- …and the modern virtues don’t work either 22/03/2019
- Nowadays, even the sins don’t work properly 18/03/2019
- Bonjour, France 16/03/2019
- The tree in Berkeley’s square (no nightingale) 13/03/2019
- Predictability, reproducibility and determinism in chaos 09/03/2019
Monthly Archives: July 2018
I’ve just been contributing to a BioLogos thread, in which the recurrent laryngeal nerve of the giraffe was flagged as a candidate for “bad design” (the thread was hived off from one on the equally bad design of the human reproductive system).
I’m not sure what it is about Evolutionary Creation and aversion to natural theology, but it is exemplified by a current thread on BioLogos entitled “A theological argument for the impossibility of proving God by science.” The general position – stated by a number of people apart from the original poster – is that it’s presumptuous to try and reveal God from science if he chooses to keep himself hidden.
I’m re-reading William Dembski’s Being as Communion, which I reviewed back in 2014 in a long series of posts starting here, partly because it’s interesting and partly to see what he says about the human soul for an enquiry over at Peaceful Science.
You are a scientist from Arcturus (didn’t know that, did you?) and your only surviving earth probe landed in my house and sends back accurate, but incomplete, information about the goings on here until the batteries run out after a couple of years. Which is more than can be said for the ensuing description, which is fictionalised for convenience.
I enjoyed a little innocent mischief on Joshua Swamidass’s Peaceful Science website last week. In response to someone reporting the news of ancient human finds in China (tools 2.2 million years old), somebody else (George) suggested that, since it has been hypothesized that the epicanthic folds of Asians might be an adaptation to cold, this would accord with a population that had had to go through several ice ages.
Paul Nelson, in a BioLogos comment, linked to a philosophy of science paper which questions if there is any actual difference between the kind of “unique natural event” often postulated for, at least, key stages in the origin of life, and creationism. This is a look at the same question in a less analytical manner. And assuming Christian faith, I should add.
Esteemed Wife and I decided yesterday evening to forget government Brexit meltdowns, predictable Wimbledon matches and various sad local situations, and repair to Seaton Hole, a small and secluded beach close to home that we haven’t discovered in the nine years we have lived here.
Long ago, before my BioLogos days, I think even when I was still a real doctor, I saw a documentary on the hammerhead shark.
In the last post I laid out a case for a pervasive contrast between two kinds of temple architecture in Scripture, arising from what I take to be a deliberate contrast between the sacred space described in Genesis 1:1-2:3 and that of Genesis 2:4ff. Here’s a further example – a textual problem that, to me, makes most sense when seen as part of a deliberate set of contrasts.
This is a restatement, and reminder, of one of the significant internal reasons to regard the narrative of Genesis 1 and 2 as mainly sequential, rather than parallel – the significant changes in temple imagery between the two. It relates to my understanding of the Bible’s overarching metanarrative as Yaheweh’s desire to fill the whole cosmos with his glory, and to do it through his earthly creation, mankind. Since this is not necessarily a familiar view, I need to keep bringing it to attention. In so doing I’ll add some new thoughts, which I hope will clarify it.