Before proceeding further with this series on Creation, it is helpful, nay necessary, to examine preconceptions about nature, science, and the like.
Scientism (called by many names today) has as its core tenant “nothing is true until proven so by empiricism.” This is not really a correct view, although it has some helpful elements. As a scientist, I generally require proof before believing in magnetic monopoles, for instance.
This empiricist model claims that it preconceives nothing in order to arrive at truth. That’s simply impossible. First, you must suppose that logic is a thing that even exists, and that you are capable of understanding it. Then, you must assume that nature is uniform everywhere, and that your observations in one corner of the universe are applicable in every other square. Then, you must assume that your mind is equipped to handle observations about nature in the first place. None of this is able to be proven, yet scientists routinely take it on faith that these things are so (I believe them to be true as well, so I’m allowed to do science).
The only position that makes any rational sense of the universe (and indeed accounts for rationality at all) is the Christian position. This is the basis for presuppositional apologetics. The above principles are in fact consistent with and implied by Scripture.
So what am I presupposing? I am presupposing that the Bible is God’s unfallible and unchangeable revelation, perfect and true in all its teachings, though not exhaustive in its subject matter. Even an attempt to prove this puts us in the jury seat while the truth of God is held in doubt, if just for argument’s sake. That’s unacceptable.
What does that mean for our studies in Genesis?
- We must think as the Bible thinks. When the Spirit inspires the word “day,” is it internally consistent for this to be interpreted “age?”
- The only standard to compare to is the rest of the Bible which is always internally consistent. Babylonian texts that contain the same literary structures use those (usually heptameric) structures because the Bible does, not the other way around.
- Is creation/evolution consistent with the God revealed in Scripture?
- Science is a tool, not a worldview or a hermeneutic. Although it is often used as such, this is absolutely incorrect. Saying “I only believe in science” is equivalent to saying “I only believe in hammers.” So what? Hammers hammer nails because the Bible allows them to. They do not hammer nails despite what the Text may imply.
I am continuing to explore Meredith Kline’s framework hypothesis in order to respond accordingly.
Although a majority of Americans do not personally favor gay marriage, many believe that the institution of marriage will be redefined to include it.
They believe that the historic position of our nation (and of most of human history) will be rejected as a relic of ignorance and bigotry. But this viewpoint has been promoted by a very deceitful and manipulative distortion of truth.
A number of years ago, I suggested that legalization of gay marriage as a civil right will open a legal Pandora’s box throughout the nation. I said this to a university audience as a guest on a panel at an Open Forum. A visiting law professor immediately rejected my assertion. But she was countered by a nationally recognized lawyer in the audience who listed cases currently in the courts that validated my point. She remained silent for the rest of the discussion.
I also stated…
View original post 869 more words
I would only add that much hangs on a literal Genesis and a real Adam. But more on that later, of course.
The New York Times ran a series of articles last week on creationism using a question that could lead people to thinking that one must choose between faith and science. The Times asked, “Why are some people drawn to origin narratives like in Genesis, and others to the scientific story?”
This question is only necessary if one accepts a false comparison between what faith and science are meant to contribute. The narrative of Genesis offers a historical account of how the universe began. But there is no scientific story to explain how the universe came into existence. The Big Bang Theory is used to explain arrangements of matter but it does not necessarily conflict with what we find in Genesis.
Science, as a discipline, cannot offer conclusions about ultimate origins of matter. Science can describe in fascinating detail what is observable within the universe. Science can speak of purposes related…
View original post 558 more words
“When you stand before God at the end, He’s not going to give you a doctrine test, He’s going to ask you what you did with the life He gave you!”
How many times have you heard (and perhaps even been convinced momentarily) by this specious line of reasoning? As if things like doctrine and propositional truth and orthodox teaching are, at best, peripheral things to God, and what really matters to Him is how we live out our lives. Additionally, it’s important to see that such reasoning assumes that our ability to stand before God at all is not about belief in anything in particular, but solely in our ability to work for Him.
This is a pervasive issue facing evangelicalism today, particularly amoung proponents of the social/activist gospel, and dealing with such an issue requires examining more critically the logic behind such a line of reasoning.
View original post 935 more words
It seems that ever day another politician has cheated on his wife . Anthony Weiner is currently in the public eye, due to his Twitter malfeasance, but he’s not the first, nor will he be the last. The pandemic of unfaithful husbands in “Washington” is covers the city like one of those deadly flu strains that newspapers are always warning us about.
This is not a new problem. Political philandering has been around from the very beginning, when Amen-Hotep, may he live forever, had a fling with a young priestess of Isis that was leaked by his grand scribe, Breit-Bart. Amen-Hotep, may he live forever, denied the affair, apologized, held a lot of press conferences and eventually found Ra. The cycle has continued to this day.
Because of its long history and continual presence, almost no one has thought of a way to solve the problem of political infidelity. Nevertheless…
View original post 1,359 more words
And they call us intolerant? Honestly, I’m a little confused.
The Houston Museum of Natural Science continues its plan to profit from anti-religious bullies that are in a kerfuffle over something as trivial as religious folks who interpret history differently than they do. The group plans to bring their pre-Civil Rights era mentality to HMNS this Sunday, disguised as an “Answers in Science” meeting. Kathy Miller of the Texas Freedom Network, who is not a scientist, is slated to speak.
Yesterday, TFN posted a blog in response to my concerns, titling it “Creationist Demands That Houston Museum Ban Atheists and Science Supporters” Of course, I have no desire for HMNS to ban atheists and science supporters. How unreasonable! What I do think is right and proper though is to cancel the meeting hall rental, as HMNS should not profit from ANY groups promoting religious intolerance. Of course, in the comments section of the blog, TFN proves my point…
View original post 117 more words