- More ground clearance for theology of nature 15/08/2018
- Creation upfront putdown 13/08/2018
- Evolutionary Creation and theology of nature 10/08/2018
- The Crossway Theistic Evolution Book: A Response to Joshua Swamidass 07/08/2018
- Formal causation 06/08/2018
Category Archives: Creation
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.
I’ve been suggesting in recent months that the Bible is usefully seen as a story in three parts, the very first of which is about the purpose of God to bring in a new spiritual creation, in which his glory would fill all things, through Adam – a purpose which proved abortive because of the temptation of the serpent and the sin of Adam and Eve. If that’s a reasonable assessment, then the whole of the history of Adam’s race (that is, us) has been a story of exile from a world, and a role, that was glimpsed and then lost, and not simply a story of how natural mankind … Continue reading
When I was doing a home Bible study on the Genesis creation narrative a few weeks ago, one guy asked me, “Who was there to write it down?” I’d not yet explained how to approach the text, so it was a good introduction to that, as well as a good question, and you’ll guess the answer wasn’t “God saw the whole thing,” although he certainly did.
I was reminded to return to the subject of “universals” by a comment on an old post by a new subscriber, Mark Chenoweth. It seems worth raising again, given the new degree of rapprochement between some TEs, IDists and OECs, characterised by the forthcoming Dabar Conference in Illinois. And also by the fact that I recently cut my hand by falling out of our field into the lane whilst chasing a squirrel… don’t ask.
Does Genesis 2 follow from Genesis 1, that is? One of the objections made to the Genealogical Adam hypothesis is that the idea that the story of the Garden follows sequentially from the Genesis 1 Creation account is wrong, and that they are actually different accounts of the same events.
The Renaissance humanists saw the human being as a microcosm, because the mind of man can reach out to encompass the farthest reaches of the universe, or the smallest particles of matter. It can even raise itself to contemplate the things of heaven, and God himself. The last shows why the microcosm view, which gives man such a central importance in the creation, is both a glorious truth and a misleading half-truth at the same time.