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: Theology
Knowledge falsely so-called
In my last post I began with the picture of Adam’s (and through him, of mankind’s) intended role in God’s creation of sacred space, as suggested in various writings by J H Walton, G K Beale, J R Middleton and, in an excursus to Walton’s new book, N T Wright. This was my abridgement of Wright’s treatment: This leads me to my proposal: that just as God chose Israel from the rest of humankind for a special, strange, demanding vocation, so perhaps what Genesis is telling us is that God chose one pair from the rest of early hominids for a special, strange, demanding vocation. This pair (call them Adam … Continue reading
Posted in Creation, Theology
Leave a comment
The Lost World of N T Wright
I’ve already suggested that we ought to do a full review of John Walton’s important new book, Lost World of Adam and Eve here. But since it consists of 21 propositions, it’s maybe less daunting to make a cautious start by mentioning the “excursus” in Proposition 19 by celebrated New Testament scholar N T Wright.
Posted in Adam, Creation, Science, Theology
2 Comments
Order, unorder and the boundary between
In my last post I explored the theological concepts of order, unorder and disorder in creation, as outlined in John Walton’s book The Lost World of Adam and Eve. The concept is a useful one in making sense of much biblical teaching, as well as in the general sense of showing how it is not biblically necessary for everything in the universe to be perfectly optimal in order to be part of God’s “good” creation. Indeed, the Bible itself suggests that such perfection was always a future intention.
Posted in Creation, Science, Theology
Leave a comment
Order, unorder, disorder
Edward Robinson’s recent piece on The Hump about John H Walton reminds me that we ought to do a proper review of his excellent and important new book, The Lost World Of Adam and Eve at some stage. This does for the Adam and Eve story what his earlier books did for the Genesis 1 creation narrative, whilst updating and expanding his previous ideas in the light of further study and both scholarly and popular feedback.
Posted in Creation, Science, Theology
Leave a comment
My Problem with John Walton’s Apologia for TE/EC
I have mixed feelings about the work of John Walton. While I don’t object to much of what he writes about how to interpret Genesis, I don’t like the way he applies his knowledge to defend the project of TE/EC. Take his latest column on BioLogos, “Natural” and “Supernatural” are Modern Categories, Not Biblical Ones. I would ask the reader here to read that column first, before reading what I write below.
Posted in Creation, Edward Robinson, Science, Theology
8 Comments
Old Moore’s Almanack
The discussion on my recent divine action piece has gone in a direction that is quite detailed. That’s all to the good, as there are not many blogs where serious work along these lines gets discussed. I’m aware, though, that for myself and probably many regular readers we’re operating beyond the limits of our knowledge of Aristotle, Aquinas and so on. Stick with it, though – the more we all get even slightly familiar with these metaphysical issues , which are central to the science-faith debate, the richer the result will be for all. Today, though, I want to revisit a more basic point that is probably still a difficulty … Continue reading
Posted in Creation, Philosophy, Science, Theology
7 Comments
According to Matthew
King’s College statistical geneticist Michael E Weale has just published a new article on Patrick Matthew, the discoverer of evolution by natural selection, in the Journal of the Linnaean Society. You may recall that this was the journal in which Darwin and Wallace’s theory was first announced, some three decades after Matthew’s publication.
Posted in Creation, History, Science, Theology
2 Comments
Can God use ateleological processes to meet his aims? – 2
If God is the universal author of natural events in the way described in the previous post (following the position of classical thinkers like Aquinas in denying the univocity of God and affirming his concurrent acton in the world) we would expect that, in their own domain, natural processes should give a complete explanation of events. God is evidenced by such explanations, not by their absence. God acts from within nature. And so they are right who say that it is a wrong approach to look for gaps in knowledge to demonstrate God, for that is to limit God’s activity to the miraculous.
Posted in Creation, Philosophy, Science, Theology
32 Comments
Can God use ateleological processes to meet his aims? – 1
Darwinian evolution is an atelological theory of origins. Theism is the belief in a “Hands On” God who acts for clear purposes. On the face of it, then, the title of this piece is an oxymoron. Purposeful purposelessness is a flat contradiction. And so in such a context, it would appear that “guided evolution” can only mean the miraculous imposition of intention on the unintentional. That would make biology intrinsically supernatural, with the concomitant that its directedness would be evidence for God as evolution’s principal efficient cause.
Posted in Creation, Philosophy, Science, Theology
4 Comments
Arguments for the framework view of Genesis – part 2
Summary: The nature of the language in Genesis 1 tells strongly against the view that it is a straightforward historical account. Quite simply, a straightforward historical account would not be written as Genesis 1 is written. The style and genre are not that of historical prose.
Posted in Creation, James Penman, Theology
7 Comments