than history. Apparently, they who take this position are reluctant about claiming that such books are legendary in character. That would seem derogatory to their distinctive character. Yet they would prefer not to be bound to accept the Creation account, the record of the Fall, and the like as literal history. Then these ancient tales would be a grand poetic conception, involving a deeper view of truth yet allowing for a great variety of interpretations such as may be suited to the fancy of the individual. We are utterly out of sympathy with such an attitude; for it does not conform to the facts of the [matter].
It is rather a straightforward, strictly historical account, rising, indeed, to heights of poetic beauty of expression in the Creation account, in the Flood story, in the record of Abraham’s sacrifice of Isaac, in Judah’s plea before Joseph, and the like. But the writer of speech, grammatical and rhetorical uses no more of figurative language than any gifted historian might, who merely adorns a strictly .literal account with the ordinary run of current figures.
…
There are several modes of interpretation current in our day that deserve to be stigmatized as inadequate and unsatisfactory. Some still prefer to allegorize portions of Scripture rejecting the literal sense and seeking a hidden spiritual meaning, although hardly any would venture to follow this procedure exclusively and consistently. In rejecting this type of interpretation we do not question the validity of the interpretation that sees types of Christ in outstanding Old Testament characters especially where the New Testament suggests such a use. Much more common in our day is the fault of attempting to press Old Testament Scriptures down to the level of the sacred writings of the heathen, making them to be works patterned particularly after Babylonian source material.
…
In a general way it would be correct to say that this book is singular in its kind, for it offers the only correct and satisfactory information that we possess concerning prehistoric times and the Urgeschichte ("history of the primitive ages"). It goes back beyond the reach of available historical sources and offers not mythical suppositions, not poetical fancies, not vague suggestions, but a positive record of things as they actually transpired and, at the same time, of matters of infinite moment for all mankind.
…
Before God can be known as Saviour, He must be understood as the Creator of humankind and of the world. Just what manner of Father and Creator He is we find displayed in the two Creation chapters, Genesis I and 2. In like manner no adequate and correct conception of man is possible without a knowledge of the essentials concerning his creation, his original state, the image of God, and the like. Again, the problem of sin will constitute much more of a problem if the origin of sin, that is to say, the Fall into sin be not understood.
On comparison with other cosmogonies
This account of creation is so pronouncedly different from the Biblical account that the points of difference completely overshadow the incidental points of resemblance. To speak of a "striking resemblance between the two cosmogonies" certainly is a partisan overstatement of the case; and to go on to say that "the cosmogony of Genesis I rests on a conception of the process of creation fundamentally identical with that of the Enuma elis (the opening words of the Chaldean Genesis) tablets" is simply a distortion of the truth.
Saturday, April 5, 2008
Batting against Chris McGillion
This letter was written in 1999 to the Sydney Morning Herald, following an article by the religious affairs editor, Chris McGillion:
Chris McGillion in his piece on 'creation science' neglected one key point, in my view.
He told us that it is "bad science and bad theology", but by using bad philosophy and bad biblical analysis. Apart from skirting, rather than addressing, the issues raised, he forgot to tell us he was equivocating in his use of 'science' throughout the article.
No one disputes that all biological systems are similiar and we share a common chemistry of life, but it begs the question to say that this assures us that 'grand story' evolution really happened. By the fact of common habitat life chemistry must be common between all life! It could not be otherwise. Nor does anyone dispute that we see change in and of species.
The dispute is that the totalising 'grand story' evolution meta-narrative is anything more than a construction of religious materialism in its assertion that everything comes from nothing. It is thus in direct conflict with the non-materialist theism of Christianity.
That many Christians don't realise this comes as no surprise, as Christianity habitually chases after pagan intellectual fashions in the follorn hope of gaining a hearing, much to its shame, and with a dismal track record.
Chris McGillion in his piece on 'creation science' neglected one key point, in my view.
He told us that it is "bad science and bad theology", but by using bad philosophy and bad biblical analysis. Apart from skirting, rather than addressing, the issues raised, he forgot to tell us he was equivocating in his use of 'science' throughout the article.
No one disputes that all biological systems are similiar and we share a common chemistry of life, but it begs the question to say that this assures us that 'grand story' evolution really happened. By the fact of common habitat life chemistry must be common between all life! It could not be otherwise. Nor does anyone dispute that we see change in and of species.
The dispute is that the totalising 'grand story' evolution meta-narrative is anything more than a construction of religious materialism in its assertion that everything comes from nothing. It is thus in direct conflict with the non-materialist theism of Christianity.
That many Christians don't realise this comes as no surprise, as Christianity habitually chases after pagan intellectual fashions in the follorn hope of gaining a hearing, much to its shame, and with a dismal track record.
Thursday, January 31, 2008
The Impossibility of Creation
A chapter from:
The Ascent of Science by Brian Silver
Solomon Press (OUP) 1998
I've posted it as it provides a not unique view of the materialist view and the dilemma it poses for existential questions. Worth noting, I think, that this type of atheistic natural atheology is not uncommon, and in the popular mind is often the unexpressed view of life and the world.
It suggests to me, consistently with the Bible, that natural apologetics is a valuable part of our proclamation of the gospel . . . as Paul teaches!
“ “As a ten-year old child I lay in bed and sweated out my nightly terror of death. It was not hell that worried me, but oblivion. I didn’t believe in life after death. My reason refused to be humiliated by a cowardly compromise with my fears. But in the Slough of Despond I found hope: the complete inexplicability of the Creation. I asked John Donne’s question: How can something appear out of nothing? For if that was possible, which it appeared to be, then anything was possible—even life after death. The fear of death faded, but I remain, as most of us do, mystified by the fact of the Creation. The Bible didn’t help me. In my search for a more convincing story I discarded the Egyptians, Babylonians, and Hindus, although in my wanderings I was attracted to the Gnostics, an early Christian sect whose origins actually predate Christ and who recognized a secondary God, the Demiurge, who was responsible for the creation of evil. The Demiurge answers some every awkward questions. But not how being emerged from nonbeing.
What preceded the Creation, or has that statement no meaning? Like “How high is green?” Was time born at the Creation? And space: Aristotle said that time was created with the cosmos, and so there was no “before.” Modern theories of the Creation tend to agree with him, but no one has provided a readily comprehensible solution to Donne’s question: What was nothing and how does something emerge from it? To which Locke replied: “But you will say, it is now impossible to admit of the making of any thing out of nothing, since we cannot possibly conceive it? I answer, No: Because it is not reasonable to deny the power of an Infinite Being, because we cannot comprehend its operations.”
And once we have a universe, can we understand its physical limits? Not in everyday three-dimensional imagery. General relativity allows us to create forms of space-time that resemble the surface of an orange, thus ensuring a space-time that has no boundaries but is finite. There is no edge to this surface, no end or beginning. With a little goodwill you can feel yourself walking on the surface. It is a picture that anyone can construct, but which in the end doesn’t really squash our childish(?) question: What’s outside the orange, Dad?
The easiest way out is to accept our limitations. The explanations of the cosmologists—and there is a choice—may be convincing mathematically, but we will never be comfortable with them because they are not constructed within the kind of (separate) space and time that we experience. Our, quite unjustified, gut feelings that space and time are absolute Newtonian playing fields does not encourage friendly feelings toward professors with incomprehensible equations assuring us that we live in a warped space-time that started from a fluctuation in a vacuum.
None of the present theories pretends to give a commonsense answer to the problem of nothing and its emergence into something. The concept of fluctuations in a vacuum is, to most people, totally unacceptable as an explanation of the Creation. I am also aware of the stories that begin, “A wedding ring has no beginning. There are objects which exist which have not beginning so why not the universe?” Once again, the mind can swallow it, but not the instincts. It has been suggested that a model for the appearance of matter is to make a video of a black hole swallowing and destroying matter, and then run the cassette in reverse. This is the so-called white hole, an entity predicted by Einstein’s general relativity. It makes a good subject for an animated cartoon, but do you believe it? Where did the white hole come from?
Sir Arthur Eddington wrote, “The beginning seems to represent insuperable difficulties unless we agree to look on it as frankly supernatural. We may have to let it go at that.” Not very satisfactory, but I defy any cosmologist to explain the moment of Creation in the language of HMS [this reference escapes me].
Those scientists concerned with the origins of the physical universe begin their investigations just after the Creation, not just before. The story that they have to tell will unquestionably be modified as we learn more and think deeper, but in its essentials it seems at present to give a good rough explanation of the way that this universe developed. As we saw, there may be others. Let’s see what our tribe’s creation myth says [then follows an explanation of a conventional materialist ‘big bang’]
[Author then discusses the ‘anthropic’ principle.]
My own feeling, for what it is worth, is that the anthropic principle is fascinating, unprovable, and unlikely. The principle always seems to me to be a substitute for the religious belief in the special creation of man. It is a theory that allows the hard-bitten materialist with the soft centre to lead God back on the stage, and to use the value of physical constants to hint that our advent had been predicted in handwritten (Hebrew, of course) holy script, slightly before the Big Bang.
...I am not suggesting that there was a guiding hand…we have no answer to these questions, and finding a solution will tell us something about the structure of the cosmos. It must be admitted, even by all those with whom I share disbelief, that at present by far and away the most likely hypothesis is that Zeus rules." "
[Then follows an interesting chapter entitled “the Tree of Death”, but I’ll leave that for you to read...]
The Ascent of Science by Brian Silver
Solomon Press (OUP) 1998
I've posted it as it provides a not unique view of the materialist view and the dilemma it poses for existential questions. Worth noting, I think, that this type of atheistic natural atheology is not uncommon, and in the popular mind is often the unexpressed view of life and the world.
It suggests to me, consistently with the Bible, that natural apologetics is a valuable part of our proclamation of the gospel . . . as Paul teaches!
“ “As a ten-year old child I lay in bed and sweated out my nightly terror of death. It was not hell that worried me, but oblivion. I didn’t believe in life after death. My reason refused to be humiliated by a cowardly compromise with my fears. But in the Slough of Despond I found hope: the complete inexplicability of the Creation. I asked John Donne’s question: How can something appear out of nothing? For if that was possible, which it appeared to be, then anything was possible—even life after death. The fear of death faded, but I remain, as most of us do, mystified by the fact of the Creation. The Bible didn’t help me. In my search for a more convincing story I discarded the Egyptians, Babylonians, and Hindus, although in my wanderings I was attracted to the Gnostics, an early Christian sect whose origins actually predate Christ and who recognized a secondary God, the Demiurge, who was responsible for the creation of evil. The Demiurge answers some every awkward questions. But not how being emerged from nonbeing.
What preceded the Creation, or has that statement no meaning? Like “How high is green?” Was time born at the Creation? And space: Aristotle said that time was created with the cosmos, and so there was no “before.” Modern theories of the Creation tend to agree with him, but no one has provided a readily comprehensible solution to Donne’s question: What was nothing and how does something emerge from it? To which Locke replied: “But you will say, it is now impossible to admit of the making of any thing out of nothing, since we cannot possibly conceive it? I answer, No: Because it is not reasonable to deny the power of an Infinite Being, because we cannot comprehend its operations.”
And once we have a universe, can we understand its physical limits? Not in everyday three-dimensional imagery. General relativity allows us to create forms of space-time that resemble the surface of an orange, thus ensuring a space-time that has no boundaries but is finite. There is no edge to this surface, no end or beginning. With a little goodwill you can feel yourself walking on the surface. It is a picture that anyone can construct, but which in the end doesn’t really squash our childish(?) question: What’s outside the orange, Dad?
The easiest way out is to accept our limitations. The explanations of the cosmologists—and there is a choice—may be convincing mathematically, but we will never be comfortable with them because they are not constructed within the kind of (separate) space and time that we experience. Our, quite unjustified, gut feelings that space and time are absolute Newtonian playing fields does not encourage friendly feelings toward professors with incomprehensible equations assuring us that we live in a warped space-time that started from a fluctuation in a vacuum.
None of the present theories pretends to give a commonsense answer to the problem of nothing and its emergence into something. The concept of fluctuations in a vacuum is, to most people, totally unacceptable as an explanation of the Creation. I am also aware of the stories that begin, “A wedding ring has no beginning. There are objects which exist which have not beginning so why not the universe?” Once again, the mind can swallow it, but not the instincts. It has been suggested that a model for the appearance of matter is to make a video of a black hole swallowing and destroying matter, and then run the cassette in reverse. This is the so-called white hole, an entity predicted by Einstein’s general relativity. It makes a good subject for an animated cartoon, but do you believe it? Where did the white hole come from?
Sir Arthur Eddington wrote, “The beginning seems to represent insuperable difficulties unless we agree to look on it as frankly supernatural. We may have to let it go at that.” Not very satisfactory, but I defy any cosmologist to explain the moment of Creation in the language of HMS [this reference escapes me].
Those scientists concerned with the origins of the physical universe begin their investigations just after the Creation, not just before. The story that they have to tell will unquestionably be modified as we learn more and think deeper, but in its essentials it seems at present to give a good rough explanation of the way that this universe developed. As we saw, there may be others. Let’s see what our tribe’s creation myth says [then follows an explanation of a conventional materialist ‘big bang’]
[Author then discusses the ‘anthropic’ principle.]
My own feeling, for what it is worth, is that the anthropic principle is fascinating, unprovable, and unlikely. The principle always seems to me to be a substitute for the religious belief in the special creation of man. It is a theory that allows the hard-bitten materialist with the soft centre to lead God back on the stage, and to use the value of physical constants to hint that our advent had been predicted in handwritten (Hebrew, of course) holy script, slightly before the Big Bang.
...I am not suggesting that there was a guiding hand…we have no answer to these questions, and finding a solution will tell us something about the structure of the cosmos. It must be admitted, even by all those with whom I share disbelief, that at present by far and away the most likely hypothesis is that Zeus rules." "
[Then follows an interesting chapter entitled “the Tree of Death”, but I’ll leave that for you to read...]
Wednesday, January 30, 2008
Where does the world lead?
For some 60 years Antony Flew has been one of the most prominent atheists in the world. In 2004, to the surprise and horror of his colleagues and many admirers, Flew announced that he was no longer an atheist. He said the biochemical design of DNA and the incredible complexity of living cells convinced him of a supreme intelligence.
Design in the world, of course, has always pointed to the reality of God. Romans 1:20 says: ‘For since the creation of the world God’s invisible qualities—his eternal power and divine nature—have been clearly seen, being understood from what has been made … ’.
But who is the designer? And why are there so many bad things in this world? Science cannot answer these questions. But the Creator himself has spoken to us through his prophets (Hebrews 1:1–2) and given us answers in the Bible.
Jesus himself connected the action and love of God with events in the 'natural' world (within the creation: the idea of 'natural' itself, I think contains a pagan isolation of space-time from God). Jesus thus adopted an approach to preaching that is akin to any who harness events or processes in the world to refer to God.
I don't think that modern biblical creationism does what the early modern natural theologians did: that is take an aristotelean view of nature up to the Scriptures. They do the inverse, I think and look at the manifest complexity in the real world and find nothing in that world that could give rise to the complexity: quite rational, really. It is materialism that sustains an irrational position: it blathers on about the material world explaining itself, with no evidence, and not even a good story, only question begging circularity!
The counterpoint to this contra-positive apologetic is what we find in Romans, where Paul clearly teaches that the real world points to God. It is our job to explicate this connection. Not to deny it and succumb to godlessness by joining its vain and finally empty view of the world with the God who speaks, loves and rescues.
Luke 12:
22And He said to His disciples, "For this reason I say to you, do not worry about your life, as to what you will eat; nor for your body, as to what you will put on.
23"For life is more than food, and the body more than clothing.
24"Consider the ravens, for they neither sow nor reap; they have no storeroom nor barn, and yet God feeds them; how much more valuable you are than the birds!
25"And which of you by worrying can add a single hour to his life's span?
26"If then you cannot do even a very little thing, why do you worry about other matters?
27"Consider the lilies, how they grow: they neither toil nor spin; but I tell you, not even Solomon in all his glory clothed himself like one of these.
28"But if God so clothes the grass in the field, which is alive today and tomorrow is thrown into the furnace, how much more will He clothe you? You men of little faith!
29"And do not seek what you will eat and what you will drink, and do not keep worrying.
30"For all these things the nations of the world eagerly seek; but your Father knows that you need these things.
31"But seek His kingdom, and these things will be added to you.
32"Do not be afraid, little flock, for your Father has chosen gladly to give you the kingdom.
Design in the world, of course, has always pointed to the reality of God. Romans 1:20 says: ‘For since the creation of the world God’s invisible qualities—his eternal power and divine nature—have been clearly seen, being understood from what has been made … ’.
But who is the designer? And why are there so many bad things in this world? Science cannot answer these questions. But the Creator himself has spoken to us through his prophets (Hebrews 1:1–2) and given us answers in the Bible.
Jesus himself connected the action and love of God with events in the 'natural' world (within the creation: the idea of 'natural' itself, I think contains a pagan isolation of space-time from God). Jesus thus adopted an approach to preaching that is akin to any who harness events or processes in the world to refer to God.
I don't think that modern biblical creationism does what the early modern natural theologians did: that is take an aristotelean view of nature up to the Scriptures. They do the inverse, I think and look at the manifest complexity in the real world and find nothing in that world that could give rise to the complexity: quite rational, really. It is materialism that sustains an irrational position: it blathers on about the material world explaining itself, with no evidence, and not even a good story, only question begging circularity!
The counterpoint to this contra-positive apologetic is what we find in Romans, where Paul clearly teaches that the real world points to God. It is our job to explicate this connection. Not to deny it and succumb to godlessness by joining its vain and finally empty view of the world with the God who speaks, loves and rescues.
Luke 12:
22And He said to His disciples, "For this reason I say to you, do not worry about your life, as to what you will eat; nor for your body, as to what you will put on.
23"For life is more than food, and the body more than clothing.
24"Consider the ravens, for they neither sow nor reap; they have no storeroom nor barn, and yet God feeds them; how much more valuable you are than the birds!
25"And which of you by worrying can add a single hour to his life's span?
26"If then you cannot do even a very little thing, why do you worry about other matters?
27"Consider the lilies, how they grow: they neither toil nor spin; but I tell you, not even Solomon in all his glory clothed himself like one of these.
28"But if God so clothes the grass in the field, which is alive today and tomorrow is thrown into the furnace, how much more will He clothe you? You men of little faith!
29"And do not seek what you will eat and what you will drink, and do not keep worrying.
30"For all these things the nations of the world eagerly seek; but your Father knows that you need these things.
31"But seek His kingdom, and these things will be added to you.
32"Do not be afraid, little flock, for your Father has chosen gladly to give you the kingdom.
Tuesday, January 29, 2008
A Star Gone Wrong
In the quote of the day I flicked to on the net today, this came up:
"We are bits of stellar matter that got cold by accident, bits of a star gone wrong"
- Sir Arthur Eddington
Sometimes I wonder if the SAD (Sydney Anglican Diocese) worthies realise that under most people's beliefs, this foundation lies. I even wonder if there is an implicit materialism under the surface of most evangelicals! I recall a recent survey that showed most evangelicals did not have a biblical 'world view'; this would explain the ease with which evangelicals, even of the SAD variety, slip into a set of beliefs that is identical with that set which takes the cosmos as a given and makes the supernatural subservient to the 'natural'.
For this lot, I don't think the radical confrontation with materialism and its allied paganisms that the creation as revealed in Genesis constitutes is acknolwedged, or perhaps even can be!
The startling point of confrontation is that the cosmos is not a given, but the result of the word of God (Heb 11:3)!
I think that the notion that the cosmos is not a 'given' fails to sink in when Genesian creation is melded with materialist dogma (read 'evolution'), or when an attempt is made at such a combination (usually to the discrediting of the revelation, never materialism or naturalism). The reason I think this is that the Bible starts with creation as not a 'given' at all, but as something supernatural and of particular significance: it is not something to be pushed aside in idealist frenzy, but to be embraced and understood as lying at the heart of God's relationship with his people; and not only in covenental terms, but in in the broadest possible meaning. This is clearly important: it is at the start of it all; and is not a side show or somehow inconsequential, or mere doctrine (pace von Rad, and I suspect the SADs)
"We are bits of stellar matter that got cold by accident, bits of a star gone wrong"
- Sir Arthur Eddington
Sometimes I wonder if the SAD (Sydney Anglican Diocese) worthies realise that under most people's beliefs, this foundation lies. I even wonder if there is an implicit materialism under the surface of most evangelicals! I recall a recent survey that showed most evangelicals did not have a biblical 'world view'; this would explain the ease with which evangelicals, even of the SAD variety, slip into a set of beliefs that is identical with that set which takes the cosmos as a given and makes the supernatural subservient to the 'natural'.
For this lot, I don't think the radical confrontation with materialism and its allied paganisms that the creation as revealed in Genesis constitutes is acknolwedged, or perhaps even can be!
The startling point of confrontation is that the cosmos is not a given, but the result of the word of God (Heb 11:3)!
I think that the notion that the cosmos is not a 'given' fails to sink in when Genesian creation is melded with materialist dogma (read 'evolution'), or when an attempt is made at such a combination (usually to the discrediting of the revelation, never materialism or naturalism). The reason I think this is that the Bible starts with creation as not a 'given' at all, but as something supernatural and of particular significance: it is not something to be pushed aside in idealist frenzy, but to be embraced and understood as lying at the heart of God's relationship with his people; and not only in covenental terms, but in in the broadest possible meaning. This is clearly important: it is at the start of it all; and is not a side show or somehow inconsequential, or mere doctrine (pace von Rad, and I suspect the SADs)
Friday, January 18, 2008
The side show
The doctrine of creation is underplayed in the Sydney Diocese to the extent that you'd wonder if God created at all . . .so I liked this quote from a review of History and Hermeneutics by Murray Rae:
Rae roots his account of theological history in the doctrine of creation (chapter 3). Attention to the doctrine of creation he argues allows us to recognise that creation has its own being and integrity distinct from God, that creation has a goal and so a history and is the work of the triune God who 'does not abandon the world to its own devices, nor withdraws his promise, but involves himself in bring creation to its goal' (54). History cannot be explained without reference to God, because God involves himself in creation, in the life of Israel and supremely in the incarnation. What history is rethought of the basis of theology.
The book seems to have a bit of a Pannenbergian feel to it: could be worth a look (now if we used little advert on this blog we could make money when people buy from Amazon!! But we don't).
Rae roots his account of theological history in the doctrine of creation (chapter 3). Attention to the doctrine of creation he argues allows us to recognise that creation has its own being and integrity distinct from God, that creation has a goal and so a history and is the work of the triune God who 'does not abandon the world to its own devices, nor withdraws his promise, but involves himself in bring creation to its goal' (54). History cannot be explained without reference to God, because God involves himself in creation, in the life of Israel and supremely in the incarnation. What history is rethought of the basis of theology.
The book seems to have a bit of a Pannenbergian feel to it: could be worth a look (now if we used little advert on this blog we could make money when people buy from Amazon!! But we don't).
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)
Posts
