Archive for category Science
A warning?
Posted by Geoff in Debate/Discussion, Genesis, Other Posts, Science on November 20, 2010
When I was a student I revered the sciences, and mocked religion and I felt rather grand doing that. Now that I take a closer look at the matter, I am surprised to find how many dignitaries of the Church take seriously the superficial arguments I and my friends once used, and how ready they are to reduce their faith accordingly. In this they treat the sciences as if they, to, formed a Church, only a Church of earlier times and with a more, primitive philosophy when one still believed in absolutely certain results. A look at the history of the sciences, however, shows a very different picture.
P. Feyerbend, Farewell to Reason, Verso, 1987, p. 264
(edit: added author name)
The beginning and Science
I wanted to quote from one of my favorite authors, Henri Blocher:
On “the place of the sciences” [in interpreting Genesis and scripture in general]:
… Therefore we must curb the desire to make the scientific view play a part in the actual interpretation; the interpretation must cling solely to the text and its context. The inescapable comparison with the sciences of cosmic, biological and human origins will not come until after; this will no doubt have repercussions on the work of interpretation which is never completed, but they will be of a merely external nature. The sciences will stimulate the interpreter from without, driving him to verify his exegesis and test the evidence, or encouraging him to favorable convergences which bear witness to the common origin of the books of God. In order to submit ourselves to God in his sovereign declarations and in the condescension of his inspiration of men, we conclude that the places of sciences in the reading of the bible is this; they have neither authority, or even a substantial ministerial role within the actual interpretation; they act as warnings and confirmations at a later stage.
He continues:
The pathway is free, therefore, and our calling clear; to study Genesis as God’s Word and as human words, in harmony with the whole of Scripture and according to the characteristics of its language.
(empahsis mine)
Also posted at theology.geek.nz
Christ or Creationism? The Church’s Pork Problem
Christ or Creationism?
First, I want to introduce you to a post from Gordon, and then we’ll discuss Ken Ham. I know, lame pun, but in all sincerity, it is a problem when one person hogs the gospel for himself, and loves to root around in the slop while hamming it up for others, fattening himself up on misdirection and anti-intellectualism.
Gordon writes,
My own faith was shipwrecked by this issue because I had been told time and again that belief in a young earth and creation of the species as they currently are without evolution was essential to being a proper, soundly converted, bible believing Christian….
And yes, Ken Ham will state that one doesn’t have to believe in YEC, but will roundly attack those who do not. Gordon goes on to note what is actually in the doctrine of Young Earth Creationism, rightly, I believe. When you view of God is based on having to accept something as literal, when we have a long history of it not being required as well as it being proven wrong… you have no real connection to God.
Next up, Ken is again attacking in a very shrewd way Dr. James McGrath. If my readers will remember, I’ve dined with the good Doctor and his family. I have a great respect for him and none for Ken Ham. Why? What fruit is found in Ken Ham? What humility? What is his gospel message? Did Paul so rebuke Reason? Intellectualism? Did Paul add to the Gospel’s message? If Ken is the Christian that he says he is, where are his answers, in season and out of season? As a matter of fact, he is on record stating that he will not be asked questions. And his staff? What credentials? And his love? Does Ken Love anyone anymore?
And to blame the collapsing of a Christian World View in the U.S. on such as Dr. McGrath is silly. Instead, I would charge that if we had a Christian World View, if we were truly a Christian nation at any point in our history, that the likes of Ken Ham is what is causing the downfall with his insistence on something more than Christ. We no longer look to Christ, but our own interpretations of Scripture, believing that they are inerrant. His notion of the authority of the word of God is bound up in his interpretation, and not reality.
I am a believe in Jesus Christ. I believe Him to be just what the Scriptures state He is. I believe in Scripture as inspired. I believe that all are lost but through Christ’s faithfulness righteousness is imputed. I believe that God is still calling through Christ, that we must respond, that Scripture is central, and that sin is real. I do not believe that creationism or evolution makes one more or less a Christian, a believer, or even sanctified. I believe instead that we must endeavor to understand the word of God as it was meant to be understood and that I don’t have to understand it all in order for it to be Truth. I further believe that my understandings and interpretations are second, third – fourth! to what the word of God actually says.
I believe that people like Ken Ham are causing undue divisions in the Body of Christ and instead of reaching towards one another in Christ, we are doing our best to fracture even more our mission. Christ asked us to believe upon Him. I do. I believe that my life has forever been changed because of my faith in Christ, because of, if you will, an unquantifiable religious experience and a continued presence by the Spirit of the Living God.
I believe that both Ken and James are brothers in Christ, but that one is rejecting the Father and in doing so, becoming a home-wrecker.
I believe in
- God the Father Almighty,
- Maker of heaven and earth:
- And in Jesus Christ his only Son our Lord,
- Who was conceived by the Holy Ghost,
- Born of the Virgin Mary,
- Suffered under Pontius Pilate,
- Was crucified, dead, and buried:
- He descended into hell;
- The third day he rose again from the dead;
- He ascended into heaven,
- And sitteth on the right hand of God the Father Almighty;
- From thence he shall come to judge the quick and the dead.
- I believe in the Holy Ghost;
- The holy Catholick Church;
- The Communion of Saints;
- The Forgiveness of sins;
- The Resurrection of the body,
- And the Life everlasting.
- Amen.
Anything else you need me to believe in to be saved?
The Laws of Physics are more messed up than Congress
- Image via Wikipedia
A friend of mine shared this story with me, and after my braining going boom, I though that I might share it with you as well.
The laws of physics only work in a finite universe, but we likely live in an infinite multiverse. Resolving this discrepancy could mean a 50-50 chance time will end in 3.7 billion years. Yeah, this one’s going to get weird.
The problem starts with eternal inflation, an offshoot of the inflationary universe model used to explain the Big Bang. In the original inflation model, the early universe very quickly and exponentially expanded in volume, pushing apart different sectors of the universe into causally disconnected patches. That means you could leave one patch traveling at the speed of light forever and never reach any of the others, because the ongoing expansion of the universe makes them too far apart.
The universe might have to end in 3.7 billion years so that the laws of physics make sense.
Read that article and the ones below, and if you have any brain matter left…
Related articles
- Zany Scientists Claim the Laws of Physics Change Throughout the Universe [Mind Blowing] (gizmodo.com)
- Laws of physics may just be ‘local by-laws’ (gizmag.com)
- Constant change: Are there no universal laws? (newscientist.com)
- The Laws Of Physics May Vary By Jurisdiction [Science] (kotaku.com)
- Physicist Says There’s a 50% Chance Time Itself Will End Within Earth’s Lifespan [Physics] (gizmodo.com)
ET has phoned home… sorta, maybe? At least Gliese 581g has
Image via Wikipedia
The recent discovery of Gliese 581g, an alien planet in the habitable zone of another star, has been an exciting development for scientists probing the galaxy for signs of extraterrestrial life. At least one claim of a possible signal from the planet has already surfaced – and been met with harsh skepticism among the science community.
Following the Sept. 29 announcement of the discovery of Gliese 581g, astronomer Ragbir Bhathal, a scientist at the University of Western Sydney, claimed to have detected a suspicious pulse of light nearly two years ago, that came from the same area of the galaxy as the location of Gliese 581g, according to the U.K.’s Daily Mail online.
via Strange Signal Comes From Alien Planet, Scientist Says – FoxNews.com.
Um…well…. okay…. So, when does Spock get here? Seriously, and can we send missionaries there yet?
Related articles
- Claim of Alien Signal from Planet Gliese 581g Called ‘Very Suspicious (space.com)
- “Gliese 581g may be first habitable exoplanet” and related posts (wired.co.uk)
Edward T. Babinski – Does the Bible “Teach” Geocentrism?
- Image via Wikipedia
I want to encourage you to read the entire post, but…
There’s no simple yes or no answer to such a question if only because geocentrism was so much taken for granted at that time that it could be treated as a given, a universal assumption, and thus there was no need to “teach” it. The same could be said about “flat-earth-ism” pre-600 BCE in the Near East.
Which leaves open the question of what other “assumptions” the Hebrew writers of the Bible took for granted concerning kingship, laws, gods, religious beliefs and rites? How can one know they are “true” assumptions or whether they need to be reinterpreted based on later knowledge, like the geocentric passages in the Bible? This also raises the question of whether the Scriptures can indeed “interpret themselves?” Can they?
Edward T. Babinski: Does the Bible “Teach” Geocentrism?.
I don’t go that far as to then turn it around and question the other ‘assumptions’ as I see that while the Scriptures are inspired by God, they still contain that human element, which is of course language and simple understanding.
But, my friends, Babinski has some serious questions – and I’ll let you decide if they can be, or should be, answered.
Related articles
- Geocentrism? Seriously? Yup (thechurchofjesuschrist.us)
- The Scriptural Basis for a Geocentric Cosmology? Part 1 (thechurchofjesuschrist.us)
- A Week with Geocentrism – Galileo Was what? (thechurchofjesuschrist.us)
- Calvin, Luther and Melanchthon believed Geocentricity? (thechurchofjesuschrist.us)
- The Scriptural Basis for a Geocentric Cosmology – Scriptural Cosmology (thechurchofjesuschrist.us)
- Verses for Geocentrism (thechurchofjesuschrist.us)
Thank God, Ken Ham ain’t
Ken Ham is a burr in the saddle of all believers – he is trying to force Christians the world over to repeat after him, and making it a matter of the Faith to do so. This is one of the reasons that I wrestle with the Creeds. He is nothing more than a legalist, a purist, and of course wrong. He is upset that the largest pentecostal denomination has come to realize that a set and woodenly literal interpretation of Genesis 1 serves as a destroy to the Faith and is a part of the Gospel of Works. In the New Testament, not one mention is made of having to believe anything about Creationism, the Old Testament, etc… but only that by the Spirit of God which regenerates us, we say that Jesus Christ is Lord. In Hebrews 11, we read that by faith we know that the universe was called into existence by God’s command. Regardless of evolutionary tendencies of some believers, or Creationists, our faith tells us that it was God who did this. When you remove that element, then yes, we have problems.
But, I get ahead of myself. After reading his post, he comes across as uniquely arrogant – that he has the right words and that everyone else must state those words exactly, as if some magical incantation which brings about peace and harmony. He is a purist, to which is fine in some cases, but in the back of my mind I am reminded that Christ condemned the purists of the Law who did what Ham is doing. Ham goes on to repeat the blatant lie that by allowing a different interpretation of Genesis 1, then people are undermining the Scriptures. How sad that someone thinks that their interpretation alone is the word of God from on high. The Scriptures aren’t as black and white as so many like to pretend that they are. Yes, there are many passages that are black and white, but in the end, the reason we haven’t had so many disagreements throughout the course of Christianity is that we have allowed our interpretations of Scripture to present a division. Ken Ham and others like him (I am not speaking here of Creationists) stand in direct opposition to Jesus Christ and His prayer in John 17.
For me, I believe Genesis 1 is literal….in context.
We must endeavor to strive together in the essentials, which is Christ and His Gospel. What Ham does, by condemning the AoG and others for not having his precise wording and then going on to offer attack against a fellow blogger (who is AoG) is unChristian, anti-Christ, and immoral.
Yes, I’m ticked. Ham is a bully and it is time believers started calling him on it.
Assemblies of God Denomination Responds . . . but What Does It Really Mean? – Persevero!.
Oh, and Ken, like other unevolved predators, eats his own.
Related articles by Zemanta
- What made Ken Ham so mad at the AOG?
- Ken Ham v Bill Dembski [Dispatches from the Culture Wars] (scienceblogs.com)
- Creationists seek to insert their own brand of ‘truth’ into education (guardian.co.uk)
- This is for people who read Answers in Genesis (hjhop.blogspot.com)
