Search
-
Recent Posts
- 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
- To Ur is human, to dig divine. 18/04/2026
Recent Comments
- Jon Garvey on How Darwinian evolution became plausible (for a time)
- Steve on How Darwinian evolution became plausible (for a time)
- Jon Garvey on Before knowing your enemy recognise his enmity
- Ben on Before knowing your enemy recognise his enmity
- Jon Garvey on Before knowing your enemy recognise his enmity
Post Archive
May 2026 S M T W T F S 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 13 14 15 16 17 18 19 20 21 22 23 24 25 26 27 28 29 30 31
Category Archives: Science
Patristic plagues on popular positions
One complaint people like myself and Eddie Robinson have about writers on theistic evolution is their selective use of the Church Fathers to show that they supported, or would have supported, evolution against Creationism or Intelligent Design. I want to show here that their views on the current scene would probably have been more like “a plague on all your ignorant houses”. How you build an orthodox theology of nature is then up to you!
Posted in Creation, Science, Theology
2 Comments
Selfishness in evolution: which self?
A comment by Sy Garte on a recent post, and some recent reading, prompts this. He said: In fact, I am in quite the minority of environmentalists, since I do not necessarily view ALL extinctions as a bad thing by definition. For those who do, I tend to ask, “bad for whom?”
Posted in Creation, Philosophy, Science, Theology
Leave a comment
Evolutionary theologies – a thought for the day
I believe the evolution of life happened, albeit that the mechanisms have barely been glimpsed, and that providence is bigger than science. But I notice a tendency amongst theologians who accept evolution to suggest that, whenever fundamental theological questions like the nature of God, or the nature of man, are discussed, only an evolutionary view of the world enables them to be rightly approached. It’s worth remembering that for over 1000 years in Old Testemnt Israel, and for 2000 years in Christianity, they were dealt with quite adequately under the working assumption of special creation and fixity of species, usually in seven days. Those assumptions included the worldviews of Jesus, … Continue reading
Posted in Science, Theology
3 Comments
The dead end of evolutionary dead ends
I had a brief conversation on BioLogos with someone who’d been a little troubled by the ancient arguments about “vestigial organs”, found in Darwin and echoed in textbooks for kids since as proof of evolution. I ended up suggesting that in very concept the idea is worthless and ought to be dropped. The trouble is that, like much of the popular presentation of evolution, it is actually not a good argument for evolution, but a polemic “case for evolution against creation”, and so is ideologically driven, even though it’s of no value to science and less to theological discourse on creation.
Posted in Creation, Science, Theology
9 Comments
The principle of divine uniformity
The end of John’s gospel contains what amount to a couple of prophecies by the risen Jesus. They come at the end of the famous passage where Jesus reinstates Peter, after his triple denial, through a rather painful triple reaffirmation of his love for the Lord. Forgiveness didn’t come completely cost-free to Peter.
Posted in Creation, Science, Theology
Leave a comment
Design and difference – both scientifically elusive
First molecular biologist: What’s the difference between a Creationist and a Crustacean? Second molecular biologist: I don’t know – what is the difference between a Creationist and a Crustacean?
Posted in Philosophy, Science
8 Comments
Flat earth conspiracy
I’ve spent the last five years or more, essentially full-time, researching matters centred on the Christian doctrine of creation. That’s actually as long as I spent getting a Cambridge degree to practise medicine, and just as intense, only without the vacations. The social life is rubbish, too. It’s a huge subject once you consider the ramifciations in science, theology, philosophy, sociology, ecology, etc, etc. Unlike a medical qualification, a blog doesn’t lead to a career, but I persist because the doctrine of creation is central to Christian faith, and according to the Bible (Gen3.1ff, Rom 1.18ff) is one of the main areas where error leads to perdition.
Posted in Creation, Politics and sociology, Science, Theology
2 Comments
The classical Hebrew God and the classical Scholastic God
One of the minor ongoing spats in the origins debate is the objection of some analytical Neo-Aristotelians like Ed Feser to the idea that one can perceive divine design in nature, or anywhere else, come to that. My own reaction to this is here, and I’ve also referred to another dissenting Aquinas scholar, Logan Paul Gage, an essay by whom is here. There are, in other words, objections to such ideas within the writings of Aquinas himself.
Posted in Creation, Philosophy, Science, Theology
Leave a comment
If the raqia is solid, why isn’t heaven wet?
It’s foolishness, I know, but let me dwell a little more on the “solid raqia” idea that I deliberately and sensibly avoided in the last post . The issue is, essentially, that the wise and good say that the Hebrews definitely believed in a solid raqia (or firmament) over the sky, that they definitely taught it in Genesis 1 and that there definitely isn’t such a thing surrounding the earth. Therefore their science was wrong and one must either say that Scripture is just untrustworthy, or that it doesn’t matter because the true message is not scientific (though that often turns out to mean “vaguely mythical and equally wrong”).
Posted in Creation, Science, Theology
3 Comments
Flood geography
My discussion with Unitarian George at BioLogos led to too much to and fro about the old chestnut of the “solid raqia and flat earth” supposedly espoused in Genesis. My “side” (on which I’ve written before here and here, for example) is that Genesis is pretty indifferent to material or scientific descriptions of creation, but is primarily describing the cosmos as God’s temple, and that dictates its whole content.
Posted in Adam, Science, Theology
6 Comments