- Genealogical Adam and Eve 13/12/2019
- I learn how to manipulate the masses (in 1963) 10/12/2019
- Murdering opinions 02/12/2019
- You can’t exclude human influence from science 27/11/2019
- “Alexa, what is the real cost of your switching on my lights?” 25/11/2019
Monthly Archives: March 2016
Here is a link to chapter 2 of my book.
Here is the link to the first chapter proper of my book on the goodness of creation.
Well, if I failed to get published on theology and biology in the academic world, I had a minor success in the Cambridge alumni magazine CAM this week with a piece based on an article I sent them last year on the Cambridge University Folk Club, which at one stage, back in the age of dinosaurs, I ran. You can find the magazine online here, and we’re on page 39. Oh yes – and since we’ll all be busy over the weekend, remember that Christ has died; Christ is risen; Christ will come again.
I’ve been mulling over what to do with a project that has been languishing for far too long – a study on the myth that the natural world fell when mankind first sinned. A brief summary of a long story may help orientate things.
The title of this piece is based on a once influential social psychology book by Erving Goffman, The Presentation of Self in Everyday Life. In around 250 pages, the author fully covers the ground of his subject, just like it says on the cover, writing (as one reviewer said) not only about Vogue models, clergymen and the dead, but also about Shetland crofters, Canadian Army dentists, dukes, beauticians, rajahs and a range of characters.
In my last post I suggested that failure to deal adequately with the implications of monotheism itself leads directly to many erroneous ideas in both theology as such and in understanding the relationship of God to creation, including evolution.
Once again in a thread conversation at BioLogos, some Christian with a scientific background suggests that maybe God didn’t plan the details of biological forms below a certain level, such as (for example) quadrupeds, fish etc, “allowing” evolution to fill in the details. Interestingly this would be consistent with the Creationist concept of baramins derived from the “kinds” of Genesis, which are in fact pretty much as vague (animals being divided only into domestic, prey-animals and carnivores, for example). But that’s a conversation for another time. Eddie pointed out that such an open-ended picture of creation runs contrary to traditional ideas of sovereignty. But I want to go further to … Continue reading
Sy Garte has a new piece on his blog about a Chinese paper, published in a Western journal, in which some biological function is dealt with, and its suitability to the wisdom of the Creator is remarked.