Search
-
Recent Posts
- Does matter matter? 06/05/2026
- We meet the Word in the word, not in the world 02/05/2026
- The triumph of the cross 29/04/2026
- What I think I know about life in the deep past 26/04/2026
- How Darwinian evolution became plausible (for a time) 24/04/2026
Recent Comments
- Jon Garvey on We meet the Word in the word, not in the world
- Jon Garvey on We meet the Word in the word, not in the world
- Jon Garvey on We meet the Word in the word, not in the world
- Jon Garvey on How Darwinian evolution became plausible (for a time)
- Robert Byers on How Darwinian evolution became plausible (for a time)
Post Archive
Monthly Archives: January 2013
The teleology that dare not speak its name
I’m a bit remiss on posting at the moment – partly that’s because of music commitments, and partly, maybe, because I’ve lost the stimulus of BioLogos, which seems to have blocked all my comments since the start of the new year and which hasn’t responded to my querying e-mail. But there you go. There’s a textbook example in the popular press today of how things in biology make perfect sense without evolution, but it gets dragged in gratuitously anyway. I heard it on BBC news, and it’s in all the British dailies, though the original short article was published in Biology Letters as an MSc project. Its public appeal seems … Continue reading
Posted in Creation, Medicine, Science
2 Comments
Prof Stephen Clark at Cambridge Conference
Overall I think this was my favourite presentation at the Tyndale Fellowship Philosophy conference on design in nature last year. Quirky and original, it contains some fundamental ideas about the interraction of faith and science, and particularly the intellectual flimsiness of materialism. The video has also been posted at Uncommon Descent, but I know not all of you frequent that site. There’s a nice view of the back of my head around 1:04:40, just before Steve Meyer’s comment.
Genesis 1 as ancient cosmology
Thanks to Father Christmas I now have John H Walton’s academic treatment of Genesis in the context of ANE literature, which I find, as others have already said, to provide a much more solid case for a functional view of the Genesis creation story than his more approachable Lost World of Genesis One. But like the latter book, it should not be misunderstood as making the case for a non-literal interpretation of Genesis, but for a literal, though non-materialistic, account of creation.