Monthly Archives: September 2011
In my last post I pointed out the many instances of the Greek word “logos” in John’s writings, and showed how they demonstrate that, for John, Jesus and his teaching are virtually one. This is logical if Jesus is indeed God’s Word – that which God speaks. Speech is at the heart of the Incarnation. In the previous post I drew attention to John’s style of writing, which consists of interconnecting related ideas in a kind of network. This is particularly true of the logos concept. It is wrong to think of logos as purely a technical term, for the idea is also covered by a number of other words and concepts in … Continue reading
In a previous post I pointed out that the prologue of John’s gospel introduces the key concept of Jesus Christ as the Logos, or Word, of God, yet after these 18 verses appears to drop the idea altogether. But this is misleading, because John uses the word “logos” some 24 times more in his gospel, and another 6 or so times in the letter of 1 John. Of these, the majority refer to the idea of teaching, but the most interesting are a few instances where there is some considerable ambiguity about whether Jesus himself is meant by the word.
A brief excursus on John’s style of writing. This is especially obvious from John’s 1st letter. Anyone who has learned, like me, even minimal Greek knows it’s by far the easiest New Testament book to translate. The Greek is simple, the vocabulary limited. A child could do it after half a dozen Greek lessons. Yet once you’ve translated it it is one of the hardest books to understand, especially if you have scientific training.
One of the things that becomes evident when discussing theology with theistic evolutionists (ID isn’t a theological project, so it’s harder to tell) is how seldom one encounters a high view of biblical authority, still less inerrancy, amongst largely evangelical supporters. BioLogos has published a preponderance of articles, with a few notable exceptions, on the errors in Scripture and how they needn’t affect faith. In other words there’s a lot more about detecting what it gets wrong than what it gets right. More significantly the comments of those in the TE camp predominantly range from support for an ill-defined limited infallibility to an assumption that the Bible infallibly teaches that … Continue reading
In the Light of Mark Noll’s excellent piece on BioLogos, I got hold of a copy of Noll’s sadly out of print collection of B B Warfield’s writings on evolution. The amazing thing is that the book does not read like a relic from history, but like a commentary on the current evolution-faith debate.
Ever since Intelligent Design raised its head, and quite apart from the question of falsifiability, there has been disagreement over whether it is possible to detect design in the absence of knowledge of the designer. One of the usual fields of conflict is the SETI programme, but here’s a small, real, example of my own. I don’t expect it to contribute anything very radical to the debate, but you may find it intriguing.
Steve Matheson (a Reformed Chistian, like myself) started an interesting thread on his website a couple of months ago, which stemmed from a conversation with Casey Luskin. (Cunning link to my previous post – see what I did there?) His argument was that Intelligent Design Theory is inherently unfalsifiable unless one specifies the character and limitations of the designer, because an omniscient designer such as God could (and of course, in both his and my view, did) design everything. Since that could include designing the incontrovertible appearance of non-design, nothing could be excluded from the possibility of design, design would therefore be unfalsifiable and design theory ergo unscientific.
I’ve chanced upon another reference to my post about Signature in the Cell, this time from Casey Luskin on Evolution News and Views. As a blogger I’m very aware of the dictum that “No publicity is bad publicity”, since the previous mention on Uncommon Descent boosted my readership from about three to … rather more. So if Casey’s post brings you here, then welcome. Do say hello.
Yet again somebody’s parroted out that old mantra, “Evolution is not random because natural selection is not random.” The implication, of course, is that selection is the real creative power of the Neodarwinian theory, mutation just supplying, or more accurately renewing, raw materials. Let’s use a rather old fashioned kind of analogy to re-examine this, but then go on to incorporate some of the new biological insights and see how it works out in the brave new world. “The great museums are the reason there is so much great art in the world today. Discuss.”
Just a very quick addendum to a previous post. If freedom and creativity are related to randomness, as some views of libertarianism would have it, and particularly those theistic evolutionists wedded to Open Theism, then it follows that the most free and creative people are those least constrained in their thinking… that is, the insane. The same, I guess, would be true of God if that were the nature of his own freedom. It was said by a friend of Syd Barrett that when at his most mentally unwell he would lie on his back staring at the ceiling all day – the putative explanation being that since this left every possibility … Continue reading