Richard Dawkins talks about the 'magic of reality' and I think that's a good way to characterize the materialist view of the universe, as reality from that perspective can only be a kind of magic trick, a kind of illusion perpetrated by the powerful on the masses.
Quotes and comments;
1. "...science is about finding material explanations of the world . . . Religion, on the other hand, is about humans thinking that awe, wonder and reverence are the clue to understanding a God-built Universe . . . There is a fundamental conflict here, one that can never be reconciled until all religions cease making claims about the nature of reality. (Cobb and Coyne) [1.]
- The good professors (assuming there is such a thing) tell us that 'religions' shouldn't make claims about reality, but many philosophers of science say that 'science' shouldn't make claims about reality. Has this escaped their notice? From Kant and onward, the consensus in philosophy is that science deals with experience, not reality. People like Coyne just ignore this and claim 'science' can tell us about reality. This puts them in the position of being anti-philosophical or anti-rational.
For a materialist to speak of reality is comical, as there is no warrant in this worldview for talk about reality. What would this reality be? Whose reality would it be? Who gets to decide? If all of us are merely animals which animal's view of things should be taken as the real one?
On which level does reality exist? On the micro (nano) level or on the macro level?
Is there only one reality or many realities?
Only Christianity can offer a grounded view of reality; as reality is what the Creator wants it to be and what He proclaims it is. It's the providential governance of the universe by the One intelligent enough to have created it, and the One powerful enough to control it. There is no reality apart from this.
- Michael Johnson
Notes;
1. Why Orthodox Darwinism Demands Atheism - Jerry Bergman
Full quote;
" science is about finding material explanations of the world . . . Religion, on the other hand, is about humans thinking that awe, wonder and reverence are the clue to understanding a God-built Universe . . . There is a fundamental conflict here, one that can never be reconciled until all religions cease making claims about the nature of reality. The scientific study of religion is indeed full of big questions that need to be addressed, such as why belief in religion is negatively correlated with an acceptance of evolution (Cobb and Coyne 2008, p. 1049,
- That 'need' to be addressed? Really? Did they forget that the universe is merely matter in motion? There is then no moral or intellectual need for anything.
It's worthy of note that atheists can never seem to speak in terms that are consistent with their worldview. They need to ask themselves why this is.
The idea Christianity can be studied scientifically is simple nonsense, a product a materialist reductionism. What would such a farce entail? Weighing Christ before and after the crucifixion? Counting the words in genesis? Human beings aren't things to be measured, as if they were asteroids or cucumbers.
2. They sadly mischaracterize 'religion', as Christians (their main focus of attack) do not think that awe and reverence are a 'clue' to understanding the universe. As the authors well know; orthodox Christians believe that special revelation is the key to understanding human experience and ultimate reality. It's unfortunate they can't get such a basic as this straight, and we have to wonder at their ability to get other things correct.
3. Perhaps what we need more than a 'scientific' study of religion is a scientific study of atheism. (We might begin by counting the hairs on heads of the new atheists, and then dividing by four. That should make it properly scientific.)
- Over and over we see people making the mistake of confusing science with Materialism. This works quite well with things, but people aren't things.
Wednesday, April 18, 2012
Tuesday, April 10, 2012
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
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
Monday, April 9, 2012
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.
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.
Monday, April 2, 2012
On the age of the earth
I've done quite a lot of study recently on the 'age problem' that divides the church and come to the following conclusions.
Quotes and comments;
1. 'For the Aristotelian and Platonic mind, the Bible is a crude book. For the biblically governed mind the Greek philosophers are airy bubbleheads living in the clouds of their foolish minds. Each to the other appears ridiculous, but the important question is not one of appearance but of truth. If the God of the bible is denied, there is nothing. [1.]
A. the bible clearly seems to speak (indirectly) of a young earth and a young universe.
B. Consensus science speaks of an old earth and an old universe.
C. I agree with those who say there is no way to determine (autonomously) an absolute age for the earth or universe.
D. I believe the young earth [YE] position is better scripturally, theologically and logically.
E. Old earth creationists [OECs] claim to take the scripture as authoritatively as YECs but I don't find that to be the case; I find that they in fact take consensus science as their ultimate authority.
F. It's my view that OECs are far too naive in their acceptance of consensus science, especially in this regard.
G. I find OECs are not nearly sceptical and critical enough when it comes to consensus science.
H. I find that OECs (for the most part) don't critically examine long ages for the earth, and that they don't understand the philosophical basis for these constructs.
- to accommodate long ages OECs have to ignore the global testimony of a world wide flood, and prefer instead a 'theory' invented by men who wanted to destroy Genesis.
I. I find that OECs are not critical of radiometric dating (or other dating techniques).
J. I find that OECs are far too accepting of Uniformitarianism.
K. I find that OECs confuse Naturalism with science.
L. I find that OECs accept the myth of neutrality in science.
- they want common ground with unbelievers and imagine they have found it in science; whereas the only true common ground men have is creation.
M. We should insist that commentators be honest in their treatment of scripture. eg. if OECs can't reconcile consensus science and scripture they should admit this rather than engage in fanciful 'interpretation'.
N. I would ask that OECs give up the 'argument' that if the earth is not old God must be deceiving us. This is a bad argument, that is really only rhetoric and not an argument at all. It is a claim that comes close to blasphemy, is arrogant and full of hubris. The claim isn't really one made against YECs but against God. ie. ''if the earth isn't old then you (God) are deceiving me.'' The implication is that it's impossible for the OEC to be wrong. This is a foolish thing for any man to say, let alone a Christian.
- we can see how silly the 'deceit' argument is by looking at some examples from ordinary life. eg. Is God deceiving us when it appears the sun orbits the earth? Is God deceiving us when we think color exists in things themselves? Is God deceiving us when stars appear like points of silver light? We should never confuse (or conflate) appearance with deception. We live in a vastly complex (complicated) environment, and almost daily discoveries of complexity in biology are perhaps indicators that the 'physical' universe might be a lot (a very lot) more complicated than consensus science at this time imagines (i.e. what if the physical constitution of the universe is as complex as the biological realm?)
O. OECs are far too interested in finding favor with secular scientists, and far too fearful of contradicting or questioning them.
P. More humility is needed on all sides, especially on the part of OECs. We shouldn't pretend to know things that can't be known. e.g. from a philosophical standpoint there is no way we can know for certain the age of the earth or universe. This seems obvious to me, but I don't recall an OEC ever saying so. (OECs in general seem to agree with secular scientists that philosophy has no relevance in the modern world; and I find this an unfortunate stance to take.)
Q. I see little evidence OECs understand how long ages came into being or why.
R. I see little evidence OECs are familiar with the YE critique of old ages. (They're not only unfamiliar with it, they're unwilling to look at it. i.e. they just don't wan to know, don't want to be bothered.)
S. I see little evidence most OECs are willing to engage in serious discussion on this issue; esp. face to face discussion.
T. I see a lot of bullying by OECs, a lot of mockery and insult. I see people saying ''since I have a better degree than you, you must accept what I say.'' (I see the authority being shifted from scripture to educational certificate.)
U. I think it's wrong to try and settle this conflict by insisting everyone just accept whatever consensus science says. I think we should be interested in the truth not in merely getting along.
V. I think people should be allowed to follow their conscience on this matter and not be bullied into adopting some position merely because some leader insists on it.
X. Whatever the truth is, my study has taught me that the subject is far more complex than most people think. Students are taught that this is a simple issue, and that 'science' has absolute answers for age questions... when this is not the case.
Y. In a syncretistic age (as ours surely is) it is painful to go against consensus; and we must make allowances for this... not expecting more from others than we expect from ourselves.
Z. An examination of the future should caution us to avoid absolute statements, and to be sceptical of claims of absolute truth. Most such claims ever made have long ago bitten the dust. We need to remember that any age for the earth is a philosophical construct not a reading from a clock.
Addendum;
1. I think Christians (creationists) should caution secular scientists against making absolute claims about the age of the earth, and to call them back to a more humble approach to science.
2. I think creationist should try to encourage a more humble approach to science; one that is content with theory instead of lusting after fact.
3. Under the influence of materialism scientists have become the most arrogant of people when in fact they should be the most humble. Christians need to do more to point out the weakness of the materialist position.
4. The fact most OECs accept man's 'evolution' from some kind of ape-like creature [eg. Polkinghorne] shows how prone they are to uncritically accepting Naturalist science, and the fact they can accept such an anti-biblical concept makes it no surprise that they can accept long ages. (One wonders what they couldn't accept.) Where is the critical spirit they like to turn against Orthodox Christianity? When it comes to Naturalist science it seems to depart them utterly. (One has to work hard to find a critical study by an OEC of anything in consensus science.)
5. What I want more than anything else is for people to be honest. Let's stop pretending. (eg. that it was really snow that covered the mountains in Gen. 7. What was the ark? a
skidoo :=} If we can't understand, we can't understand, and we should admit it. (e.g. if we can't understand how the earth can be young in a universe so big, let's admit it.)
6. No one reads the text of the bible perfectly, and no one ever will. (Only in heaven can anyone hope to acquire a perfect understanding of it. e.g. it would be nice to sit down with some author and ask him just exactly what he intended.
7. If the debate provokes people to serious study and reflection then maybe it's all for the good; but if it just prompts people to dismiss the other 'side' then I think the fallout is mostly negative. ie. debate can be very helpful while scorn and contempt never is.
- the church as a whole has little experience with the issue of a purported long age for the earth and the seeming discrepancy of this with scripture, and so is currently floundering as people try to deal with this 'new' subject. I personally don't think any OEC has offered any plausible solution to the problem, or any helpful way of dealing with it. (I think it's vain to find a naturalistic answer to the problem, as Naturalism is the problem.)
* - Long ages are a conclusion based on Uniformitarian thinking, and as such are as true or false as U. itself is. (Since we know U. isn't absolutely true, we can conclude that no age of the earth it 'offers' can be absolutely true.)
8. OECs tend to hold a naive view of man's fallen nature, and actually seem to believe that man is basically good. They seem to forget (or even deny) that man is in active rebellion against God and His word. They seem to reject any notion that man's fallen nature can affect the way he does science.
9. We end up having different views on the age of the earth for two basic reasons; a. where we come from (our family origin and our life history) and b. the grace God has given to us. We will thus never all have the same views on things (not this side of heaven at least).
10. OECs seem more concerned with apologetic success than declaring the word of God. They seem to ignore that the bible tells us the natural man will be offended by the word of God... ie. apart from grace. (They will say, ''yes, the natural man will be offended by the gospel, but we're not talking about the gospel here but about mythical history that somehow found its way into scripture." Mythical? On whose authority?)
- M. Johnson
Notes;
1. Institutes of Biblical law, vol. 3 - R. J. Rushdoony p/54
2. 'In reality, the debate about the age of the universe is a conflict of worldviews—a conflict between the evolutionary, naturalistic, uniformitarian interpretations of some of the scientific data, on the one hand, and on the other hand the exegetically strong and historically orthodox young-earth creationist understanding of Scripture and the interpretations of the same data and more data based on biblical assumptions. - T Mortenson/response to Dembski
3. 'Dembski sees and comments on philosophical naturalism’s control of biology, (Dembski 1999, pp. 97–121; 2005, chapters 2, 4, 5, and 13),13 but he seems to overlook or be indifferent to that same philosophical domination of geology and astronomy, which has resulted in the claim about millions of years. - TM
- why is it wrong for Naturalism to dominate biology but okay for it to dominate geology and cosmology?
Quotes and comments;
1. 'For the Aristotelian and Platonic mind, the Bible is a crude book. For the biblically governed mind the Greek philosophers are airy bubbleheads living in the clouds of their foolish minds. Each to the other appears ridiculous, but the important question is not one of appearance but of truth. If the God of the bible is denied, there is nothing. [1.]
A. the bible clearly seems to speak (indirectly) of a young earth and a young universe.
B. Consensus science speaks of an old earth and an old universe.
C. I agree with those who say there is no way to determine (autonomously) an absolute age for the earth or universe.
D. I believe the young earth [YE] position is better scripturally, theologically and logically.
E. Old earth creationists [OECs] claim to take the scripture as authoritatively as YECs but I don't find that to be the case; I find that they in fact take consensus science as their ultimate authority.
F. It's my view that OECs are far too naive in their acceptance of consensus science, especially in this regard.
G. I find OECs are not nearly sceptical and critical enough when it comes to consensus science.
H. I find that OECs (for the most part) don't critically examine long ages for the earth, and that they don't understand the philosophical basis for these constructs.
- to accommodate long ages OECs have to ignore the global testimony of a world wide flood, and prefer instead a 'theory' invented by men who wanted to destroy Genesis.
I. I find that OECs are not critical of radiometric dating (or other dating techniques).
J. I find that OECs are far too accepting of Uniformitarianism.
K. I find that OECs confuse Naturalism with science.
L. I find that OECs accept the myth of neutrality in science.
- they want common ground with unbelievers and imagine they have found it in science; whereas the only true common ground men have is creation.
M. We should insist that commentators be honest in their treatment of scripture. eg. if OECs can't reconcile consensus science and scripture they should admit this rather than engage in fanciful 'interpretation'.
N. I would ask that OECs give up the 'argument' that if the earth is not old God must be deceiving us. This is a bad argument, that is really only rhetoric and not an argument at all. It is a claim that comes close to blasphemy, is arrogant and full of hubris. The claim isn't really one made against YECs but against God. ie. ''if the earth isn't old then you (God) are deceiving me.'' The implication is that it's impossible for the OEC to be wrong. This is a foolish thing for any man to say, let alone a Christian.
- we can see how silly the 'deceit' argument is by looking at some examples from ordinary life. eg. Is God deceiving us when it appears the sun orbits the earth? Is God deceiving us when we think color exists in things themselves? Is God deceiving us when stars appear like points of silver light? We should never confuse (or conflate) appearance with deception. We live in a vastly complex (complicated) environment, and almost daily discoveries of complexity in biology are perhaps indicators that the 'physical' universe might be a lot (a very lot) more complicated than consensus science at this time imagines (i.e. what if the physical constitution of the universe is as complex as the biological realm?)
O. OECs are far too interested in finding favor with secular scientists, and far too fearful of contradicting or questioning them.
P. More humility is needed on all sides, especially on the part of OECs. We shouldn't pretend to know things that can't be known. e.g. from a philosophical standpoint there is no way we can know for certain the age of the earth or universe. This seems obvious to me, but I don't recall an OEC ever saying so. (OECs in general seem to agree with secular scientists that philosophy has no relevance in the modern world; and I find this an unfortunate stance to take.)
Q. I see little evidence OECs understand how long ages came into being or why.
R. I see little evidence OECs are familiar with the YE critique of old ages. (They're not only unfamiliar with it, they're unwilling to look at it. i.e. they just don't wan to know, don't want to be bothered.)
S. I see little evidence most OECs are willing to engage in serious discussion on this issue; esp. face to face discussion.
T. I see a lot of bullying by OECs, a lot of mockery and insult. I see people saying ''since I have a better degree than you, you must accept what I say.'' (I see the authority being shifted from scripture to educational certificate.)
U. I think it's wrong to try and settle this conflict by insisting everyone just accept whatever consensus science says. I think we should be interested in the truth not in merely getting along.
V. I think people should be allowed to follow their conscience on this matter and not be bullied into adopting some position merely because some leader insists on it.
X. Whatever the truth is, my study has taught me that the subject is far more complex than most people think. Students are taught that this is a simple issue, and that 'science' has absolute answers for age questions... when this is not the case.
Y. In a syncretistic age (as ours surely is) it is painful to go against consensus; and we must make allowances for this... not expecting more from others than we expect from ourselves.
Z. An examination of the future should caution us to avoid absolute statements, and to be sceptical of claims of absolute truth. Most such claims ever made have long ago bitten the dust. We need to remember that any age for the earth is a philosophical construct not a reading from a clock.
Addendum;
1. I think Christians (creationists) should caution secular scientists against making absolute claims about the age of the earth, and to call them back to a more humble approach to science.
2. I think creationist should try to encourage a more humble approach to science; one that is content with theory instead of lusting after fact.
3. Under the influence of materialism scientists have become the most arrogant of people when in fact they should be the most humble. Christians need to do more to point out the weakness of the materialist position.
4. The fact most OECs accept man's 'evolution' from some kind of ape-like creature [eg. Polkinghorne] shows how prone they are to uncritically accepting Naturalist science, and the fact they can accept such an anti-biblical concept makes it no surprise that they can accept long ages. (One wonders what they couldn't accept.) Where is the critical spirit they like to turn against Orthodox Christianity? When it comes to Naturalist science it seems to depart them utterly. (One has to work hard to find a critical study by an OEC of anything in consensus science.)
5. What I want more than anything else is for people to be honest. Let's stop pretending. (eg. that it was really snow that covered the mountains in Gen. 7. What was the ark? a
skidoo :=} If we can't understand, we can't understand, and we should admit it. (e.g. if we can't understand how the earth can be young in a universe so big, let's admit it.)
6. No one reads the text of the bible perfectly, and no one ever will. (Only in heaven can anyone hope to acquire a perfect understanding of it. e.g. it would be nice to sit down with some author and ask him just exactly what he intended.
7. If the debate provokes people to serious study and reflection then maybe it's all for the good; but if it just prompts people to dismiss the other 'side' then I think the fallout is mostly negative. ie. debate can be very helpful while scorn and contempt never is.
- the church as a whole has little experience with the issue of a purported long age for the earth and the seeming discrepancy of this with scripture, and so is currently floundering as people try to deal with this 'new' subject. I personally don't think any OEC has offered any plausible solution to the problem, or any helpful way of dealing with it. (I think it's vain to find a naturalistic answer to the problem, as Naturalism is the problem.)
* - Long ages are a conclusion based on Uniformitarian thinking, and as such are as true or false as U. itself is. (Since we know U. isn't absolutely true, we can conclude that no age of the earth it 'offers' can be absolutely true.)
8. OECs tend to hold a naive view of man's fallen nature, and actually seem to believe that man is basically good. They seem to forget (or even deny) that man is in active rebellion against God and His word. They seem to reject any notion that man's fallen nature can affect the way he does science.
9. We end up having different views on the age of the earth for two basic reasons; a. where we come from (our family origin and our life history) and b. the grace God has given to us. We will thus never all have the same views on things (not this side of heaven at least).
10. OECs seem more concerned with apologetic success than declaring the word of God. They seem to ignore that the bible tells us the natural man will be offended by the word of God... ie. apart from grace. (They will say, ''yes, the natural man will be offended by the gospel, but we're not talking about the gospel here but about mythical history that somehow found its way into scripture." Mythical? On whose authority?)
- M. Johnson
Notes;
1. Institutes of Biblical law, vol. 3 - R. J. Rushdoony p/54
2. 'In reality, the debate about the age of the universe is a conflict of worldviews—a conflict between the evolutionary, naturalistic, uniformitarian interpretations of some of the scientific data, on the one hand, and on the other hand the exegetically strong and historically orthodox young-earth creationist understanding of Scripture and the interpretations of the same data and more data based on biblical assumptions. - T Mortenson/response to Dembski
3. 'Dembski sees and comments on philosophical naturalism’s control of biology, (Dembski 1999, pp. 97–121; 2005, chapters 2, 4, 5, and 13),13 but he seems to overlook or be indifferent to that same philosophical domination of geology and astronomy, which has resulted in the claim about millions of years. - TM
- why is it wrong for Naturalism to dominate biology but okay for it to dominate geology and cosmology?
Friday, March 16, 2012
The psychology of evolution
I've looked at several dozen creation/ist videos posted on YouTube, and have found that almost every one of them has abusive comments posted; often foul, obscene, and vituperous. These are comments filled with rage and hatred. The question is this; what is there about Darwinism that leads people to become so foul mouthed, rude and obscene?
- The psychology seems both simple and clear. I think most of the people who make these comments (and they strike me as quite young, mainly teenagers or people in their early twenties) are kids who grew up in Christian homes. (In many cases these are the kids of pastors and missionaries.) I assume they have parents who are both Christians and creationists. When it comes time to rebel these kids find Darwinism a great tool to use in their rebellion. It gives them an excuse to reject the faith of their parents. i.e. ''since we know Evolution is true, the bible is wrong about creation; and if it's wrong about creation there's no reason to believe it about anything'' (or so they tell their parents).
In their rebellious phase they easily see Evolution as being modern and sophisticated (it's neither) while they see creation and Christianity as being outdated and silly. i.e. non-scientific.
The hatred they spew isn't really against the speakers (most of whom have PHDs, while these kids probably haven't finished high school) but against their parents. They have adopted E. as a way of spiting their parents and as a way of inflicting pain on them. Darwinism becomes the road to separation. Their motivation behind rejecting creation and accepting E. is rebellion.
While they might be hesitant to curse their parents (sadly this isn't always the case) they can mock and ridicule creationists.
Most of these kids know precious little about the E. they celebrate, and seem to imagine someone has made Richard Dawkins the official authority on what E. is or is not. About all they know about E. are sound bites by Dawkins; e.g. ''e. is simply change over time.'' The fact they know so little about the 'theory' of evolution allows them great confidence in its verity. If they studied it (e.) in detail they would see how riddled with problems the story is; and how little it can explain. (A little e. is a dangerous thing; and all most kids get in gov. schools are 'facts' they're told to memorize; i.e. they're being taught Evolution (i.e. M2M) the way kids in the USSR were taught communism.)
They seem blissfully unaware of the atheist source of evolution. They might want to ask themselves why it is Dawkins offers such a dumbed down definition of evolution. e.g. is he trying to formulate a definition so vague and watered down that it's impossible to refute? It's as if a creationist defined creation as 'stasis over time' i.e. if you see stasis you see evidence of creation. Well; since we see stasis therefore we have proof of creation. (Anyone convinced?)
All this is to be expected when christian parents send their children to be educated by atheists, secularists and humanists; in a system dominated by an evolutionary spirit. Evolution isn't science it's a worldview, and represents the spirit of the age (an increasingly pagan age). We see this influence in the way once Christian students reject creation and accept Evolution, and we see it in their foul speech and lack of respect for parents. These kids apparently have no idea how to treat others.
Only the most naive believe this conversion to evolution has much (if anything) to do with science. (In my experience most of these haters of creation aren't even in the sciences.) Adopting Darwinism isn't about biology but it's a circumspect way of adopting atheism.
Since these kids rejected Christianity on the basis of E. they feel the need to 'refute' creation, which atheists who grew up in atheist homes don't feel... and so they haunt any creationist web page and try to refute what creationists have said. i.e. if they can't then their rationale for atheism collapses. Since they have so little ammunition in the form of arguments they depend upon rhetoric, obscenity and name calling, etc.
Summary;
What we see in the great animus toward creation among the youth is really an animus against Christians and Christianity. It's no surprise that the most enthusiastic supporters of the e. story are the fiercest critics and haters of Christianity. The idea of cosmic evolution is an old (old) story and was invented as a way of escape from Godly religion and from the Creator. It gave men a rationale for declaring themselves not responsible to God. It serves the same purpose now. The psychology of evolution is a rejection of the Creator (and the creaturehood this entails) and a declaration of independence and autonomy.
Many young people in the church turn their hostility toward biblical Christianity into hostility against creation and an advocacy of evolution; this allows them to remain in the church on the one hand, but to be separate from it as well. Hand in hand with an adoption of evolution is an adoption of liberal theology, antinomianism, a god of process, and so forth. They remain (marginally) in the church but have an entirely different religion from their grandfathers.
Where does the desire to mock and ridicule and name call come from? Does it stem from the ridicule they themselves suffered from classmates and teachers for a one time belief in creation? Did they adopt e. to escape this critique and ridicule? Have they now externalized this pain by attacking creationists? (Parents are expecting far too much of their children if they expect them to be 'creation evangelists' in secular (government) schools. Children should be students, not teachers. It's not their job or their proper role to instruct their evolutionist teachers.)
In my opinion it's far better for Christian young people to learn evolution theory before they get taught it at school. Too many young Christians are completely bowled over by the presentation and are unable to see the falseness and inadequacy of it. They should learn evolution theory from a critical standpoint, as they will be very unlikely to get a critical presentation in a govrnment school. Christian students who meet evolution for the first time in school haven't been properly prepared.
- Michael Johnson
Notes;
1. I haven't included quotes; the internet is a foul enough place already without giving you examples of this type of comment. They're readily available.
2. It never ceases to amaze me how small and petty anti-creationists are; they sneer and curse, mock and ridicule, slander and name call. Can't they realize how bad they look?
3. I wish someone would collect a book's worth of these comments and publish them so future generations could see what idiocy was extant in our time.
4. These people (ranting and raving like politicians at a convention) remind me of first generation atheists, as they are clearly excited (enthused) about their new faith. Kids growing up in multi-generational atheism have no such fanaticism in attacking creation or creationists. (We'll have to see how excited they still are when they reach their seventies and eighties.)
5. These kids would do well to ask themselves why this subject provokes them into fury, and why they allow themselves to treat others so badly.
6. These kids have abandoned far more than just a belief in creation; they've abandoned civility, manners, a concern for the truth, treating your neighbor as yourself, respect for parents, humility, and a great deal more.
7. What we see in all this is the curse of anonymity. Where man becomes anonymous he becomes barbaric and uncivilized. In the bible we see the antithesis of anonymity; where every man is held accountable and no one is allowed to wear a mask. A civilized society must fight against any and all anonymity. One way to restrain human depravity is to make it essential that all men need to protect their good name. (I suggest people reject the very concept of anonymous comments.) We see to have forgotten that men (starting with Adam) were given names for a purpose, and that purpose is to hold men accountable. We see that people who set aside their names also set aside their decency and morality. Anonymity works like an intoxicant robbing people of their prudence and manners, and is an invitation to profligacy.
- The psychology seems both simple and clear. I think most of the people who make these comments (and they strike me as quite young, mainly teenagers or people in their early twenties) are kids who grew up in Christian homes. (In many cases these are the kids of pastors and missionaries.) I assume they have parents who are both Christians and creationists. When it comes time to rebel these kids find Darwinism a great tool to use in their rebellion. It gives them an excuse to reject the faith of their parents. i.e. ''since we know Evolution is true, the bible is wrong about creation; and if it's wrong about creation there's no reason to believe it about anything'' (or so they tell their parents).
In their rebellious phase they easily see Evolution as being modern and sophisticated (it's neither) while they see creation and Christianity as being outdated and silly. i.e. non-scientific.
The hatred they spew isn't really against the speakers (most of whom have PHDs, while these kids probably haven't finished high school) but against their parents. They have adopted E. as a way of spiting their parents and as a way of inflicting pain on them. Darwinism becomes the road to separation. Their motivation behind rejecting creation and accepting E. is rebellion.
While they might be hesitant to curse their parents (sadly this isn't always the case) they can mock and ridicule creationists.
Most of these kids know precious little about the E. they celebrate, and seem to imagine someone has made Richard Dawkins the official authority on what E. is or is not. About all they know about E. are sound bites by Dawkins; e.g. ''e. is simply change over time.'' The fact they know so little about the 'theory' of evolution allows them great confidence in its verity. If they studied it (e.) in detail they would see how riddled with problems the story is; and how little it can explain. (A little e. is a dangerous thing; and all most kids get in gov. schools are 'facts' they're told to memorize; i.e. they're being taught Evolution (i.e. M2M) the way kids in the USSR were taught communism.)
They seem blissfully unaware of the atheist source of evolution. They might want to ask themselves why it is Dawkins offers such a dumbed down definition of evolution. e.g. is he trying to formulate a definition so vague and watered down that it's impossible to refute? It's as if a creationist defined creation as 'stasis over time' i.e. if you see stasis you see evidence of creation. Well; since we see stasis therefore we have proof of creation. (Anyone convinced?)
All this is to be expected when christian parents send their children to be educated by atheists, secularists and humanists; in a system dominated by an evolutionary spirit. Evolution isn't science it's a worldview, and represents the spirit of the age (an increasingly pagan age). We see this influence in the way once Christian students reject creation and accept Evolution, and we see it in their foul speech and lack of respect for parents. These kids apparently have no idea how to treat others.
Only the most naive believe this conversion to evolution has much (if anything) to do with science. (In my experience most of these haters of creation aren't even in the sciences.) Adopting Darwinism isn't about biology but it's a circumspect way of adopting atheism.
Since these kids rejected Christianity on the basis of E. they feel the need to 'refute' creation, which atheists who grew up in atheist homes don't feel... and so they haunt any creationist web page and try to refute what creationists have said. i.e. if they can't then their rationale for atheism collapses. Since they have so little ammunition in the form of arguments they depend upon rhetoric, obscenity and name calling, etc.
Summary;
What we see in the great animus toward creation among the youth is really an animus against Christians and Christianity. It's no surprise that the most enthusiastic supporters of the e. story are the fiercest critics and haters of Christianity. The idea of cosmic evolution is an old (old) story and was invented as a way of escape from Godly religion and from the Creator. It gave men a rationale for declaring themselves not responsible to God. It serves the same purpose now. The psychology of evolution is a rejection of the Creator (and the creaturehood this entails) and a declaration of independence and autonomy.
Many young people in the church turn their hostility toward biblical Christianity into hostility against creation and an advocacy of evolution; this allows them to remain in the church on the one hand, but to be separate from it as well. Hand in hand with an adoption of evolution is an adoption of liberal theology, antinomianism, a god of process, and so forth. They remain (marginally) in the church but have an entirely different religion from their grandfathers.
Where does the desire to mock and ridicule and name call come from? Does it stem from the ridicule they themselves suffered from classmates and teachers for a one time belief in creation? Did they adopt e. to escape this critique and ridicule? Have they now externalized this pain by attacking creationists? (Parents are expecting far too much of their children if they expect them to be 'creation evangelists' in secular (government) schools. Children should be students, not teachers. It's not their job or their proper role to instruct their evolutionist teachers.)
In my opinion it's far better for Christian young people to learn evolution theory before they get taught it at school. Too many young Christians are completely bowled over by the presentation and are unable to see the falseness and inadequacy of it. They should learn evolution theory from a critical standpoint, as they will be very unlikely to get a critical presentation in a govrnment school. Christian students who meet evolution for the first time in school haven't been properly prepared.
- Michael Johnson
Notes;
1. I haven't included quotes; the internet is a foul enough place already without giving you examples of this type of comment. They're readily available.
2. It never ceases to amaze me how small and petty anti-creationists are; they sneer and curse, mock and ridicule, slander and name call. Can't they realize how bad they look?
3. I wish someone would collect a book's worth of these comments and publish them so future generations could see what idiocy was extant in our time.
4. These people (ranting and raving like politicians at a convention) remind me of first generation atheists, as they are clearly excited (enthused) about their new faith. Kids growing up in multi-generational atheism have no such fanaticism in attacking creation or creationists. (We'll have to see how excited they still are when they reach their seventies and eighties.)
5. These kids would do well to ask themselves why this subject provokes them into fury, and why they allow themselves to treat others so badly.
6. These kids have abandoned far more than just a belief in creation; they've abandoned civility, manners, a concern for the truth, treating your neighbor as yourself, respect for parents, humility, and a great deal more.
7. What we see in all this is the curse of anonymity. Where man becomes anonymous he becomes barbaric and uncivilized. In the bible we see the antithesis of anonymity; where every man is held accountable and no one is allowed to wear a mask. A civilized society must fight against any and all anonymity. One way to restrain human depravity is to make it essential that all men need to protect their good name. (I suggest people reject the very concept of anonymous comments.) We see to have forgotten that men (starting with Adam) were given names for a purpose, and that purpose is to hold men accountable. We see that people who set aside their names also set aside their decency and morality. Anonymity works like an intoxicant robbing people of their prudence and manners, and is an invitation to profligacy.
Tuesday, March 6, 2012
In praise of the Creator
Quotes and comments;
1. "Praise the LORD from the earth, ye dragons, and all deeps ... Beasts, and all cattle; creeping things, and flying fowl..." Psalm 148:7, 10
Q. How do animals praise the Lord?
A. They praise the Lord just by being alive, by the sounds they make and the colors they bear. We can watch and study them and be amazed at the wisdom of their creator. (It's not only cute creatures like birds and rabbits that demand praise from us, but also the most fiercesome of creatures; e.g. dragons or dinosaurs. God is not just the God of bunny rabbits, he is also the God of sea monsters.)
The creatures that populate this world are like a wordless hymn of praise to the Creator, and if man in his rebellion will not praise God they do. (If we could imagine aliens coming to this planet from another universe or another dimension, they would surely say, ''what an amazing creator this world has, we've never seen anything like this. He is the most wise and gifted being we have ever come across. Is there nothing he can't do?'')
If men do not praise God for his wondrous works of creation they thereby condemn themselves, and are worthy of reproof. Men will not be able to blame God for their rebellion, they will not be able to say they didn't know, as a myriad of living creatures praised their creator on a daily basis and before the eyes of all men.
The living creatures of this planet are a treasure and an apologetic. There is more wisdom to be found in a single one of God's creatures than in all the books written by atheists put together. There is more wisdom in a humble beetle than in all godless philosophy. Forget Spinoza and Nietzsche, throw their books into the rubbish dump and get out and study the animals, birds, fish, insects (etc.) of the real world. Stop wasting your time with miserable and disgruntled philosophers and employ yourself profitably with a study of God's creation.
Why read a book on evolution theory when there is infinitely more to be learned in a study of living organisms? A single cell on the end of Richard Dawkins' nose is about a million times more interesting than he, as a writer, is. (Did I say a million? Try a billion or a trillion.)
M. Johnson
Addendum;
I find it interesting to read old commentaries on verses like this. Matthew Henry [1662 – 1714]
had this to say;
'Even in this world, dark and bad as it is, God is praised. The powers of nature, be they ever so strong, so stormy, do what God appoints them, and no more. Those that rebel against God's word, show themselves to be more violent than even the stormy winds, yet they fulfil it. View the surface of the earth, mountains and all hills; from the barren tops of some, and the fruitful tops of others, we may fetch matter for praise. And assuredly creatures which have the powers of reason, ought to employ themselves in praising God. Let all manner of persons praise God. Those of every rank, high and low. Let us show that we are his saints by praising his name continually.'
Notes;
1. Matthew Henry's Concise Commentary; 148:7-14
1. "Praise the LORD from the earth, ye dragons, and all deeps ... Beasts, and all cattle; creeping things, and flying fowl..." Psalm 148:7, 10
Q. How do animals praise the Lord?
A. They praise the Lord just by being alive, by the sounds they make and the colors they bear. We can watch and study them and be amazed at the wisdom of their creator. (It's not only cute creatures like birds and rabbits that demand praise from us, but also the most fiercesome of creatures; e.g. dragons or dinosaurs. God is not just the God of bunny rabbits, he is also the God of sea monsters.)
The creatures that populate this world are like a wordless hymn of praise to the Creator, and if man in his rebellion will not praise God they do. (If we could imagine aliens coming to this planet from another universe or another dimension, they would surely say, ''what an amazing creator this world has, we've never seen anything like this. He is the most wise and gifted being we have ever come across. Is there nothing he can't do?'')
If men do not praise God for his wondrous works of creation they thereby condemn themselves, and are worthy of reproof. Men will not be able to blame God for their rebellion, they will not be able to say they didn't know, as a myriad of living creatures praised their creator on a daily basis and before the eyes of all men.
The living creatures of this planet are a treasure and an apologetic. There is more wisdom to be found in a single one of God's creatures than in all the books written by atheists put together. There is more wisdom in a humble beetle than in all godless philosophy. Forget Spinoza and Nietzsche, throw their books into the rubbish dump and get out and study the animals, birds, fish, insects (etc.) of the real world. Stop wasting your time with miserable and disgruntled philosophers and employ yourself profitably with a study of God's creation.
Why read a book on evolution theory when there is infinitely more to be learned in a study of living organisms? A single cell on the end of Richard Dawkins' nose is about a million times more interesting than he, as a writer, is. (Did I say a million? Try a billion or a trillion.)
M. Johnson
Addendum;
I find it interesting to read old commentaries on verses like this. Matthew Henry [1662 – 1714]
had this to say;
'Even in this world, dark and bad as it is, God is praised. The powers of nature, be they ever so strong, so stormy, do what God appoints them, and no more. Those that rebel against God's word, show themselves to be more violent than even the stormy winds, yet they fulfil it. View the surface of the earth, mountains and all hills; from the barren tops of some, and the fruitful tops of others, we may fetch matter for praise. And assuredly creatures which have the powers of reason, ought to employ themselves in praising God. Let all manner of persons praise God. Those of every rank, high and low. Let us show that we are his saints by praising his name continually.'
Notes;
1. Matthew Henry's Concise Commentary; 148:7-14
Sunday, March 4, 2012
Trying to debate John Lennox
If you've read 'The Seven Days that Divide the World' by Lennox you might want to follow up with some articles I think are pertinent to the book. They will provide background and needed corrective. I was disappointed that he declined to engage with scholars who defend the young earth position. These articles will provide a YE position on the material discussed in his book.
If you were only going to read one article I would recommend;
Philosophical naturalism and the age of the earth: are they related? - by Terry Mortenson
- an outstanding article.
Quote from above article;
'These old-earth proponents do not understand that the ‘scientific evidence’ for billions of years is really only a naturalistic interpretation of the observed geological and astronomical evidence. Remove the ‘hostile philosophical assumptions’ of naturalism from geology and astronomy, and there is no scientific evidence for millions and billions of years.'
Also;
The Galileo affair: history or heroic hagiography? by Thomas Schirrmacher
Why most scientists believe the world is old - by Russell Humphreys
Age of the earth; 101 evidences for a young age of the earth and the universe - by Don Batten
- this is really a collection of links to more than a hundred articles.
*Untangling Uniformitarianism; Level 1: A Quest for Clarity - by John K. Reed
The long story of long ages - by David Green
Cuvier’s analogy and its consequences: forensics vs testimony as historical evidence - John Reed
Biblical Evidence for the Universality of the Genesis Flood - by Richard M. Davidson
Demythologizing Uniformitarian History - John K. Reed
* An Old Age for the Earth Is the Heart of Evolution - Jonathan F. Henry
Christian Theodicy in Light of Genesis and Modern Science; A Young-Earth Creationist Response to William Dembski - by Terry Mortenson
Evolutionary naturalism: an ancient idea - Jerry Bergman
Geology and the young earth - Tas Walker
Battlegrounds of Natural History: Naturalism - John K. Reed, Emmett L. Williams
Millions of years; the idea's origin and impact on the church - Terry Mortenson [DVD] a version of the lecture can be seen on YouTube
- part 2. is crucial to an understanding of our debate; as M. quotes many OECs, giving the reason they have abandoned what they admit is the plain meaning of Genesis 1. [6.]
Whose god? The theological response to the god-of-the-gaps - by Lael Weinberger
Systematic Theology Texts and the Age of the Earth - by Terry Mortenson
Helpful book reviews;
Science & Christianity: Four Views - Edited by Richard F. Carlson; 2000 - review by Andrew Kulikovsky
Science’s Blind Spot: The Unseen Religion of Scientific Naturalism by Cornelius Hunter; - review by Lael Weinberger
Creation or Evolution: Do We Have to Choose? by Denis Alexander - Review by David Anderson
Science and Faith: Friends or Foes by John Collins - reviewed by Andrew Kulikovsky
* A Response to the Old-Earth Advocacy of Modern Reformation Magazine - John Reed
- The 'Seven Days' (by Lennox) appears to be a rehash of this MR article that Reed is responding to, as the points made in it (published in 2010) he repeats almost verbatim. (I don't know this to be a fact.) I see no reference to this article in the book.
The original article is; PCA Geologists on the Antiquity of the Earth
David Campbell Lyle D. Campbell, Chip Cates, Gregg Davidson, Keith Long, Richard F. Mercer, Kent Ratajeski, Davis A. Young
- Michael Johnson
Notes;
1. The seven days that divide the world - John Lennox [2011]
2. The only reference to young earth creation is to an essay in an edited collection, and it was written not by PHDs in science (e.g. Humphreys, Sarfati, Bergman, etc.) but by two theologians.
(Was Lennox trying to imply that no 'real' scientists accept a young earth position, only theologians?)
3. I think that a part of what we see here (in this conflict between young and old earth models) i that people like Lennox are looking to win the short term battle, while YECs are looking to win the war. (If you'll allow the metaphor.) Lennox feels that if he were to affirm YE creation he would be dismissed with a wave of the hand, and thus have no chance to make a case for Christianity. People like Jonathan Sarfati believe they must present what they feel is the Biblical case, no matter what academics think of it. i.e. they are looking far beyond current squabbles to an ultimate result.
- I'm not in academia so it's (relatively) easy for me to affirm a YE position; and I know that's not the case for people like Lennox, Lane, Zacharias, etc.
4. Oxford Hebrew scholar, Professor James Barr, on the meaning of Genesis
‘… probably, so far as I know, there is no professor of Hebrew or Old Testament at any world-class university who does not believe that the writer(s) of Genesis 1–11 intended to convey to their readers the ideas that:
creation took place in a series of six days which were the same as the days of 24 hours we now experience
the figures contained in the Genesis genealogies provided by simple addition a chronology from the beginning of the world up to later stages in the biblical story
Noah’s flood was understood to be world-wide and extinguish all human and animal life except for those in the ark.’
5. An unnamed person was overheard to say; "this is the book Philip Johnson was smart enough not to write.'' (No comment.)
6. OECs keep telling us that it's consensus science that must dictate what Genesis means; but what if consensus science decided (or decides) that aliens created man upon this planet? (What if we lived in the days of Democritus and consensus science told us we lived in an eternal universe?)
- OECs in great regularity confuse arguments for an old earth with 'evidence' for an old earth. i.e. they confuse the data and interpretations of the data. It's not the data that speak of an old earth, but secular interpretations of that data. (What's baffling is that even philosophers do this.) Data in itself does not speak, but is mute. OECs are making (at least by proxy) the unwarranted and fallacious claim that there is only one possible interpretation of the data, and that is an old earth. (This is akin to looking at economic history and saying the only possible reading is the superiority and necessity of communism.)
7. A great resource for this subject is a Teaching Company course called 'The philosophy of Science' by Jeffrey Kasser. (It's tough sledding for anyone not familiar with the subject, but crucial to understanding our debate.)
8. A problem we see throughout the book is the conflation of Naturalism with science.
Internet follies;
As a complete aside, if you are being annoyed with a browser feature called Easyinline, it can be removed from your computer by getting rid of a program called YonToo. Full information at easyinline.com
If you were only going to read one article I would recommend;
Philosophical naturalism and the age of the earth: are they related? - by Terry Mortenson
- an outstanding article.
Quote from above article;
'These old-earth proponents do not understand that the ‘scientific evidence’ for billions of years is really only a naturalistic interpretation of the observed geological and astronomical evidence. Remove the ‘hostile philosophical assumptions’ of naturalism from geology and astronomy, and there is no scientific evidence for millions and billions of years.'
Also;
The Galileo affair: history or heroic hagiography? by Thomas Schirrmacher
Why most scientists believe the world is old - by Russell Humphreys
Age of the earth; 101 evidences for a young age of the earth and the universe - by Don Batten
- this is really a collection of links to more than a hundred articles.
*Untangling Uniformitarianism; Level 1: A Quest for Clarity - by John K. Reed
The long story of long ages - by David Green
Cuvier’s analogy and its consequences: forensics vs testimony as historical evidence - John Reed
Biblical Evidence for the Universality of the Genesis Flood - by Richard M. Davidson
Demythologizing Uniformitarian History - John K. Reed
* An Old Age for the Earth Is the Heart of Evolution - Jonathan F. Henry
Christian Theodicy in Light of Genesis and Modern Science; A Young-Earth Creationist Response to William Dembski - by Terry Mortenson
Evolutionary naturalism: an ancient idea - Jerry Bergman
Geology and the young earth - Tas Walker
Battlegrounds of Natural History: Naturalism - John K. Reed, Emmett L. Williams
Millions of years; the idea's origin and impact on the church - Terry Mortenson [DVD] a version of the lecture can be seen on YouTube
- part 2. is crucial to an understanding of our debate; as M. quotes many OECs, giving the reason they have abandoned what they admit is the plain meaning of Genesis 1. [6.]
Whose god? The theological response to the god-of-the-gaps - by Lael Weinberger
Systematic Theology Texts and the Age of the Earth - by Terry Mortenson
Helpful book reviews;
Science & Christianity: Four Views - Edited by Richard F. Carlson; 2000 - review by Andrew Kulikovsky
Science’s Blind Spot: The Unseen Religion of Scientific Naturalism by Cornelius Hunter; - review by Lael Weinberger
Creation or Evolution: Do We Have to Choose? by Denis Alexander - Review by David Anderson
Science and Faith: Friends or Foes by John Collins - reviewed by Andrew Kulikovsky
* A Response to the Old-Earth Advocacy of Modern Reformation Magazine - John Reed
- The 'Seven Days' (by Lennox) appears to be a rehash of this MR article that Reed is responding to, as the points made in it (published in 2010) he repeats almost verbatim. (I don't know this to be a fact.) I see no reference to this article in the book.
The original article is; PCA Geologists on the Antiquity of the Earth
David Campbell Lyle D. Campbell, Chip Cates, Gregg Davidson, Keith Long, Richard F. Mercer, Kent Ratajeski, Davis A. Young
- Michael Johnson
Notes;
1. The seven days that divide the world - John Lennox [2011]
2. The only reference to young earth creation is to an essay in an edited collection, and it was written not by PHDs in science (e.g. Humphreys, Sarfati, Bergman, etc.) but by two theologians.
(Was Lennox trying to imply that no 'real' scientists accept a young earth position, only theologians?)
3. I think that a part of what we see here (in this conflict between young and old earth models) i that people like Lennox are looking to win the short term battle, while YECs are looking to win the war. (If you'll allow the metaphor.) Lennox feels that if he were to affirm YE creation he would be dismissed with a wave of the hand, and thus have no chance to make a case for Christianity. People like Jonathan Sarfati believe they must present what they feel is the Biblical case, no matter what academics think of it. i.e. they are looking far beyond current squabbles to an ultimate result.
- I'm not in academia so it's (relatively) easy for me to affirm a YE position; and I know that's not the case for people like Lennox, Lane, Zacharias, etc.
4. Oxford Hebrew scholar, Professor James Barr, on the meaning of Genesis
‘… probably, so far as I know, there is no professor of Hebrew or Old Testament at any world-class university who does not believe that the writer(s) of Genesis 1–11 intended to convey to their readers the ideas that:
creation took place in a series of six days which were the same as the days of 24 hours we now experience
the figures contained in the Genesis genealogies provided by simple addition a chronology from the beginning of the world up to later stages in the biblical story
Noah’s flood was understood to be world-wide and extinguish all human and animal life except for those in the ark.’
5. An unnamed person was overheard to say; "this is the book Philip Johnson was smart enough not to write.'' (No comment.)
6. OECs keep telling us that it's consensus science that must dictate what Genesis means; but what if consensus science decided (or decides) that aliens created man upon this planet? (What if we lived in the days of Democritus and consensus science told us we lived in an eternal universe?)
- OECs in great regularity confuse arguments for an old earth with 'evidence' for an old earth. i.e. they confuse the data and interpretations of the data. It's not the data that speak of an old earth, but secular interpretations of that data. (What's baffling is that even philosophers do this.) Data in itself does not speak, but is mute. OECs are making (at least by proxy) the unwarranted and fallacious claim that there is only one possible interpretation of the data, and that is an old earth. (This is akin to looking at economic history and saying the only possible reading is the superiority and necessity of communism.)
7. A great resource for this subject is a Teaching Company course called 'The philosophy of Science' by Jeffrey Kasser. (It's tough sledding for anyone not familiar with the subject, but crucial to understanding our debate.)
8. A problem we see throughout the book is the conflation of Naturalism with science.
Internet follies;
As a complete aside, if you are being annoyed with a browser feature called Easyinline, it can be removed from your computer by getting rid of a program called YonToo. Full information at easyinline.com
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)
