divine creation in general and the natural world as a creation of God
A prima facie case can be made that mainline science conflicts with the Scriptures, that is, the Bible. For one thing, mainline science excludes final causes and follows naturalism so some conflict is inevitable. Naturalism excludes all miracles. The chronology of nature adopted by most science institutions is contrary to some historical parts of Scripture, […]
There is a curious paradox about the science community. On the one hand scientists have a reputation for independent thinking but on the other hand the science community likes to present a solid front. The latter is closer to the truth: most scientists are conformists. It is well known from the history of science that dissent
First, for those who want an introduction to apologetics, I suggest this video by Dr. R.C. Sproul on Defending Your Faith, lecture 1: http://www.ligonier.org/learn/series/defending-your-faith/introduction-2/. Note in the second part he addresses Greek philosophy. One way to compare different approaches is to look at what they consider believers and unbelievers have in common and how to
At least from the time of Constantine to the Middle Ages, the Church was involved in the world – i.e., public affairs and endeavors such as philosophy. The Reformation was partly a reaction against this, refocusing the church on spiritual matters and leaving worldly matters to others, that is, to Christians outside the church’s official
Elliott Sober is a professor of philosophy who has written in support of evolutionary biology. I’m going through his book “Evidence and Evolution.” Sober argues for the superiority of the likelihood approach. The “law if likelihood” states that evidence E favors hypothesis H1 over H2 if and only if the probability of E given H1
Creationists are allowing their opponents to frame issues backwards, which puts us on the defensive. The real question they’re trying to answer is, How can modern science fit with the Bible without distorting it? Their opponents keep asking the reverse: How can the Bible fit with modern science? That puts the pressure on the defenders of
The word “creation” is used by non-creationists in a minimal sense. The existence of the universe is explained as the creation of God. This is the core meaning that all monotheists accept. But what about the essence and nature of the universe — was that created, too? The success of physics has led to a
Naturalism assumes that what is true in local places or times must be true for all places and times — after all, isn’t that Occam’s razor? But it does not follow. For example, the earth seems flat in each locality but globally it is not. In mathematics there are many examples where what is locally
Jason Rosenhouse’s “Among the Creationists” (Oxford, 2012) is a journalistic-style exploration of “creationist subculture” by a mathematician who claims to be open-minded but skeptical. The reality is he’s an atheistic evolutionist looking for weaknesses in creationism while trying to understand these “insular” people. It’s still a good read but what are the weaknesses he finds?
For evolution time and change are critical. If there is insufficient time for evolution, it fails. If time and change don’t explain everything, evolution fails. The backbone of evolution is its dating methods. Time is the key to evolution. But time is not a critical variable for creationists. Creation is basically the same as it
