Tuesday, 25 January 2011

View From the Pulpit - Clayboy

Here are a series of posts by an Anglican Priest here in the UK that provide an interesting perspective on creationism;


Augustine leaves room for science to be science, and neither a means of confirming nor mocking Scripture. In doing so he also leaves room for Scripture to be Scripture, and not pseudo-science.



Science or Bible? Dawkins’ new best friend

It is not surprising, for example, that there were early scientific arguments raised against evolution. That’s how science makes its way: testing out new proposals. (In fact, much of Wilberforce’s argument in his debate with Huxley was the case of the leading naturalist he was, despite the myth that has grown up around it.) The fact that science moved more and more to a new consensus based around natural selection does however matter rather more for its trustworthiness than the ways entrenched dogmatic opposition to it grew in some limited fundamentalist circles.
In short, if yesterday I was rather despairing that the first chapter did its best to overthrow science, today I’m frustrated that the second chapter seeks to refute all mainstream biblical scholarship. I can’t easily see that the book will advance very much further from these positions. This is, quite frankly, the kind of work that gets apologetics a bad name, and makes me wonder whether the atheists might not be right all along.



If you know a creationist, can you help me?

Did God make it to look old from the very beginning, knowing (for he is omniscient) that this would make it hard for people to believe in him? That looks dangerously like divine deceit.
Did God give the youthful skin of the universe cosmic wrinkles as a punishment for Adam’s sin, so that we would turn to him and be Botoxed? It is inconvenient that the Bible remains stunningly silent on this particular punishment.
Did Satan send out his minions to scatter fossils among the rocks, and rub aging potion into the depths of the earth? That is to grant the forces of evil an awful lot of power.
I genuinely can’t see what reason Mohler and others can give (convincing or otherwise) for accepting that the world looks old to all our natural investigatory senses and skills, yet is in fact young if we only believe a supernatural explanation for the apparent elderly age.
Could someone please tell me what is the preferred supernatural explanation for a young earth looking old? Presumably there must be one.
I think this suggests there’s a reasonable case to be made, purely from the Bible itself, that getting the science wrong goes hand in hand with getting the Bible wrong. It would seem authoritative writing is not all it’s cracked up to be, even for God. Once written won’t fly.

No comments:

Post a Comment