Kok How posted some funny theological reasons why the chicken crossed the road?
Also, some of you science buffs may be interested to follow the Intelligent Design versus Darwinism debate hotly imported from US... This time, our Muslim friends are having an engaging discussion on whether Islam should explain the world or the reverse, reinterpret Islam in light of Darwinism?
Dun miss the fun, u "case for creator" fans out there!
Also, some of you science buffs may be interested to follow the Intelligent Design versus Darwinism debate hotly imported from US... This time, our Muslim friends are having an engaging discussion on whether Islam should explain the world or the reverse, reinterpret Islam in light of Darwinism?
Dun miss the fun, u "case for creator" fans out there!
Comments
Like what anonymous said, it's great to see quality Christian material on your blog.. :)
Blog on!
I just browsing through some blogs and came across yours!
Excellent blog, good to see someone actually uses em for quality posts.
Your site kept me on for a few minutes unlike the rest :)
Keep up the good work!
Thanks!
Anyway, its sometimes nice to see that Darwinism isn't too strong here- thanks t o Islam perhaps.
I still remember when a TV Host in remarks to a comment by his co-host that we were descended from apes, said that "I believe that God has created us".
Imagine what would happen if he had said that in the US...
Reading the apologetics books by Msian writers is so depressing sometimes, you'd be so happy for Lee Strobel...
My question is, what if evolution is a mechanism for God to bring about His wonderful creation, and God meant for us to discover His works through science? We may find the goodness of God through the arts and so on, why not science? Is evolution really false? Evolution is a science and therefore has no right to talk about the existence of God. It is a science that is continually interpreted by philosophies of scientists, making it atheistic or theistic, when it does not even have the right to say God exist or not.
This is really a pressing problem, and I am sincere in knowing the truth. People say that believing in theistic evolution is basing science on the bible, but we should instead interpret science in terms of the bible. I do not agree with this. We cannot argue with empirical evidence. And lastly, theistic evolution might be the way to understand God's creation, and we might be sincerely wrong in attacking it. The church took some time to agree that the earth is round, could we also be taking some time to agree that perhaps evolution is true? Bear in mind though that evolution never says and never can say that God does not exist.
Last but not least, while I agree that truths be sought, the most important truth of the bible is our salvation. Believing in theistic evolution does not remove the responsibility of Man to receive the grace of God, so in fact it does not tamper with Christian theology. Am I right to say this? Or maybe we can get the best of both worlds, receive salvation and understanding God's creation in the light of evolution.
Do give me some comments.
Although I'm not a Darwinist, I do find myself becoming more 'open' towards theistic evolution if it doesnt have negative impact on Christian theology...
the only major objections i have are scientific, not theological...
I had a mock discussion here:
http://hedonese1.blogspot.com/2005/09/how-to-go-heaven-or-how-heavens-go.html
Definitely I agree that things cannot have come about by evolution without the guidance of God. Evolution taken in an atheistic light not only poses biological and mathematical improbability but also philosophical problems.
Now the Young Earth Creationism view is probably the most literal view of Genesis, and thus most accepted by Christian fundamentalists. However, I find that sometimes Christian-Scientists (so-called) make unreliable attacks at evolution. If I accept theistic evolution, I need to reconcile theological facts with it. But if I accept Young Earth creationism, I need to reject a lot of modern science, and only science of 200 years ago is suitable to fit into my belief. Because YEC denies an old earth, denies mainstream geology, denies mainstream radiometric dating, and even asserts things like the T-Rex eats grass, just to fit into the theology that Death cannot happen before the Fall. Thus we see science being dictated by interpretation of the bible. Just like how the Church persecuted Galileo for his view of a round earth, believing that the flat earth is the truth. Are we now also in this position?
My question is, is there a possibility that our interpretation of the bible is wrong? Or are we so sure of it and thus by the infallability of the Scriptures we have the authority to disprove modern science?
Right now all I can say is I really have no specific stand and this is going to be a thorny issue for me
Thanks for responding.
Frankly I find myself in your position. That sometimes YE creationists tend to do shoddy science (cant help but chuckle at the vegetarian T-Rex! hahaha)...
and OE creationists tend to do shoddy exegesis!
I was doing a bible study on Genesis once and felt that we modern folks come to the book with a set of modern questions which the author(s) never intended to answer... ie the bible is not a science textbook.
But what it does say abt science and history must be true since its the inerrant Word.
Here is how i see the boundaries... at the moment.
Empirical evidences must be interpreted by our philosophical commitments. ie u find a skull of a primate aged 10000 yrs, do u say it's an old gorilla ancestor or do u say it's a hobbit like ancestor of homo sapiens?? The skull can't tell, the scientist's interpretation is at work here
I have no problem w empirical evidences per se. Cos all truth is God's truth. Ultimately there is no conflict betw God's word and God's world. Our knowledge of science oughta inform our interpretation and vice versa.
So my apologetic sifu naughtily says,
"Don't marry models of science with the Christian faith too quickly. Bcos if u do, u may be widowed very quickly (when Darwinism is replaced by a newer paradigm? Or when we prove T-rex are carnivores after all?)
But keep models of science as a 'mistress'.
Could we be wrong abt the age of the universe? Yes, there are good Christians who take 6 days literally and metaphorically.
Could we be wrong that we are created purposefully? No, we can stake our lives on this issue.
I think there could be death b4 Adam's sin if we consider the possibility that Satan's sin preceded his. That wud explain the carnage of the dinosaurs hehehehe?
Again, that's just a mistress, not a wife. SHoot it down if u like.
If I believe in Arminianism and it turns out to be wrong, God can still tell me I am saved because I had faith in His Son.
If a Charismatic speak in tongues and turns out to be wrong, God can still tell him he is saved because he had faith in His Son.
If a Roman Catholic prays to Mary and it turns out to be wrong, God can still tell him he is saved because he had faith in His Son.
If a Christian believes in evolution/YEC/OEC and it turns out to be wrong, God will still tell us we are saved. Because we believe in His Son.
That's partly why some frens and I started The Agora
http://theagora.blogspot.com
Having said tat, I do think tat errors - be it catholic mariology, emotionalism or freewillism - have consequences.
Our concern in this life should not be only geared to get a ticket to heaven, but also to live a life of truth and love here and now