Seven Days that divide the world

In this post I want to take a look at another chapter in the book 'Seven Days' by John Lennox (Appendix A. A brief background to Genesis)

Quotes and comments;

119. 'Young [Edward J.] also points out that Genesis 1. has certain features that would be unusual in straight [narrative] prose.' [1.]
- I would guess that the prose has 'unusual' features because the event/s are unusual. (People seem to forget this rather obvious point.)

120. C. John Collins tells us the prose in unusual 'because of the highly patterened way of telling it all.'
- This claims seems to ignore the actual events; i.e. perhaps the events were highly patterned. (We might expect this if mathematics is the language of God or the language of creation.) The bible tells us that Jehovah is the God of order, not disorder. (Commentators seem to forget that this was a perfect world being created; i.e. a perfect world being created by a perfect God.)

120. 'The Genesis text come to us from the ancient Near East, and so any attempt to understand it will be enriched by a knowledge of the literature and culture of the time.
- Is that true? Does the text come from the Near East? Lennox here is following the higher critics approach. I agree with those scholars who believe the text predates the Flood of Noah's day, and that it may well go back to Adam. Lennox doesn't even mention such an idea, let alone consider it.

If he's wrong about when and where the text originated his turning to post flood culture to interpret it is going to lead him into nothing but error. (Here's a case where turning to 'science' to interpret scripture can lead people astray, and not be helpful at all.)

Reformed theology stresses the necessity and importance of letting scripture interpret scripture.... but the 'higher' critics have abandoned that approach for what they call science.

120. Of the writing of Genesis Lennox tells us 'this would mean that it dates from around the fifteenth to the thirteenth centuries B.C.
- That seems pretty strange to me. Are we to believe that a man (Noah) who lived over six hundred years didn't manage to find time to write down a creation account? You might think that someone who lived in the pre-flood world, survived the Flood, and then went on to live in the post flood world might have thought his story worth preserving :=}

OECs claim to take the Bible as authoritative (and I have no doubt they believe they do) but in reality they treat people like Noah (Adam, etc.) as mythical figures. e.g. are we really to believe that people who lived over nine hundred years never bothered to invent any kind of script? A picture script such as ancient Chinese could have been invented by any 'ordinary' human being, let alone superior ones. (I don't believe there ever was a human generation without writing.) Are we supposed to believe that men who could build a 450 foot long ship couldn't sketch out a stick man figure or the 'picture' (ideogram) of a boat? I find such an idea comical.

The fact we haven't discovered this writing doesn't mean it didn't exist; i.e. an argument from science shouldn't be confused with an argument from science. It's my opinion that most OECs have absorbed too much Darwinian thinking. (i.e. ancient man wasn't some kind of brute evolving into the 'superior' human of modern times; he was at least as intelligent as us if not more intelligent.

More than a few OECs tell us that Genesis came after creation stories such as the Enuma Elish and Gilgamesh, and liberals tell us it was a written at the time of the exile. (ie. 600 b.c.) Doesn't it strike anyone as strange that God's people should only have become interested in creation after their pagan neighbors? I find such claims utterly nonsensical. eg. Genesis tells us God spoke to Adam. Why wouldn't he have written this down? Are we to believe God told Adam nothing about the creation? Are we to believe he wouldn't have written an account of Eve's creation down? If God spoke to you wouldn't you write it down? We're told God spoke to Noah. Wouldn't we expect him to write an account of this?

Lennox seems to accept the 'critical' account of Genesis, rather than the Reformed view. (I suppose he would say he's following the 'evangelical' view.)

124. Lennox seems to lean toward seeing Genesis 1. (etc.) as a response to pagan culture. e.g. the sun is presented simply as a light as opposed to a god. I disagree with this approach, and see pagan cultures (e.g. Egypt) as the reactionary ones. I see their ideas (e.g. polytheism) as a reaction against the monotheism of Noah or an Abraham. We know from the story of Babel that it didn't take men long to begin rebelling against God.

Michael Johnson

Notes;
1. Seven Days that divide the world - John Lennox

Review of Who Made God?

One of the better books I've read recently is 'Who Made God?' by Edgar Andrews. He is 'Emeritus professor of Materials at the university of London, and an international expert on the science of large molecules' among other things. He's long been involved in the debate over Origins and once famously (with A. E. Wilder-Smith) debated Richard Dawins at Oxford.

Quotes and comments;

1. He begins the book by quoting the SF writer Iain Banks as saying ''I'm an evangelical atheist; religions are cultural artifacts. We make God, not the other way around... Religion is one way to explain the universe, but eventually science comes along and explains it...'' [1.]

- Banks usually writes better than this, but we'll presume he did in fact say this. There's so much that's wrong with these statements one hardly knows where to begin. It's hard to know why he would see atheist as good news to exclaim to people; that's certainly not how Bertrand Russell saw it, as the basic message is one of nihilism.

I would agree with him that most religions are cultural artifacts, but so are all worldviews and philosophies. While c. is a revealed religion, it of course is to a significant extent a cultural product... but this doesn't nullify the truth of it.

Banks says ''we make God'' but this is only partly correct; men do in fact create gods but they haven't created Jehovah (the I AM of the bible) and the very idea is absurd. When men find out about the true and living God they don't like Him at all and invent substitutes for Him. This claim is really a boast in that it makes man superior to God; i.e. how great can god be if he's only a creation of man?

Banks tells us "eventually science comes along and explains it....'' Eventually? I guess he thinks it's simply a matter of time. He's personified science here; as 'science' doesn't explain anything, people do.... or at least they attempt to. What scientists do, in the main, isn't to explain things, but to describe things, to describe how they work. The idea 'science' can explain all things is scientism and as a claim it's patently false. e.g. scientists can't tell us why, in terms of materialism, bits of matter we call human beings should care about Origins at all, why some of these bits should think atheism to be good news, or why creationists should lose their jobs.

2. Although Andrews denies the book was written as response to 'The God Delusion' it would seem to be so, at least in motivation. In that book (and elsewhere) Dawkins claims to be interested in the question who made God; whether he is or not I can't say, but his perplexity is founded on the failure to acknowledge the creator/creature distinction that is vital to orthodox Christianity. Man and God don't exist on the same (metaphysical) level; God is a transcendent being. i.e. He created the universe (of time and space) and He transcends it.

As Andrews points out, the 'who made god question' arises when people fail to define God correctly. i.e. God is defined (in the bible) as an uncreated and eternal being, and as such it makes no sense to ask who made him. e.g. who created an uncreated being is logically nonsensical. Since it must be the greater that defines the lesser, the only one who can define God is God. God tells Moses "I AM that I AM'' which theologians believe means God is beyond definition; he is eternal and self-existent. It is God who defines things, not man who defines God.

Any god that could be defined by man would not be the creator God of the bible. Dawkins simply refuses to deal with the God who is and so his question is meaningless. (His question might make sense if he asked it of Dagon; i.e. god of the Philistines)

It's the essence of scientism to claim that no question is beyond man's ability to answer; but this arrogant spirit is decidedly unbiblical. The bible teaches that some things are forever beyond man's ability to discern or comprehend, and that is especially the case when it comes to many things about God. e.g. we cannot comprehend an eternal being; we can't comprehend a personal being without a body; creation out of nothing; special creation (esp. the creation of mankind) Mystery is an integral part of our lives whether we like it or not.

Dawkins claims that Christianity makes no sense as it can't answer his questions; but he can't answer ours either. e.g. where did matter come from? is matter eternal? how can that be? how did living organisms 'emerge' from inert matter? etc. He's a materialist by faith (or so he claims) while I'm a creationist by faith.

Dawkins admits that the likelihood of a living organism 'emerging' from inert matter is very minute, but he claims that as long as there is any chance of this happening at all, that this 'miracle' will, given enough time, one day happen. i.e. he claims that any mathematical possibility is enough to allow the materialist to do away with the God Hypothesis. Andrews effectively refutes this line of argument. (On p. 157. he deals with a claim by Dawkins that a marble statue could theoretically wave its arm... and he also deals with a claim by Dawkins that a cow could, theoretically, jump over the moon.)

I don't know how Dawkins comes up with these 'illustrations' but they seem to be founded on his belief that given enough time Anything is possible. The claim isn't scientific but philosophical, and as Andrews points out it doesn't take reality into effect... as it's a purely mathematical construct. (I don't know how Dawkins can object to miracles if he believes anything is possible.)

3. I found his chapters on Information theory and mutations (ch. 12 and 15.) especially helpful. Andrews has a real knack for making difficult subjects understandable to the non-expert. Chapter 14. is a critique of neo-Darwinism.

Summary; This brief review doesn't do justice to the book. My wish is that some of the flock that read Dawkins would read this response to him, as I think he has effectively answered all of the objections and claims Dawkins makes.

Michael Johnson [frfarer@gmail.com]

Notes;
1. The God Hypothesis - Edgar Andrews 2009
- He has written several other books on the creation/evolution debate. I've read and can recommend two earlier books, 'From Nothing to Nature' and 'Christ and the cosmos'
2. If we take God as our hypothesis (and reject materialism) we see that all the information (and design) we see in living organisms had to have come from the mind of God. Take some time to meditate on that; try to imagine what incredible intelligence and creativity must necessarily be implied. A Being who could create such a myriad of awesome creatures and place them within a self-sustaining system can surely (as scripture tells us) do anything. What could not such a God do? We're talking about intelligence so far beyond ours that it's impossible to really grasp.
- We see in this Creator a Being who has the power to make good on all the promises revealed to us in scripture; staggering though they may be. Since He made man from the dust, is there some reason he can't bring all people back and give them eternal life? If I look at the design we find in living creatures I see no limit on what the Creator can do. The Bible tells us He created the heavens and the earth (and all that are in them) and it tells us he will one day create a new heaven and earth. The wisdom and power we see displayed in the creation give us reason to believe this possible.