Category Archives: Science

The Magician’s Twin is a new book about C S Lewis’s relationship to science, and to scientism in particular. It’s a good read. But it’s published by the Discovery Institute, so BioLogos felt the need to produce a series debunking it. Children, children. In fact after an initial post met with a fair amount reasoned dissent, author David Williams significantly revised his planned series, and it became quite a useful discussion board for a time (until I lost my ability to post there and gave up following the thread – though I’m thankfully restored to grace!). But in response there has been some activity regarding C S Lewis on Uncommon … Continue reading →

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.

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.

On an Uncommon Descent thread, I was taken to task for not expanding on an answer I gave about whether there are things that are not designed. On the basis that God is the Creator of all things I had said the answer was “No.” The immediate challenge to me was whether I included my own sins in that, and I think that was intended to demolish my position. In fact, as I shall go on to show, it simply raises a whole new topic in theology which has been tackled by varying approaches from earliest times.

I’ve had an interesting exchange on a BioLogos thread about C S Lewis with its author, David Williams, and some others. The most striking comment would take us way off-topic if I raised it there, and that was Beaglelady’s one-liner (which she’s used before, actually) concerning the argument about how much evolution actualises God’s purposes, for example in producing mankind as we are rather than as a mollusc: Clearly, God wanted a white male fundagelicall! It’s very tempting to analyse this sentence critically and point out that the the first four words are regrettably irreverent, the fifth racist, the sixth sexist, the first half of the seventh what Jim Packer … Continue reading →

I’ve now got hold of David L Wilcox’s little book God and Evolution, and think I can add him to the disappointingly small group of TEs who actually do combine biblical faith with a realistic approach to science. The book isn’t world-shatteringly original – well within the genre of “a scientist shows that faith and science are compatible”, but I think it would be just the kind of thing for penman to give to his Reformed Creationist friends as a palatable apologetic.

I’ve suggested before that inferring design (broadly conceived) in nature might not be scientific, but is nevertheless a basic human faculty that is already used within science, methodological naturalism notwithstanding. Steve Fuller believes that this faculty reflects our creation in the image of God, which is a reasonable hypothesis.