If you haven't already, and you enjoy what I write, please do 'Like' my Blog Page on Facebook!
Picture from the BBC website here.
"Comedian Andrew Maxwell takes five British creationists to the west coast of America to try to convince them that evolution rather than creationism explains how we all got here"
Regardless of your personal views on BBC 3, or the comedy of Andrew Maxwell, this program is an interesting one.
The opening of the program is typical BBC 3 hype, but behind that, and the 'banter', there is some serious stuff going on. In his interview on this blog a little while ago, Sam made it quite clear what he expected it to be like. You can read that interview here, and its worth doing so as something that came out before the programme had even started filming. In this post I just want to do a little bit of thinking about how the BBC portrayed religion, Christianity and creationist beliefs, and offer a few pointers on what I think might be true. Bluntly, though, I'm hoping for a riposte on another channel: Milton Jones taking a group of five stand up comedians round the holy land looking at the evidence for the historical Jesus and his Resurrection...
The program picks five people who the BBC understand as being creationists, puts them in a bus with Andrew Maxwell, and then carts them round bits of America. One, Abdul, is a Muslim, the others all Christians of various stripes. The program has a slightly frustrating format in that each of these five people puts forth a 'theory', which the kind scientists that Maxwell organises then debunk. The first of these is relating to the Grand Canyon, wherein flood geology is dealt a blow (and by implication Creationism, and thus by further implication the whole point of Christianity) by the simple expedient of physics. Throughout, the definition of creationism is tweaked and modified, and constantly put forward as representative of all Christians. It is quite frustrating.
The second 'theory' that is deconstructed relates to the ark, wherein the five creationists are ridiculed by a Professor of biology, whilst on a boat. That's mostly it. Sam makes quite a good - if funny - point in the bus about expertise: it is unreasonable to expect someone to be an expert on everything. The challenge posed still stands - I'll get onto the science bit later - but for the moment I'm just waddling through the program. I was slightly gutted by the views of one of the creationists "I'll never be half and half.. evolution happened and then Jesus came to save us.. No No No", which feeds into an unhealthy stereotype of Christians. One response to this is the historicity of the Resurrection, the scholarship of which tends to work in a historical vacuum, focused on the Resurrection and Life/Death of Jesus, with no unnecessary side-swipes into origins or the Doctrine of Creation.
Sam's theory was an interesting one, looking at the idea of Adam and Eve as the starting point for humanity. Sam's point is a good one - it is one that on which a lot of Christian theology sits. They seemed to make mockery of the way in which Christians have understood the account of Adam. I'm of the opinion that the issue is one of common ancestry - and that God's relationship with mankind starts with the people of his formation and choosing, Adam and Eve. Its an issue I definitely need to read about. I personally, however, have yet to come across any Christian who would say that humans changed in no way - so the way in which fossils and skeletons show a common design, gently changing and evolving, sits very well with what I believe.
I was gutted, at this point in the program, that Bronwen commented that if she accepted all the evolutionary science, then she had to accept that the rest of her faith was a load of 'crap'. It's gutting because thats not the case. It's gutting because the Christian claim rests on the Resurrection and Person of Jesus, not some interpretation of one part of the Bible, and the interaction of God with humans throughout history. I'll expand further later on.
In true road trip fashion, its always fun to split apart groups of people, and this is one of the most unfortunate parts of the programme. I'd put blame on participants and producers here, but its an odd way of making a programme aiming at coming to truth. Abdul's 'theory' is that God created life. I'd agree with that - I might disagree with his definition, but his fundamental theory (in my opinion) is about true. I personally quite liked the geysers - they are beautiful. Unfortunately, the Astro-Physicist uses "maybe" etc, which is a bit of a shame. The selective editing with the group and the experts is also frustrating.
The closing moments of the show were interesting. I'm glad that most of the participants are going to go away and think about it. Its unfortunate to see how the two more 'extreme' participants, Abdul and Phil, came out of it unscathed. I was amused that Sam adopted a young earth position - but grateful that he was more mature in his articulation of it than some. Shame they hadn't asked about what he actually believed, like about Jesus. I agree with Maxwell that you need an open mind in faith - unfortunately I do think that some things are cut and dried. Like the Resurrection of Jesus, etc. Maxwell's closing words are intriguing - I'd love to know more about what he thinks.
Christians have believed a range of things throughout history about origins. The publication of Darwin's Origin of the Species was not the faith-shattering hammer that Richard Dawkins and co have tried to make it out as being. I explored a little of how this works in a recent post, "Creationism, Creationists, Christian Education and the Guardian", where I pointed out the Orthodox Christian Doctrine of Creation ex Nihilo, and enlisted the great Reformer John Calvin, who in his commentary on Genesis 1 wrote about why Genesis uses the language of days, "that he might engage us in the consideration of his works". You can read an expansion of that, and about the importance of that, in my post "Calvin on Creation". And Calvin stands in a tradition of bible-believing, God-fearing Christians who dared to read the Bible intelligently, which is something that sceptics often fail to do.
I was frustrated throughout at the way in which people were portrayed as "nuts to crack" etc, which is just isn't ideal. It is unhelpful to say things like "I've been trying to get each of them to engage with the science, but I'm finding a united front of faith". Faith and science are not incompatible. Getting sidelined by homosexuality was frustrating - for my views please do read this post, "Christianity and Homosexuality: A New Approach" - as Christians are working through this incredibly and sensitive issue. That said, Church history has been united, by and large, on that front, with current debates being symptomatic of people breaking free from the past.
But all this is an aside, to be honest. I'm firmly convinced that there is not a war between faith and science. I'm firmly convinced that the Bible is innerrant, and good and true for faith and practice. I also know the Bible answers questions - but that it is not a scientific textbook. I believe God created the earth - I believe it is arrogant to presume we know how that happend - largely because, by all accounts, it happened a long time ago! I believe God gives us brains (And scientists, and universities, and laboratories) in order to look at what he has made. And I believe that every person is made in the Image of God. But that every person is sinful. Either directly through the line of Adam, but fundamentally because we are, as we see every day. This is a broken, fallen world, but it still bears marks of its maker. And, in the person of Jesus, God himself broke in to restore and redeem the world. The chasm between man and God, that Christianity calls Sin, was crossed, and a way to freedom announced in the Good News of Jesus. And Jesus, the King, is calling people to him, announcing that creation itself will be redeemed and that there will be a New Heaven and a New Earth, where there will be no more tears. I believe that because I believe the Bible to be a true and accurate record of God's dealings with creation, and his love for mankind.
____________
I'd recommend a few books to you on this subject, some of which form part of my library on the issue. One is Denis Alexander's "Creation or Evolution: Do we have to Choose?' which is a great Christian scientific overview of the issue, particularly for those who have not made up their mind. I'm always of fan of lots of what John Polkinghorne writes - I'd particularly recommend "One World" for the vision of unity in understanding that it promotes. On a different level, Ronald Numbers "The Creationists" is excellent at getting a good view of beliefs and history together. Finally, my favourite in the above stack, is Charles Foster's "The Selfish Gene", which I will probably review soon, which is an excellent, calm response to attacks on Christianity.
____________
Thanks for reading, I appreciate it has been a long post, but as ever I'd love your comments, feedback, and social media interaction. I hope this has been of help to some of you.
Hello Thomas,
ReplyDeleteAs an Atheist I was looking forward to this programme with some trepidation. I don't believe, and I don't like the way certain vocal religious minorities within Islam and Christianity misrepresent (and all too often invent) Science to prop up their faith -- but I'm not in favour of the childish name calling and mud slinging that too often passes as counter apologetics these days. (To be fair, both sides are as guilty as each other!)
To be honest I wasn't expecting too much from this programme -- I knew the Creationists weren't going to come off looking good, but I hoped the programme wouldn't try to humiliate them. On the whole I found the show wasn't too terrible, accepting the lightweight treatment mandated by BBC3's 'youf' audience; although I could have done without the sneaky attempt to widen the discussion up to homosexuality (a topic the producers must have known *some* Christians are hyper sensitive to, given the gap between their attitudes and the more tolerant attitudes in modern society.)
I googled around today, and checked Twitter, to see how the show went down, and sure enough it was overwhelmingly negative towards the Creationists. This blog was perhaps the only thing I could find which wasn't critical of the show's participants.
In some regard I felt sorry for the participants. They'd been deluded into thinking they were at war with Science; that in some way accepting the evidence of reality is a betrayal of their faith; that conceding one inch of ground to Science is the same as surrendering their whole religion. Then they wrap this dogma in conspiracy: Science is out to topple religion, not search for the unbiased truth, and they close ranks and raise their defences to the arguments of 'the enemy'...
The problem is this is not a battle they can win. Science isn't going to go away. If you destroyed every last book on Evolution -- expunging every last human record of it -- sooner or later it would be re-discovered. Sure, it may not be called Evolution, and it might not be attributed to a guy called Darwin, but the same evidence would lead to the same conclusions, and the same experiments would confirm the same results, and slowly the truth of Evolution would re-emerge.
The same for all Science.
The Creationists on the show seemed to think Science is just an opinion -- just another form of relativism or interpretation. They fail to understand the power of what they are up against, and in the end they set themselves up to look foolish. The ultimate irony is, it is not the scientists who are the real threat to the future of their faith; THEY are the real threat!
I've attended lectures given by Creationists like Ken Ham. Ham comes across as a funny and very personable man, but it's always the Atheists who provide opposition to his (frankly warped, somewhat intolerant, and appealing to intuition) rhetoric. I've yet to ever see moderate Christians or Muslims join in similar protests. And so, unchallenged from within the church itself, it is the more hard line voices who become associated with religion in the public conciousness.
If more Christians were like Kenneth Miller, the Catholic biologist and academic who openly opposes the Discovery Institute etc., then Christianity might not currently have such a bad reputation. But this generally doesn't happen. As such, with regret, I can't really have too much sympathy -- one group of Christians are content to throw themselves repeatedly into the path of Science, and another group are quite happy to stand by and watch (or even secretly cheer them on, perhaps?) as they repeatedly get knocked down.
(Btw: Gerry Coyne isn't a boatbuilder, but a distinguished Professor of Biology, and the author of one of the most transparent, jargon-free, popular science books on Evolution, "Why Evolution is True". Highly recommended.)
Hi Random Cognition, thanks for the comment.
ReplyDeleteI've noted you point about Gerry Coyne, and will edit the post to reflect this! I've had his book on my radar for a while, and will try and read it soon.
Thanks for your thoughts - from an obviously thoughtfully atheistic perspective. I really appreciate a range of views.
I'm glad to have had your reading and comment - what are you views on the truth of religious claims, once we can get beyond the silly 'God vs Science' thing, which is as you say a bit daft?
thanks again
"I'm hoping for a riposte on another channel: Milton Jones taking a group of five stand up comedians round the holy land looking at the evidence for the historical Jesus and his Resurrection"
ReplyDeleteQuote of the day. Can someone make this happen?
Rob
Thanks Rob. Prayer moves mountains...
DeleteFrom your wall:
ReplyDeleteThe creationists are often portrayed as being hard-nosed and closed-minded in their refusal to look at the evidence.
However, this criticism is often served by atheists who take the theories of evolution and the big bang as gospel truth, as if they were proven to be true.
The danger is this: scientific theories are constantly being changed and renewed. It's not completely improbable that the current theory of evolution, which is largely taken from Darwin's Origin of Species, isn't completely right on all the detail (random genetic mutations leading to survival of the fittest etc).
I say this as a warning; if we treat scientific theories as bottom line fact, the creationists will think they have a foothold when we decide we need to change and adapt our theories, and we will lose credibility.
"Gerry Coyne isn't a boatbuilder" - yes, and it showed. He incorrectly claimed that it's impossible to built a wooden ship longer than 300ft - whereas Zheng He, the 15th century Chinese admiral, had a fleet including such ships longer than 500ft (the Ark was about 450ft long). Plus the factor that the Ark didn't need sails or rudder, factors which might tend to weaken a long structure.
ReplyDeleteCoyne even sarcastically asked whether there were whales in the Ark - as though the question ever arose, given what Genesis actually says about only land animals being on board. The "fairy tale" turns out to be entirely in his own head, not the pages of the Bible.
Strangely enough, each of the other scientists committed flaws in their challenges to the Brits. For example, Don Prothero tipped a bucket of water to show that straight water runoff from the Flood couldn't have carved the horse shoe bend - not realising he wasn't comparing like with like, as the recent article at creation.com on that geological feature shows in depth.
Mike Wilkinson asked why we don't find human remains in dinosaur strata, but didn't mention there are dozens of mammalian kinds in such strata, far more than the shrew-like creatures the public probably still assume were the only proto-mammals around. Plus the argument from absence runs aground when evolutionists have to explain absence of coelacanth fossils for "many millions of years", etc.
The anthropologist with the skulls (I forget his name) said their size order correlates with their age order - although I think Andrew Maxwell said they were radiocarbon dated, whereas the prof. mentioned one of them was a million years old, which is too old for C-14 to be useful. However isn't it also true that some Neanderthals had cranial capacities larger than ours? And that clever old Voltaire turned out to have one of the smallest human brains recorded? So the correlation between size and intelligence isn't exact, so can the familiar story be told?
On the other hand the Bible does give some indication of why we'd expect ape fossils below human ones - namely that while apes and other animals spread out from the Ark right after the Flood, humans didn't follow until over a century later, after the Babel dispersion.
All in all, a good programme worth watching. But Thomas, I'd just remind you that you can't place such a heavy emphasis exclusively on Jesus without accepting the truth of Moses' words as well (John 5:47). These things really do matter.
Dan
Hi Anonymous/Dan,
Deletethanks for your comment, you raise some interesting points - could you link myself and other readers to some of the things you mentioned?
I completely agree with you that these things do really matter - I just come to a different conclusion about what these things mean. As mentioned above, I'm still working through Adam etc, and am constantly reading and thinking. I'm pretty convinced by a non 'scientific literal' reading of Genesis 1-3 though - as I believe much of Church history points to.
thanks again for your comment.
Hi Thomas,
DeleteMany thanks for your kind reply ;) I'll be happy to provide a few links below, but first I'd like to remind us both what a small world it is by saying that this evening I found out that your cousin-in-law Sam is also my pastor's nephew!
After evening service just now, my pastor's wife told me that Sam had told them (and you?) of various ways in which the conduct of the tour and the editing of the final programme were "doctored" in an unfavourable manner. I'll mention two:
At first the group were going to have been taken to a "gay church" without any previous indication that that would be done - this explains what otherwise looks like an out-of-context enquiry by Phil about whether the church they actually did go to, was a "gay church". Understanding this unbroadcast background shows us that Phil wasn't being tendentious as he came across in the edited sequence.
The other thing was that when Dr Prothero first spilled his bucket of water, it actually did flow in meandering fashions, so he had to redo it (how many times I wonder?) before getting the nice straight effect which alone was allowed onto our screens. Be that as it may, even what little point he had is well answered in the article at http://creation.com/horse-shoe-bend-arizona
I don't have a link for the Ark length question offhand - my reference to Zheng He is purely from memory of browsing in Waterstones a few years ago and seeing that information on the back cover blurb of a book suggesting the mediaeval Chinese possibly sailed to N. America - which immediately rang a bell as a decisive answer to the objection which I can't help but think is just an atheistic urban myth Dr Coyne had picked up from whatever gutter site and uncritically regurgitated!
Re. mammalian fossils in dinosaurian strata, I was thinking of this interview: http://creation.com/werner-living-fossils Actually I was being overly conservative in saying "dozens". Here's an amazing quote: "Paleontologists have found 432 mammal species in the dinosaur layers; almost as many as the number of dinosaur species."
If there's anything else I mentioned that you'd like a link to, do let me know. Meanwhile I'd be interested if you could give me links to corroborate your judgement that "much of church history" read Gen. 1-3 non-historically. For example, as far as I'm aware, until about 1800 no Christian ever suggested that the world could be more than 10,000 years old.
Best wishes,
Dan
Hi Thomas,
DeleteI posted a reply yesterday which hasn't gone up - was it lost, or have you been busy?
Cheers,
Dan
Dan, thanks for your comment, and apologies for the belated reply.
DeleteAgree with you observations about the programme - I'd talked at length with Sam and the whole thing comes across as completely shambolic. A really unfortunate way to start a discussion about truth!
If you are a regular reader of my blog (and if you aren't, welcome!) then I'd say that I am all about Jesus, but only in the context of the full Christian story, and the full word of God. You and I will probably differ over what bits of Genesis etc Moses wrote!
Regarding the church history thing, I think you are approaching it from the wrong way. The pre-linked Calvin quote represents the mainstream of orthodox interpretation, and Augustine felt similarly. To try to put the whole of church history into our modern ways of thinking is quite risky, and essentially impossible. I don't doubt that Christians (notably James Ussher!) have tried to work it out over the years, and many have come up with figures. The thing is, this is an illegitimate use of the Biblical text. To make the Bible into another science book is to miss its majesty, and to commit the same error as many critics of Christianity. The Bible is TRUE in all that it talks about - and to try and force it into a box for the purposes of apologetic response is dangerous. If we approach the Bible with a completely flat mentality, we miss the majesty of what God is saying, has done, and will do through it.
Using Wikipedia as a starting point (because I can't link you physical books in my library), read this on Augustine and Creation: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Augustine_of_Hippo#Creation
for a muddying of the waters: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Allegorical_interpretations_of_Genesis#Ancient_Christian_interpretations (note origen, but also the contrast with Basil) and Augustine again.
That's an aside, however. As I've repeatedly said, I'm not sold on anything, but I am determined that to let any one Christian interpretation of the Genesis account get in the way of someone considering the claims of Jesus is foolish. The simple fact is, science is not the enemey, and Jesus lived and died in this world 2000 years ago. Beyond that central thing, we can discuss, but to be black and white on issues like creation is unhelpful. That said, I think the Bible is black and white on many things (obviously!) but to claim such a position on creation is not always helpful.
I hope my comment makes sense - thanks for reading and engaging.
Tom
Also, and this is another aside, THIS: http://www.stephenjaygould.org/library/gould_house-ussher.html
DeleteReally calm, wonderfully written look at the efforts of long-dead scholars.
Many thanks again Tom. Glad you too have been informed about the dodgy nature of that programme!
DeleteI've no idea if we differ at all about which parts of Genesis Moses wrote or redacted - what's clear is that when Jesus says "Moses", he like any Jew of his time meant the first five books of the Hebrew Bible, so certainly included Genesis.
I read the earlier Calvin quote, but another which gets right to the point is this: "God himself took the space of six days, for the purpose of accommodating his works to the capacity of men." And if that isn't specific enough, how about this: "They will not refrain from guffaws when they are informed that but little more than five thousand years have passed since the creation of the universe." (From comm. on Genesis and Institutes respectively)
The claim isn't that the Bible is a "science" book but a history book - certainly Genesis 1-11 as it proclaims itself (and as the rest of the Bible confirms it) to be. And the meaning of "day", "year" etc. is the same now as then. Changing "ways of thinking" have nothing to do with it.
The Wiki section on Augustine itself says that he believed in instantaneous creation of everything, so was definitely a young-earther in today's terms. Ditto Origen.
What gets in people's way of considering Christ's teaching these days isn't what Christians think of Genesis but what the world tells them about origins and the inevitable clash with "everyman's" understanding of what the Bible teaches about it. Therefore only two possible courses are open to us: either to argue that Genesis doesn't mean anything like what it says, or to affirm that it does, and point out flaws in evolutionary thinking so that no conflict with science need be supposed.
Interesting Gould link, yes; but the odd thing is that in the >20 years since he had a go at Ussher, a whole pile of fresh evidence has come to light indicating that the world isn't anything like as old as Gould assumed. Just in case you're not aware of the link (which I expect Kris below had in mind), have a peek at http://creation.com/age-of-the-earth - which in its introduction carefully points out that the only sure grounds for knowledge about it is the word of the only possible Eyewitness.
As Kris hasn't yet replied to your response to him below, I'd suggest that that single compendious article/list is just what you asked him for. Very, very interesting long list of readers' comments too!!
As for evolution destroying Christianity, that's not just Kris - it's the programme's own Jerry Coyne, plus Richard Dawkins, William Provine, Richard Bozarth, Thomas Huxley - and by deed Charles Darwin, as it did for whatever appearance of Christian belief he ever possessed.
I also have an inkling that Kris would more precisely like to know what you think about the effects of the fall, and the extent of the flood.
Oh dear, what a long post again. I blame the subject matter!!
'Night,
Dan
Fair points. Thanks again for your comment - I do however feel that some of what these church history figures say is up for interpretation, in the context they were writing and based on the 'science' that they were aware of. Augustine, for example, understood the word 'literal' to be something different than we do (see his work on this).
DeleteDid I share this link:
The other issue I have (And having done extensive work on bible 'contradictions [there are none] please don't think I doubt Scripture) is how you explain, in a literal, yec sense, the differing order and feel of Genesis 1-2:4 and then 2:4 onwards. How can these two accounts be reconciled? To see Genesis (As I believe it was, whether written entirely by Moses or not) as myth (NOT in the sense that most would understand it, but in the technical sense relating to stories transmitting truth, unlike for ex, greek myths) is more helpful here, I would argue. I'm sure you've heard of scholars describing Genesis 1 as creation hymn, over and above the other creation stories, myths and theories of its time, demonstrating Yahweh's supremacy over it all.
thanks again for comments, always stimulating.
Can I ask whether you would say to someone who believes in theistic evolution that their salvation is in danger, or is it a secondary issue for you? Just trying to clarify!
thanks,
Tom
Many thanks again Tom - sorry for delay on my part, but at least I've had a chance to confirm that my pastor & his wife know you too! lol
DeleteBy all means let's be cautious about interpreting church leaders' statements - and of course as Protestants it's not a decisive matter for us. Nevertheless regarding Augustine, this rather well-known quote -
"They are deceived, too, by those highly mendacious documents which profess to give the history of many thousand years, though, reckoning by the sacred writings, we find that not 6000 years have yet passed."
does indicate where he thought he was getting his ideas from!
Re. Genesis 1 and 2, it seems to me that the only actual appearance of conflict (as opposed to complementarity) is the order of creation of animals and man - which can be adjusted with an implied parenthesis or pluperfect in 2:19.
On Gen. 1 as a creation hymn, if I were going to select such a thing in the OT it would be Psalm 104. Now, Psalms 105 and 106 are similar hymns corresponding to prose histories in the Pentateuch. So if Psalm 104 is also a hymn, to which earlier history does it correspond?
Moreover, Genesis 1 is only the tip of the iceberg when it comes to conflict with secular beliefs - Gen. 2-11 and the NT have so much to say about that.
I can't generalise about all theistic evolutionists re. salvation security - in some cases no discernible problem while others look ready to tip over or already have done. What I would say with confidence though, is that teaching TE is deleterious because it can never give a rational basis for the gospel. So for example, I submit that someone who says that Adam was originally mortal may still believe the gospel but has failed to grasp its logic. And that's obviously a shaky position to be in.
Regards,
Dan
Agreed re being a Protestant! Thanks for commenting again.
DeleteAugustine does mention reckoning rather than making a dogmatic statement - but as you say lets not dwell on it.
Yes - the order. The order is different, which is 'right'? It's why I would contend that Moses (or whoever wrote the early part of Genesis [other than God!]) isn't writing a scientific text in the sense that Young Earth Creationists would have us believe. The error of the YEC's is exactly the same as those who are dogmatic naturalist darwinists - they state that Genesis MUST mean what it seems to say literally - but that cannot work given the difference between Genesis 1 and 2.
I don't understand your point about earlier history, sorry? Genesis 1 is modelled as a hymn, and is often laid out as such in modern bibles. Psalm 104 is probably one too - but then its a basic fact about the Psalms that the book is full of songs!
Genesis 1, in my understanding, is a statement of God's kingship, creative power, and sovereignty. That is not the same as a scientific fact. I'm entirely with you on the conflict with secular beliefs. First of all, there once was no secular, and second of all, the very point and message of the bible is anti-secular by definition.
Why can't theistic evolution give a rational basis for the Gospel?
I'm not talking about Adam's mortality - his existence is the issue. We limit God by reading things into the text that are not necessarily there.
hope that helps clarify my position.
I'd point you in the direction of a more recent post: http://admiralcreedy.blogspot.com/2012/10/creation-doctrine.html
thanks again for commenting,
Tom
Thanks again Tom - I've read your later post and look forward to the further articles you promise, although to keep things tidy I think I'd better comment here first!
DeleteAs you know the Gospels give the same events in different orders many, many times, and none of that means any of them isn't historical.
What I meant by earlier history is that the Pentateuch records history that happened long before Psalms 105 and 106 were written. Ditto with Psalm 104 and the definitive prose history to which it partially refers back.
All forms of theistic evolution assert that Adam began his existence as a mortal being. Therefore nothing he ever did (sin or otherwise) caused his death, let alone brought death upon subsequent mankind as Romans 5 plainly says. And if sin didn't bring death into the world, what reason is there to believe that the removal of sin (by Christ the last Adam) would take death out of the world? The whole scheme falls apart in confusion. Hence it's the premise that's wrong!
It's not enough to assert merely the existence of a historical man to whom we give the name "Adam": we need to believe exactly all of what the Bible says about him. The way to limit God is to fail to read what's in the text and what logically follows from it. If not for the question of the origin of death, why do you think Adam's existence matters?
See you on the other post thread?
Dan
have replied on the other post :)
DeleteAs a Christian and a scientist (albeit a bit of a beginner), I found the show misrepresented both 'camps'. Probably because the aim of the show didn't seem to be to discover truth (or at least not to inform the decision of the viewers) - if it was, it should have taken experts from both backgrounds as well as having a much greater emphasis on facts rather than their day trips. From my perspective, both were seen to be stubbornly fighting each other with the main aim of winning an argument(this was summed up by some of the closing comments "I'm really please Jo Jo's taken a step closer to my position"). I think this is unfair to both science and faith (if you want to draw a distinction between them) as both are ways of finding truth (and neither mean anything if you win an argument but are wrong - they make claims which are real and matter outside of ourselves). Both were portrayed as arrogant, where both should logically start with humility (to find an answer, you need to look for it; to look for it, you need a question).
ReplyDeleteInstead, the emphasis seemed to be based much more on how the different individuals reacted to conflict and engaged with the issues (it does, after all, probably make for much more user friendly TV than another documentary about fossils). I was most interested in the Christian geologist - not because he wasn't a traditional 'creationist', but because of his gracious manner. Seeing as I think the show was more about the conflict between two supposed opposites, that man's attitude spoke volumes which wasn't emphasised enough.
As I think the show wasn't really about finding answers about the beginning of the earth or whether or not God exists(though people can of course use some of what was said to further their cause either way, and the questions do matter) but how you look for them, it's a good reminder to us all to be open minded - what is the world around us like? Why is it like that? Who/what can we rely on for those answers? What are we going to do next to look for them? What are we going to do with the answers we find?
Hi anonymous, thanks for the comment. I agree that the Christian geologists approach was wonderful - would that we can all learn from that.
DeleteThanks too for your closing comments, i completely agree!
I watched the show but was disappointed not to have seen creation scientist given the opportunity to defend their model. It seemed that the premise was that the participants were wrong and the presenter was going to show them why.
ReplyDeleteIt was not fair because these were lay people and therefore could not argue in the same way that a creation scientist, familiar with the data would have been able to.
I wanted more from Phil because I had seen him before on TV, but I thought he did well and was right to suspect that they were being set up to look foolish.
The creation evolution debate is not about science, its about world views and always has been. Evolution, millions of years et al. cannot be made to fit into the biblical model. It really is an either or scenario. There are good people who try to fit the two together and they often get destroyed in any debate with either the evolutionist or the creationist. So the fence is not an option. The question becomes what science has always been about and that is " what is true and what is false".
In science "Data Trumps Theory"... except when it comes to evolution. If the evolutionary model is not supported by the observable data, then we have to question the model and not the data.
What we saw was a series of pitches from selected scientists trying to convince them to become atheists.. (yes evolution will destroy Christian faith because it does not require a creator and assumes natural processes created life. its one or the other.)
Its a debate that must be had out in the open. There is more evidence supporting the young earth creation model than there ever has been. This is a great time to be a creationist. The data already available absolutely proves the fallacy of the evolutionary model. I would encourage you to do your research and dive into this subject. If Moses was wrong then so was Christ.. If he was right, then there was a creation event, a fall, a flood of judgement, a dispersion from Babel and a need for salvation. I wish you well in your Journey.
Hi Kris,
Deletethanks for the comment. Interesting view - I'm concerned that you equate evolutionary theory with a destruction of the Christian faith, why is this?
I'm hoping you can link me to some more research on the YEC side - I've read a great deal over the years and am unconvinced but would gladly look into it again.
I don't think Moses was wrong - where is that statement coming from? I think there was a fall, a creation, a flood of judgement, a dispersion from Babel and that there si absoultely a need for salvation. Do I give the impression of disputing that?
thanks again.